Tone-deaf, stupid, and blind 'advice' is offered by 'public health officialdom', which isn't exactly 'news' but it shows, once more, the decay of sanity
Could this increase have anything to do with the general deterioration of people’s immune systems due to the bio-weapon jab? It stands to reason that if it can cause increased incidence of turbo cancers it could easily increases incidences of STD’s.
That thought crossed my mind, esp. in light of the follow-up piece (see today's posting).
If people get 'infections' more often, why not also STDs? I mean, the prevalence of gonorrhea is so much lower than it was fifty years ago (it's not just the many more cases but population levels were also lower).
I respectfully disagree with the 'free condoms' thing here.
All it does is normalising the notion that one's individual 'health' is something 'the public' must care about. This is very bad to foster a sense of personal responsibility.
What's next? 'Free' tampons, underpants, housing--where's the limit?
It stops dangerous diseases such as syphilis and HIV without violating anyone's privacy or rights the way Covid-measures did. It's a very cheap way to stop these diseases.
And by free I mean the way it's done here: youth health clinics offer them free when asked for by the patient, if they are 15+ years (age of consent, which should be 18 in my opinion).
Also, Pride and RFSL offers them free to members, since homosexuals are superspreaders of STDs due to how much anonymous sex they have.
Sadly, feminists are continously blocking free access to condoms for prostitutes.
The point is to curb the spread of dangerous diseases, nothing else, and it does not spill over into "free everything" - unlimited welfare and the idea that welfare equals the same standard of living that you'd be able to afford on a low-income job (full-time) is the problem.
I see the points you're making, and I doubt this is problematic. For that to work in practice, though, the reporting, such as the one cited above, would have to be way more specific about which group is most affected. If that 40% yoy increase would, e.g., be overwhelmingly confined to one group like homosexuals, it doesn't make sense. Same btw applies to a group that would be way more sexually promiscuous than 80% of the population.
Yeah, I agree with Rikard here. Just give people condoms and promote their use.
As I see it, the job of Public Health is to help protect public health in the actual cultural context that people actually find themselves in. The current Euro-American cultural context involves a lot of pre-marital sex, including a decent amount of hook-up sex. What should Public Health do about it? Promote condoms. Testing isn't such a bad idea, either. Besides, remember, it's not just about how many partners *you* have had. It's also how many partners your partner has had, not to mention the number of partners that those ex-partners have had. Sure, the more partners you have, the greater your risk, but few partners doesn't guarantee anything. And virtually no-one in the Western world, broadly understood, enters marriage without having had sex first. (Well, maybe the Muslims do. I don't know.) In the current Euro-American cultural context, no pre-marital sex translates into life-long celibacy. Which is just fine if you want to remain celibate forever, but less fine if you don't.
And mind you, trying to shame people out of having pre-marital sex wouldn't necessarily yield the results you might expect. Oh, sure, women can manage to keep their chastity for a very long time, or even permanently. This is not that big of a deal. Men are a different story. If they cannot get access to a regular woman, they just go to a prostitute, pick up all sorts of diseases, and then infect their wife once they finally do marry. Pre-marital chastity only works if people marry young (very young). Given the current dowery requirements (degree, stable job, sufficient savings for a down payment on an apartment), I don't see that happening any time soon.
I'm kinda seeing this, but to determine a blanket, one-size-fits-all public health response, the information provided isn't good enough. Imagine, e.g., that this 40% yoy increase occurred overwhelmingly in one specific subset of the population…
You write: 'if [men] cannot get access to a regular woman, they just go to a prostitute, pick up all sorts of diseases, and then infect their wife once they finally do marry.'
I disagree. Not all men are like this, and this behaviour, too, is tied to subsets of the population.
Your point about 'dowery requirements' (we should bring back such words) is very well taken.
I didn't mean to say that "all men" go to prostitutes when they cannot get sexual access to a regular woman (maybe I should have been more precise). Obviously, not "all men." Just a highly non-negligible subset of them. And that's one highly reliable way to get an epidemic of STDs of various kinds. I do, however, think that most men would be seriously unhappy if forced to remain virgin until they are 30-ish. This seems to be far more difficult for men than women (though, yes, of course, there's plenty of variation among the women, too).
I agree on these accounts, I'd merely add that perusing prostitutes is also a function of economic possibilities, which predispose 'older' men.
Complementarily, with the rise of 'sugar daddies', I'd add that this actually introduces an amount of 'reciprocity' for young women as some may obtain funds, experiences, and the like but may forego 'dating' men of the same age bracket. (Being in such a more or less 'committed' relation, too, reduces the risk of contracting, and spreading, STDs.)
Could this increase have anything to do with the general deterioration of people’s immune systems due to the bio-weapon jab? It stands to reason that if it can cause increased incidence of turbo cancers it could easily increases incidences of STD’s.
That thought crossed my mind, esp. in light of the follow-up piece (see today's posting).
If people get 'infections' more often, why not also STDs? I mean, the prevalence of gonorrhea is so much lower than it was fifty years ago (it's not just the many more cases but population levels were also lower).
Start using the old cure for "dröppel"?
A red-hot iron catheter is inserted into the urethra.
Nah. Kidding, but the current jump is mimicking the one in the 1970s when charter travel to Mallroca and Teneriffa became common-place.
"Free" condoms is a good investment in public health.
I respectfully disagree with the 'free condoms' thing here.
All it does is normalising the notion that one's individual 'health' is something 'the public' must care about. This is very bad to foster a sense of personal responsibility.
What's next? 'Free' tampons, underpants, housing--where's the limit?
It stops dangerous diseases such as syphilis and HIV without violating anyone's privacy or rights the way Covid-measures did. It's a very cheap way to stop these diseases.
And by free I mean the way it's done here: youth health clinics offer them free when asked for by the patient, if they are 15+ years (age of consent, which should be 18 in my opinion).
Also, Pride and RFSL offers them free to members, since homosexuals are superspreaders of STDs due to how much anonymous sex they have.
Sadly, feminists are continously blocking free access to condoms for prostitutes.
The point is to curb the spread of dangerous diseases, nothing else, and it does not spill over into "free everything" - unlimited welfare and the idea that welfare equals the same standard of living that you'd be able to afford on a low-income job (full-time) is the problem.
Looks similar, but isn't the same at all.
I see the points you're making, and I doubt this is problematic. For that to work in practice, though, the reporting, such as the one cited above, would have to be way more specific about which group is most affected. If that 40% yoy increase would, e.g., be overwhelmingly confined to one group like homosexuals, it doesn't make sense. Same btw applies to a group that would be way more sexually promiscuous than 80% of the population.
Yeah, I agree with Rikard here. Just give people condoms and promote their use.
As I see it, the job of Public Health is to help protect public health in the actual cultural context that people actually find themselves in. The current Euro-American cultural context involves a lot of pre-marital sex, including a decent amount of hook-up sex. What should Public Health do about it? Promote condoms. Testing isn't such a bad idea, either. Besides, remember, it's not just about how many partners *you* have had. It's also how many partners your partner has had, not to mention the number of partners that those ex-partners have had. Sure, the more partners you have, the greater your risk, but few partners doesn't guarantee anything. And virtually no-one in the Western world, broadly understood, enters marriage without having had sex first. (Well, maybe the Muslims do. I don't know.) In the current Euro-American cultural context, no pre-marital sex translates into life-long celibacy. Which is just fine if you want to remain celibate forever, but less fine if you don't.
And mind you, trying to shame people out of having pre-marital sex wouldn't necessarily yield the results you might expect. Oh, sure, women can manage to keep their chastity for a very long time, or even permanently. This is not that big of a deal. Men are a different story. If they cannot get access to a regular woman, they just go to a prostitute, pick up all sorts of diseases, and then infect their wife once they finally do marry. Pre-marital chastity only works if people marry young (very young). Given the current dowery requirements (degree, stable job, sufficient savings for a down payment on an apartment), I don't see that happening any time soon.
I'm kinda seeing this, but to determine a blanket, one-size-fits-all public health response, the information provided isn't good enough. Imagine, e.g., that this 40% yoy increase occurred overwhelmingly in one specific subset of the population…
You write: 'if [men] cannot get access to a regular woman, they just go to a prostitute, pick up all sorts of diseases, and then infect their wife once they finally do marry.'
I disagree. Not all men are like this, and this behaviour, too, is tied to subsets of the population.
Your point about 'dowery requirements' (we should bring back such words) is very well taken.
I didn't mean to say that "all men" go to prostitutes when they cannot get sexual access to a regular woman (maybe I should have been more precise). Obviously, not "all men." Just a highly non-negligible subset of them. And that's one highly reliable way to get an epidemic of STDs of various kinds. I do, however, think that most men would be seriously unhappy if forced to remain virgin until they are 30-ish. This seems to be far more difficult for men than women (though, yes, of course, there's plenty of variation among the women, too).
I agree on these accounts, I'd merely add that perusing prostitutes is also a function of economic possibilities, which predispose 'older' men.
Complementarily, with the rise of 'sugar daddies', I'd add that this actually introduces an amount of 'reciprocity' for young women as some may obtain funds, experiences, and the like but may forego 'dating' men of the same age bracket. (Being in such a more or less 'committed' relation, too, reduces the risk of contracting, and spreading, STDs.)