Art_Critic Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Like I said, let the people with first hand experience speak to the costs and drawbacks. Well now.. if it wasn't for someone without first hand experience mentioning it and bringing it up then it would never have been mentioned... and honestly. it should've been... I mentioned 10's of thousands but the real reality is that it could cost someone who was on suppressive therapy each year using valtrex and didn't have insurance a whole lot more over a lifetime than what I mentioned. If you listen to the democrats then most people aren't insured and if you apply everyone else's statistic to those numbers then there is a lot of people out there who are having trouble affording the medicine for herpes.. Okay.. the last part I was stretching.. but you see my point... Link to post Share on other sites
macon Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Exactly - nutshell got it in a nutshell! (bad bad joke) It's very easy to present personal uninformed opinion as fact, but that's dangerous for everyone. Of course we can all comment - debate is stronger for it - but be upfront about your knowledge/experience. Nutshell, a question for you - why do you take acyclovir? I guess I'm only curious as to severity, or is it something they started you on and you just have never tried without? As I said, I've never bought any medication, beyond the first outbreak when the NHS gave me a course. I find I only get one every year or two, and it's just mildly irritating - like an oral coldsore would be I imagine. Link to post Share on other sites
macon Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 "Here's how I see it. If someone doesn't want to date me because I don't have the ideal bodyshape he wants, that's okay. I don't have D or Double-D cups or a bubble bottom. If he needs to have this to be sexually attracted, he's welcome to find someone who does. It's really okay. It's his choice." Absolutely it's his choice. But if he wouldn't date you because of your skin colour would that be ok? Of course it would still be his choice so that's fine. But if it became a case of he wouldn't sit next to you on the bus because of your skin colour - is that still just an ok choice to make? Do you see what I'm getting at here? Choice is important, but we should be able to challenge choices. In fact if we don't then no one evolves or changes or improves. I've had several friends open my eyes about opinions I hold by discussing their opposing ones. If they'd just said "your choice, that's fine" I'd have missed out on some enlightening conversations Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Much of this STD discussion is based on personal insecurities. No one is universally appealing to everyone. If your dating pool is limited because of the STD, well, we all have limited dating pools whether it's because we personally have a list of requirements for our mates, or someone else has a list that we don't fit into. Link to post Share on other sites
macon Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Artcritic, are you just ignoring the fact that there are several of us here who don't spend anything? Shouldn't you factor that in to your opinion now that you're better informed? Link to post Share on other sites
Nutshell Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Okay.. the last part I was stretching.. but you see my point... I do but it means little to me personally since I pay far, far less than what you assumed it costs. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Absolutely it's his choice. But if he wouldn't date you because of your skin colour would that be ok? Of course it would still be his choice so that's fine. But if it became a case of he wouldn't sit next to you on the bus because of your skin colour - is that still just an ok choice to make? Do you see what I'm getting at here? Choice is important, but we should be able to challenge choices. In fact if we don't then no one evolves or changes or improves. I've had several friends open my eyes about opinions I hold by discussing their opposing ones. If they'd just said "your choice, that's fine" I'd have missed out on some enlightening conversations Do people not sit next to you when they know you have an STD? Link to post Share on other sites
macon Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 I'm not sure what that question is supposed to do - are you having trouble following the analogy of the hypothetical bus/race choice Trialbyfire? Link to post Share on other sites
Nutshell Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Nutshell, a question for you - why do you take acyclovir? I guess I'm only curious as to severity, or is it something they started you on and you just have never tried without? As I said, I've never bought any medication, beyond the first outbreak when the NHS gave me a course. I find I only get one every year or two, and it's just mildly irritating - like an oral coldsore would be I imagine. It was what was recommended to me given the frequency and severity of outbreaks and how long I had the virus. I also prefer not to take medication unless I really need to so only taking it during outbreaks, rather than every day, appealed to me. I've never tried Valtrex because the Acyclovir works for me. I get an outbreak, take pills 3 times a day for 5 days, and the outbreak goes away. I've mentioned this before but I find having a cold to be much more inconvenient and uncomfortable than a herpes outbreak. Link to post Share on other sites
macon Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Sounds like I have it much milder than you - lucky me to get into the bigger percentage Now if only I could sort out my indigestion - much bigger problem and a 1000 times more annoying Link to post Share on other sites
blind_otter Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Do you see what I'm getting at here? Choice is important, but we should be able to challenge choices. In fact if we don't then no one evolves or changes or improves. I've had several friends open my eyes about opinions I hold by discussing their opposing ones. If they'd just said "your choice, that's fine" I'd have missed out on some enlightening conversations I would agree with you, except we are talking about dating/having sex with someone. It's the last frontier of personal preference. The one place where odd idiosynchrasies and fetishes are allowed free reign. I don't care if someone doesn't want to date me because of race, religion, political preference. When it comes to having sex, everyone should have the right to their bizarre, random preferences. In fact, as a point of order, I have to say - I don't care if they don't want to sit with me/associate with me because of my race, either. But that's just me. The thing about sexual selection criteria is that it's based on the individual - so the truth of the matter is that no matter how hard or passionately you argue to someone who won't date blonds that they are missing out on a great possibility by not dating blonds, I tend to think that that someone, after all the discussion, debate, and fact sharing, will still not date blonds. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 I'm not sure what that question is supposed to do - are you having trouble following the analogy of the hypothetical bus/race choice Trialbyfire? Answer the question. Link to post Share on other sites
macon Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 No, don't mistake me, I do believe in personal choice - absolutely 100%. I'm just saying that we shouldn't be prevented from talking about an issue just because someone has invoked "personal choice". We should still be allowed to discuss a choice - not with a view to forcing someone to change it - but with a view to offering our different opinion, perhaps some facts to someone who has made a choice based on inaccuracies - in short, to help and inform each other. Whatever choices I make I am happy to discuss with others, and I try not to feel threatened by different opinions. If my opinion can't stand up to someone else's questions, then maybe I need to learn more, and maybe I need to change it. Who knows? I like to be open to these possibilities, and I do feel that being closed to them is a very detrimental thing - to yourself, and to society as a whole. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Let's draw a further parallel to the race analogy: For the sake of this discussion, let's pretend the race is one with purple skin. Can you get purple skin from sleeping with someone purple? No. Can you get HSV from sleeping with someone who's got it? Yes. Major difference. It's okay to not want a disease. It's okay to not kiss your SO when they have the flu. Link to post Share on other sites
macon Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Ok, if it makes you happy. I don't ride the bus thanks - I live in London and drive a lovely car Still have absolutely no idea what your question has to do with anything. Now, your turn to respond to mine - are you having trouble understanding the analogy? Do you understand it? Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Ok, if it makes you happy. I don't ride the bus thanks - I live in London and drive a lovely car Still have absolutely no idea what your question has to do with anything. Now, your turn to respond to mine - are you having trouble understanding the analogy? Do you understand it? Refer to my expansion of your analogy. Link to post Share on other sites
macon Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Ah, clearly you don't understand the analogy. I was talking about choice and the point at which choices may need to be challenged. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Ah, clearly you don't understand the analogy. I was talking about choice and the point at which choices may need to be challenged. I do clearly understand your analogy. I just don't agree that your analogy is applicable. Not wanting to sleep with someone who has something you don't want to catch is very different from being racially discriminated over. Link to post Share on other sites
macon Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 You didn't expand the analogy. You used a minor element of it and twisted it to fit another comparison that has nothing to do with what I was trying to show. But to respond: "Can you get purple skin from sleeping with someone purple? No. Can you get HSV from sleeping with someone who's got it? Yes. Major difference." And your point is? I have never disputed that you can get an STD by sleeping with someone - I don't think anyone here has. I am very aware that race is non-transferable. Your analogy of an STD with race is actually, I would imagine, quite offensive to some people. Can you not understand that I was responding to your assertion that we should not challenge personal choice. I was trying to illustrate a scenario where perhaps we should question personal choice? The use of the bus and the race analogy were merely tools to illustrate this - I could have been talking about any form of prejudice whatsoever. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 You didn't expand the analogy. You used a minor element of it and twisted it to fit another comparison that has nothing to do with what I was trying to show. But to respond: "Can you get purple skin from sleeping with someone purple? No. Can you get HSV from sleeping with someone who's got it? Yes. Major difference." And your point is? I have never disputed that you can get an STD by sleeping with someone - I don't think anyone here has. I am very aware that race is non-transferable. Your analogy of an STD with race is actually, I would imagine, quite offensive to some people. Can you not understand that I was responding to your assertion that we should not challenge personal choice. I was trying to illustrate a scenario where perhaps we should question personal choice? The use of the bus and the race analogy were merely tools to illustrate this - I could have been talking about any form of prejudice whatsoever. What I did was expand on your original analogy of race v. STDs. You view it as an unacceptable prejudice that people would be concerned about contracting an STD and would sever/reject sexual relationships with people who are infected. All I did was to illustrate the difference, using a similar analogy of race v. STD. Rejection due to not wanting to contract an STD is okay. If anything, it might help to limit the spread of STDs, if people took it more seriously. Link to post Share on other sites
macon Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 What I did was expand on your original analogy of race v. STDs. " No, my analogy was about choice and when it is acceptable to question personal choice. Race was just a prejudice I chose to illustrate this. I seem to have to repeat myself constantly here ... "You view it as an unacceptable prejudice that people would be concerned about contracting an STD and would sever/reject sexual relationships with people who are infected." No, I never said it was an unacceptable prejudice that people would be concerned about contracting an STD. I've always practiced safe sex because I also believe in not contracting STDs! What I have learned is that sex is never 100% safe, and that it is important to be armed with facts, not fiction. I've also learned that the reason we think some STDs are so alarming is MAINLY down to the stigma we ourselves create as a society. I want to question that. I am aware that the majority of us have this disease - that's THE MAJORITY. Why are most of us not properly informed about it? Why are most of us throwing out inaccuracies like they're absolute fact, and using those 'facts' to perpetuate fear and make those who have it feel terrible about themselves? And because of this misinformation, that some seem to enjoy spreading, most of us see it as a much scarier thing than it is. We shouldn't - most of us have it and I would just like us to see it and talk about it realistically. "All I did was to illustrate the difference, using a similar analogy of race v. STD." You seem incapable of understanding what I'm saying, so I'm going to stop repeating myself (boring for me and boring for you) and leave it there with you Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 To expand on taking STDs seriously, pandagirl wouldn't be in this position if her cheating ex had taken the risk of STDs seriously. Same might be said for you macon, although I have no idea how you contracted it. If you knowingly contracted it by sleeping with someone who was infected, you are where you are due to personal choice. Did you get it from someone who you knew had the STD? Link to post Share on other sites
macon Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 You seem to be operating from some assumed moral high ground here - as you say you have no idea about my circumstance. Why don't you stop being so quick to judge others and try and speak to people more respectfully? You never know, you might learn something. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Not at all. What I'd like to know is if any of the people advocating acceptance of sleeping with someone with an STD, made the same choice themselves and contracted it through personal choice. Link to post Share on other sites
macon Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 I would imagine most people who contract STDs contract unknowingly - that's because a large portion of people don't know they're infected, and many don't realise that all sexual activity carries a risk. A condom does not protect you against everything all of the time. You should practice safe sex, but just as important you should educate yourself so that you know every time you choose to share that intimate act with someone you are putting yourself at risk. Once you know the facts you may not be as fearful as before, and you may not be as quick to condemn those who carry STDs. With herpes specifically, virtually everyone carries it - so really with those statistics it's ridiculous to assert you are definitely clear, and ridiculous to condemn others. I know of one couple where one partner contracted knowingly - but that was after marriage, children, and 10 years of unprotected sex Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts