Syphillis, gonorrhoea infections on rise

[Riobard]

1 hour ago, Phoenixblue said:

"And while there are some hygiene measures you can take to reduce your chances of contracting an STI......."

That is what I said. Would you like to give a guy a blowjob if his ***k is unwashed? Or eat Ass when it hasn't been cleaned? Washing up with soap reduces the amount of pathogens on your body, reduces the probability of you falling ill and makes you more attractive in general.

The important thing is my being prepared and refraining from assuming somebody is short a few deck cards when they may be just jerking my chain. 

[Riobard]

On 12/30/2023 at 1:46 PM, Mavica said:

It seems to me that it's fashionable for (desired by) many in the gay community to have unprotected sex (i.e., without a condom).  

For a long time now I've thought men on PrEP have been lulled into a sense of security, that it's safe to have any unprotected sex.

Gross oversimplifications not supported by qualitative research on MSM’s awareness and attitudes regarding viral and bacterial STIs.

[reader]

On 1/1/2024 at 2:02 PM, Phoenixblue said:

I didn't say prevent infection but the perhaps reduce the chance of infection. Personal hygiene may not protect a person completely from contracting some STIs but it sure does prevent you from getting sick from other infectious diseases. Being physically clean won't harm you. Besides it's aesthetically attractive.

And I'm sure our sex partners would appreciate the fact that we paid extra attention to our personal hygiene.

[Riobard]

10 minutes ago, reader said:

And I'm sure our sex partners would appreciate the fact that we paid extra attention to our personal hygiene.

Sigh. It’s both a given and tautological. Hygienic cachet upticks exposure risk. @unicorn , perhaps others, can appreciate the logic fallacies peppering this thread. 

[Riobard]

2 minutes ago, Riobard said:

Sigh. It’s both a given and tautological. Hygienic cachet upticks exposure risk. @unicorn , perhaps others, can appreciate the logic fallacies peppering this thread. 

 

[reader]

1 minute ago, Riobard said:

It’s both a given and tautological. Hygienic cachet upticks exposure risk. 

So you're answer is to present yourself as dirty as possible. Good point. 😄

[Riobard]

28 minutes ago, reader said:

So you're answer is to present yourself as dirty as possible. Good point. 😄

You are really reaching here and being deliberately asinine, but I’m sure the tangential and irrelevant focus on presentation appeal could persist ad infinitum when contrarianism is the driver. 

Personal hygiene and susceptibility to STD infection is not correlated or causally significant. Period. Partner episode volume being equal, judicious personal hygiene is salutary for obvious reasons, but NOT STI-preventive, period. The prevention heuristic regarding behavioural risk mitigation, when watered down with erroneous assumptions about personal hygiene has been deleterious in LMIC contexts because if a condom, for example, is lacking but soap is accessible the security conferred by a lesser but erroneously valued prevention measure is equally fallacious, breeching principles of beneficence. Sexual hygiene optimization is facilitated by de-mythologizing. 

 

[reader]

Did you ever meet a thesaurus you didn't just absolutely adore?

 

 

[Riobard]

23 minutes ago, reader said:

Did you ever meet a thesaurus you didn't just absolutely adore?

 

 

Now you are layering on more ridiculousness, silly. You (not inappropriately) started a thread on a complex topic, with media representation of academic epidemiological concepts that would naturally lead to ongoing additional epidemiological and standard public health languaging among posters, terms utilized conventionally within the very literature on which theses are reported.

You know exactly what each word means, feel challenged and offended, transparently and flimsily coming back with a frivolous and vexatious dig aimed at corroborating your alliances. 

[reader]

2 minutes ago, Riobard said:

Now you are layering on more ridiculousness, silly. You (not inappropriately) started a thread on a complex topic, with media representation of academic epidemiological concepts that would naturally lead to ongoing additional epidemiological languaging among posters. 

[Riobard]

6 minutes ago, reader said:

Let me help you out. It reads, Reader, that what you have is on the rise. 

[reader]

Please allow me to help you out, Riobard.

After all the advice you proffered here, please consider that you'll get more dates by a good daily scrubbing and a long Listerine gargle. 😉

[Phoenixblue]

1 hour ago, Riobard said:

You are really reaching here and being deliberately asinine, but I’m sure the tangential and irrelevant focus on presentation appeal could persist ad infinitum when contrarianism is the driver. 

Personal hygiene and susceptibility to STD infection is not correlated or causally significant. Period. Partner episode volume being equal, judicious personal hygiene is salutary for obvious reasons, but NOT STI-preventive, period. The prevention heuristic regarding behavioural risk mitigation, when watered down with erroneous assumptions about personal hygiene has been deleterious in LMIC contexts because if a condom, for example, is lacking but soap is accessible the security conferred by a lesser but erroneously valued prevention measure is equally fallacious, breeching principles of beneficence. Sexual hygiene optimization is facilitated by de-mythologizing. 

 

Your vocabulary is admirable.

[Riobard]

3 minutes ago, Phoenixblue said:

Your vocabulary is admirable.

You both rest my case and on this distracting tangent may even squeak a bit out of the corner you painted yourself into desperately defending a position that was successfully challenged. 

[Phoenixblue]

Just now, Riobard said:

You rest my case.

Well said indeed.

[Riobard]

1 hour ago, reader said:

Please allow me to help you out, Riobard.

After all the advice you proffered here, please consider that you'll get more dates by a good daily scrubbing and a long Listerine gargle. 😉

I proffered nothing. It was blatantly clear from the outset that a few stubbornly held positions would not be amenable to acceptance of hard facts. Perhaps you could initiate a separate media piece on morning ablutions as you derailed your own topic. 

It was like watching the train wreck of lost logic when somebody extends a caveat such as ‘don’t shit where you eat’ to the absurd qualifier of ‘if you have to shit in the same place make sure to compost it in the service of what you eat, so taking a crap where you dine may be a good thing …’

Eeesh. 

[reader]

9 minutes ago, Riobard said:

hard facts

Hard facts (in shape of erect penis) is what you'll get if you just clean up your act a bit.

 

[Riobard]

3 minutes ago, reader said:

Hard facts (in shape of erect penis) is what you'll get if you just clean up your act a bit.

 

I cannot participate further in your deterioration. We’re good. 

[vinapu]

1 hour ago, Phoenixblue said:

Your vocabulary is admirable.

I disagree, I don't like when people swear here

[Riobard]

13 minutes ago, vinapu said:

I disagree, I don't like when people swear here

My bad … pinch out a goddam pile of feces prior to settling into a rousing game of throwing dice onto the craps table. [Good keeping up.]

[floridarob]

3 hours ago, Riobard said:

You both rest my case

If we were only so lucky 

[Riobard]

This is where things get murkier and the net value of a chat board is negated by troublemakers throwing curves for cheap laughs. Two qualified professionals with medical science backgrounds attempt to clear up that red is not blue, as corroborated by objective evidence similarly adopted by broad governing bodies. They are up against the red = blue claim sect and pushing the info boulder up the hill is met with increasing resistance. What is additionally inane is that there exist within the public domain data that, on the surface, seem to support that red = blue. Therefore, the red= blue folks have either appraised it and found the fatal flaws therein, or have not bothered to attempt to do any real homework in the interests of driving home their argument. Instead, personalized attacks are introduced as if they could stand in for a meaningful contrasting view.

I hardly require verification from within our collective regarding my perspective on such dynamics. Junior high school kids get this. Kudos to @unicorn for his forbearance. Some of the rest, careful you don’t step off the edge of the planet.

There are a lot of online fora on health issues that aren’t so sabotaged. And there are readers here that are salvageable in spite of history, not too hard to predict. Others live in a one-note world and it’s tooted ad nauseam, cut and paste, sucking up far greater than its share of space, oxygen, and decibels. Thank you Mademoiselle Ignore, for taking on the burden. 

[Riobard]

.

[Marc in Calif]

3 hours ago, Riobard said:

Two qualified professionals with medical science backgrounds...  

But the similarity ends right there -- and we all know it.

One of those two people can explain medical facts, conclusions and advice in an objective manner without feeling threatened and insecure.

The other one is a bully who thinks that pedantry, posturing, personal attacks and put-downs will bolster his comments as well as his fragile ego. 

[Riobard]

Yes, where any science background similarity ends is exactly how I would punctuate it. Thank you, flagbearer of the board’s pro-Sinophobia militia of 1. I would not want to be viewed as possessing other traits in common. Shouldn’t you be spending your time desperately unearthing, cherry-picking, comments from other posters in vain attempts to legitimize by numbers your blatant xenophobia?

In this thread are contained signs of a predominant historical theme in which others are relegated as lesser, eg, a poster here deigned to append an article positioned in the lay press, the LAY press of all places, the overreaction a vociferous ranting about it without openness to all of the facts about the topic. Such snobbery, with often ridiculously contrived embellishments, is what one sees in a character whose aim is to convince all others they are punching above their weight. I expect we will now have a song coming on to compensate for hubris overreach. Thud. 

Enjoy being stuck with the restricted option. I am apparently hardly alone in this appraisal though I wouldn’t need to rely on others to confirm it directly here. The main criticism levied at me should be (is) why I would waste my time in a wannabe quasi web health room comprised of a board dedicated subforum and/or random submissions, of such limited quality and with troll-grade governance overrepresentation.