Guest Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 People here seem a bit confused about STIs despite my explanation, going by some of the responses. Doctors literally have to try to prevent the spread of them by whatever means possible. STIs aren't like many other illnesses that can befall one (kidney failure, cancer, etc) because you literally can spread STIs to every other person you come in sexual contact with, whereas cancer etc isn't like that. Would you guys be upset if doctors didn't care about vaccines? Because that's something else that (depending on who you listen to) prevents the spread of diseases. Doctors have a duty to prevent outbreaks and try to stop the spread of disease, whether or not they appear to care about the needs of an individual and whether or not they have a good bedside manner. Hence why they'll often ask invasive questions about the amount of sex one may or may not be having and try to push you into an STI exam. I find it funny that I'm defending doctors when I'm actually one of the members here who is most vocally distrustful of them and the entire medical industry, lol. Having worked in the sex industry though I know just how seriously doctors have to take the STI issue because if some kind of outbreak (ie syphilis) comes down to them failing to diagnose and treat something they should have picked up on, they could potentially lose their career over it. STIs can be caught from another person, as can colds and flus and everything else doctors go out of their way to try to prevent with vaccine administration, it's just that there aren't vaccines for most STIs so they have to take a different approach. Sure it can be uncomfortable for asexuals but at the same time, how is a doctor meant to know if someone is actually asexual/actually not having sex or actually just trying to hide the fact that they've been having unprotected casual sex out of embarrassment? A doctor can't know, so needs to try to do what they can to ascertain that you most definitely aren't at risk of spreading STIs to other people. It seems harsh I know but at the same time it would be negligent of a doctor to just shrug off anyone who could potentially be trying to hide their sexual history from them. People here seem to think that's not something someone would do, but again, having worked in the sex industry I know full well the lengths some people will go to to try to hide their sexual preferences/history etc. Yes that sucks for aces, but maybe if you could get a counselor or psychiatrist or something to write a letter for you saying you're definitely asexual, then present that to your doc, they may be less likely to drill you with questions? To get this back on topic, I've been physically single and sexless for 7 years now and society most definitely doesn't give a crap about that, no one even asks me about it or voices any opinion on the topic to me. I guess it just depends on where you live 🤔 Link to post Share on other sites
AmorphousBlob Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 My therapist is actually surprisingly chill about it. She had me do this card sort thing where there were different values like popularity, flexibility, creativity, etc. I had to sort em from most to least important to me. We both laughed when I pushed romance and sexuality off the end of the table 👍 Link to post Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 . Link to post Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 Well it would be nice if doctors showed the same amount of care picking up cancer; my family would be several members up and my best mate might not have lost her dad if they had. Link to post Share on other sites
EdInLeeds Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 I agree. As I'm now nearly 34 and single, I am finding this difficult. A lot of my friends now just don't consider seeing (or even speaking to) me a priority. I don't mind my own company, but I'm getting a surfeit of it now. The documentary (A)sexual seemed to hint at this problem in the part where David Jay said that he was drifting apart from a good female friend despite trying very hard to stay friends with her. Link to post Share on other sites
Ortac Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 Amazingly, I have never ever been asked any questions by any doctor which even remotely touch on the subject of sex or my sex life. Another cultural difference thing, I guess! Link to post Share on other sites
what the face Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 As a member of the medical provider community, some defense here. I believe getting a complete "History" is and has always been the most important component to a medical visit. Examinations, tests and images; sure they are also what we do. But the history is the key. Of course how a Doctor/provider gets that history is the difference. Whether asking multiple probing questions or thru a conversational back and forth, Written questionnaire, etc. Getting a complete and honest "history" tells us the most likely diagnosis/situation, AND the history tells us if any individual risk factors are present for other conditions that ought to be considered. The more a patient shares with their medical provider the more likely both can get to the accurate diagnosis. Having sex is a risk factor for certain conditions. Some sexual activities are higher risk Having unprotected sex with multiple partners is a greater risk factor. A history without sex also carries other risks. In Medicine, teaching and learning between patients and providers Should Go both ways. Link to post Share on other sites
Ortac Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 47 minutes ago, what the face said: A history without sex also carries other risks. Please can you expand on this? What risks arise from NOT having sex? Link to post Share on other sites
what the face Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 11 minutes ago, Ortac said: Please can you expand on this? What risks arise from NOT having sex? For men, fewer ejaculations increases risk for prostate cancer and disease one example For women, nulliparous, never pregnant women have higher risks of breast, ovarian cancer another exp I know, asexuality is not synonymous with living without ejaculation or pregnancy but less brings higher risks Link to post Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 . Link to post Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 . Link to post Share on other sites
Lucas Monteiro Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 1 hour ago, what the face said: For men, fewer ejaculations increases risk for prostate cancer and disease one example For women, nulliparous, never pregnant women have higher risks of breast, ovarian cancer another exp I know, asexuality is not synonymous with living without ejaculation or pregnancy but less brings higher risks It's more complicated than what you are saying. Some studies say that there is a relation between fewer ejaculations and prostate cancer, and others say that there isn't. That happens cause of the multiple factors that goes along the chances to increase or decrease prostate cancer, just as @Jade Cross said. Sources: Ejaculation Frequency and Subsequent Risk of Prostate Cancer Sexual factors and prostate cancer Ejaculation Frequency and Risk of Prostate Cancer Link to post Share on other sites
General Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 20 hours ago, FictoCannibal. said: People here seem a bit confused about STIs despite my explanation, going by some of the responses. Doctors literally have to try to prevent the spread of them by whatever means possible. STIs aren't like many other illnesses that can befall one (kidney failure, cancer, etc) because you literally can spread STIs to every other person you come in sexual contact with, whereas cancer etc isn't like that. Would you guys be upset if doctors didn't care about vaccines? Because that's something else that (depending on who you listen to) prevents the spread of diseases. Doctors have a duty to prevent outbreaks and try to stop the spread of disease, whether or not they appear to care about the needs of an individual and whether or not they have a good bedside manner. Hence why they'll often ask invasive questions about the amount of sex one may or may not be having and try to push you into an STI exam. I find it funny that I'm defending doctors when I'm actually one of the members here who is most vocally distrustful of them and the entire medical industry, lol. Having worked in the sex industry though I know just how seriously doctors have to take the STI issue because if some kind of outbreak (ie syphilis) comes down to them failing to diagnose and treat something they should have picked up on, they could potentially lose their career over it. STIs can be caught from another person, as can colds and flus and everything else doctors go out of their way to try to prevent with vaccine administration, it's just that there aren't vaccines for most STIs so they have to take a different approach. Sure it can be uncomfortable for asexuals but at the same time, how is a doctor meant to know if someone is actually asexual/actually not having sex or actually just trying to hide the fact that they've been having unprotected casual sex out of embarrassment? A doctor can't know, so needs to try to do what they can to ascertain that you most definitely aren't at risk of spreading STIs to other people. It seems harsh I know but at the same time it would be negligent of a doctor to just shrug off anyone who could potentially be trying to hide their sexual history from them. People here seem to think that's not something someone would do, but again, having worked in the sex industry I know full well the lengths some people will go to to try to hide their sexual preferences/history etc. Yes that sucks for aces, but maybe if you could get a counselor or psychiatrist or something to write a letter for you saying you're definitely asexual, then present that to your doc, they may be less likely to drill you with questions? To get this back on topic, I've been physically single and sexless for 7 years now and society most definitely doesn't give a crap about that, no one even asks me about it or voices any opinion on the topic to me. I guess it just depends on where you live 🤔 Get a counselor or psychiatrist to write you a letter saying that you're asexual??? I'm sorry, WHAT?! Do you think we need to be "diagnosed with asexuality" so that others will believe us? Not only is that absolutely ludicrous, it's also beyond offensive. Asexuality isn't some type of illness, disorder, or ailment and should not be treated as such. Does a lesbian now need a letter from a shrink to prove she's a homosexual and definitely not screwing men? Is she suppose to be diagnosed with "The gay" now? LMAO smh The way in which medical professionals are educated needs to change. Asexuals shouldn't have to jump through hoops in order to be heard, respected, or taken seriously. Link to post Share on other sites
General Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 1 hour ago, what the face said: For men, fewer ejaculations increases risk for prostate cancer and disease one example For women, nulliparous, never pregnant women have higher risks of breast, ovarian cancer another exp I know, asexuality is not synonymous with living without ejaculation or pregnancy but less brings higher risks There is no definitive evidence of any of this. The studies that were conducted to arrive at these conclusions were taken from small groups of people with limited diversity. That's a fact. Link to post Share on other sites
what the face Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 You can look up the Large "Nun" study from the 1960's I believe Higher rates breast Cancer and ovarian seen in Cellibate, never pregnant Nuns Similar findings have confirmed this. The ejaculation evidence shows men who ejaculate more than 20 times a month have less prostate cancer and problems than those who go 3-7 times a month Link to post Share on other sites
General Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, what the face said: You can look up the Large "Nun" study from the 1960's I believe Higher rates breast Cancer and ovarian seen in Cellibate, never pregnant Nuns Similar findings have confirmed this. The ejaculation evidence shows men who ejaculate more than 20 times a month have less prostate cancer and problems than those who go 3-7 times a month Again, small groups of people with limited diversity were evaluated in both cases you presented. Not only were these cases limited, they were also short term. A study from the 1960s on nuns isn't definitive evidence. Even some of the most religiously devout individuals can have a "history." Last time I checked, nuns were not required to be abstinent or even non-smokers for that matter, BEFORE entering the order. I would know, considering I was raised Roman Catholic and also have a family member in the convent. Link to post Share on other sites
what the face Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 the classic Nun study involved 31 thousand+ individuals lasting several decades NOT small or short term Just saying Link to post Share on other sites
SpaceDustbin Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 6 hours ago, what the face said: For women, nulliparous, never pregnant women have higher risks of breast, ovarian cancer That's tricky ground... yes, never pregnant women have a higher risk of breast cancer, but people who give birth to their first child after the age of 30 have a higher risk on breast cancer than people who haven't given birth. And that's excluding oral birth control which increases the risk on cervical and breast cancer. Link to post Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 Breaking News: Being alive causes cancer. Link to post Share on other sites
General Posted November 17, 2018 Share Posted November 17, 2018 2 hours ago, what the face said: the classic Nun study involved 31 thousand+ individuals lasting several decades NOT small or short term Just saying 1960s to present is hardly a lengthy span of time. That's fairly recent. Thirty-one thousand individuals is a drop in the bucket in comparison to how many people inhabit this planet. The autobiographies of some nuns were studied with a date beginning somewhere in 1917, and that particular study didn't involve anything pertaining to cancer risks/reproductive health. All nuns didn't come from the same background prior to entering the order. There is a lot of variation in the subjects which will undoubtedly render these studies inconclusive such as age, ethnicity, existing health conditions, and lifestyle history. Also, even though the 1960s aren't that far away from the present, research conducted pre twenty-first century cannot be fully relied upon, as we have made numerous technological advances since then. Even now we still don't know all of the answers. Take note of how many times you read "may" or "possibly" in those articles about human studies. You will find there is no definitive evidence pertaining to any group analysis. There is only a possibility, and that's not good enough. Just saying. Link to post Share on other sites
what the face Posted November 18, 2018 Share Posted November 18, 2018 OK Sure dude Link to post Share on other sites
General Posted November 18, 2018 Share Posted November 18, 2018 15 hours ago, what the face said: OK Sure dude 👉I'm nonbinary, not a dude. Link to post Share on other sites
Alawyn-Aebt Posted November 19, 2018 Share Posted November 19, 2018 Now, I am not defending those claims per see, but, On 11/17/2018 at 6:23 PM, AceOfHearts_85 said: 1960s to present is hardly a lengthy span of time. That's fairly recent. Thirty-one thousand individuals is a drop in the bucket in comparison to how many people inhabit this planet. 31,000 people is a HUGE group compared to many other studies and 50+ years is a long time for a study to run. Now, I will say that only focusing on Nuns does prevent an adequate cross-section of society for being observed. But the sheer numbers of people involved does compensate for some of it. Certainly I have read many conflicting studies on it so more information must be needed, but calling out a study involving 31,000 people as small is odd being the fact that a 31,000 study participant group is HUGE compared to some other medical studies. Now it is sad that cancer exists, just as it is sad any fatal medical condition (and even some non-fatal) exists, yet it is a fact of life just as relationships are for most of the population. Link to post Share on other sites
what the face Posted November 19, 2018 Share Posted November 19, 2018 Aceof Hearts Sorry for any offense. I like many consider Dude a universal pronoun Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.