Just pee into your phoneFollow

There are... eight... lights!!!

Edited, Nov 9th 2010 6:15pm by Elinda

I ask you... which one would prevent more stupid things from happening?

I just turn off my computer before getting messed up - never have to worry about posting because it's too much effort to turn it on, log in, etc.

The portable STI test I would definitely use. Another weapon in the ******* of safer sex.

Q-tip swab ftw! Not sure about the cleaning thing though... ew...

"Hey baby, before we go all the way, I need you to do something for me. Don't worry, I'll reciprocate."

Not just about oral anymore!

Well now, if you post test results on fb that state you're clean - maybe you have a better chance of getting laid.

The test gives the impression that you're clean. That's not necessarily true. There's a lot that can't be tested this way. It will lead to more unprotected sex when Joe teenager shows his girlfriend his iSTD results.

People will be using this the morning after, they won't be getting accurate results but they will be using those results to justify not using a condom.

Seat belts give people a additional sense of safety. Rightly so, they are safer while wearing one, but people are more likely to take risks because of this. Also, seat belts are closer to condoms, this is more like your engine light.

Home pregnancy tests didn't cause more unwanted pregnancies but this will.

Bull. It is an illogical jump to think "just because he's STI free means we should have unsafe sex!" (and note, by "unsafe" I mean no birth control of ANY kind). Almost everyone I know who uses condoms are afraid first and foremost of pregnancy, and then STIs.

That's like arguing that Gardasil makes more women get pregnant because it prevents the spread of 4 types of HPV, so of course you should forgo the pill!

It's possible. But even back in public school, pregnancy was the number one fear, hands down. Granted, MA public schools have a wide degree of variety (I went to school on Cape Cod, not inner city Boston), but it seemed pretty universal. As you said, it has a lot to do with stigma - and teenage pregnancy was the number 1 taboo I heard of as a teen.

By college diseases became more of an issue because pregnancy practically ceased to be one - almost all the girls I knew in college were on the pill, or would demand their partner use a condom.

I still find it very hard to believe that people would think an STI-clear scoresheet would justify a chance at pregnancy. Maybe it just got beat into my head at an early age that you MUST use a condom.

... truth be told, it traumatized me a bit! I remember the first time I had sex we went through 3 condoms, because I was afraid any slippage would be dangerous, so we had to throw it out and use a new one

And yet, your first response was the following:



How does an STI test provide "safer sex"? It doesn't at all. What it does do is exactly what a few posters have commented on: It makes people think that sax is "safer". No one thinks "I can take an easy test to see if I got an STI, so it's ok for me to not use any form of protection". That's not what I'm saying. What they do is get a general sense that sex is safer because of the mere availability of things like condoms, pills, and easy STI tests. And that's going to tend to increase their willingness to have sex with someone than otherwise, even if they themselves don't actually use any of those things at all.


Is that stupid? Absolutely. But a hell of a lot of people are stupid. It's the same sort of psychology that causes a statistical increase in the consumption of fattening foods after people have been exposed to commercials about the "non-fat" versions of the same foods. Why? Because some part of the brain has shifted "eating chocolate" (or whatever) from bad to "ok". Publicize a study showing that a glass of red wine a day is good for your health, and watch the rate at which people purchase and consume beer and hard liquor go up. Same sort of thing.


I'm not saying that we shouldn't develop stuff like this. But never underestimate the ability of dumb people to find new dumb ways to do things no matter how much you try to make it hard for them. What's the saying? There's no such thing as "idiot proof" because the world just keeps making better idiots.

Hi, HPV would like to have a word with you. I'm assuming that would be one of the diseases you can test for (as the blurb in the OP did not say), and condoms don't protect against it.

Edit: Reading over your opinion again, I guess I have more to add. Even if there is the idea of reverse psychology, I still feel more access to information is not a bad thing. I personally would use it, if I ever had a sexual encounter outside of a relationship, even though I use condoms as a rule. It should go hand-in-hand with better sex ed; if Yoda's experiences are true, it seems the main problem is a lack of decent education about how sex, disease, and pregnancy work. I'd put it on the same line of the birth control pill - they need to include "Does not protect against HIV or STIs" because people aren't educated on it. Has birth control increased diseases? I would imagine it has - because people have a lack of education. More information on a subject is not bad unless it is incomplete information.

Edited, Nov 10th 2010 8:22am by LockeColeMA

I think it relates to his next paragraph:


Of course, this brings up two issues:
1. This means that they're justifying after the fact. Just because they use the test after, it didn't affect their decision to have unprotected sex the night before. Thus, it wouldn't have any effect in this situation on whether or not they used a condom. It would just affect treatment.
2. If they're using the test wrong, it is not the fault of the test if the results are incorrect. That's like saying condoms aren't useful because some idiots put them on inside out or don't put them on until right before they ejaculate.

Like Yoda said later, people will still do this even if it's not logical. I think the answer is clear instructions and good sexual education.

Come on, you can't seriously suggest people don't engage in riskier behavior when they have supposed "safety nets".