Health Stuff (pt 2)
This is part two of my ongoing coverage of our health class. We saw some nasty slides today, but I don't know why people can't just be mature and deal with it. It's just a bunch of diseased body parts. Big deal. Our speaker from MAP really screwed up a lot today. First, she made us suck on a Jolly Rancher and then wrap it up and put it into a paper bag. At the end of class, she asked us to pick one and eat it. That was supposed to represent having sex. There are two problems with that. One, who chooses their partners randomly? And two, if spit was an STD, there should have been another 90 or so clean Jolly Ranchers because of the 1/4 statistic. She uses that number to try and frighten us and ignores it when it suits her. The slideshow wasn't all pictures. She gave us some more statistics too. All of them were from 1998 or before. And because her data was out of date, she got to revise it. So she could have been making it up! I've seen several studies that show that the rate of STDs has gone DOWN. She always revised the data up. She also did what I said I hate in the last blog: she said that if you had four friends who where sexually active, then one of them would have an STD. No, sorry, you lose. That is a broad statistic. In Cincinnati it might be 1/10 or even 1/2. And just because the statistic is 1/4 doesn't mean that if you test four people, one will have it. It means that if you test 100000 people, about 25000 will have it. Statistics are not accurate at those small numbers. She told us that STDs don't discriminate. Once again, she's wrong. Let's create a hypothetical study. If you assume that everybody in the study has access to the same quality of healthcare and has sex with one person with a specific STD, then they won't ALL get the STD. Different people have natural immunities or even just stronger immune systems. And the world isn't a laboratory. People DON'T have access to the same healthcare. People have sex with different numbers of people depending on their socioeconomic background. Also, she told us that if your urethra was blocked (by a STD), you wouldn't be able to urinate and you would die. Well, nope, you lose again. According to Scott's mother, total urethra blockage is almost unheard of. And even if it did happen, your body has ways of getting around barriers. First it would try to dissolve the barrier and then, if that failed, it would widen the urethra until urine could flow. It would be very painful, but you wouldn't die. Finally, she told us that a cold sore could become a STD. Sure. Right. Whatever you say. I'm not even going to argue on this one. And then there were things that she said that were just dumb. For one, she said, "Remember guys, if you want to have a healthy pregnancy later, think about what you do today." Sorry, but I DON'T WANT TO HAVE A HEALTHY PREGNANCY! And then she told us that if we choose abstinence as a life style, we won't have financial or emotional problems. We also won't have to worry about our goals. Well, sorry again, but WRONG! Okay, whatever, I probably left something important out, so comment.
PS: Scott and I talked about this on AIM and he helped my come up with a lot of this.

15 Comments:
Yeah that was pretty good. With the socioeconomic bit, I meant that you have sex with different types of people, or more or less often. Also, her gross mispronunciations were shining today. Scalpula?!?! Never heard of it. Sounds like a doctor's spatula. She also said if we wanted healthy pregnancies, abstinence is the way to go.... Well, if you're abstinent, there's not gonna be any pregnancy, is there? Reguarding the financial/emotional probs and goals, I don't even know how she connects it to sex, unless you're paying for sex that you're using to get rid of stress, and your only goal in life is to have more sex than anyone else and make it into the recordbooks...
Hahaha. I think she meant having to take care of a baby but whatever. That's what condoms and the Pill are for.
Yeah. My mom says condoms protect against STDS. That's why they call it "safe sex". I mean, sometimes STDs can get through, but if the condom does it's job, gonorrhea, chlamydia, HIV, and Herpes are pretty much taken care of, as long as you're not having sex in an outbreak. HPV and Syphilis she said could be transmitted through the warts, but I'm not sure. I'll investigate that.
Oh yeah and one more thing. Their email address was a yahoo account. That put my scam-detection instincts into full gear. They should get a reputible provider. Or at least gmail :)
Imagine, if you will, a world without hypothetical situations.
Cory has a point. He says that sex can have other negative consequences than getting an STD. You can get in trouble with the law or your parents. The girl can get pregnent (well, if ur dumb and don't use a condom and/or the Pill). There can be mental and emotional problems. But we're focusing on the STDs in class, probably because they have the most shock value, so that's what I'm going to focus on in my blogs. Play by their rule, no matter how unfair.
the whole 20+ STDs today idea is completely bogus...
here's the facts shes been telling us:
1960: 2 MAJOR (i capitalized major its very fucking important) STDs: syphillis, and ghonorrhea
2005: 25+ STDs...
notice anything missing from the second 1? Because i seem to see something... (if you dont look up at the capitalized word that i pointed out)
according to what she's been teaching there are 6 major STDs today... not 25+ like shes trying to misrepresent it... (the 6 are: clamydia, warts [GVR?], AIDs, herpes, ghonnorhea, syphillis)
still an increase but not that huge BS one...
the not discriminating part i hate! its like a disease enters your body and is like "yes i'm going to screw up this person!" but then it realizes something and its like "OH NO! THIS IS A WHITE MALE! I LIKE WHITE MALES! I'm NOT GONNA INFECT YOU!!!!!!!!!!! now if it were a white chick I WOULD! but since you're a white male i'm not messing with you!"
BULLSHIT!^
name 1 disease that discriminates... (besides some ovarian disease you fool)
1 thing no-one has yet explained to me... why the fuck is birth control against your beliefs??????????? please show me the spot in the bible or whatever your spiritual book is where it says "birth control is bad. do not use birth control"
to me this is all just some irrational fear of some modern technology... they don't have open heart surgery in the bible! is THAT a sin?
sorry i needed to work some religious stuff in there after what the websurfer said... i hope he/she comes back so i can talk this over with 'em.
-me
Douglas - you.... are a asshole!
It can be against religious beliefs because Catholocism at least dictates that all life is sacred. I'm Catholic yet I tend to disagree with that certain part of it. Besides, barrett, it's not all based around the bible. The pope has to do something, too! lol.
"Don't say that people who don't use birth control are stupid, because some of them aren't. For some people, including myself, all forms of birth control are against religious beliefs." - Nobody's trying to say they're stupid (except barrett, whose always offensive). The religious beliefs generally promote abstinence. What we were saying is if abstinence is not what you want to do, and you don't want a pregnancy, birth control is the way to go. If it's against your religious belief, simply do not have sex. If it isn't, and you don't want a pregnancy but want to have sex, I think it is right to say you are being very shortsighted in that scenario.
nice intro scott... it actually is my job to offend people!
anyways why though? I mean yes the pope has banned it but the thing i'm saying is WHY? it makes absolutely no sense to me! the problem with the all life is sacred idea is that there is no DEFINITE definition for when life begins. Evem if all life is precious wheres the conflict with condoms, the morning after pill, and just birth control pills? Because those don't allow conception to take place. it's not killing anything. The whole idea makes no sense! WHY?
i'm outraged!
-me
I thought that this blog was interesting, so I saved it to my favorites, and now I'm glad I did. All forms of birth control keep a life from beginning, and our belief is that God has a plan for everyone, and He might have wanted that potential child to live and change the world. Also, what some birth control pills do is that they mess up the hormones so that the changes that happen during pregnancy won't happen, and the pregnancy ends before the woman even realizes that it had begun. I haven't looked into this myself, but that's what I've heard. I might be wrong, and if I am, please correct me, but either way, it is considered sinful in my religion.
I understand that and I generally don't try to insult people's religions. Sometimes I do just out of stupidity or just because I feel like being offensive. I'm glad that somebody who doesn't know me has taken an interest in my blog.
I just realized this, but Because certain religions are against stopping the start of life, Why do they not have a problem with condoms?
Hypothetical Headline- Masses of Angry Catholics charged into and destroyed a "Trojan" condom factory. Fortunately, No cells were killed. A person was.
Okay, the last part WAS mean, but I was on a roll.
is there irony that the same religions that preach the importance and sacredness of ALL life now, were the very religions responsible for the crusades, the spanish inquisition, and other violent crimes against humanity?
(that was a really long sentence!)
the contridiction i can easily see is VERY apparent. some people would say abortions are wrong because they kill a fetus (a "human being"), while at the same time they can still agree with a war, where many full grown humans with an undisputable consciousness are being killed and maimed every day...
the whole idea i'm trying to get at is... you cannot pick a choose like that. to say "god wanted this child, but he doesnt want this enemy"
another thing is how would people even know if god is on their side? what if god hates democracy and loves dictatorships? what if during the crusades god wasn't on the europeans side but instead on the muslim's side?
who's to say who god supports and who he disfavors?
to add on to alan's black and white concept, you need to remember... what maybe a dark shade of gray(or black) to you may be white to someone else...
i came up with this literally as soon as i published the last one...
what if god is really pro-birth control? pro-abortion ("pro-choice")? what if god was the one who really helped the people to invent the modern abortion methods? what if god was behind the condom?
i love what if questions
(OFFENSIVE ALERT... BY BY-PASSING THIS WARNING YOU ARE AGREEING NOT TO GET PISSED AT THESE NEXT OFFENSIVE COMMENTS... inspired by george carlin)
what if, if god was pro-choice, pro-birth control, that each time you did something against birth control, or against abortion in his name it just made him madder and madder? would he want to smite someone? that'd be kind of ironic... "GOD WILLS IT!" **lightning** damn that was offensive!
HAHAHAHA Actually, yes, Barrett has a point. For Bored Websurfer, we had a big debate about abortion a while ago, which is why Barrett brought that up. Also, we will call him anything from Barrett to Douglas to Bizzle, just because he's cool enough for the three names. Now, onto the normal part of my comment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of Christianity to follow what God wants? And how do we know what God wants? The church! But how does the church know what God wants? Personally I don't have a problem with God. But I DO have a problem with the church (especially the Catholic church). They're REALLY behind the times and generally believe the EXACT opposite thing that I do. Whatever, 1st ammendment.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home