If only the comic book forum got with the program we could change that number from 90% to 100%.
This comment was sponsored by the get a nerd layed spray. Just spray it on any nerd and whore will cumaflockin. www.nerdsneedlovetoo.com (spam)
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I don't believe I implied it doesn't have any impact in contacting STD's.I said likelihood does not depend on number of partners but on protection, since he stated -
''The longer one delays, the fewer lifetime sex partners they have, and the less the risk of contracting sexually transmitted disease.''
Since, there are people who have been very sexually active since they were 15, and have not contracted anything, now in their 30s and 40s.
Then there are people who have been sexually active with 2 people and contracted something because they did not know enough about protection.
While it is a factor, sexually liklehood of transmitted diseases do not depend on the number, but on the protection, and the way one takes care of one self.
And I have never implied that it is not a factor at all.
My reply was in relation to the statement made by this man.
But your reply was rather misleading.
It's hardly controversial to say that the fewer sexual partners people have, the less likely they are to get STDs, and the less likely STDs are to spread.
It would in fact by a great solution if it actually had a hope in hell of working. Condoms are better not because this man's logic is bad, but simply because abstinence is not a practical solution.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I don't believe I implied it doesn't have any impact in contacting STD's.I said likelihood does not depend on number of partners but on protection [...]
While it is a factor, sexually liklehood of transmitted diseases do not depend on the number, but on the protection, and the way one takes care of one self.
And I have never implied that it is not a factor at all.
My reply was in relation to the statement made by this man.
You said 'Liklehood of catching something does not depend on partners, but on the procotion one uses to protect oneself.' (sic)
Would you advocate that as perfectly sound sexual advice in schools? To me, it implies that number of partners is irrelevant, provided other steps are taken. That's not true.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
You said 'Liklehood of catching something does not depend on partners, but on the procotion one uses to protect oneself.' (sic)Would you advocate that as perfectly sound sexual advice in schools? To me, it implies that number of partners is irrelevant, provided other steps are taken. That's not true.
Obvoulsy you can still catch STDS if you have had very few partners, I dunno its seems to me that even if you use protection it still increases the chance of getting STDs. Condoms dont always work.
Lets put it this way if you have a few partners and protect yourself you have less chance of getting STDs than somebody who has lots of partners and protects themself. Therefore having lots of partners is a major factor in spreading STDs.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Obvoulsy you can still catch STDS if you have had very few partners
Obviously.
Originally posted by Alfheim
I dunno its seems to me that even if you use protection it still increases the chance of getting STDs. Condoms dont always work.Lets put it this way if you have a few partners and protect yourself you have less chance of getting STDs than somebody who has lots of partners and protects themself. Therefore having lots of partners is a major factor in spreading STDs.
Yep. I wouldn't go as far as to say 'major', though: that's contingent on other matters. Just it is a clear factor.
Originally posted by dirkdirden
People just need to do the **** test. If you can have sex with the girl after the first date don't do it she's a **** if she'll bang you after one date she'll bang anyone after one date. Find a girl that takes months to sex up and you will greatly decrees your risk of the hiv.
Common sense again.
Originally posted by dirkdirden
People just need to do the **** test. If you can have sex with the girl after the first date don't do it she's a **** if she'll bang you after one date she'll bang anyone after one date. Find a girl that takes months to sex up and you will greatly decrees your risk of the hiv.
Wrong , wrong and wrong. There's a simpler and safer way to lower your risk of contacting HIV, use a condom.
Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
$10 on SithSaber coming in and claiming it's all liberal lies and propaganda.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Remove the plank from your own eye, blah, blah blah.But I do find the reference to Sithsabre interesting.
Tell us, Sithy, how unshakable is that leg you stand on? Abortion, "Gay rights", god-fearing christian values? Where is your love for a president that has abandoned you like a bad case of the clap? The term "true colours" springs to mind. Here we are, almost 5 years after sending troops to Iraq, and he says that he will consider sending more troops to Iraq "if they have a clear mission to accomplish"? One might assume a responsible, legitimate president would have thought about that before HE sent troops to Iraq to die for no real cause. I still don't see a legitimate reason for your ignorant, coca-cola patriotism or your membership in this personality cult. Maybe it had something to do with your father raping you in your crib when you were a baby.
--I only ask because I miss your Bush, middle finger posts.
You want my thoughts?
This has F*ck all to do with me. 😛
I find the studies info to be par for the course. Nothing new, really.
People, most people in fact have sex before marriage. I did. Both my parents and my wife's parents did.
What I find to be funny, or just flat-out wrong is the studies conclusions: "Most people aren't practicing abstinence, so we shouldn't be promoting it."
The study only talks to 38,000 people, whilst there are 300 million in the U.S.
I think that you would find the numbers slightly lower on premarital sex if you did the study in a large scale, since there are many millions of Americans who have committed themselves to be virgins until marriage.
Certainly more than 5% of the country, anyway.
But that's all beside the point.
Just because people are doing something, doesn't mean that they should. (see smoking)
Every smoker who smokes knows the effects of tobacco and nicotine, knows the dangers, and the end-result. (many have probably seen it first hand as family members have died from cancer)
No amount of "TRUTH" ads will stop them.
But we don't stop teaching about the effects or possible outcomes of smoking do we?
It's all simple:
Abstinence= No chance of STD's, no chance of pregnancy
Protected Sex (few partners)=risk of STD's, risk of pregnancy
Protected Sex (many partners)=medium risk of STD's, medium risk of pregnancy
Unprotected Sex(few partners)=high risk of STD's, high risk of pregnancy
Unprotected Sex(many partners)=Extremely high risk of STD's, extremely high risk of pregnancy
Lot's of people not practicing abstinence does not change the above from being fact.
With the percentages of people who have STD's or un-wanted pregnancies, should't we tell them so?
For 'Cap /\