Just one quick bitch ...

[Christopher McCandless]

maybe your overanalytical thinking is preventing you from getting the pleasure you need.  sex is fun on a whim, you know.

Maybe in your day, before people were aware of the rampant STDs, you geezer-player. 

is it really that bad out there, even with a condom?
or are you being paranoid?

Have you read the stats on how many people contract STD's without realizing it?  Have a peek. 

Fact sheet

Examples from two very common diseases:  The herpes rates in the U.S. are scary:  1 in 5 men, 1 in 4 women, and condoms aren't too great against it, although of course they help some.  There is also NO CURE right now.  (And don't say "it's just cold sores," for one thing I'd worry about infecting others if I had it, for another, you can actually get those sores on your EYES.)

The HPV rate for women is beyond scary:  80% of women by age 50 have it in some form, and I think there's similar condom unhelpfulness.  Also, no cure.

stats and trends for other diseases  If you surf a bit, you can have a gander of specific rates of specific diseases in specific parts of the U.S.

So, am I paraniod?  Honestly, I think the fact that I am assuming I will have sex again at some point has me think no.  However, the considerable risk would make me want to know the person well enough to trust that they are being honest about their STD status (even if I asked them to show me their latest clinic report, there's no sure way to know it's not fake).  Because it takes a long time for me to trust, I'd want a partner that I could stand to be with for long enough to make that effort worthwhile.  Further, as a woman, I am far more likely to wind up on the recieving end of actual bad sex (as opposed to the kind of bad sex that's "still bettere than nothing"), which would mean that I'd either want to look for people who I thought would be good in bed (problem there is the guys I'd be able to find any evidence towards this before actually screwing would probably also be more likely to be diseased), or look for someone who's motivated/motivatable and educable (far, far more likely).

Overanalyzing, maybe, but I question how much of this is actually arguably illogical.

You and your partner can be both tested for it before sex I believe. Circumvents the problem.

[El]

maybe your overanalytical thinking is preventing you from getting the pleasure you need.  sex is fun on a whim, you know.

Maybe in your day, before people were aware of the rampant STDs, you geezer-player. 

is it really that bad out there, even with a condom?
or are you being paranoid?

Have you read the stats on how many people contract STD's without realizing it?  Have a peek. 

Fact sheet

Examples from two very common diseases:  The herpes rates in the U.S. are scary:  1 in 5 men, 1 in 4 women, and condoms aren't too great against it, although of course they help some.  There is also NO CURE right now.  (And don't say "it's just cold sores," for one thing I'd worry about infecting others if I had it, for another, you can actually get those sores on your EYES.)

The HPV rate for women is beyond scary:  80% of women by age 50 have it in some form, and I think there's similar condom unhelpfulness.  Also, no cure.

stats and trends for other diseases  If you surf a bit, you can have a gander of specific rates of specific diseases in specific parts of the U.S.

So, am I paraniod?  Honestly, I think the fact that I am assuming I will have sex again at some point has me think no.  However, the considerable risk would make me want to know the person well enough to trust that they are being honest about their STD status (even if I asked them to show me their latest clinic report, there's no sure way to know it's not fake).  Because it takes a long time for me to trust, I'd want a partner that I could stand to be with for long enough to make that effort worthwhile.  Further, as a woman, I am far more likely to wind up on the recieving end of actual bad sex (as opposed to the kind of bad sex that's "still bettere than nothing"), which would mean that I'd either want to look for people who I thought would be good in bed (problem there is the guys I'd be able to find any evidence towards this before actually screwing would probably also be more likely to be diseased), or look for someone who's motivated/motivatable and educable (far, far more likely).

Overanalyzing, maybe, but I question how much of this is actually arguably illogical.

You and your partner can be both tested for it before sex I believe. Circumvents the problem.

Bolded is the part you skimmed over, sweetums.  Easy to forge, and impossible to confirm, because of confidentiality issues.

[Christopher McCandless]

maybe your overanalytical thinking is preventing you from getting the pleasure you need.  sex is fun on a whim, you know.

Maybe in your day, before people were aware of the rampant STDs, you geezer-player. 

is it really that bad out there, even with a condom?
or are you being paranoid?

Have you read the stats on how many people contract STD's without realizing it?  Have a peek. 

Fact sheet

Examples from two very common diseases:  The herpes rates in the U.S. are scary:  1 in 5 men, 1 in 4 women, and condoms aren't too great against it, although of course they help some.  There is also NO CURE right now.  (And don't say "it's just cold sores," for one thing I'd worry about infecting others if I had it, for another, you can actually get those sores on your EYES.)

The HPV rate for women is beyond scary:  80% of women by age 50 have it in some form, and I think there's similar condom unhelpfulness.  Also, no cure.

stats and trends for other diseases  If you surf a bit, you can have a gander of specific rates of specific diseases in specific parts of the U.S.

So, am I paraniod?  Honestly, I think the fact that I am assuming I will have sex again at some point has me think no.  However, the considerable risk would make me want to know the person well enough to trust that they are being honest about their STD status (even if I asked them to show me their latest clinic report, there's no sure way to know it's not fake).  Because it takes a long time for me to trust, I'd want a partner that I could stand to be with for long enough to make that effort worthwhile.  Further, as a woman, I am far more likely to wind up on the recieving end of actual bad sex (as opposed to the kind of bad sex that's "still bettere than nothing"), which would mean that I'd either want to look for people who I thought would be good in bed (problem there is the guys I'd be able to find any evidence towards this before actually screwing would probably also be more likely to be diseased), or look for someone who's motivated/motivatable and educable (far, far more likely).

Overanalyzing, maybe, but I question how much of this is actually arguably illogical.

You and your partner can be both tested for it before sex I believe. Circumvents the problem.

Bolded is the part you skimmed over, sweetums.  Easy to forge, and impossible to confirm, because of confidentiality issues.

You can make a joint appointment, or at least you can in the UK, and obviously a doctor is not going to delibrately allow you to have herpes.

[Alex179]

Well there might be a consent form to allow you to view the report on whether the person has STDs or not.   You will have to trust someone eventually and if it takes both of you getting a STD test, then you should do it I guess.   He can't forge it if he gives consent for you to view the results to the doctor, you could both go together even.   Well you will just need to find someone you can trust and fits with your parameters.   Getting laid shouldn't be that hard for you still, other than the fact that you are an aspie and how that tends to effect social aspects.   That makes getting to really know someone much harder.

[Callaway]

maybe your overanalytical thinking is preventing you from getting the pleasure you need.  sex is fun on a whim, you know.

Maybe in your day, before people were aware of the rampant STDs, you geezer-player. 

is it really that bad out there, even with a condom?
or are you being paranoid?

Have you read the stats on how many people contract STD's without realizing it?  Have a peek. 

Fact sheet

Examples from two very common diseases:  The herpes rates in the U.S. are scary:  1 in 5 men, 1 in 4 women, and condoms aren't too great against it, although of course they help some.  There is also NO CURE right now.  (And don't say "it's just cold sores," for one thing I'd worry about infecting others if I had it, for another, you can actually get those sores on your EYES.)

The HPV rate for women is beyond scary:  80% of women by age 50 have it in some form, and I think there's similar condom unhelpfulness.  Also, no cure.

stats and trends for other diseases  If you surf a bit, you can have a gander of specific rates of specific diseases in specific parts of the U.S.

So, am I paraniod?  Honestly, I think the fact that I am assuming I will have sex again at some point has me think no.  However, the considerable risk would make me want to know the person well enough to trust that they are being honest about their STD status (even if I asked them to show me their latest clinic report, there's no sure way to know it's not fake).  Because it takes a long time for me to trust, I'd want a partner that I could stand to be with for long enough to make that effort worthwhile.  Further, as a woman, I am far more likely to wind up on the recieving end of actual bad sex (as opposed to the kind of bad sex that's "still bettere than nothing"), which would mean that I'd either want to look for people who I thought would be good in bed (problem there is the guys I'd be able to find any evidence towards this before actually screwing would probably also be more likely to be diseased), or look for someone who's motivated/motivatable and educable (far, far more likely).

Overanalyzing, maybe, but I question how much of this is actually arguably illogical.

You and your partner can be both tested for it before sex I believe. Circumvents the problem.

Bolded is the part you skimmed over, sweetums.  Easy to forge, and impossible to confirm, because of confidentiality issues.

I know that this does not help the rest of the STD's, but aren't you still young enough to get the HPV vaccine, PMS Elle?

You can be reasonably certain that you don't have HPV yet.

[El]

You can make a joint appointment, or at least you can in the UK, and obviously a doctor is not going to delibrately allow you to have herpes.

Doesn't sound like something hipaa would be cool with, and they kind of own everything medical around here.  I'm guessing the doctors make the assumption that you will voluntarily share the information if you care enough about the person to let a doctor violate you in interesting ways to test you, or at least from what I was able to find- I found nothing like what you suggested on a 'net search.

maybe your overanalytical thinking is preventing you from getting the pleasure you need.  sex is fun on a whim, you know.

Maybe in your day, before people were aware of the rampant STDs, you geezer-player. 

is it really that bad out there, even with a condom?
or are you being paranoid?

Have you read the stats on how many people contract STD's without realizing it?  Have a peek. 

Fact sheet

Examples from two very common diseases:  The herpes rates in the U.S. are scary:  1 in 5 men, 1 in 4 women, and condoms aren't too great against it, although of course they help some.  There is also NO CURE right now.  (And don't say "it's just cold sores," for one thing I'd worry about infecting others if I had it, for another, you can actually get those sores on your EYES.)

The HPV rate for women is beyond scary:  80% of women by age 50 have it in some form, and I think there's similar condom unhelpfulness.  Also, no cure.

stats and trends for other diseases  If you surf a bit, you can have a gander of specific rates of specific diseases in specific parts of the U.S.

So, am I paraniod?  Honestly, I think the fact that I am assuming I will have sex again at some point has me think no.  However, the considerable risk would make me want to know the person well enough to trust that they are being honest about their STD status (even if I asked them to show me their latest clinic report, there's no sure way to know it's not fake).  Because it takes a long time for me to trust, I'd want a partner that I could stand to be with for long enough to make that effort worthwhile.  Further, as a woman, I am far more likely to wind up on the recieving end of actual bad sex (as opposed to the kind of bad sex that's "still bettere than nothing"), which would mean that I'd either want to look for people who I thought would be good in bed (problem there is the guys I'd be able to find any evidence towards this before actually screwing would probably also be more likely to be diseased), or look for someone who's motivated/motivatable and educable (far, far more likely).

Overanalyzing, maybe, but I question how much of this is actually arguably illogical.

You and your partner can be both tested for it before sex I believe. Circumvents the problem.

Bolded is the part you skimmed over, sweetums.  Easy to forge, and impossible to confirm, because of confidentiality issues.

I know that this does not help the rest of the STD's, but aren't you still young enough to get the HPV vaccine, PMS Elle?

You can be reasonably certain that you don't have HPV yet.

I may be, and it may be worth looking into when I'm more organized.  And I can be almost completely certain that I don't have it, actually, as I got tested at my last doctor's appointment and it came back negative.

[QuirkyCarla]

 My sister has been getting the HPV vaccine every week (she couldn't get it all at once because of allergies or something, so she has to keep going).

I think it's smart to be extra careful against STD's, since you don't know who you can trust these days. From what I remember from health class, certain STD's affect women more than men. My sex ed teacher would often stress that a guy may not have any symptoms of an STD, and therefore not know he has it.

  for those statistics, PMS Elle.

[Christopher McCandless]

You can make a joint appointment, or at least you can in the UK, and obviously a doctor is not going to delibrately allow you to have herpes.

Doesn't sound like something hipaa would be cool with, and they kind of own everything medical around here.  I'm guessing the doctors make the assumption that you will voluntarily share the information if you care enough about the person to let a doctor violate you in interesting ways to test you, or at least from what I was able to find- I found nothing like what you suggested on a 'net search.

Its a bad set of assumptions, but you could find out. I thought the safety of other paitients would overide the secrecy side of things.

[El]

You can make a joint appointment, or at least you can in the UK, and obviously a doctor is not going to delibrately allow you to have herpes.

Doesn't sound like something hipaa would be cool with, and they kind of own everything medical around here.  I'm guessing the doctors make the assumption that you will voluntarily share the information if you care enough about the person to let a doctor violate you in interesting ways to test you, or at least from what I was able to find- I found nothing like what you suggested on a 'net search.

Its a bad set of assumptions, but you could find out. I thought the safety of other paitients would overide the secrecy side of things.

No, secrecy seems to override safety in procedures these days in most cases.  If that weren't the case, less people would get tested, and you'd have a new set of issues.  catch-22.

[Christopher McCandless]

You can make a joint appointment, or at least you can in the UK, and obviously a doctor is not going to delibrately allow you to have herpes.

Doesn't sound like something hipaa would be cool with, and they kind of own everything medical around here.  I'm guessing the doctors make the assumption that you will voluntarily share the information if you care enough about the person to let a doctor violate you in interesting ways to test you, or at least from what I was able to find- I found nothing like what you suggested on a 'net search.

Its a bad set of assumptions, but you could find out. I thought the safety of other paitients would overide the secrecy side of things.

No, secrecy seems to override safety in procedures these days in most cases.  If that weren't the case, less people would get tested, and you'd have a new set of issues.  catch-22.

I would just make testing mandatory. Solves the problem. Asides, doctors in the US are not obligated to lie anyway.

[El]

I would just make testing mandatory. Solves the problem. Asides, doctors in the US are not obligated to lie anyway.

Not to lie, but to say "I can't say that."  The patient will have been given hipaa forms to sign beforehand.

And as to the first- what does mandatory mean?  Legally necessary in order to have sex?  if so, well, shit, man, while we're creating the perfect world, I'd make sexbots available by prescription.  Cut back on overpopulation and we'd all have a lot more fun.

[Christopher McCandless]

I would just make testing mandatory. Solves the problem. Asides, doctors in the US are not obligated to lie anyway.

Not to lie, but to say "I can't say that."  The patient will have been given hipaa forms to sign beforehand.

And as to the first- what does mandatory mean?  Legally necessary in order to have sex?  if so, well, shit, man, while we're creating the perfect world, I'd make sexbots available by prescription.  Cut back on overpopulation and we'd all have a lot more fun.

Legally neccesary full stop, along with other tests, it should be part of insurance contracts. Just an annual checkup like in Cuba. They should make it an offence to delibrately spread STI's as well in the US.

[McGiver]

maybe your overanalytical thinking is preventing you from getting the pleasure you need.  sex is fun on a whim, you know.

Maybe in your day, before people were aware of the rampant STDs, you geezer-player. 

is it really that bad out there, even with a condom?
or are you being paranoid?

Have you read the stats on how many people contract STD's without realizing it?  Have a peek.  

Fact sheet

Examples from two very common diseases:  The herpes rates in the U.S. are scary:  1 in 5 men, 1 in 4 women, and condoms aren't too great against it, although of course they help some.  There is also NO CURE right now.  (And don't say "it's just cold sores," for one thing I'd worry about infecting others if I had it, for another, you can actually get those sores on your EYES.)

The HPV rate for women is beyond scary:  80% of women by age 50 have it in some form, and I think there's similar condom unhelpfulness.  Also, no cure.

stats and trends for other diseases  If you surf a bit, you can have a gander of specific rates of specific diseases in specific parts of the U.S.

So, am I paraniod?  Honestly, I think the fact that I am assuming I will have sex again at some point has me think no.  However, the considerable risk would make me want to know the person well enough to trust that they are being honest about their STD status (even if I asked them to show me their latest clinic report, there's no sure way to know it's not fake).  Because it takes a long time for me to trust, I'd want a partner that I could stand to be with for long enough to make that effort worthwhile.  Further, as a woman, I am far more likely to wind up on the recieving end of actual bad sex (as opposed to the kind of bad sex that's "still bettere than nothing"), which would mean that I'd either want to look for people who I thought would be good in bed (problem there is the guys I'd be able to find any evidence towards this before actually screwing would probably also be more likely to be diseased), or look for someone who's motivated/motivatable and educable (far, far more likely).

Overanalyzing, maybe, but I question how much of this is actually arguably illogical.

it wouldn't be very spontaneous, but why not sex by contract.

make them sign a contract where they state that they have no STD's.  make them provide three references and at least two opinions from doctors.

[Kiriana]

Backing up a bit...a man cannot be tested for HPV unless he has an active outbreak.  There simply is no test.

I can go dig up some links for general HPV info and some specific to the vaccine if anyone is interested.   Long story short, the reason so many people have had it and not known is that most strains are asymptomatic and do not cause long term problems and are simply fought off by the body like other bacteria and viruses, though it may take a few years to clear your system.   Condoms offer very little protection because the virus can be on any skin in the genital and anal area and of course a condom  only covers a small portion of that.   It's definitely wise to be cautious.

[bigbabbyblue75]

This all has scared me sence i was a teen so much i did a paper on it in school to learn more, test can find most.Hpv scare me but if you trust to have sex with someone you should turst they tell you about it, if not you should have know them better befor sleeping with them that how i feel anyways.I have only had one girl friend so what do i know realy just get in the bitch  :lol: