It’s not about a sweeping declaration though, it’s about what he and his current partner have decided on before having sex. It does seem odd that the OP states that he and the gf have no intention of being sexually active but then says that won’t last long – which makes the fact that they are both being responsible and getting tested even more respectable. How many couples with little sexual history or hang-ups let denial affect their sex lives and health? (e.g. being taught that carrying or keeping condoms is slutty, practicing pull and pray and ‘It happens to other people’-isms)
I do think it’s possible to be overly paranoid about STDs and that anyone who has sex needs to know that there are some risks to be assumed (as there are in so many forms of pleasure – extreme sports, exotic vacations, gourmet food). But having peace of mind, at least where STDs are concerned, can only improve a sexual experience (potential pregnancy is another matter).
As for wasting resources… Again, it’s a sad state of affairs when the onus is on someone to prove that their sexual experience was risky enough to merit testing. It sort of supports the myth that you can tell, just by looking, if your partner has something. It could also be used, I imagine, to slut shame. After all, aren’t people having one-night stands then getting tested using the most resources of all?
This is a pretty good response. My point about “wasting resources” isn’t to argue for a regime where people who have sex zestily are seen as disease vectors (although, I can see how that could be drawn as the inverse-image inference), it is rather the ordinary economic point that we live in a world where we have to ration our resources. It is like the case of flu vaccines: sure, it’d be swell if everybody got vaccinated, but we don’t have enough to do so. But we could produce enough, but then we would have to take resources away from the manufacture of other things.
Here, the OP is extremely low risk. In fact, the only thing motivating this is the hang-up about sex (and a lot of people, people who think that they are beyond superstitions about sex, apparently seem to think that this kid actually poses a public health risk).
Now, maybe the best way to get me to shut up is to say, “Look, maybe the OP is being ridic and doesn’t need the test, but he’s worried and if this reassures him and then he has sex and he realizes Jesus doesn’t freak out about it, then maybe that does justify the cost.” I don’t know, I still say it’s a close call.
And my position isn’t that this guy represents a high-risk case, but that he should see a medical professional for advice about testing. Because in their wisdom the public health folks have decided that it’s worth it for every adult to get tested for HIV at least once (at a cost of $5-15, with results available while you wait http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/11/2/gpr110213.html), and because adolescent women with multiple sexual partners, as the OP describes his single partner, are the *highest *risk group for chlamydia http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102238119.html.
And by refrain from sexual activity I mean refrain from unsafe sexual activity. I’m not sure if that was part of **Kimmy Gibbler’s **concern or not.
The OP did not mention Jesus. Neither did anyone else who has mentioned getting tested. The OP did mention that his unprotected sexual experience was with someone who fucked around a lot and, by your logic, probably was a high risk person who should be tested. The same can be said of his girlfriend’s experience.
The difference between STD testing and flu shots is that there aren’t so many people lined up to get STD tests that the government has rationed them. Besides that, you’ve mentioned several times that it can be cured with 1 shot of antibiotics, but how in the world are they supposed to know that they need the antibiotics if they don’t get the test? Doctors and clinics all over the country practically beg people to come in for basic preventative care testing and to tell someone that you don’t really need it because you aren’t high risk, while appropriate for things like a colonoscopy, is ridiculous when it comes to something like STDs.
The OP called his ex-girlfriend Syphilis Mary because she wasn’t as abashed about having sex as the OP was. I guarantee you the only people who would call this girl “essentially a whore” are anti-sex misogynists and bluehairs at the Baptist Women’s Auxiliary (ah, but I repeat myself).
They do not beg people who once had sex in high school and never since and have not shown any STD symptoms in eight years. For God’s sake, get serious.
I’m not making the assumption this girl was anything other than an adolescent who had unprotected sex with multiple male partners. It would be nice if that didn’t put her at risk for STDs, but empirically it does.
And really, get off the symptoms thing. It’s a red herring.
You know you can kiss my fucking ass. The girl was unequivocally a whore. She had dozens of partners all at the same time. All without telling me while I saw her. I’m not even a Christian. I’m agnostic. So you can stick the Jesus thing up your ass because NO ONE is mentioning it but you.
And I don’t give a fuck what your opinion is on whether I need to be tested. I am neither looking for approval nor do I need it to feel better about getting tested. I want it done, and I can pay for it so that’s all that matters. Your opinion doesn’t mean a damned thing to me really. Start your own pit thread if you want to pit people like me who waste medical resources. But don’t expect me to show because I really don’t care what you think.
This is an organization that survives on handouts from the public and spare change from the government. It closed several suburban locations earlier this year due to budget problems. And yet, Dr. Martins wants everyone to get tested. EVERYONE. Oh yeah, and not just once or whenever they might think something is amiss, but regularly. REGULARLY. I mean, is that guy off his rocker or what?
As noted in the second paragraph, testing is not just an excuse to consume expensive medical resources and waste the time of trained medical professionals, it’s also an opportunity to educate the at-risk public and prevent the spread of infections.