Sex infections still growing in U.S., says CDC

[Wingnut]

I don't think article said " if men are having sex with women they should be tested for std's every year."

I don't think anyone is saying that it did. We're just saying that, of all the statistics listed in that article, and especially considering that so many of them focus on teens, that it was unfair of you to just pull out the one on gay men.

[Vort]

I don't think anyone is saying that it did. We're just saying that, of all the statistics listed in that article, and especially considering that so many of them focus on teens, that it was unfair of you to just pull out the one on gay men.

I don't understand, Wingnut. What was "unfair" about it? He was making no attempt to give a balanced take on the article as a whole when he emphasized a part he found relevant and interesting.

Are you suggesting that it is inappropriate to discuss specific aspects of an article? That it is somehow "unfair" to discuss any part of an article unless one also gives equal time to every other part of the article? What if you think the article itself is "unfair"? I'm really not understanding the objection.

[Guest]

I don't understand, Wingnut. What was "unfair" about it? He was making no attempt to give a balanced take on the article as a whole when he emphasized a part he found relevant and interesting.

Are you suggesting that it is inappropriate to discuss specific aspects of an article? That it is somehow "unfair" to discuss any part of an article unless one also gives equal time to every other part of the article? What if you think the article itself is "unfair"? I'm really not understanding the objection.

x2 here. Vort has a very valid point.

Reading that article, that line does jump out at me... more so than the rest of the statistics. Because, it is easy to understand why teenagers are getting high rate of STD's. It is not as easy to understand why Douglas would say that about gay men in particular. It is worthy of discussion.

At the risk of being on Pam's bad side today (I got another package, Pam... for penance?), I would like to point out that sometimes, in our desire to make people believe that we are not anti-something, we tend to swing too far that it makes it that we can't even say anything specific about that something. For example, sensitivity to sexism has convoluted the proper use of the English language. The language rule states that in a case where a singular pronoun is needed but it is not sensitive to gender, the male pronoun is used (there are exceptions of course). So in a sentence, it is not necessary to say he or she (or the irritating he/she him/her notation). You can say he and be done with it. But, in our desire to be anti-sexist, we say he or she just to avoid the appearance of sexism... it is ridiculous in my opinion.

So, applying this back to bytor's selection of that line in the article, I think the objection to it is the appearance of anti-homosexual instead of actually looking into the reason why bytor picked that line out of the article.

I just re-read this post and I have a feeling I did not properly convey my thoughts. I'm running on low fuel today, forgive me.

[MarginOfError]

x2 here. Vort has a very valid point.

Reading that article, that line does jump out at me... more so than the rest of the statistics. Because, it is easy to understand why teenagers are getting high rate of STD's. It is not as easy to understand why Douglas would say that about gay men in particular. It is worthy of discussion.

At the risk of being on Pam's bad side today (I got another package, Pam... for penance?), I would like to point out that sometimes, in our desire to make people believe that we are not anti-something, we tend to swing too far that it makes it that we can't even say anything specific about that something. For example, sensitivity to sexism has convoluted the proper use of the English language. The language rule states that in a case where a singular pronoun is needed but it is not sensitive to gender, the male pronoun is used (there are exceptions of course). So in a sentence, it is not necessary to say he or she (or the irritating he/she him/her notation). You can say he and be done with it. But, in our desire to be anti-sexist, we say he or she just to avoid the appearance of sexism... it is ridiculous in my opinion.

So, applying this back to bytor's selection of that line in the article, I think the objection to it is the appearance of anti-homosexual instead of actually looking into the reason why bytor picked that line out of the article.

I just re-read this post and I have a feeling I did not properly convey my thoughts. I'm running on low fuel today, forgive me.

So does this mean we should be speculating about why things concerning homosexuals seem to jump out to bytor?

Homosexuals are still getting a bad rap from their underground days. As I explained in the earlier post, when homosexuality was kept underground, anonymous sex encounters were about the only option they had. Now that it is more openly accepted, they are able to live in monogamous relationships without the fear of social retaliation they faced 20 - 30 years ago. However, those that were engaging in risky behavior in the underground days are still alive. Since homosexuals established themselves a higher rate of STD infection 20 years ago, the subculture still has to bear the burden of increased risk for contracting an STD. Recall, homosexuals make up 3-4% of the population (a small proportion) with a disproportionately high rate of STD.

What I interpreted out of bytor's selection was that he wanted to imply that engaging in homosexual activity will necessarily increase your risk for STD's. This is categorically false. Homosexuals who practice safe sex with monogamous, faithful, and STD free partners are no more likely to contract an STD than heterosexuals who do the same.

[Vort]

...he wanted to imply that engaging in homosexual activity will necessarily increase your risk for STD's. This is categorically false.

On the contrary, it is categorically true. As you freely admit, infection rates are much higher among homosexuals. Of course engaging in homosexual activity necessarily increases your risk for contracting an STD.

Homosexuals who practice safe sex with monogamous, faithful, and STD free partners are no more likely to contract an STD than heterosexuals who do the same.

Perhaps, but this is not what you said above.