[anovikov]

Well, 99% means eradication of the virus very quickly. People won't become totally sexually irresponsible after the preventive shot, because there are many other hard to cure STDs now, especially as antibiotics are not as potent as they use to be, so i think there is no threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave.

[jMyles]

> People won't become totally sexually irresponsible after the preventive shot, because there are many other hard to cure STDs now, especially as antibiotics are not as potent as they use to be, so i think there is no threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave.

The way you've phrased this, it sounds like you are casting "other hard to cure STDs" as a protective measure against the "threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave."

Isn't sexual freedom a goal?

[bad_user]

> Isn't sexual freedom a goal?

You always have the risk of undesired pregnancy and the best cure for that is the condom, since birth control pills are basically hormone bombs, not very healthy for women in the long run, or you could undergo surgery, which is invasive and not without peril. So just use the condom already, those minty ones are actually cool.

And if we don't have "sexual freedom" it's probably because there are really good reasons for it. We shouldn't dismiss taboos without considering that some of them is why we've survived for so long.

[noncoml]

> And if we don't have "sexual freedom" it's probably because there are really good reasons for it. We shouldn't dismiss taboos without considering that some of them is why we've survived for so long.

If that's the way you want to live your life, it is fine. But don't try to impose your ideas to other people.

[bad_user]

Do you feel like that about vaccines and people refusing them as well? Or what about smoking in public places?

Because the way I see it, this is more than the health of the individual at risk, being about the health of the group.

[BuckRogers]

I didn't see you "imposing" your views on anyone. People can adopt what they will. I don't advocate for laws against free choice, but I am for social pressures against unprotected sex. It's a good thing, saves a lot of pain and lives and there's absolutely no need to apologize if someone wants to take that out of context. As if you're advocating for the police to round up sexually active teens.

[noncoml]

> I am for social pressures against unprotected sex

What is this if not trying to make other people live their lives following your way of thinking?

[noncoml]

Yes, I do feel the same about vaccines. If nothing else a person should be a complete master of their body. But this is another conversation.

If you don't see the difference about public smoking and unprotected sex, then I don't think there is any point discussing this.

However your original comment sounded more concerned about morals than public health.

If it was the later and I misunderstood it, then please forgive me.

[philwelch]

> You always have the risk of undesired pregnancy and the best cure for that is the condom, since birth control pills are basically hormone bombs, not very healthy for women in the long run, or you could undergo surgery, which is invasive and not without peril. So just use the condom already, those minty ones are actually cool.

Lots of women, including my wife, are perfectly happy with hormonal birth control. For others, there are lots of other options, and even more in development. It’s a very personal decision, but condoms are by far among the least effective techniques.

> And if we don't have "sexual freedom" it's probably because there are really good reasons for it. We shouldn't dismiss taboos without considering that some of them is why we've survived for so long.

The entire parable of Chesterson’s fence suggests that we shouldn’t get rid of something in society without knowing what function it was serving. It doesn’t suggest never reforming society at all.

The taboo against fornication is obviously there to prevent the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancy. If we have other ways to prevent these side-effects, there is no longer any reason for the taboo; much as the religious taboo of not eating pork or shellfish no longer serve the same useful purpose they did in the ancient Middle East.

[Broken_Hippo]

I'm pretty sure birth control is safer than being pregnant every 10 months. From what I understand, this pregnancy thing is the real reason for the taboo against being sexually active more - that and society's penchant for knowing who to pass on their stuff to after they died. Granted, many of these sorts of taboos have traditionally been only for women and not men, and have not always been consistent over time. Additionally, old-time methods for birth control were bad, and abortion options (they have had them for centuries) were even worse. Pregnant women needed a lot of support as well, so this could lead to some of the taboo.

A condom is not the best option for birth control, merely one of the options. The best would be voluntary sterilization for both the man and the woman. There are other non-hormonal birth control methods, such as a copper IUD and other barrier methods that work, some better than a condom and some worse.

The main benefit from a condom is STD protection, but for that to be effective they need to be readily available to everyone and cheap enough to afford.

[geofft]

> birth control pills are basically hormone bombs, not very healthy for women in the long run

I've heard this a few times but I'm curious for sources on the fact that they're not healthy. They're certainly not natural, but, like, living until you're 80 years old isn't particularly natural either. Do you mind expanding on this?

[OneTimePaddy]

Birth controll pills basically emulate a serial pregnancy- so im curious where this is suddenly unnatural.

[LordKano]

The way you've phrased this, it sounds like you are casting "other hard to cure STDs" as a protective measure against the "threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave."

I read it as him casting the threat of those 'hard to cure STDs' as an incentive for people to not take the 1% risk of HIV infection.

[zghst]

I hope so. Although other communicable diseases will still be a significant issue, as time progresses it should be easy to love a person, even if only for one instance.

[anovikov]

I just meant that a huge wave of unprotected sex could mean that remaining 1% to explode into a large threat. But it is unlikely as there are other factors deterring it, so if the article is true, that might really be the end for the virus.

[namelost]

Even if there were a perfect HIV cure, and antibiotics were 100% effective, there is a risk of infertility from chlamydia, etc.

So no, unprotected sexual freedom isn't a practical goal for medical science. Better to use condoms instead.

[alreadyhere]

Unprotected sexual freedom is completely a practical goal; condoms work well but many choose not to use them, for better or worse. Prevention doesn't even need to center around eradication of the disease; it could come in the form of home detection kits. For better or worse people will always have unprotected sex with strangers. It's a thing.

I'm a little tired of the disconnect between medical advice and reality when it comes to sexual practices. Dental dams, anyone? Sure they're smart; I don't think I've seen one outside of health class. Doctors could easily provide more helpful advice.

[SirZimzim]

Maybe in the age of nanobots will we have practical ways to allow for unprotected random sex.

[snakeanus]

> Isn't sexual freedom a goal?

For whom? Not for me.

[jMyles]

I get the sense that you're hoping that someone will ask you to explain what you mean. So I'll do that.

What do you mean?

[snakeanus]

> What do you mean?

That I do not believe that sexual freedom is a goal.

[FabHK]

Well, it is for others. Let's all agree then on freedom, because then those who want to pursue it can, and those who don't, needn't, and everyone is happy (except those, to appropriate H. L. Mencken's famous phrase, with the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be having sexual freedom).

[gwbas1c]

I think the 1960's unprotected sex wave was more a symptom of ignorance of STDs. People used to see condoms as primarily for birth control, and not really a sanitary measure. Remember, the birth control pill came out in the 1960s!

Even then, knowledge of condoms wasn't widespread like it is now. My grandmother was super-pissed-off when my grandfather told her about them after she was pregnant for 18 months straight! She made it a point to tell me that I had to tell my future wife about birth control! (What made it funnier was that, at the time, if you didn't know what a condom was you were living under a very large rock!)

[anovikov]

Ignorance of STDs was okay in 1960s, because antibiotics worked really great back then and just about every STD was easily curable.

[rconti]

This is being downvoted to oblivion but I'm not sure if it's true or not; hopefully someone can weigh in before it disappears.

[anovikov]

Well hepatitis C wasn't and isn't easily curable, but i guess awareness of it was pretty low.

[jjtheblunt]

Is a stronger statement that hepatitis C is NOT curable, as it's a retroviral infection, thereby rewriting host DNA? [ Edit: i'd remembered incorrectly from decades ago: it's an RNA virus ]

[kens]

>hepatitis C is NOT curable, as it's a retroviral infection

Hepatitis C isn't a retrovirus, so I don't understand what you're saying.

[matthewmacleod]

To be clear, hepatitis C now has a 95+% cure rate with modern treatments.

[henrikschroder]

There's a cure for Hepatitis C since 2015.

[Fomite]

Importantly, while the bacterial STIs were curable, Herpes was definitely not.

[1jojojo]

Herpes wasn't considered a disease at the time. It was not pathologized until later.

[Fomite]

And HPV wasn't linked with cervical cancer yet - that doesn't mean it wasn't a disease. And I'm comfortable calling HSV-2 a disease based on the potential congenital consequences alone.

It's certainly a manageable one, and the stigma around it is silly, but if the common cold is a disease, then herpes is.

[astura]

This is more or less true. The pharmacy company Burroughs Wellcome is largely blamed for pathologizing "genital herpes" starting in the late 70s.

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/ypa8nb/did-big-pharma...

[refurb]

Wait a second. With heroes you get painful, oozing sores on your genitals. It sometimes never goes away and can flare up at any time.

Does it really take a company to make people think of it as a disease?

"Oh my penis feels like it's on fire and oozing all over me. However, I wouldn't call it a disease."

[drumttocs8]

Doesn't seem likely. Do you have data on this?

[evo_9]

The 'sexwave' was in the 70's when studio54 was a thing and disco and cocaine became common/popular/big in the mainstream culture (famously captured by the film Staying Alive).

Also the legalization of abortion in 1972 contributed to this as well.

[otakucode]

The 'sexwave' was all of human history up to the Industrial Revolution... then another in the 70s with development of the birth control pill and no known significantly dangerous STDs. Interestingly, the USA was viewed as the vanguard of sexual progressivism in the 1970s and places like France were seen as provincial backwaters. There's a great book about Frances attempt to modernize their views to be more progressive called 'Good Sex Illustrated'. If you're interested in the ways in which sex education can be stilted to promote extremely conservative antiquated mindsets, it includes a multitude of examples. It is remarkably relevant because it's basically exactly what American educators and parents inflict on kids today.

[KGIII]

They may be referencing the Summer of Love (1967) and the Free Love movement which was, if I had to put dates to it, 1966 to 1972.

During those times there were lots of people having lots of sex. Unwashed sex with a string scent of sandalwood and patchouli, but still lots of sex, drugs, and rock n roll.

Then you had the disco era, fueled by fruity drinks and cocaine, sideburns, and lots of finger guns. There was still a bunch of sex. Those people would become yuppies, while many of the Free Love people would have moved into the woods to eat tree bark and become one with Gaia.

[otakucode]

If there is no significant chance of untreatable disease, it is not 'irresponsible' to have a very active sex life. The irresponsibility stems purely from the danger. Without it, it becomes a moral issue and is quite different from 'irresponsible'. And yes, there are people who actively oppose any development of an HIV vaccine or cure due to their moral fear that people will start having more sex. The chaplain of the CDC announced in the 1990s that he would do anything in his power to prevent any research into an HIV vaccine, for example.

The most likely significant health threat as far as STDs go in the future are anti-biotic resistant gonorrhea. There were a couple of those spreading in Asia a couple years ago that were positively nightmarish.

[Fomite]

"The most likely significant health threat as far as STDs go in the future are anti-biotic resistant gonorrhea. There were a couple of those spreading in Asia a couple years ago that were positively nightmarish." FYI, they're in the United States now and circulating.

[dsr_]

... why does the CDC have a chaplain? It's a non-military government organization.

[grzm]

A chaplain is a member of the clergy that's attached to a chapel (hence "chaplain") or organization. The organization isn't necessarily military. Other examples include both branches of the US Congress, hospitals, and universities.

[soneca]

I disagree. I (annedoctally) heard several times stories about how today's youth (~20yo) doing more unprotected sex than my generation (~35yo) only because HIV "does not kill anymore".

If AIDS is actually curable, I would bet that all other STD would explode in the short term

[otakucode]

There is also a sort-of vaccine for HIV called PrEP or something like that. I'm not sure how you get it but I've seen mention of people using it prophylactically (which is what its designed for). And really without HIV, there isn't too much to be afraid of. HPV has a vaccine for many of the dangerous strains, and the other strains infect the vast majority of the populace anyway so even calling them a 'disease' is arguable. Same with herpes. It's for life, but almost everyone has it. Gonorrhea, chlamydia, etc, are easily treatable except for the antibiotic resistant forms which are (thankfully) very isolated in their spread.

Aiming for 'less sexual activity' is a very bad goal. Abstinence is harmful. The tremendous health benefits of sexual activity are myriad. The amount of research backing up the idea that modern society is dangerously sexless is huge. One of my favorites was a study of ALL men, across all ages, socioeconomic groups, everything, of an entire town I believe somewhere in northern Scotland (maybe Ireland?)... those who had the most frequent orgasms had a 50% lower chance of having died of any cause over the 15 year period of their study. They also had very significantly reduced incidence of heart disease, cancer, and other health problems. But, of course, such things get reported as 'health benefits of sex' and not 'health dangers of abstinence' because they assume people are abstinent by default which is ludicrous. We'll know if public sentiment is changing when the headlines change.

[allendoerfer]

> One of my favorites was a study of ALL men, across all ages, socioeconomic groups, everything, of an entire town I believe somewhere in northern Scotland (maybe Ireland?)... those who had the most frequent orgasms had a 50% lower chance of having died of any cause over the 15 year period of their study. They also had very significantly reduced incidence of heart disease, cancer, and other health problems. But, of course, such things get reported as 'health benefits of sex' and not 'health dangers of abstinence' because they assume people are abstinent by default which is ludicrous. We'll know if public sentiment is changing when the headlines change.

There seems to be a causality, but to me it is not obvious, what its direction is. The most healthy men, are probably also the most attractive.

[otakucode]

Given the variety and abundance of studies, along with my reading on evolutionary biology, human biological history, and sexuality in general, I think it's a simple matter of 'we are built to be profoundly sexual creatures.' Just look at the facts of orgasm and I personally think it becomes clear that it has to be a critical bodily function. If you refuse to do anything to elicit one intentionally, your body will eventually take over and force one to occur in your sleep. That is not something the body does generally with other things except critical ones. There is certainly an argument that perhaps the purpose is to improve sperm quality in males, but females have nocturnal orgasms as well (though the mess after puberty makes it quite a bit easier for males to recognize it has happened).

We could have evolved to have a 'mating season' as almost all animals have. We could have evolved for females to give visible indication of fertility. We could have saved "wasting" the positively monumental amount of energy we pour into pursuing sex. We could have evolved so that sex was not even pleasurable but driven by instinct. We didn't have to evolve women going through menopause (and living a substantial amount of time afterward). Almost every single facet of human sexuality, if viewed through the lens of "sex is for reproduction", looks nonsensical if not evolutionarily suicidal. But through the lens of "sex is primarily for pleasure and social bonding," every bit of it makes sense. It explains why we stuck together in groups, the only thing that let weak, slow, stupid chimps without fangs, claws, venom, natural armor, or other similar natural advantages (except maybe endurance) survive long enough to have our social environment provide pressure for brain development and development of speech. We stuck together to preserve access to sexual partners, because it was pleasurable, and it made us the most powerful species on the planet. It makes sense that those who 'needed' it more were the ones to pass on their genes the most often.

[esm]

PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) is Truvada, which is part of the anti-retroviral regimen given to many HIV(+) patients. The idea is that any virions that enter your body are killed before they have a chance to set up shop.

It is a reasonably simple, safe, and effective drug, so it really should be available from any PCP. However, some community physicians do not prescribe it for one reason or another. HIV/STD clinics are almost always happy to see HIV(-) patients who are interested in PrEP.

[vtange]

Isn't there a lot of talk about how today's youth is much less likely to date/engage in sexual activity?

So what you're saying is, they don't always have sex, but when they do it's unprotected? That sounds pretty normal to me.

[soneca]

I think this is the time we should start using some data in this discussion, but my view is that people in their twenties are doing much more sex today. Due to tech (eg Tinder) and less stigma for sexually active women.

[vtange]

According to many articles that's a common misconception - that younger people empowered by Tinder can bang each other more and casually.[1] From my own anecdotes Tinder is actually a hindrance, since it creates a picture-oriented, extremely competitive environment where lack of physical attractiveness effectively shuts down the world of dating to the majority of men and women who aren't 8s, 9s, or 10s.[2]

I mean, on the net you'll often hear stories about kids scoring big but that's survivor bias. You don't hear anything from those who didn't bang.

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/no-sex-please-were-mill... [2] http://time.com/4435058/millennials-virgins-sex/

[rosege]

I'm at the age now where my friend's kids are getting to the sexually active stage of their life. They seem waaay tamer than what me and their parents were like at their age. I doubt that they are having more sex or even trying as hard. They certain Dont party like we did our have massive benders either.

[cJ0th]

> Isn't there a lot of talk about how today's youth is much less likely to date/engage in sexual activity?

could be but those two things needn't be mutually exclusive. maybe the youth is just more extreme in both directions whereas earlier people might have been more similar.

[UnoriginalGuy]

That's factually untrue according to the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior[0]. The facts are[1] that the younger the age group the higher the condom usage is.

And while condom use has fallen a little since its height, it still remains significantly higher amongst the young than any older generation or group.

[0] http://www.nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu/ [1] http://www.nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu/condomgraph.html

[sbov]

It's really hard to interpret that graph when you consider things like relationships and marriage, and that older people are probably more likely to be married.

[soneca]

My anedoctes are from Brazil (São Paulo), I don't think that paper's conclusion extends to a different group.

[joshstrange]

Not only that I've had friends on Truvada (PrEP) that use condoms less because they know they won't get HIV.

[hashmal]

Why is that a bad thing? I don't know for the US, but in other countries you have mandatory tests (hepatitis, gonorrhea, many others) to do every 3 months in order to get the treatment. This alone makes you more protected than people who only use condoms as protection and think they don't need tests.

[joshstrange]

They only check Liver/HIV every 3 months (I have to ask for liver every 3, my doctor was going to do it only every 6). I make my doctor also do a full screening but by default he doesn't.

[hashmal]

One could expect better indeed. Undiagnosed STDs can be nasty.

[kentosi]

The concept doesn't exist in the States, sadly.

Americans please correct me, but here it's more symptomatic with sexual health: You have a rash/etc, so you go see the doctor. There's no early-detection system where you are reminded to get into a clinic every 2-3 months and get a full test (blood test, swabs, etc) for all the usual suspects: HIV, herpes, chlamydia, etc.

[cloistered]

I live in Baltimore, and I'm on PrEP. Everyone I know who takes it, including myself, is required to get tested for STDs every 3 months.

[kentosi]

I think that being on PrEP is the exception.

[always_good]

My friends weren't wrapping it when I was in uni 6-10 years ago because every girl was on birth control.

[jliptzin]

I am gay so I have used condoms my whole life but my straight friends routinely go out and have unprotected sex all the time, I'd say about 5% of my straight friends consistently use condoms.

[SeoxyS]

It's a design problem. Sex with condom sucks. Non-condom sex is 10x better.

The real solution will be when you have male birth control available as well; and then it comes down to only having sex with people you trust. I great partner is better than a bunch of lousy partners anyways.

[jliptzin]

Don't they have vasectomy already?

[always_good]

Irreversible, so not a solution.

I'm 29, and so far every woman I've fucked, I ended up deciding I didn't want to marry / have children with. But that's still on the table like it is for the vast majority of men, so vasectomy is not an option.

[matwood]

As someone who came of sexual age in the 90s, between HIV and getting someone pregnant I was (and still would be - I'm married now so...) terrified of sex without a condom.

[devy]

The other big factor people don't like to use condom is that it greatly reduced the sensation, regardless how the condom companies have been advertising it.

[overcast]

That's horrible, and nonsensical for the time period. With the amount of advocacy, and information available. Why would ANYONE consider not using a condom in uncommitted relationships?

[aianus]

Because it doesn't feel the same, duh. Might as well ask why people have sex at all instead of staying home safely and jerking off.

[always_good]

One reason is that the STDs you do tend to catch from casual uni sex are cured by a $20 pill, if that's even on your mind when you're drunk in someone's dorm bed.

"Shit, I got HIV/warts from hooking up" just isn't something I ever heard in uni. It just isn't part of the discourse. Those just don't seem to penetrate the uni bubble.

But everyone I know had to deal with the clap.

[Someone]

99% of strains isn’t necessarily 99% of all infections, and won’t be anything close to it soon after this gets used in humans.

If one assumes that the different strains also compete against each other the total number of infections may not go down much, and if it does, that may only be temporarily.

[Amorymeltzer]

Not really, no. Modern antiretrovirals are exceptionally effective, and for those with access[1] HIV/AIDS has become a chronic illness, with nearly-similar lifespans (due mostly to chronic inflammation).

We still haven't come close to "eradicating" or curing HIV/AIDS; the issue lies in the virus' insidious biology. HIV is a retrovirus, meaning it incorporates into the target cell's genome, specifically CD4+ T-cells. An obvious barrier to "only" 1% of virions is that an infected person produces billions of virus particles every single day[2]. A less obvious barrier is the "latent" reservoir of the virus in cells.

Essentially, not all cells with an incorporated HIV genome are producing virus, and thus these proviruses can evade detection. A 2013 paper in cell[3] provides what I think is the most devastating example of this. Basically, an idea that has gained more traction lately has been to activate these T-cells, thus alerting the immune system and hopefully clearing the virus. It turns out that not all cells are activated, and the size of this reservoir is ~60X larger than previously thought.

When it comes to something like cancer, we often define "cure" or "beating it" differently — look no further than Randall Munroe's heartbreaking visualization, Lanes.[4] We need to do something similar for HIV. We can't get rid of the virus, but we're already pretty good at making life not so bad if you have it. Access and affordability are larger barriers to preventing mortality/morbidity.

There's also a quiet undercurrent that a standard vaccine for HIV is biologically impossible, but that's for another day.

tl;dr HIV sucks but we're okay at managing it. 99% sounds good but it's probably not enough.

1: Read: moderately well-off people with health insurance in wealthy, industrialized nations.

2: DOI: 10.1038/nrg1246 The oft-cited rule of the thumb is that every base of the viral genome is mutated every day.

3: DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.09.020 This one is absolutely worth reading.

4: https://xkcd.com/931

[nonbel]

>"an infected person produces billions of virus particles every single day... The oft-cited rule of the thumb is that every base of the viral genome is mutated every day"

Isn't it pretty weird that, despite this massive diversity, infections seem to be only caused a single, or sometimes a few, distinct virus particle(s):

>"we show that 78% of infections involved single variant transmission and 22% involved multiple variant transmissions (median of 3)" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19193811

To me that means something is horribly wrong with our understanding of HIV.

[Fomite]

Note that not all of those genomes continue to persist. People often have a single dominant strain, but what exactly that strain is varies wildly over time.

[nonbel]

I'm saying that a person must be getting exposed to millions or billions of variants, and only one leads to an infection. That is very surprising to me given my understanding of viruses.

[gizmo686]

Even at 100% eradication would be very difficult. As far as I am aware, smallpox is the only disease we have successfully eradicated. If you count non-human diseases, this number climbs to 2 with rinderpest.

This is assuming that we can get the vaccine to everyone. In first world countries with developed and trusted this is mostly possible, but would still be a massive undertaking.

[otakucode]

We were VERY close with Polio... but the CIA absolutely destroyed that when they ran a fake polio vaccination scam in Pakistan to get info on Bin Laden. Now it's making a comeback and doctors get shot trying to vaccinate.

[Fomite]

We were also very close on measles, but politics and the anti-vaxx crowd have done a number on it.

[matwood]

Yeah, herd immunity is an interesting concept and one the anti-vaxx people completely hose up.

For example, a measles vaccine doesn't work on a small percentage of the population. Herd immunity says though that as long as some large percentage of the population is immune, those which the vaccine do not work will be fine. The anti-vaxx people end up pushing the percentage vaccinated below what's required for herd immunity and hose the whole population. Idiots.

[otakucode]

Just to add a tad, the number needed for herd immunity differs by disease. For polio, you only need to get around 80 - 85% of the population immune before everyone is effectively protected. For measles, on the other hand, you have to get to 95%. That's one of the reasons polio is expected to be eradicated before measles, every % point higher is harder to get, so 95 is a tough goal to reach.

[sethrin]

I was thinking that we need a stronger term than idiot, but it occurs to me that this behavior is actually criminal. It causes grievous harm to one's society, which is the criterion for criminal behavior. Therefore if social pressure is not sufficient to correct this behavior, legal means will need to be employed.

[andriesm]

What about people's individual rights? I don't want the community to tell me what to inject into my body? (Ps I am NOT anti-vax)

[hellofunk]

> so i think there is no threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave

That's your takeaway from this interesting news? I don't understand how you jumped from this article to immediately drawing some opinions about sexual responsibility and behavior. The article has nothing to do with sex behavior, and HIV is hardly the sole deterrent for reckless sex.

[hashmal]

"sexual responsibility" is quite an odd concept, it should be defined more precisely.

[otakucode]

Children are the property of their fathers. Preserving the value of that property through preserving the virginal status of females is the responsibility of both sons and daughters. For a son to have sex with the daughter of another man, both the daughter and that boy have committed a property crime against the girls father. If she gets pregnant, he will never be able to get as big of a dowry when he sells her into marriage.

At least, that's where the idea of tying sexuality to economic considerations like 'responsibility' and phrases like 'saving yourself' come from.

[Dylan16807]

Totally impossible for a term like "responsible" to have multiple meanings.

Obviously people mean the economic term. Couldn't possibly be the everyday meaning.

[selimthegrim]

You mean bride price, dowry is what the bride's family gives

[noncoml]

> no threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave.

Are you implying that unprotected sex is bad in itself?

Edit: It was an honest question.

[grzm]

Please default to the strongest possible interpretation of another's comment. Give them the benefit of the doubt. If you have an honest question that will move the discussion productively forward, please, by all means ask it. But if you're just looking to pick something apart, please just refrain from doing so. I find Rapoport's rules a good starting place for reflection on how to move a discussion forward, particularly on contentious topics:

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo...

[noncoml]

> Please default to the strongest possible interpretation of another's comment. Give them the benefit of the doubt.

But... it was a question...

The topic is sensitive and you will see a lot of people hide their moral beliefs behind "health concerns".

I'd rather make a blunt and direct question rather than play hide and seek and be lured into a masqueraded conversation about morals and believes.

[grzm]

> But... it was a question...

Which is why I addressed this in the next sentence:

> If you have an honest question that will move the discussion productively forward, please, by all means ask it.

Does it move the discussion productively forward? What is the motivation for your question? Where do you expect the discussion to go from here? This isn't a question like "Where's the post office?" where the expected response is likely the effective end of the conversation. You're asking about morality. Do you think your parent has the same values as you? Are you looking to tease out some difference so you can argue about them? Show them that they're wrong? Find some points of agreement? Solve some underlying common issue? HN really isn't the place for general ideological debates. They're by definition off-topic. And regardless of what another has commented, we can show restraint and not continue a thread that is wandering off into incendiary weeds.

Edit (in reply to your addendum above): It does seem clear that you're looking for some kind of argument. Please don't. Let the thread die on the vine.

I don't intend to continue this any further. I do encourage you to review the link I provided, and perhaps review the recently updated HN guidelines, which includes similar points.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[noncoml]

> Does it move the discussion productively forward?

Yes.

> What is the motivation for your question?

To know if we are discussing about public health issues or moral believes. If it is the later, then there is no point continuing the discussion.

> Where do you expect the discussion to go from here?

If the motivation behind his comment was morals, then I don't expect the discussion to go anywhere. It is a dead end.

If it is about public health, we can continue the discussion.

You are doing the exact same thing you are accusing me of. It would be a good time to follow your advice: "Please default to the strongest possible interpretation of another's comment. Give them the benefit of the doubt."

As I mentioned all I wanted to know is if he is trying to have a discussion about morals or public health. Because if it is the first then I don't want to be part of the discussion.

(Edit in response to your edit) You are starting an argument on my post, and when I reply to your argument you make a passive aggressive edit to your post accusing me of not dropping the argument. And you drop it, by making a non-reply reply?

[grzm]

In a good-faith effort to clarify: my edit was in response to the additions that you made to your comment above (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15315553), not to this reply. When I first composed my reply it consisted only of the line I quoted.

When I see that a discussion is not progressing constructively (as I observed from your first response to me), I try to make clear in a response that am indeed dropping the thread: I'm not interested in tit-for-tat back and forth, and know that it takes both parties to work toward a common goal for such discussions to be productive: I'm as much responsible as any other party. I do hope you find the constructive discussion you're looking for, and apologize for taking this off-topic as far as it has.

[dalbasal]

thank god.