Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/65767/

One thing I'd add to the (good) answers given is to make sure she's been tested for STDs. Maybe that would make people squeamish or embarrassed, but if you've been sexually active, that comes with the territory, and the new boyfriend has a right to know, in my opinion.

You know, I'm not sure that one previous sexual partner exactly qualifies as "sexually active." Plus, if said boyfriend had no previous partners, that makes the chance for an STD virtually nil.

Agreed with both of you. Agreed with Marduk on "sexually active" and likelihood. Agreed with Portia that she should get tested; you cannot be too sure. The guy she slept with might have said she was the only girl he slept with, but she can't be sure of that. She should ask for it as part of a pre-marital exam.

And although we all like to think we're immune because we weren't sexually active, a little boy in my neighborhood almost got AIDS from playing in his back yard and he found a used needle. And a couple in my ward had AIDS, despite complete fidelity, due to a blood transfusion while he was on his mission. So STDs are a concern anyway, although significantly less so if you aren't sexually active.

Hence the "virtually." Slightly off topic; for that reason STD screening would be a good idea when marrying (or planning to have sex with) anyone who has ever used intravenous drugs, regardless of level of sexual activity.

Unit of Energy wrote:And although we all like to think we're immune because we weren't sexually active, a little boy in my neighborhood almost got AIDS from playing in his back yard and he found a used needle.

Wait wait wait, you can't almost get AIDS. You either get it or you don't get it. And the virus that causes HIV can only survive outside of a temperature range of ~98.6 degrees for a few minutes anyway, so the chances of getting AIDS that way are impossibly small. I just don't think there needs to be more hysteria about it than is already warranted.

Also, Marduk, do you think there would be a problem in this situation with asking your significant other if they had been screened for STDs? I mean, the girl must already feel mortified and asking her to be screened for STDs would only add to that, but if memory serves, hers was not a one-time act, even if it was all with the same person. More sexual encounters, even with one person, means more chances for the other person in the scenario to have contracted something in the meantime. You can't be sure about another person's behavior. Do I think it is strictly necessary for the dude in this situation to ask the lady to be screened? No. Is it within his rights? Absolutely. I expect as much of my partners, and I've been screened more than once myself. It's just good practice.

And if I was going to sleep with someone who had been an IV drug user, I would INSIST that they be screened before sex, condom or no. Oh the things drug addicts pick up from each other.

Just reread the question. "Fairly serious problems" with the Law of Chastity is ambiguous, so to be clear, I only think that making someone in this situation get tested for STDs is in any way vaguely necessary if they have had intercourse with someone more than once over a semi-extended period of time. That is, of course, if they really believe that the other person involved was completely celibate outside of their sexual relationship since the world began. If not, get tested anyway. It's an easy enough process.

TheBlackSheep wrote:

Unit of Energy wrote:And although we all like to think we're immune because we weren't sexually active, a little boy in my neighborhood almost got AIDS from playing in his back yard and he found a used needle.

Wait wait wait, you can't almost get AIDS. You either get it or you don't get it. And the virus that causes HIV can only survive outside of a temperature range of ~98.6 degrees for a few minutes anyway, so the chances of getting AIDS that way are impossibly small. I just don't think there needs to be more hysteria about it than is already warranted.

I don't see "almost getting AIDS" is any less possible than "almost" doing anything else. You could say the same thing about death: you either die, or you live; but you can also "almost" die. I can also almost drink some water, by putting this water bottle to my lips, but not do it. Not that I'm saying that it's true about that particular boy, or that this is a good figure of speech to use here.

Yeah, but "almost" is an insanely ambigious term. I think that's the point. And TBS, I agree with what you've said; as with anything involving any sort of what the church considers a serious sin, it needs to be approached with tact and understanding, as well as love.

As to your second comment, I'd just like to point out that we need to include oral sex in that analysis. Some people still think that you can't get STD's from oral sex (seriously people?) and when it comes to being uninformed about sex, Mormons just might be on top of the developed-world list.

Marduk wrote:. . . when it comes to being uninformed about sex, Mormons just might be on top . . .

Aaaand my mind is in the gutter.

Katya wrote:

Marduk wrote:. . . when it comes to being uninformed about sex, Mormons just might be on top . . .

Aaaand my mind is in the gutter.

I misread it as "uniformed sex"... you probably don't want to know anything more about that mental image.

Glad we can have a frank and mature discussion, you guys.

man, I keep hoping this post is going to give me some sex advice and it is all about STDs

That isn't the same thing? ;D

I just think that everyone should just get tested for STIs before they start a sexual relationship. If getting tested isn't unusual, then no one has to go into a big thing about why they want to get tested. And a lot of people don't seem to realize that you don't just get STIs from vaginal intercourse. There are a lot of Mormon kids going around doing stuff with multiple parters that could give them STIs, but they don't realize it because they consider themselves to still be virgins. But if any part of you has had sexual contact with any part of anyone else, there's a risk. It may not be a huge risk depending on the type of contact, how many times it happened, and how many people it happened with, but it's still a non-zero risk. And people who have been sexually assaulted can have STIs as well, and they haven't "broken the law of chastity."

And yeah, IV drug use is pretty terrifying. I met a patient a couple of months ago who had hepatitis C from trying IV drugs one time at a party when werf was a teenager decades ago. And werf hadn't even shared a needle with anyone, they were just all sticking their own needles in the same stuff. Hepatitis spreads very easily (much more easily than HIV).

Somewhat related question: when did the preferrred term become STI instead of STD? I always learned about them as "STD"s and now I feel like such a noob.

Marduk wrote:Somewhat related question: when did the preferrred term become STI instead of STD? I always learned about them as "STD"s and now I feel like such a noob.

I'm not sure when people started saying STI (the I stands for infection, in case anyone was wondering), but the reason I've heard for the name switch is that it conveys that fact that you can have an infection and spread the infection to other people even if your infection hasn't progressed to the point where you have a disease. So STI's are what cause STD's. It's not wrong or politically incorrect or anything to use the term STD, though.

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?co ... moothing=6

It looks like STD still is the more common term, at least in print. Its huge rise in the late 50s and huge fall in the early 70s is telling...

And, according to my medical training, pregnancy is considered a 'disease'. (Etymologically it makes sense, getting pregnant sure puts most expectant mothers off their ease, sooner or later.) In that light, it would be considered a STD but not a STI.

I don't like your medical training. It drives me crazy when people treat pregnancy as a disease or a medical problem instead of the natural process that it is. But I'll end my ranting there lest I turn this thread into an entirely different topic.