Who /notinfected/ here?
>About 50 percent to 80 percent of US adults have oral herpes. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), by age 50, approximately 90 percent of adults have been exposed to the virus.
If you have herpes you are a normalfag. A true robot is both physically and spiritually pure.
Are you infected?
Also there is NO CURE for herpes.
Just as there is NO CURE for normalfaggotry.
>>24402345
Oral herpes is hot tbqh.
both my parents do and i dont..most likely i am immune just like i am immune to true hapiness..
>>24402554
You can't be immune. Chances are your degenerate parents infected you. After you get your first outbreak you will literally suffer for the rest of your life.
>>24402571
they get it when they are really stressed and i have been really really stressed and i dident have any symptoms..
>>24402357
>no cure for normalfaggotry
Yes there is, 4chan and social isolation.
>>24402603
Different people break out for different reasons. As I said, it only takes one break out to condemn you for life.
>>24402345
>Normies act slutty and promiscous
>Waaaa why do I now have an incurable sexually transmitted disease waaaaaa
Sometimes thinking about this makes me feel pretty damn good about being a hhkv.
>>24402635
what if the virus breaks out when you feel hapiness? its like i am not infected at all.
>>24402345
Seriously, how do so many of those normies get that infected?
I'm in Europe, so I don't know how it is over there, but during the short time when I had a job (couldn't last), a co-worker came over while we were waiting for our shift to begin and after a while he just relayed a tale of how he got herpes.
He acted like it was no big deal, and even when I talked to my father he acted like it was also no big deal. He even believed it can be cured.
>mfw
I've had sex with 7 women and 5 of them were steady girlfriends (1+ year) and I don't have it
>>24402345
>spiritually pure
>depressed and on 4chan, probably faps to kids, talks about 'normies'
...
>>24402345
>virus mutates
>kills all the normies
>robots inherit the earth ushering in the golden age of NEETkind
WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE
>>24402694
That's what happens with a society that openly accepts and even pormotes promiscuity, and the philosophy of hedonism. I don't get how this isn't obvious to people.
>>24402345
Is it wierd that the only infected gfs I have are asian?
I've never seen anyone irl that was white or black with herpes just asian girls
Mabye the who is wrong and its just a Asiatic disease
>>24402345
>tfw infected
Never once got it from physical contact, or have seen someone break out from it by me.
>>24402740
The funny thing is my father was born in the 60s, he doesn't much like the gay pride parades, nor does he like Mohammad and his buddies coming over to Europe... so how in the fuck can he believe this shit?
I know normies have next to no action occuring in their frontal lobes, but I would've thought even they could understand the complex concept of "disease bad".
>>24402345
>pure
>uses 4chan
I'm not a normie, I'm just a robot with a nice wife and a few normie friends.
>>24402765
Brilliant deductive work Dick Tracy. How long have you been on the force?
>>24402779
Probably took something to your lips that was carrying. And those whom you kissed on the lips are infected, they just haven't broken out yet.
>>24402345
Who kissless /here/ ?
>>24402357
>Also there is NO CURE for herpes.
Too bad it isn't fatal.
>>24402800
Since when is herpes an Asia-born disease?
>>24402822
Sorry senpai I was trying to be sarcastic.
i find those numbers hard to believe
either most forms of herpes show no signs of being dormant or i am blind
>>24402920
>What is makeup
>What is slathering on enough powder to hide even the most obvious cold sore
A lot of people are asymptomatic
>>24402694
The average person sleeps with maybe 12 people by the age of 25, makes out with at least 30. That's a conservative estimate in 2015. Anything as easily infectious as herpes is bound to affect all those who live a degenerate lifestyle. Only glorious NEET virgins are immune due to their self-imposed chastity and asceticism. My mother has it and since I discovered this statistic last year I have no kissed or hugged her once, and I no longer allow any of my family members to touch me as a precaution.
I mean ive never seen even a guy with it when I'm out for drinks with friends its always asians .
I would love to see a guy with herpes.
I mean its not like its aids right?
>>24402726
Pretty disturbing projection you got going on there, son.
>>24402952
>women
At this point there's less danger of catching a disease if you go and fuck a stray dog, for god's sake.
When is the trans-dimensional gateway gonna be built? I wanna see my waifu.
>>24402793
>robot
>wife
Yeah, nah.
>>24402920
One of the primary reasons to use make-up is to cover this shit up. Girls break out way more often than men. If anyone you know has ever had a cold sore, it means they have herpes. Cold sores are basically an expression of the herpes virus, and there is a billion dollar industry existing for the sole purpose of concealing it.
>>24402729
>Born too late to explore the earth
>Born too early to explore the galaxy
>>24402989
It basically is AIDS, in the sense that it is incurable and is a symbol of degeneracy. Also if you have herpes chances are your immune system has been corrupted.
>>24402982
So what happens when everyone has it 100%? Do the newborns just die off since it fucks with your immune system?
>>24403064
No, but chances are that kid is going to be kissed and cuddled and forced to share utensils with his degenerate parents, and will then catch it. I haven't touched my mother in well over a year since finding out she has oral herpes. And it will never be a 100% infection rate, as long as robots exist.
>>24403143
Soon enough, having herpes will be considered a badge of honor among normies. Proof positive that you're not a loser. And genital herpes, oh, you will be one of the cool kids.
>>24402345
Infected... more like stupid.
I've been with a few of the most massive sluts in the world. At least that's how I see it.That's not anything to brag about obviously, but I usually cultivate relationships where my partners can tell me that kind of shit. So it comes out before we sleep together.
and y'know... I swear to god. It really is a normie thing. It's not neurotypical to have slept with 50-200 people. Anymore than it is to be a thirty year old virgin... So I watch like a fucking hawk, but I'll say thing about the particular brand of degenerate around here-- some of my partners have a deep hunger but they haven't let it destroy them. You can be hypersexual, but always look where you leap. Constant vigilance. Whether it's your 4th or your 40th.
That statistic is disturbing as fuck though.
>>24403176
Conversely, not having herpes is literally the only thing robots have going for them.
>>24402345
I get herpes on my mouth probably twice a year. guess what? I just take a valtrex as soon as i can feel it and its gone in a day.
>>24403217
For what it's worth.
>>24403217
To be honest that makes me feel slightly better about being a complete loser in life.
>tfw kissless virgin with HSV1
No one is safe
It happened to me
It could happen to you
The normies will find a way to infect you
>>24403302
You still have herpes idiot, you're just masking the disease so that people can't tell you have it.
>>24403377
Nice double dubs.
So. What happened?
>25 kissless handholdless virgin neet
>years since last conversation with a girl
>have oral herpes
T-thanks, mom, dad, whoever did it. At least you didn't know it's a disease, for all that's worth.
>>24402345
Dude like everyone has it. 90% of people never experience symptoms. I get a small bump on the inside o my lip every couple off years that goes away in like a day or 2
Who else gets it occasionally under stress?
I get it, catch cold, flu, weakened immune system perfect for the dormant bug and so on.
But why the fuck stress? How does that work?
No, I'm pure and pristine.
> had a Chad buddy a couple years back
> he had had pretty much every STD
> even bragged about it
> how he once went to a Chad doctor
> the Chadtor just said genital herpes is like the flu for sexually active people
> almost high-fived him
They do wear it as a badge of honor, the degenerate fucks.
>>24403589
This is how the world ends
Not with a bang.
Or a whimper.
Or a thwack.
Or an unga, and then a bunga.
But with a high five as the final ex-clean person is pronounced to have AIDS, and everyone celebrates the 0% chance of humanity's survival.
>>24403520
That's a kenkasore not an std.
>>24403589
Can confirm. Was about to get finally get laid but noticed... small lumpy stuff? on the slut's pussy. I asked her and she laughed it away telling me it's hpv and she'll get them burned away soon.
Normies do in fact believe having diseased genitals is perfectly natural and that e-e-everyone has them.
>>24403520
I don't think you can get herpes sores on the inside of your mouth.
>>24403520
>DUDE GO WITH THE FLOW LIKE EVERYONE HAS THIS INCURABLE ILLNESS YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE BRO WHO CARES IF I INFECT PEOPLE MAN YOU GOTTA LIVE YOUR LIFE AND B URSELF FUCK THE CONSEQUENCES
No. Fuck YOU normiefag.
>>24403589
>the Chadtor just said genital herpes is like the flu for sexually active people
Pic related is the dick of the guy you almost high-fived.
>>24403742
>mfw NEETs are humanity's salvation from STDs
>mfw humanity is several kinds of fucked
You guys are hilarious.
>I've never even kissed a girl, but I don't have herpes now so I guess it's alright
It's 2015, most STDs are virtually irrelevant. Most women would rather knowingly kiss and fuck a disease ridden chad than a clean robot.
>>24403854
>Most women would rather knowingly kiss and fuck a disease ridden chad than a clean robot.
Wow, I'm really missing out.
>>24403846
Not me silly, the doctor almost high-fived the Chad.
>>24403482
Thanks
I have no idea really, I think I got it from normies sharing food with me
Particularly this art student girl that gave me a slice of pizza she had a bite or two of
Like I am going to turn down free pizza
It was probably a trap from the beginning
Don't take pizza from cute girls unless their mouths never touched it
>>24403867
Bull-fucking-shit.
>>24402554
same. Both parents have it with outbreaks once a year. I'm 27 and never shown any symptoms, neither has my sister.
I must be asymptomatic or immune. I figure the latter
>>24403846
femanon here. i went down on a guy with a penoir like that and i fucking regret it. it really doesn't pay to be a submissive with masochistic tendencies. learned my lesson. being humiliated sexually is no fun when you get herpes as a result lol
>>24402345
How does touching yourself to cartoon child porn make you pure?
>Robots actually think theyre pure when they are bringing down humanity
>>24403909
you'd better be baiting you hairy fatass because if it's true then if it's true then the truth means whores are willing to fuck diseased pussbags instead of those like me
>>24402571
>condemn you for life
Ha hahahahahahahaha
Left picture is me without herpes.
Right picture is me with herpes.
>>24403912
Nah, masturbating to cartoon lolis is MUCH preferable to being permanently infected.
You'd have to be permanently infected to think it isn't.
One of these has a possibility to kill a baby that you give birth to due to a weakened immune system.
>>24403956
lol yah it's the truth. i mean i get off on being humiliated sexually so in the moment i was kinda turned on for some fucked up reason about being forced to suck a dick that obviously had some sort of std or whatever. i regretted it when i got sick and had to go to doctors and found out what was wrong. i get an outbreak every month or so but hide with with make up thank god!
>>24404065
That's why you participate in a kink community and let your friends and peers help vet your partners, you dumb slut.
>>24403956
>Being surprised that women are disgusting
Are you retarded?
>>24402982
>not monogamous
>having lots of sex and enjoying life in general
>degenerate lifestyle
You're just a frustrated virgin.
>>24404065
when you have sex with people now do you tell them?
>>24404172
>Can only enjoy life if he's having lots of sex
Kek, white people.
>>24404126
I'm still young. It wasn't until recently that I realize the world is shit and noone taught me.
I'm sorry senpai.
>>24404223
>I'm still young
Nigger I'm 19.
Do white people's parents/older role models just not teach them about how disgusting modern women are?
>come out and get girlfriend anon
>all those experienced girls with their wonderful gifts are waiting just for you
>>24402345
I am the purest. I fucking hate diseases.
>>24402345
I live in norway and I barely ever hear about herpes
are 90% of people over 50 years old really infected or is it just memenumbers?
now that I think about it, I'm not even sure what herpes is
>even if you did want to eventually get with a girl, she'll probably just infect you with incredibly common but disgusting shit
what a world
Daily reminder that Adolf Hitler was a pure, NEET virgin who avoided infection at all costs:
>In the midst of this corrupt city, my friend surrounded himself with a wall of unshakable principles which enabled him to build up an inner freedom, in spite of all the dangers around. him. He was afraid of infection, as he often said. Now I understand that he meant, not only venereal infection, but a much more general infection, namely, the danger of being caught up in the prevailing conditions and finally being dragged down into the vortex of corruption. It is not surprising that no one understood him, that they took him for an eccentric, and that those few who came in contact with him called him presumptuous and arrogant. But he went his way, untouched by what went on around him, but also untouched by a really great, consuming love. He remained a man alone and guarded -- an odd contradiction -- in strict monklike asceticism, the holy Flame of Life.
>>24404253
Not really, they're more like "don't you have a girlfriend yet" or "got any cute girls in your class anon?"
>>24404366
Horrifying.
My uncle had no issues with me not having a girlfriend since he knows how nasty most women are nowadays.
Same with my dad.
Shit, even my mom thinks like that.
Do your parents not even give a fuck about your well-being? They just want you to go with the flow so you, and by extension they, can be accepted by society?
Talk about selfish fucktards.
>>24404336
Herpes is a common infection spread by kissing, sharing eating and drinking utensils, and so on. It most commonly expresses itself via cold sores found around the lips. Cold sores and sores around the genital areas.
Pic related: the MAJORITY of people have genitals that look like this at least once every few months. And there is NO LAW that forces them to tell you before you touch them or kiss them.
>2050
>nearly 100% of humans have oral herpes
>people without it are ostracized
>rejects don't even care about sex, they just want someone to give them herpes
>they go around putting everything in their mouth but it always just ends in them being laughed at
>"LOL YOU FUCKING FAG, HOW DO YOU NOT HAVE HERPES YET?!?!? YOU'RE LIKE 23!!! COME ON, JUST BE YOURSELF!"
>>24404414
Pretty much, I'm probably REALLY nowhere near the only one who gets the typical shit like I mentioned above or the older family members going "where are my grandkids?" or "when are you going to settle down with a nice girl"
For some reason they can't fathom that times have changed.
>actually thinking HVS1 is anything to worry about
>the same neets that think its something to worry about have also probably had chickenpox
>probably isn't aware that's a form of the herpes virus
>>24404444
nice quads
I think I had those lip sores as a kid, am I a normie now?
>>24403893
T-thanks for the info anon, it's not like I also wanted to be afraid of free food from qt grills as well.
>>24404467
I'd rather not get stuck with dick sores and visible mouth sores for the rest of my life.
Chicken pox goes away unless you have a shitty immune system and end up with early shingles and shit.
>>24404467
Chicken pox goes away.
Herpes doesn't.
You're not gonna get a breakout of the chicken pox suddenly when you're 25.
>>24404467
Bullshit. It's actually HEALTHY to have chicken pox, since it reduces the risk of having shingles later on. Herpes serves no benefit to the person who is infected by it.
>>24404494
There's medication you can take for both forms of herpes, making it almost like not having it at all. I have a gross Stacy sister that has HPV and herpes simplex 1 and 2 and she's married. She takes medication for the herpes, the HPV will give her cancer and she'll die, hopefully.
>>24404467
Why are whites always the ones trying to normalize STDs?
I've never seen a nigger try and act like herpes is normal or something to be proud of.
They just don't give a fuck.
I literally refuse to touch my mother because of this shit. When she realized I was being serious she started crying.
>>24404513
Chicken pox doesn't go away. It's in you for the rest of your life, that's how you have immunity. But should you get immunocompromised or old or get stressed, you'll get shingles. That's the same virus.
>>24404535
>Letting some clueless beta marry your infected sister
Jesus christ, you're literal human shit.
>>24404533
Uh.
You can't get shingles if you never got chicken pox.
>>24404467
Chicken pox isn't sexually or orally transmitted fucktard normie.
>Have oral herpes
>mom passed it on to me when I was little
>at least 1 or 2 break-outs every year, mostly during winter
>never even had my mouth near a girl
>JUST
>>24404543
I've noticed the same but don't make this a race thing.
>>24404566
I had no say in the matter, he knocked her up and married her. He's also a heroin addict (or was), so I don't really care what either of them do as I don't associate with them. She's my half sister anyway, I don't give a shit.
>>24404535
HPV actually is nothing, though. Literally gives one woman in several thousands cervical cancer which can be screened basically to the point of statistical oblivion.
Well, apart from genital warts, but you don't get them from most strains of HPV.
>>24404595
He probably already had it then, or worse.
The only time I had sex was when I fucked a stripper
I licked her pussy, asshole, and stuck my tongue in her mouth and didn't get a breakout
Herpes was the #1 thing I was extremely scared about
>>24404595
Well, at least they're both human shit.
Hopefully her HPV makes her infertile too.
>>24402729
>NEETs refuse to work and everyone dies due to lack of resources
It'll be a fun ride to the bottom at least.
>>24404606
Well considering when she had my niece, she was screened for STDs and came up negative for everything. Then suddenly later on she gets HPV and herpes. Gee, I wonder.
>>24404584
How can you seriously love your mother after this?
Americans are so fucked in the head. They allow their mothers to pay a doctor to cut a part of their penis off, they allow their mothers to give them herpes, they allow their mothers to send them to "chicken pox parties" with the normie kids so you get infected with their shit. Unbelievable.
>>24404592
>>24404543
It's because whites are horrified of not being normal/"the default."
If something happens to them, they want to make it the accepted way of life.
>>24403893
>art student
Should have known from that anon.
>>24404610
>putting your mouth on a stripper
did you pay to pleasure someone else
S-stop it /r9k/ please I've had enough.
>>24404658
No I knew her from school, her job was being a stripper.
The 3 weeks after I was with her was seriously the scariest time of my life. I was literally inspecting my penis and lips multiple times a day with a flashlight and magnifying glass.
>>24404664
No. We leave in a world of horrors that is our own life, so this is fucking pussy shit compared.
>>24404644
Yeah, pretty much this.
Why do you think every nasty fucking thing has a movement of "acceptance" behind it now? First it was just fat, then it was sluts, then it was STD, and it's going to more shit from there. Big rallies of people telling others not to shame each other for having HIV and shit, jesus christ.
>>24404065
i hope you get pozzed up
>>24404651
Artists and art students can be pretty damn dirty.
>>24404683
So was this high school or college?
>Kissless 24 year old
>Never share anything or touch my face because I'm very picky about germs
>Have had it nearly as long as I can remember
>>24404718
It was in college like 3 months ago. I lost my virginity at 24
>>24404733
Was she at least hot?
Worth it if she was an 8/10 or above in your opinion, especially if you did make it out clean
>"Uhh...wow Anon, that's a pretty weak handshake. Oops, I accidentally used my hand with the sores on it to shake! Oh well, no biggie, you have herpes already, right?"
>>24404762
thats not how herpes works you virgin
>>24404743
She was pretty hot to me. 5'1 95lbs white, with really long hair, like an emo girl kind of.
We stopped talking a week later after I got drunk and called her a disgusting whore who only strips because she's too stupid for a real job
>>24404644
>>24404691
But why?
Why not own up to your disgusting nature?
Why be so weak-willed that you can't accept the consequences of your actions?
>>24402345
>About 50 percent to 80 percent of US adults
Man, that's some accuracy right there.
>>24404807
Because it's been evidenced that whining instead makes them money, thanks to shit like indiegogo
"i got called fat PLEASE TO GIB EMONES" and boom, a few thousand bucks.
>>24404355
Pretty sure he banged Eva like a salvation army drum every odd night.
>>24404807
A lot of people don't actually hate themselves, and perceive themselves as deserving respect and are not afraid to demand it. They don't share your values to begin with, so assuming they'd be ashamed for not living up to your values is pretty stupid.
>tfw I made the herpes thread today
>tfw my gf has herpes
Fucking slut all I wanted was 4 kids, her life was literally easiest mode possible. All I wanted was 4 kids with a girl who doesn't get spitroasted by 2 chads every weekend. But apparently she couldn't even reach that low of a level, now she has herpes. She has fucking herpes forever and I will never touch her again.
Dumb whores, all whores must be enslaved, their freedom has done only harm to civilization.
>>24404790
Herpfag detected
The other thing about herpes too is that it's easier for a man to give it to a woman than it is for a woman to give to a man.
And blacks, especially women skew the stats a bit. Black women have a 50% chance of having herpes
>>24404816
Most don't know they have it so it's a very rough estimate
It's also higher in women
>>24404869
No one deserves respect m8, you earn respect.
Is this another thing that whites don't understand?
Why would you even care if someone has oral herpes?
It does literally nothing.
>>24404861
There is plenty of reasons to assume he died a virgin. He was disgusted with the type of fun his peers were having during his youth, and after prison his health began failing in a big way and he was on drugs throughout the war. Only a handful of people got to know him personally, most others said he was humorless and uptight.
>>24404915
>permanent disease that damages the nerves and causes a skin condition
>does nothing
>>24402345
I don't have it oral but I barebacked a slut and now get regular /scabbydick/
Feels bad man..
>>24404943
That's what you get for being a normie whorefucker
>>24404894
Again one of your value judgments that other people don't agree with. People in the west are less likely to support your view and more likely to believe everyone deserves respect. Everyone agrees that we want civil, orderly and well functioning societies. With our culture that only works when everyone is polite and minds their own business.
>can get herpes even when using a condom and the girl isnt breaking out
>>24402345
I don't get anything like that, but once every like 3 years I'll get a smallish red spot on my upper lip.
And you can still get herpes if someone who has it kisses you as a baby, so if you have it and have never kissed anyone: Thank your family
>>24403956
No, she's telling the truth.
source: i turn down girls like that in a heartbeat, their broken desperation is easy to spot
>>24404915
Herpfags are getting toasty itt
>>24404978
Fortunately the West and its ways are slowly dying and will be replaced by a more archaic civilization. Have fun indulging in hedonism during your last days you normalshit, because they won't last forever.
>>24404978
>People in the west are less likely to support your view and more likely to believe everyone deserves respect.
And that's why western society is degenerating.
Respect isn't something that you inherently deserve, I figured whites would understand this the most, but I guess you guys just aren't as educated as you used to be.
A civil, orderly, well-functioning society also requires a populace that isn't infected with a potentially deadly disease that can render women infertile like HPV.
The normalization of these diseases helps no one, not even those infected with it.
>>24402345
I recall there was a kid in 1st grade who had an outbreak, went around and told everyone what that shit around his mouth was, he had definitely not gotten laid yet, so yea that shit spreads like wildfire.
I don't think I have it though, always been somewhat germphobic so I never shared any drinks or touched anyone.
>you are so old now that the simple fact of you still being uninfected by "common" venereal diseases can be used as a sound argument as to why you should not pursue relationships
>- after all, you kept yourself pure for so long, it would be such a waste to let it go in such silly way, no?
>>24405052
>not even those infected with it
Tell that to the chads who get to poz up sluts because it's normal.
>>24405076
Even if it's written with irony there's somewhat of a truth to it as well.
>>24405104
At the end of the day they're actively destroying society.
Do you really believe hedonism benefits anyone?
Least of all you?
Shit, look at the black community, it's rife with hedonistic behavior, and it's certainly done no one any favors.
>>24403846
is this going to be a chad dick thread?
Imagine a zombie apocalypse where herpes suddenly mutates and makes zombies of those infected with it.
>>24405143
the entirety of /k/ would fend zombies off, then
seriously i fucking hate diseases, I'd rather die a virgin than get this shit goddamn
>>24405184
>charlie sheen the epic meme announces he gave HIV to an assload of hollywood people or others
>this becomes the norm
AHGHGUGUGGHG
>>24405143
Like I would give a fuck. I would just lock my door, continue to watch anime and drink beer.
>>24405050
It's good that you have something to fantasize about that keeps you happy while other people are living their lives in the way they want to.
>>24405052
It's not a mark of a high education to believe the degree to which one agrees with your own values or the values of your own culture are measures of the level of their education.
>A civil, orderly, well-functioning society also requires a populace that isn't infected with a potentially deadly disease that can render women infertile like HPV.
Have we never had such a society so far, then? Because historically we've had few defenses against infectious disease.
Also you're dramatically exaggerating the significance of HPV. The vast majority of people who have it are not affected by it in any way. The only reason why we even see the few effects that we do is that nearly everyone is infected.
>The normalization of these diseases helps no one, not even those infected with it.
I think you should ask the people who have it what they think would help them. If you actually care about helping them. Instead of, you know, shaming them because you think that's best for them or something.
>>24405184
I feel the same yet I'm conflicted. On one side I get to remain pure while the others rot, on the other I miss human contact and other natural things that I actually want.
It's like, have to chose between remaining celibate and get nothing in return or submit to papa nurgle and enjoy the flesh.
It's a strange feel.
>>24405225
>tfw herpes shaming is now a thing
Fuck off.
>>24405225
I also live my life the way I want to. Something herpes ridden sluts cannot do because their disgusting faces look like a battlefield once every two months.
>>24405273
Hey, I'm not the one who started doing it.
>>24405225
>while others live the way they want to
But, just like us eventually realizing our lives were worthless (which we essentially already know now), won't they come to a realizaiton point of "holy shit I've got enough diseases to make me swallow a cereal of pills in the morning what am I doing" or even possibly death?
>>24405312
Not that anon, but if they do come to that point, they'll ignore it because it makes them feel bad. And these assholes are on the level of hedgehogs.
>>24405225
>It's not a mark of a high education to believe the degree to which one agrees with your own values or the values of your own culture are measures of the level of their education.
It is when their values are destructive towards society as a whole.
>Have we never had such a society so far, then? Because historically we've had few defenses against infectious disease.
No, we haven't, which is my point.
We're supposed to progress, not degenerate, STD and venereal disease infection rates have soared within the past half a century.
>I think you should ask the people who have it what they think would help them.
I don't particularly care what helps them, they've lived their lives, they made their choices.
They made their bed, now they lie in it.
Now all we can do is make sure that they know that this type of disease is not something that we need further complicating humanity's survival and making society as a whole more unstable for future births.
>>24405358
And to expand on the final part, I should note that children who were infected by their parents, while unfortunate, should not be allowed to breed or infect others.
Personally, I think this idea of patient confidentiality is idiotic if it's for a highly infectious disease like herpes or some other infectious STD.
Public medical records should be encouraged.
>>24402982
>got it from grandmother when i was so young i don't even remember
;_;
>>24405287
Actually my life isn't affected in any meaningful way from getting cold sores, which happens more like once a year and basically just feels and looks like a pimple. No one I've ever dated even stopped kissing me because of it, despite my warnings.
Of course if I get cancer or something then it'll probably get opportunistic on me. I'll worry about that when it happens.
>got mouth herpes
>don't know how
>still kissless virign
Kill me.
>>24405273
Kek hey everyone look, it's a herpfag! How does it feel being infected with an incurable disease?
>>24405312
What pills? Are you talking about people with HIV? Because as far as I know, no other sexually transmitted disease requires you to take pills long term.
Many people with HIV struggle with shame and acceptance and the costs and side effects of their medications. Those are mostly poor people. Poor people are usually very much not enviable whether they have HIV or not, and I don't know why you'd care about what ways they find to be content with their existence. Unless you care about them and want to help them, but I'm guessing that's not where you're coming from. Does it really bring more value to you somehow if people who have it bad also hate themselves and feel awful about their lives?
>>24402554
Good news bad news. You don't get cold sores because your parents didn't love you.
>>24405533
>Does it really bring more value to you somehow if people who have it bad also hate themselves and feel awful about their lives?
If that's synonymous with "understand that their actions have consequences instead of trying to normalize their disease," then yes.
>>24405533
>Does it really bring more value to you somehow if people who have it bad also hate themselves and feel awful about their lives?
They shouldn't feel bad about fucking their lives up and putting the people who care about thems lives on a fucking emotional rollercoaster until they die because they wanted to get their dicks/pussies wet with some grody fuckers?
>>24405358
>We're supposed to progress, not degenerate, STD and venereal disease infection rates have soared within the past half a century.
A lot of undesirable things increase as a sign of progress. That's generally the result of having more of everything. You also get more of the side effects. Looking at the whole, weighing benefits against the problems being created, the trend doesn't seem better or worse than it has been for some centuries already.
>I don't particularly care what helps them, they've lived their lives, they made their choices.
You think those people's lives are over because they have an STD? That's just weird, what are they supposed to do? Vanish into thin air? Commit suicide?
>Now all we can do is make sure that they know that this type of disease is not something that we need further complicating humanity's survival and making society as a whole more unstable for future births.
But what if people just don't agree with you? What if they think HPV is sufficiently low risk that all the sex is worth it? Because it is pretty low risk, and as far as I understand, this is how most people feel about it. Many people feel that way about herpes as well.
>>24405390
>should not be allowed to breed or infect others.
Even if their partners know and don't care?
Were you aware that we don't have cheap and reliable tests for many strains of HPV? Like, if I wanted to know which strains of HPV I have, I would not be able to do that through normal healthcare. Tests for genital herpes are also not very good. It is usually diagnosed from sores, but it can be completely asymptomatic and still contagious. Blood tests are not widely available, cheap or useful.
>>24405642
Nah anon, no one should ever feel bad when they make bad choices, we have to coddle everyone and make them feel as good as possible.
>>24405705
>Because it is pretty low risk, and as far as I understand, this is how most people feel about it. Many people feel that way about herpes as well.
You can't not get herpes if you fuck someone in the mouth or hole with herpes, you fucking wanker.
>>24402345
are these cold sores? I kinda get these when it's cold outside. like once or twice per season. and they go away quickly. I never thought they are serious at all
>>24405580
You talk about shaming as if it was some sort of force of nature instead of a choice other people make. Of course I understand that actions have consequences, I wouldn't be trying to influence other people to stop shaming otherwise.
HPV is already normal, whether people accept that or not.
>>24405642
Shit happens to people for no reason sometimes, life isn't always fair. Being born poor is already not fair, and then it magnifies every small bad luck you get later. Sometimes people are not making easy choices in a vacuum.
Having been close to people with huge, massive problems I can tell you if I got to choose how they felt about it they'd have forgiven themselves, fixed what was fixable and then moved on. That's the only way. Hating yourself and beating yourself up over things you can't undo doesn't make anything better. It doesn't help you change. It holds you back from changing and makes you weak.
>>24405705
>A lot of undesirable things increase as a sign of progress.
No, not really, as we progress we actually shed a lot of our most base desires in pursuit of things like higher education and understanding.
Well, that is until people started valuing the superficial more than what actually benefits society.
>You think those people's lives are over because they have an STD?
Where did I imply that?
I'm saying that their STD is often a result of their own choices, if they don't like how others react to it there's little they can do, as it's their own fault.
>But what if people just don't agree with you? What if they think HPV is sufficiently low risk that all the sex is worth it?
How is sex worth anything?
Are they going to be having babies?
Are they spreading their seed?
When white people say sex is "worth it" I never really understand it, because I get about as much pleasure from sex as I do from playing a nice round of video games.
Entertainment has no intrinsic value, we don't need entertainment to survive, so it really has no worth or matter HOW you get that entertainment, since it's generally pretty meaningless in the large scale of things.
And I wouldn't consider something that can potentially
>render a woman infertile
>give a woman cervical cancer
>Infect and kill newborns
low risk.
Unless you're a male, then I suppose it is low risk.
>Even if their partners know and don't care?
If their partners don't care about the safety and health of their children then they shouldn't be allowed to breed to begin with.
>Were you aware that we don't have cheap and reliable tests for many strains of HPV?
What's this "we" mess?
Up here in Massachusetts we most certainly do, in fact we have some of the best health care in the country.
In fact, that's true for all of New England.
>>24405871
>It holds you back from changing and makes you weak.
WWWWWHIIIIIICH leads us back to the earlier point of these fuckers not really willing to change, but instead make a movement for acceptance of it while staying as whatever their problem is.
>>24405871
>Of course I understand that actions have consequences, I wouldn't be trying to influence other people to stop shaming otherwise.
You clearly don't, shaming is typically a result of seeing other's behavior as undesirable and damaging.
HPV being "normal" doesn't make it any less damaging.
The flu is also normal, and it's still damaging.
Hell, we've been trying to eradicate it for over a century now.
>>24405762
I wasn't talking about transmission rate, I was talking about the risk as a whole. The risk of a randomly selected partner having disease but not knowing or saying about it times the rate of transmission times number of times you had sex times severity of symptoms times relative prevalence of each class of symptoms, or something like that.
Considering that most people with herpes are asymptomatic for most of the time and only experience mild symptoms, it's just not worth it going out of your way to avoid it.
>>24406065
Oh, it very much is. Virgin wife (whom I will ask to take several tests alongside me to make sure), here I come.
What are conditions for catching this? My ex had oral herp but we never kissed once she broke out or for a few days after it was fully healed
Am i still fucked
>>24405915
No? They can't change the fact that they have an STD, that's irreversible. They want to accept it and move on. STDs are sometimes the result of irresponsible and harmful sexual behavior, but not always. So there may not be anything for someone like that to change. They just want to go about their lives without people making something that would otherwise not be that bad into a problem.
>>24405958
>shaming is typically a result of seeing other's behavior as undesirable and damaging.
But you have a choice in whether to shame or not. I know, because I do, too. I choose not to shame others.
I fully support reasonable efforts to eradicate HPV. The vaccinations for example are, with some stipulations, a very good and promising project. But HPV is not a major problem, just like the flu isn't. So any solution worth considering would be one that at the very least doesn't do more harm than HPV or flu.
>>24406098
You're just being dishonest now. You wanted a virgin wife anyway, or at least wanted to say you want one. This didn't cost you anything. I'll believe you actually care about herpes when you make an actual sacrifice to avoid it. Under uncertainty, mind you.
>>24406172
>But you have a choice in whether to shame or not. I know, because I do, too. I choose not to shame others.
Okay?
Good for you?
I'm not sure why you're telling me this, do you want a cookie?
>But HPV is not a major problem, just like the flu isn't.
Stopped reading there.
The flu literally kills thousands of people every year in the US alone, we take the same shaming precautions with it as we do with any other undesirable disease (force kids to stay home, don't allow people who have the flu around anyone younger than 8 or older than 65, close down certain public services during a flu outbreak, etc. etc.)
When you actively try to normalize things like HPV and discourage "shaming" you are doing the community a major disservice.
Actively discouraging non-infected people from shaming those who are infected is much like allowing a flu-infected teacher to be around your children.
>>24406209
>I'll believe you actually care about herpes when you make an actual sacrifice to avoid it.
Well that's a bit of retard logic.
I don't think I have it have it. Never seen a cold sore on my mom's face. Can't be sure about my dad.
>>24406255
>I'm not sure why you're telling me this, do you want a cookie?
Are you slow or something? Shaming is not a "consequence" of the shamed person's actions anywhere near as much as it is a consequence of the actions of the person who does the shaming. You act as if that was not the case. It seems to me that the people who start acceptance movements have a better understanding of cause and effect as it relates to a person's actions and their consequences than you do. Since you seem to think that you have no choice regarding whether to shame or not, and that it is somehow unreasonable to for people to try to change shaming culture.
Clear enough now?
>The flu literally kills
Yes, it's actually a much worse problem than HPV. It's still not a major problem.
>we take the same shaming precautions with it as we do with any other undesirable disease (force kids to stay home, don't allow people who have the flu around anyone younger than 8 or older than 65, close down certain public services during a flu outbreak, etc. etc.)
These aren't shaming, dude. These are completely pragmatic measures aimed at reducing transmission. If you've been talking about promoting condom use all the time when you've said "shaming", then we've been in agreement all the time.
>When you actively try to normalize things like HPV and discourage "shaming" you are doing the community a major disservice.
There's little evidence that shaming does any good, and even less evidence that equally good or better results can't be achieved through interventions that don't stigmatize any group of people. So, no.
>>24406321
MAKE-UP
I never noticed my mother having it either until she complained of having a cold sore once. I asked where and she pointed to the side of her lips, I couldn't see shit under her lipstick.
>>24406263
Actually it's a concept from behavioral economics called revealed preference.
>>24403057
explore the internet. discover rare pepes and dank memes.
>>24406465
She never wore make up in the house. At least not lipstick.
>>24406433
>Since you seem to think that you have no choice regarding whether to shame or not, and that it is somehow unreasonable to for people to try to change shaming culture.
Well first of all, I know that I have a choice.
Secondly, trying to change "shaming culture" is, again, doing society a disservice.
Things are shamed for a reason, mainly because we don't want them to become widespread or want to keep them from spreading even more.
>Yes, it's actually a much worse problem than HPV. It's still not a major problem.
It's still a problem though, which is the point.
It may not be as deadly as car accidents, but it's deadly nonetheless, and as such precautions should be (and are) taken.
>These are completely pragmatic measures aimed at reducing transmission.
Much like with the "shaming" tactics aimed at HPV.
The shaming tactics you refer to are much like keeping away from people who have the flu, only difference is that this hurts your feelings more, so in your mind it's much worse.
>There's little evidence that shaming does any good, and even less evidence that equally good or better results can't be achieved through interventions that don't stigmatize any group of people. So, no.
How about the fact that when shaming was commonplace there were much less STDs in general?
When people knew that there would be social consequences for their actions, they were less likely to take them.
Now that these social consequences are much less apparent (or even downright nonexistent) people see much less reason to avoid such behavior.
>>24406468
Well, I keep washing damn near everything that goes near my mouth in the household, I refuse to drink something I didn't buy myslef that didn't have those little things keeping the capt in place that are easily broken and so forth.
Being a NEET, I haven't suffered much because of this.
Maybe this is the reason why we have beards and pubic hair; to hide the stds, thus giving better chances in mating.
>>24403909
>femanons confirmed to be disgusting sub humans
>>24406505
>It's still a problem though, which is the point.
You were objecting to my characterization of the flu and hpv as "not major problems" before. I'm unimpressed and feel that you're wasting my time for coming up with this after I defended said view.
>These are completely pragmatic measures aimed at reducing transmission.
>Much like with the "shaming" tactics aimed at HPV.
No they aren't? STD shaming is completely independent of sex education. Because you can do sex education without the shaming, and the shaming doesn't bring any additional value to the sex education. It may even detract from it.
>The shaming tactics you refer to are much like keeping away from people who have the flu
It's not shaming to keep people who have the flu away from others. It's common sense. There's no stigma attached, it's simply practical, and in concert with what the typical flu-infected person's needs are anyway.
>only difference is that this hurts your feelings more, so in your mind it's much worse.
No. The relevant differences are the intention in which the shaming is done, and the messages attached to it. Helpful practical actions to reduce flu or HPV transmission are helpful and that is all.
I can't believe you're able to say this shit with a straight face. Why would you express strong opinions about shaming if you don't even know what it is, or don't know what the difference between shaming and public health campaigns is? Everyone already agrees that public health campaigns are good, so if you don't know how they're different from shaming but people who are otherwise pro-health seem to be upset by shaming for some reason maybe find out what the difference is before you come out as pro-shaming.
Unless what you're really saying here is that hurting people's feelings is a worthy goal for you in and of itself, because that is what it apparently reduces to.
>>24406788
>You were objecting to my characterization of the flu and hpv as "not major problems" before
Good point, seems we have different ideas of what constitutes major.
I believe that something that kills thousands of people every year can be considered a pretty major problem.
>No they aren't? STD shaming is completely independent of sex education. Because you can do sex education without the shaming, and the shaming doesn't bring any additional value to the sex education. It may even detract from it.
What the hell are you talking about?
The sex education is irrelevant here, it's about the prevention methods, which can be directly compared to the prevention methods for the spread of the flu.
>There's no stigma attached, it's simply practical, and in concert with what the typical flu-infected person's needs are anyway.
Right, and typically, when it comes to keeping people who have STDs away from others, there's no stigma attached their either unless the person whose perspective is being considered is actually infected.
>The relevant differences are the intention in which the shaming is done, and the messages attached to it. Helpful practical actions to reduce flu or HPV transmission are helpful and that is all.
What more intention should there be besides "this disease has adverse affects on the population, we cannot allow it to spread, keep infected people away from others?"
>Helpful practical actions to reduce flu or HPV transmission are helpful and that is all.
Right, and these helpful practical actions don't just include safe sex, they also include avoiding those who you know are infected with the disease and taking proper precautions to keep yourself uninfected (and that can range from safer sex to outright abstinence).
Normalizing something that infects you permanently is never the right step, we don't even attempt to normalize the flu, we accept that it's a bad disease and that precautions should be taken to avoid it and people who have it.
>herpes will never mutate into a deadly disease
God please kill the normies
>>24402345
I'm a kissless virgin, but I have herpes. It's kind of like a cruel joke.
I started getting cold sores around 12-13, and I still get 2 or 3 outbreaks a year when sick or stressed. Must have somehow caught it from my dad or from sharing instruments in middle school band
I think I'm the only one in my family not infected
>feels good man
Don't think my parents have it that bad though, they haven't had a bad breakout between them in years
>>24406917
>What the hell are you talking about?
>The sex education is irrelevant here, it's about the prevention methods, which can be directly compared to the prevention methods for the spread of the flu.
I'm talking about the prevention methods. Promoting the methods for prevention of HPV is sex education.
>Right, and typically, when it comes to keeping people who have STDs away from others, there's no stigma attached their either unless the person whose perspective is being considered is actually infected.
There doesn't have to be. Right now there obviously is, because of people like you. But theoretically, and I've even sometimes seen this happen in practice, dating while having an STD doesn't have to be an emotionally grueling, humiliating process.
Surely you don't think it's a reasonable solution to make it illegal to for people with STDs to have sex? Sounds like that is what you are saying. I don't think anyone would agree that limiting people's personal liberty and bodily autonomy like this is an acceptable price to pay for the eradication of STDs.
>>24406917
>>24407318
>What more intention should there be besides "this disease has adverse affects on the population, we cannot allow it to spread,
I'm arguing there shouldn't be more intentions than that. You're arguing that on top of an evidence-based approach designed to reduce STD rates, strong value judgments should be expressed and groups of people should be stigmatised. This suggests that, like I already speculated, your intention and goal separate and independent of actually curbing STD transmission is to harm people and make them feel bad.
>keep infected people away from others?"
What do you even mean? Put them in internment camps?
>they also include avoiding those who you know are infected with the disease and taking proper precautions to keep yourself uninfected (and that can range from safer sex to outright abstinence).
I don't see how it helps to safeguard against STDs if I avoid people I know to be infected. STDs are transmitted sexually, not through friendliness.
Yes, those are valid choices. But they have much higher costs than alternative strategies, and people are correspondingly less likely to be willing to follow through with them. Strategies have to be tailored individually to match the person's situation, needs and values. Again, many people just don't consider STDs a big deal.
I've been with 13 really fucking gross ass sluts and haven't ever had a single cold sore or outbreak, though I've never been tested.
>>24407318
>Promoting the methods for prevention of HPV is sex education.
Right, and this includes knowing what kind of risk behaviors to avoid.
>Right now there obviously is, because of people like you.
What?
Rational people?
>Surely you don't think it's a reasonable solution to make it illegal to for people with STDs to have sex? Sounds like that is what you are saying. I don't think anyone would agree that limiting people's personal liberty and bodily autonomy like this is an acceptable price to pay for the eradication of STDs.
I think they should be required to share with a partner if they have an STD and the partner should make a decision of whether or not they want to stay.
And if they don't tell their partner they have an STD and infect their partner, they can face legal repercussions (and this already happens in some areas).
>You're arguing that on top of an evidence-based approach designed to reduce STD rates, strong value judgments should be expressed and groups of people should be stigmatised.
Right, and that's proven to be effective.
As soon as the stigma was gone (sexual revolution) STD and venereal infection rates skyrocketed.
Again, if that makes you feel bad, tough luck, unless you were infected by your parents (which is a tragedy in and of itself since these people who don't care about their child's well-being shouldn't be breeding to begin with) then you really only have yourself to blame.
>What do you even mean? Put them in internment camps?
I mean having medical records that are public so that those who aren't infected and wish to remain that way can stay safe.
Unfortunately, there are plenty of shitty people out there that wouldn't tell their partner that they have an STD until it's too late.
>I don't see how it helps to safeguard against STDs if I avoid people I know to be infected. STDs are transmitted sexually, not through friendliness.
"Avoid" in this context very clearly means sexually anon.
You should see my lips, they're disgusting.
The issue is fordyce spots on the lips, google that and see for yourself.
Anyone else got this?
(I'm a virgin)
>>24407339
>Yes, those are valid choices. But they have much higher costs than alternative strategies
How?
How is teaching people to learn the risk signs and keep themselves safe more expensive than having to design and distribute expensive treatments and cures?
>Strategies have to be tailored individually to match the person's situation, needs and values.
And they are.
>Again, many people just don't consider STDs a big deal.
Maybe it's different for white people, but where I live, people consider STDs a pretty big deal.
I've always had people who look out for others by warning them of a guy or girl who's dirty.
It builds a sense of trust within the community, and it allows people to not be taken advantage of by untrustworthy individuals who can't deal with their disease and instead choose to hide it.
Again, I'm not white, so maybe you guys are more open to this kind of behavior, but I think it's more because blacks and Hispanics (especially the latter) have much stronger family bonds and relationships than whites, even with those who we are barely or loosely related to, so we're much more likely to want to keep them safe and healthy at all costs.
>r9k in charge of knowing anything about medicine/herpes
top
>>24407565
>I think they should be required to share with a partner if they have an STD and the partner should make a decision of whether or not they want to stay.
I agree that this is their moral responsibility, although it would be difficult to make it a legal, enforced requirement. This, however, is not shaming and does not have to cause shame.
>Right, and that's proven to be effective.
Can you provide citations? Is the effect great enough that it justifies the harm done to people?
>As soon as the stigma was gone (sexual revolution) STD and venereal infection rates skyrocketed.
Do we have good evidence of that? Do you have evidence that the sexual revolution coincided with STD acceptance? I don't think it did.
Either way, the sexual revolution was a major societal shift in many other respects apart from more permissive attitudes, and you can't assume an effect that is coeval with it was caused by it, much less a specific aspect of it.
> Again, if that makes you feel bad, tough luck, unless you were infected by your parents (which is a tragedy in and of itself since these people who don't care about their child's well-being shouldn't be breeding to begin with) then you really only have yourself to blame.
Why would you make this into a personal thing? It's not a personal thing. I don't have any STDs, to my knowledge.
>>24407641
This.
It's hilarious how defensive normies get when you bring up the topic of herpes.
>>24407844
>Can you provide citations? Is the effect great enough that it justifies the harm done to people?
Yes to both.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19053382/ns/health-sexual_health/t/free-love-was-there-price-pay/
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/epid-std.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598671/
Notice how all of these coincide with the 60s and the "Summer of Love" where people started to be much more openly sexual and began dropping the aspect of shaming people who are promiscuous.
I would point out the specific portions in the articles themselves, but unfortunately I can't copy-paste them on /r9k/ thanks to our robot overlords.
>Do we have good evidence of that? Do you have evidence that the sexual revolution coincided with STD acceptance? I don't think it did.
See above.
There are quite a few studies on this anon.
Google up.
>Either way, the sexual revolution was a major societal shift in many other respects apart from more permissive attitudes
Such as?
>Why would you make this into a personal thing?
I mean "you" in the general sense, not necessarily you personally.
>>24408048
Jesus, I fucked that image up.
>>24408064
And for context, that's measuring the initial number of visits for people who were diagnosed with genital herpes.
>>24407565
>Unfortunately, there are plenty of shitty people out there that wouldn't tell their partner that they have an STD until it's too late.
I agree it's unfortunate, but people are still free to request that their partners provide their medical records to them before they have sex with them. Given that nothing is preventing any individual from opting in to this radical measure, it's not justified to make people's records public without their consent even for the sake of STD eradication.
>"Avoid" in this context very clearly means sexually anon.
I'm glad we have that sorted out. It was not by any means clear to me, given that you are advocating shaming, and shunning is very much in line with that, and repeatedly used language that could be read as advocating isolating these people from society.
>>24407637
>How is teaching people to learn the risk signs...
I was referring to abstaining from sex altogether or just with risky partners here. Not sex education, which I'm 100% in support of. And I did not mean a monetary cost. I meant the cost in limited dating options and lost opportunities for sex.
Do you think there are people in your community who would still date someone who has an STD if they knew about it? That is what I was referring to. You meet someone and really like them, and suddenly herpes doesn't feel like a big deal anymore.
I haven't heard of any cases near me where someone would have lied about their disease status to a partner. People are pretty honest and responsible for the most part, and STD rates are low to begin with. I understand your views a bit better now, I'm sure if people got burned for trusting their partners all the time around me I'd feel pretty hostile toward people with STDs too.
But it seems intuitive to me that the less shameful having an STD is, the more people are likely to be forthcoming and responsible about it, and that shaming is only making things worse by incentivizing dishonesty.
ive been clean of anything and healthy my whole life to bh and i credit that to staying away from normie culture
>>24408181
>Given that nothing is preventing any individual from opting in to this radical measure, it's not justified to make people's records public without their consent even for the sake of STD eradication.
Except the stigma that your kind is creating around it by calling it "shaming."
Even if you don't agree with that being referred to as shaming, by not speaking out against it you only allow it to continue.
>I meant the cost in limited dating options and lost opportunities for sex.
That's not really a cost.
Dating is useless if the relationship isn't going to lead to children due to a disease, and a lost opportunity for sex is equally useless if there are no children being born.
Sex for sex sake isn't really an opportunity, it's on the same level as masturbation.
>Do you think there are people in your community who would still date someone who has an STD if they knew about it?
Probably not.
Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
>You meet someone and really like them, and suddenly herpes doesn't feel like a big deal anymore.
Yea, this is really a white mindset.
It's one thing to be open about it, and sure, we can still be friends, but most people where I live wouldn't actively expose themselves to an incurable disease just for some sex and "young love."
>I haven't heard of any cases near me where someone would have lied about their disease status to a partner.
I have, hence why there are people who look out for that.
Hell, my cousin almost went out with a girl who had HIV until one of his friends told him about it.
>But it seems intuitive to me that the less shameful having an STD is, the more people are likely to be forthcoming and responsible about it, and that shaming is only making things worse by incentivizing dishonesty.
The thing is, there is no case where "incentivizing" dishonesty is acceptable.
If you'd feel that the shame associated with having an STD is "incentivizing" relationship dishonesty, you'd probably be a pretty shitty person to begin with.
I hope everyone realizes this is about non STD herpes, the one that doesn't affect you at all unless you have break outs. Most people who have it (85%) are asymptomatic. You more than likely have it and dont know it, and it doesn't matter.
>>24408423
m8, HSV-1 is still considered an STD.
>>24408048
>Notice how all of these coincide with the 60s and the "Summer of Love" where people started to be much more openly sexual and began dropping the aspect of shaming people who are promiscuous.
Okay, looked at your sources. A naive interpretation of the last one (the others aren't really appropriate) would seem to show that STD rates have indeed risen since the 1960s. Maybe they have, and I don't really have reason to believe otherwise. But I definitely don't consider it proven.
Also my earlier reservations still apply. A lot of other things changed during that same time as well, and sometimes things just happen at the same time and neither causes the other.
>>24408064
>>24408083
How does it relate to population? Improved access to medical care? Improved diagnostic tools? How about...increased likelihood to consult doctor due to decreased stigma?
>>24408475
>A lot of other things changed during that same time as well
And how many of them would result in increased STD infection rates?
>>24408475
>How does it relate to population? Improved access to medical care? Improved diagnostic tools? How about...increased likelihood to consult doctor due to decreased stigma?
Anon, re-read my post.
It's for visits of people who are CONFIRMED diagnosed with genital herpes, not for people who were LATER diagnosed with herpes.
And there isn't any increased or decreased stigma regarding consulting a doctor due to doctor-patient confidentiality.
>>24402345
>sucked a gf whore 5 years ago
>it appeared the next day
>obviously herpes by that whore
>also no condom because Im not a fag
I think my body doesnt react to herpes haven't had it since then it went away as it came.
>>24408286
>Except the stigma that your kind is creating around it by calling it "shaming."
It isn't shaming if someone requests medical data from their partner. I've done that.
It's an entirely private choice and a reflection of one's individual values as they relate to their life choices. It's not an attempt to control others.
It's an important, although not necessary, condition of shaming that it is public. While privacy doesn't exclude shaming, it strongly hints the other way.
>That's not really a cost.
Yes it is, in the sense used in economics where everything you have to give up to get something is a cost. Whatever you call it, it's the kind of thing that people base their decisions on.
>Dating is useless if the relationship isn't going to lead to children due to a disease
STDs only rarely cause infertility, if treated. Even an active infection doesn't prevent pregnancy.
All the people who don't want children or want children later with some other partner and still want to date disagree with you, and they make their decisions based on what they believe, not on what you believe. Proceed assuming that a lot of people will date without considering children.
>>Do you think there are people in your community who would still date someone who has an STD if they knew about it?
>Probably not.
>Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
Not good or bad. I would have assumed it was unrealistic. Evidently not.
>The thing is, there is no case where "incentivizing" dishonesty is acceptable.
But you're the one who's suggesting we should incentivize dishonesty. That is what shaming does. It provides an incentive to lie.
>If you'd feel that the shame associated with having an STD is "incentivizing" relationship dishonesty, you'd probably be a pretty shitty person to begin with.
Maybe. But if we really care about reducing STDs, then we definitely need to influence shitty people. Perhaps shitty people more than anyone else. They're the ones who spread them.
>>24408742
>It isn't shaming if someone requests medical data from their partner. I've done that.
Right, but there are people out there who believe that it is.
I'm sure you know of their existence anon.
>Yes it is, in the sense used in economics where everything you have to give up to get something is a cost.
But you're not giving up anything.
You can still have opportunities for sex, and limited dating options aren't costs since humans do that naturally.
That's literally how sexual selection works, our dating options are ALWAYS limited, so calling it a cost when it's something that will always be incurred regardless makes no sense.
>STDs only rarely cause infertility, if treated. Even an active infection doesn't prevent pregnancy.
I'm also referring to infant mortality, complications during childbirth, later deaths of children caused by weakened immune systems, etc. etc.
>All the people who don't want children or want children later with some other partner and still want to date disagree with you
That's fine, but that doesn't make it any more useless.
Them disagreeing with me won't make their stance any more valid.
>I would have assumed it was unrealistic. Evidently not.
Yea, there's clearly a cultural disconnect here.
Where do you live exactly? That might explain it.
>But you're the one who's suggesting we should incentivize dishonesty.
What I mean is that if someone shaming you incentivizes you to be dishonest, you're probably a shitty person to begin with.
>But if we really care about reducing STDs, then we definitely need to influence shitty people.
Right, through public medical records (at least regarding STDs) so they can't lie.
STDs are something that put others at risk, they should be made public just like criminal records, since those also put others at risk.
>tfw you inherited herpes from parents and can't be a robot anymore
why
>>24408547
>And how many of them would result in increased STD infection rates?
Oh, as many as you can think of. Technological breakthroughs and economic booms might, for instance, make travel more affordable to more people, which might lead to a larger network of sexual relationships without necessarily any increase in the average number of partners which might lead to vastly increased numbers of STD infections. They don't even have to be intuitive.
>It's for visits of people who are CONFIRMED diagnosed with genital herpes, not for people who were LATER diagnosed with herpes.
On rereading, I can't see how this invalidates my concerns. People might have just not seen a doctor before despite symptoms, if they couldn't afford it, if there wasn't a doctor within a 50 mile radius, or if they were too mortified. Herpes infections might have gone undiagnosed earlier, then seemingly exploded, when all that changed was that we were better able to recognize them. The Y-axis is labeled "visits in thousands", and to make sense of how that relates to changes in STD rates you need to, at the very least, know how the relevant population size developed.
>And there isn't any increased or decreased stigma regarding consulting a doctor due to doctor-patient confidentiality.
This isn't how people work. If they're ashamed, then even just the doctor and themselves knowing about it, even just suffering through the consultation, will keep some people from seeing a doctor.
>>24403846
Wtf, do 90% of Amerifats really have this!?
>>24408937
>Technological breakthroughs and economic booms might, for instance, make travel more affordable to more people, which might lead to a larger network of sexual relationships without necessarily any increase in the average number of partners
But that still ties back to the sexual revolution.
People were free to explore exotic countries and since people were more lax about sex, they had much more sex.
>On rereading, I can't see how this invalidates my concerns. People might have just not seen a doctor before despite symptoms, if they couldn't afford it, if there wasn't a doctor within a 50 mile radius, or if they were too mortified.
All of these are still things that could occur today, so it doesn't explain the increase at all.
>Herpes infections might have gone undiagnosed earlier, then seemingly exploded, when all that changed was that we were better able to recognize them.
m8, herpes has been a known disease for literally 2000 years, we've known the symptoms of it forever.
>The Y-axis is labeled "visits in thousands", and to make sense of how that relates to changes in STD rates you need to, at the very least, know how the relevant population size developed.
Did you read the link that the image comes from?
>This isn't how people work. If they're ashamed, then even just the doctor and themselves knowing about it, even just suffering through the consultation, will keep some people from seeing a doctor.
But again, that shame would still exist today.
If they're ashamed regardless of what society thinks, then why would that not still be the case?
>>24404444
>Pic related: the MAJORITY of people have genitals that look like this at least once every few months
This has to be a joke. You guys are tricking me.
>>24404535
Jesus, herpesfags are worse than cutfags.
>>24408846
>there are people out there who believe that it is.
I don't believe this, but what do you suggest be done about it if it was true? How is it relevant to the topic? Are you saying that because these people are ignorant of the views of STD acceptance advocates, and this may lead them to make worse choices, then STD acceptance advocates should stop promoting their views? That doesn't even solve the problem.
>You can still have opportunities for sex, and limited dating options aren't costs since humans do that naturally
True, but you gave up THAT opportunity, or THAT partner. Partners are not interchangeable, so ruling out even one partner as an option is a cost (although negligible, unless you're in love).
>our dating options are ALWAYS limited, so calling it a cost when it's something that will always be incurred regardless makes no sense.
You have 100 dollars, your means are limited. I take 50 dollars from you. Your means are still limited and were always limited. It makes no sense to argue it cost you anything.
>I'm also referring to infant mortality, complications during childbirth, later deaths of children caused by weakened immune systems, etc. etc.
The majority of people in this situation get away with no ill effects. People are willing to tolerate some risk. That is only rational.
>What I mean is that if someone shaming you incentivizes you to be dishonest, you're probably a shitty person to begin with.
And? Your judgment isn't going to change these people, we're stuck with dealing with them and have to account for their shittiness if we're to achieve our goals.
>Right, through public medical records (at least regarding STDs) so they can't lie.
But this hurts everyone. The right to privacy is lost.
Also, it introduces another perverse incentive. People will stop getting tested, if a positive result is a bigger problem than an untreated disease. As will happen if it's public knowledge.
the tip of my upper lip looks like it has those herpes spots but its not inflamed. it looked like this for most of my life until I assume I burned it so I assumed it was a blister scar or something.
fuck my life. I've never even kissed a girl once.
>>24409405
>I don't believe this, but what do you suggest be done about it if it was true?
Speaking out against it?
Telling them that that's not what you stand for?
Otherwise you're always going to be lumped in with them.
>True, but you gave up THAT opportunity, or THAT partner. Partners are not interchangeable, so ruling out even one partner as an option is a cost
Ehh, I'd argue that if you're avoiding an infectious disease it's not really a cost.
If anything, that's a benefit.
>You have 100 dollars, your means are limited. I take 50 dollars from you.
That's a horrible analogy.
A better analogy would be, I have $100, but $50 are actually counterfeit, and you take $50 in counterfeit bills from me.
In theory, I've dodged a bullet, since actually trying to make use of those $50 could have gotten me arrested.
>The majority of people in this situation get away with no ill effects. People are willing to tolerate some risk. That is only rational.
Not when the risk is a permanent illness/disease.
That's just being careless.
>And? Your judgment isn't going to change these people, we're stuck with dealing with them and have to account for their shittiness if we're to achieve our goals.
Right, I agree, hence why I suggested what I did.
>But this hurts everyone.
How?
This is only for STDs, so who else would this hurt?
Your right to privacy can only exist if you are responsible and inform others, and since shitty people cannot be controlled, all those infected will have to suffer.
Like you said, we have to account for their shittiness.
>Also, it introduces another perverse incentive. People will stop getting tested, if a positive result is a bigger problem than an untreated disease.
Then make STD testing mandatory.
We already have plenty of other vaccinations and disease screenings that are mandatory, why would this be any different?
We really need an augmented reality program with a database of the disgusting contagious diseases people have, like in Higashi no Eden.
>OMG, STDs are normal, no one cares
>WAAH, YOU CAN'T LET PEOPLE KNOW I HAVE AN STD :'(
Normie logic.
>>24409098
>People were free to explore exotic countries and since people were more lax about sex, they had much more sex.
I don't agree that this is known. I'm skeptical that people had that much more sex instead of just being more honest about it, and I'm skeptical that it happened because of relaxed attitudes, and not the other way around as is typical.
Anyway, this has come very far from the original point you were making, which was that all of this justifies shaming and shows its efficacy. It does neither. I don't accept that STD shaming decreased when the sexual revolution happened, I don't accept that possible evidence of the efficacy of sexual shaming is translatable to STD shaming, I don't accept that occurring at the same time shows causality. Unless you demonstrate it of course.
>All of these are still things that could occur today, so it doesn't explain the increase at all.
All of those things are also things that could plausibly, and even have probably generally improved in the relevant timeframe. I would go so far as to say that our diagnostic criteria have not regressed, and that access to healthcare has improved. Note that I'm listing plausible alternative explanations. You should be able to rule them out, not just show that they might not be true.
>>24409098
>herpes has been a known disease for literally 2000 years, we've known the symptoms of it forever.
But our microbiology labs are much better and much more common now than they were 50 years ago. If the doctors were eyeballing it at the start of the 1960s, the improvement will have been even bigger. They do take swabs these days, that's part of the diagnostic criteria for genital herpes.
>Did you read the link that the image comes from?
Skimmed. Having looked at it more closely, okay, population growth only explains a small part of the change.
>that shame would still exist today.
I think we agree that it's less shameful than in 1960, at least I think you were trying to argue that earlier.
>If they're ashamed regardless of what society thinks, then why would that not still be the case?
They've been taught it's shameful, so they're ashamed. That comes from society.
>>24409889
>I'm skeptical that people had that much more sex instead of just being more honest about it
During the Sexual Revolution?
Are you serious?
>I don't accept that STD shaming decreased when the sexual revolution happened
The entire sexual revolution was characterized by more open and accepting views towards sex, why would that not include STD normalization?
I'm not sure what you would accept as actual proof, seems to me like you just don't want to budge from your position.
>All of those things are also things that could plausibly, and even have probably generally improved in the relevant timeframe
Actually, healthcare costs are more expensive now than ever, so people would be much less likely to visit a doctor now than they were in the 60s due to not being able to afford it.
http://www.businessinsider.com/healthcare-costs-have-exploded-since-1960-2014-4
Not to mention finding a doctor that accepts your specific healthcare plan is also harder than it's ever been, which discourages people from visiting the doctor.
>>24409918
>But our microbiology labs are much better and much more common now than they were 50 years ago. If the doctors were eyeballing it at the start of the 1960s, the improvement will have been even bigger.
They've known about it for nearly a century anon, and were diagnosing and attempting to treat it during WW2.
>I think we agree that it's less shameful than in 1960, at least I think you were trying to argue that earlier.
It is, the sexual revolution began in the mid 1960s, hence why it's less shameful now than it was before the start of the sexual revolution (1960).
>They've been taught it's shameful, so they're ashamed. That comes from society.
But anon, you yourself stated that it's not seen as shameful, you've gone on and on about how people don't see STDs as a big deal anymore.
Are you implying that the shame comes from what you see as a small minority, like me?
That makes absolutely no sense.
AM DR.OBHIOTOR FROM AFRICAN Are you heart broken because you are infected with HIV/AIDS,HERPES STROK,GONORRHEA,SYPHILLS,HEPAITIS B, ULCER PILES AND CANCER DISEASE,I am a professional herbal doctor studied in India and work there also for 6 years before coming back to african, I specialized in all type of sickness both HIV,HERPES, STROCK, GONORRHEA, SYHILLS, HEPAITIS B, ULCER PILES, AND CANCER,and any types of diseases. All you need to do is to email me on [email protected] or call+2347064851317 for help....
>>24403057
>born just in time to reclaim the world from normalcancer
>>24404467
Please get poz'd up you sickening whore :)
>>24402694
You don't get the simple kind through sex.
You get it through sharing cups or other utensils with your family. It's why 50-80% of the population has it.
>That one faggot who argues with everyone in the thread
>>24409541
>Otherwise you're always going to be lumped in with them.
Oh, you meant that there are people who are pro acceptance who think it's shaming if you ask for medical records. I misunderstood you.
Well, no, I didn't know they exist. I retract my earlier reply, it all makes sense now.
>'d argue that if you're avoiding an infectious disease it's not really a cost.
Whatever you give up in order to avoid infectious disease is the cost of avoiding infectious disease. This is standard use of terminology.
>That's a horrible analogy.
You don't seem to quite grasp what I'm getting at here. You may not value sex with partners whose lab results you don't have notarized and in triplicate. I get that. But can you also appreciate that other people feel differently, so the option is genuinely worth something to them, and they may not be willing to give it up lightly? It is a cost, trivially small for you, but significant for some.
>This is only for STDs, so who else would this hurt?
Everyone who values their privacy.
>Your right to privacy can only exist if you are responsible and inform others, and since shitty people cannot be controlled, all those infected will have to suffer.
I am responsible, and I am not willing to give up my right to privacy.
>Like you said, we have to account for their shittiness.
I didn't mean we have to personally bear responsibility for it by giving up our rights. I meant we have to make decisions acknowledging the fact of their shittiness.
>Then make STD testing mandatory.
>We already have plenty of other vaccinations and disease screenings that are mandatory, why would this be any different?
1) I don't think they're actually mandatory, are they?
2) I could actually support (voluntary) regular STD screenings for the general population. I wonder if a cost-benefit analysis of that has been done. Either way, it's quite likely to be a cost issue. It's more efficient to let people decide if they need tests or not, they're likely to know best.
I'm not infected but my mother has herpes. Apparently she was smart enough about it to not kiss me with her herpes mouth. She always made sure I wouldn't give her kisses as a kid when she had a outbreak.
I suppose I could be infected, but I haven't had any sort of outbreak before and I'm 25. Thanks mommy.
Britbong here. Never met anyone with this. Is it a clapfat thing?
>>24410357
>Everyone who values their privacy.
Oh please, most people value their security, their comfort, and their convenience much more than their privacy, yourself included.
That's why you have things like Facebook, Twitter, a smartphone, etc. etc.
>I am responsible, and I am not willing to give up my right to privacy.
That's nice, but unfortunately, as you stated, we have to account for the worst.
>I didn't mean we have to personally bear responsibility for it by giving up our rights. I meant we have to make decisions acknowledging the fact of their shittiness.
Right, and you have to create laws that reflect this.
What would you suggest?
>1) I don't think they're actually mandatory, are they?
They are.
It varies from state to state though.
>It's more efficient to let people decide if they need tests or not, they're likely to know best.
You vastly overestimate the average person anon.
>>24410493
You won't notice someone has it, outbreaks are so far apart and people tend to hide it during a outbreak or you just think it's a zit.
Have you meant someone who said they have a cold sore? That's the same exact thing as oral herpes.
>>24410086
>During the Sexual Revolution?
>Are you serious?
Yes.
>The entire sexual revolution was characterized by more open and accepting views towards sex, why would that not include STD normalization?
For any number of reasons. It's kind of on you to show my doubt is not reasonable. I think you're actually wrong here. STD awareness in general was low at that time, it was too shameful a topic to even discuss in polite company, and STD acceptance probably really only became a thing in the 90s because there were for the first time people with an actually meaningful (as opposed to herpes or HPV, which are barely observable in a majority of cases) incurable STD who had to live with it.
>I'm not sure what you would accept as actual proof
I would accept actual scientific evidence as evidence for a causal connection between shaming and lower STD rates. Several, cross-cultural studies, under as many different conditions as possible. Longitudinal would be awesome, although I can't imagine how that could be done. Maybe in China.
>They've known about it for nearly a century anon, and were diagnosing and attempting to treat it during WW2.
This doesn't mean diagnostic measures haven't improved since then. It would be very surprising if they hadn't.
>you yourself stated that it's not seen as shameful, you've gone on and on about how people don't see STDs as a big deal anymore.
No I haven't? If I thought that, why would I care if a few people are actively pro-shaming? I'm arguing people in general SHOULDN'T see them as a big deal. When I argued that some people don't see them as a big deal, it was to demonstrate that people make individual choices about who to have sex with for various reasons. That some people might be upset if they were not given the option of having sex with someone who has herpes.
>Are you implying that the shame comes from what you see as a small minority, like me?
No. There's a shift going on, and it could still go either way.
>>24410468
Bro-tier mum.
>>24410523
>Oh please, most people value their security, their comfort, and their convenience much more than their privacy, yourself included.
So what? I'm not willing to give up my right to any of these things. And actually I don't have facebook or twitter, precisely because I do value my privacy.
>What would you suggest?
I've already told you. Destigmatize STDs, so they have less incentives to lie. Also improve sex education. Free or low-cost easily accessible testing.
>You vastly overestimate the average person anon.
Not at all. On the scale of populations, the average person can be very clueless indeed and still beat a one-size-fits-all solution in terms of efficiency.
>>24410657
>Yes.
Then you're a fool.
>For any number of reasons. It's kind of on you to show my doubt is not reasonable. I think you're actually wrong here. STD awareness in general was low at that time, it was too shameful a topic to even discuss in polite company, and STD acceptance probably really only became a thing in the 90s because there were for the first time people with an actually meaningful (as opposed to herpes or HPV, which are barely observable in a majority of cases) incurable STD who had to live with it.
Anon, the sexual revolution was from the mid 60s to the late 70s.
That was when STD acceptance was a lot more widespread (though it was mainly with the "free love" hippies.
>I would accept actual scientific evidence as evidence for a causal connection between shaming and lower STD rates. Several, cross-cultural studies, under as many different conditions as possible.
Well first of all, that can't really reliably be done, as the sexual revolution occurred in different countries at different times.
What would you consider actual scientific evidence that a correlation exists?
>No I haven't?
>>24407339
>Again, many people just don't consider STDs a big deal.
Unless you're just misusing the word "many."
>That some people might be upset if they were not given the option of having sex with someone who has herpes.
I can't think of many people who would think like that unless they were actively self-destructive.
