If we are meant to be polygamous, then why the venereal diseases?

zecco

Bakit nagkakaroon ng STD, syphillis, etc..

Kung okay lang naman yung sex, if sex is for pleasure, then why is nature making humans die by having too much sex?

tonton

Maghugas ka kasi ng ***** mo.

Marianna_Ulap

zecco wrote: »

Bakit nagkakaroon ng STD, syphillis, etc..

Kung okay lang naman yung sex, if sex is for pleasure, then why is nature making humans die by having too much sex?

As I see it, there are two different subjects we're dealing with, the personal responsibility of a person engaging in sex and the marriage preference of a person. (If we are traditionally a woman who can have more than one husband or vice versa, although we'd have to migrate to Tibet or China to do that legally, or if we practice monogamy).

To know why we get STDs, we need to consider the causes of STDs; there's lack of knowledge on the sexual history of our sex partner, our partner's health, or our own, not using a condom while engaging in sex, and lack of personal hygiene or our partner's hygiene.

We don't necessarily get sick after having a lot of sex, but we need to be more responsible individuals before engaging in it.

About polygamy, it's one's preference. Having a polygamous marriage doesn't necessarily make you a candidate to having sexually transmitted diseases. It's the responsibility of the person to choose the right people to have sex with.

I don't want to think that we are meant to be something. That would contradict the right to freedom that we inherently have.

Zeitgeist699

because venereal disease is just the nature's response to balancing the ecosystem. if you happen to know, we are the only species that spreads out like a virus and its stressing mother nature out. which is also why i think RH bill needs to be passed. they said they want natural ways for people to reproduce? id say mother nature will naturally exterminate us if we strain her balance (as we continue doing), like us dying of starvation or STD that supresses the immune system and kills the host eventually. as far as mother nature goes, we are like the locusts swarms eating everything thats coming our way.

zecco

very interesting..

I'd like to clarify my question. If sex is something that is meant to be enjoyed, meant to be celebrated, then there should be no NEGATIVE consequence, right??? For me kasi a DISEASE is a sign that an ACTION is wrong or bad. I'm not saying that sex should be avoided. My opinion lang is that it should be RESPECTED.

Kasi in our contemporary society, or it has always been like this, I guess. That we, humans, really like sex and would do it even without commitments. That's why there is a clash. Are we not created to have limitless sex, is that what nature is telling us???

Marianna_Ulap

I agree with "balance". For things to be healthy and harmonious, there needs to be balance. Even in life, a human being would need to balance his daily routines or actions so that he would keep being healthy. A life that is always spent for pleasure becomes boring after a while. In eating, we need to balance the food groups according to our nutritional needs. Too much is bad, too little is bad too. Everything needs that.

Nature would need to balance everything too. Or we would continue building houses on water, because land will become too packed with people. But it needs to be taken into consideration that we should have prepared and planned "making babies" in the first place. Since we are a part of nature, too, which is what some people overlook. That's where the responsibility lies. We should have planned having kids, and we should have prepared ourselves before having sex.

Marianna_Ulap

I agree that the act of sex must be respected. My stand on sex is that it is for propagating and building a family, not for senseless pleasure or doing it with no plans for its possible consequence. I made this post awhile back:

When you have sex with someone you desire and who desires you back, there's more probability that you will have pleasure. And, it's possible also that you could get pregnant with that person. My belief is that sex is there not as a tool for getting pleasure whenever you can, but it's there as a way for us to have kids. We have the role to be responsible about sex, just considering the reality that a person could conceive because of that act. A child should be born out of love not out of lust or excess.

My belief on its ability to give pleasure is that you feel an emotional connection with your mate in that act and sharing that pleasure with him or her is an act of love.

In having sex, we have the possibility of getting pregnant. Considering that, we need to be responsible about it. The act produces a new human being, not just any, but a human being that U are responsible for. It's up to you how to make your baby, but me, I want my baby to be borne with love, care and commitment.

rickym

zecco wrote: »

very interesting..

I'd like to clarify my question. If sex is something that is meant to be enjoyed, meant to be celebrated, then there should be no NEGATIVE consequence, right??? For me kasi a DISEASE is a sign that an ACTION is wrong or bad. I'm not saying that sex should be avoided. My opinion lang is that it should be RESPECTED.

Kasi in our contemporary society, or it has always been like this, I guess. That we, humans, really like sex and would do it even without commitments. That's why there is a clash. Are we not created to have limitless sex, is that what nature is telling us???

eating fastfood using your logic is a sin

http://diabetesdialectics.wordpress.com/2011/02/06/how-tiny-nauru-became-worlds-fattest-nation/

"The spread of Western fast food was blamed as the tiny Pacific nation of Nauru was named as the fattest in the world. Its average Body Mass Index is between 34 and 35, 70 per cent higher than in some countries in South-east Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

More than one in 10 of the world’s population is obese – more than half a billion adults – and rates have doubled since 1980. The biggest increases are in the richer nations but almost every country has seen rates rise."

one might even say that eating western fastfood is more sinful than having several sexual partners since here in nauru the life expectancy is down to 58

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru

"Nauruans are the most obese people in the world.[49] 90% of adults have a higher BMI than the world average.[50] 97% of men and 93% of women are overweight or obese.[49] Nauru has the world's highest level of type 2 diabetes, with more than 40% of the population affected,[51] 47% in American Samoa, 44% in Tokelau.[49] Other significant dietary-related problems on Nauru include kidney disease and heart disease. Life expectancy on Nauru in 2006 was 58.0 years for males and 65.0 years for females.[52]"

Asmodai

zecco wrote: »

very interesting..

I'd like to clarify my question. If sex is something that is meant to be enjoyed, meant to be celebrated, then there should be no NEGATIVE consequence, right??? For me kasi a DISEASE is a sign that an ACTION is wrong or bad. I'm not saying that sex should be avoided. My opinion lang is that it should be RESPECTED.

keep in mind that these diseases are caused by pathogens which simply adapted to take advantage of these er, exchanges of bodily fluid. if it's a negative consequence for you, it's survival for these opportunists. and polygamy per se doesn't guarantee contracting an STI.

to use an analogy, you could say the same thing about social interaction. there's always a risk that going out to a party (or actually, any scenario or setting with lots of people like a school, church, or hospital) will expose you to people contagious for chickenpox or the common cold, for instance. it's not something innate to social interaction.

SamLowry

zecco wrote: »

Bakit nagkakaroon ng STD, syphillis, etc..

Kung okay lang naman yung sex, if sex is for pleasure, then why is nature making humans die by having too much sex?

If we are meant to be healthy, why are there viruses, bacteria and cancer? why do we make vaccines when it's meant to wipe out most of our children?

Nature doesn't care.


If venereal diseases is the measure of which kind of sex is being endorsed by.... God. then he must surely be endorsing Lesbian sex. by far, the safest sexual relationship ahead of hetero and gay sex.

aislinn

zecco wrote: »

Bakit nagkakaroon ng STD, syphillis, etc..

Kung okay lang naman yung sex, if sex is for pleasure, then why is nature making humans die by having too much sex?

It's not having too much sex that is the problem. The problem is indiscriminate sex. That's the reason for the spread of std.*okay*

caporegime

zecco wrote: »

Bakit nagkakaroon ng STD, syphillis, etc..

Kung okay lang naman yung sex, if sex is for pleasure, then why is nature making humans die by having too much sex?

Sex is a tool for churning out scientists and inventors that can thwart such health threats as well as those who propagate such illnesses using sex as a tool for churning out scientists and inventors that can thwart such health threats as well as those who propagate such illnesses using sex as a tool for churning out scientists and inventors that can thwart such health threats as well as those who propagate such illnesses using sex as a tool...

BergKaiser

zecco wrote: »

Bakit nagkakaroon ng STD, syphillis, etc..

Kung okay lang naman yung sex, if sex is for pleasure, then why is nature making humans die by having too much sex?

hmm...well, according to study...'maybe' we could blame HIV on chimp hunters (some of which 'could've' been into bestiality)...

...and NATURE doesn't discriminate between what's pleasurable or not...DEATH is natural...it'll come eventually, whether you like what your doing in life or not...what NATURE HAS DONE however, is just provide us with more options regarding it...

Zeitgeist699

you just have to realize thats its not all about sex...any exchanges of body fluids are prone to spreading a disease. if one has hepatitis, and he contaminated others by sharing fork or spoon. then naturally everyone who were exposed to eating using the contaminated spoon will get infected. same with sex. so its not just sex that causes a disease to spread. any exchange of body fluid will. no discrimination. we are just prone to focusing on sex because well, we love sex.

zecco wrote: »

very interesting..

I'd like to clarify my question. If sex is something that is meant to be enjoyed, meant to be celebrated, then there should be no NEGATIVE consequence, right??? For me kasi a DISEASE is a sign that an ACTION is wrong or bad. I'm not saying that sex should be avoided. My opinion lang is that it should be RESPECTED.

Kasi in our contemporary society, or it has always been like this, I guess. That we, humans, really like sex and would do it even without commitments. That's why there is a clash. Are we not created to have limitless sex, is that what nature is telling us???

effem

if we are meant to eat then why food poisoning, salmonella, etc.?

rickym

Zeitgeist699 wrote: »

you just have to realize thats its not all about sex...any exchanges of body fluids are prone to spreading a disease. if one has hepatitis, and he contaminated others by sharing fork or spoon. then naturally everyone who were exposed to eating using the contaminated spoon will get infected. same with sex. so its not just sex that causes a disease to spread. any exchange of body fluid will. no discrimination. we are just prone to focusing on sex because well, we love sex.

even wet kissing can cause std to transfer. so guess lesbian sex is out hmmm... how about mutual *****?

Ateo

effem wrote: »

if we are meant to eat then why food poisoning, salmonella, etc.?

My point exactly. If we are meant to go to heaven, why make sin so enticing and delightful. If God made fornication be an exciting as a root canal, then that would have made sense.


Seriously, sex is one thing that people wants to do anyway despite anything, so there are microorganisms that evolve to take advantage of this transmission corridor.

Two types of bacteria were evolving. One specialized itself to reproduce and multiply in the body when a person is maintaining virginity. Another type targets the sexual act as the opportuned means to transmit itself and reproduce. Which one ofthe two type of bacteria even succeed and evolve into our current set of STDs?

Thus STDs are a product of evolution too.