The increasing problem of STIs

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....l-huge-rise-STIs.html

We read in an earlier post that the Government is to consider the introduction of a law called 'Clare's Law'.

In light of this should they also consider measures to help prevent this increasing problem of sexually transmitted infection (STI)?

It may sound rather draconian, but in this age of increasing divorces and separations, which often turns to a person experiencing several different sexual partners, perhaps a yearly STI free check could be enforced?

On completing a clean bill of health check, then the person could be issued with a certificate to that effect, (more or less like a MOT certificate).

Obviously this question is all 'tongue in the cheek', but what are your thoughts on this important issue?

[grasscarp]

what good would a yearly check be? You could be "clean" and next day not so clean. All you can do is do it safely as you can never be totally sure of the other person. In parts of Africa there are free condoms available in all the ladies toilets. (maybe in the gents too but I didnt go there!)

[Kromovaracun]

I recognise your suggestions are tongue-in-cheek, but I have heard people endorse them seriously. So in response to them rather than you in particular, I'd say that enforcing yearly sexual health checks is invasive, costly, and really more a matter for individual responsibility than the state. Individuals can dramatically reduce the likelihood of catching an STI if they simply avoid having unprotected sex (this, naturally, does depend on the particular STI. I don't think it protects against lice, for instance.) Whereas so long as nobody's being hurt or exploited, I don't really think the state has any place intervening in people's sex lives.

I know it's a terrible cliche, but all that can really be done about the matter is publicity and education. And even then education will only reach the young, when contrary to popular belief, STI's have increased dramatically among the over-45's, who seem just as (if not more) careless about their sex lives. The only thing that can realistically be done is make people aware of all the facts, hope that they listen, and try to make the ones who do listen vigilant about the ones who don't.

[Kromovaracun]

"STI's have increased dramatically among the over-45's, who seem just as (if not more) careless about their sex lives. "

Link to back this up: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7974297.stm

[boxtops]

Agree K - it's popularly supposed that young people are mainly affected, but it's not, it's now the older generations.

[bednobs]

what is clare's law?

[Postdog]

Dunno how they are done now but in the old days (so a mate said who had one) it involved inserting a probe into the penis. Don't think I could face that every year!

[boxtops]

Depending what they are looking for, postdog, some of it can be tested with urine tests I believe.

[hc4361]

If they fail the test they have to wear a cowbell and shout 'unclean unclean' every half hour.

[anotheoldgit]

Yes, Yes very funny but it does have a serious implication.

If it happens to be a one night stand, then certification would be no user whatsoever, and a person would be a fool to take part in unprotected sex.

But if for example one starts into a serious relationship with another.would it not be beneficial to both parties to know of each other's sex history?

[AlBags]

Don't shag strangers ... is a good starting point.

[Kromovaracun]

"But if for example one starts into a serious relationship with another.would it not be beneficial to both parties to know of each other's sex history? "

You could always just ask. That's how most couples deal with the issue.

[Sqad]

grasscarp has answered your question.

[anotheoldgit]

Albags

Surely they are all strangers at first.

[Kromovaracun]

And what do you mean by 'certification'? Are you suggesting an STI-register or something? And are you suggesting it seriously or is it more tongue-in-cheek?

If serious, I think the idea is appalingly invasive. So long as it's all consensual etc, sex is a matter for society to sort out - not the government. As far as I'm aware, free sexual health checks and safe sex resources (condoms, femidoms, dams etc.) are already universally available at any appropriate clinic, and the latter are also provided free by numerous local voluntary organisations (depending on area of course).

[woofgang]

Simple life rule....don't share your body with anyone you wouldn't share your toothbrush with.......

I hope that "Clare's Law" will apply to women with a history of violence as well as men.

[anotheoldgit]

Kromovaracun

Before you dismiss it completely, think about it.

We now have a society with a much more liberal attitude towards sex,

An increasing number of Men and Women are now having increasing number of partners.

Cases of STIs are on the increase.

Yes in an ideal world persons should take necessary precautions, and although there are the resources that you suggest available, the lessons are not being learned.

So isn't it now time to take other actions, even at if at first they may seem to some rather appallingly invasive?

Why is it necessary to have a MOT to prove your vehicle is safe to go on the road, but not necessary to have a sexual health check to prove it is safe for two persons to have sex?

[jno]

do you think people would actually demand to see their partners' cleanliness certificates first? What if it was a month old - would you expect them to require ones no more than 24 hours old?

Nice idea no doubt, but I think it's unworkable. Woofgang's advice seems sound to me.

You can always use protective devices

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YFC0O393DQ