One of the things that bothers me about this is that waaaaayyyy back in the 80s, you were required by law to identify past sexual partners if you were diagnosed with Herpes. Or maybe it was just nearly signed into law. I don't remember because I was only 12-13 at the time and not that worried about it.
But then along comes AIDS, and since it was "A Gay Disease That Shall Not Be Called A Gay Disease Until Enough Intravenous Drug Users Catch It So We Don't Have To Face Up To The Consequences Of Our Actions" (go ahead and comment, Jo...), it was decided that we couldn't force the poor gays to "out" each other due to social stigma....and in the intervening decades, hundreds of thousands of people are dead from AIDS simply because we didn't want to offend homosexual sensitivities.
Then it comes full circle: now that syphillis and other STDs are on the rise again (Thanks, Planned Parenthood and your subordinate program Teenwire!), it's okay to get straights to identify partners.

Sometimes the priorities of our self-styled Social Engineers is utterly perplexing to me.

My problem is, I can't stop having condomless anal sex with strangers in my kayak.

Whoops, sorry. For a second, low blood sugar made me fantasize that I was a liberal.

I can tell already that this post is never going to got the serious discussion that it deserves. It's too bad. This discussion could have been very valuable.

And some people wonder why I think that blogging is overrated...

PS: Nathan, you are an asshat.
PPS: Jo, don't take Nathan seriously, he is an asshet.

I am?
But, yeah, Jo knows enough to not take me seriously.

The thing is, are there "thoughts that shall not be shared"?
I remember the debate over whether to require people who were diagnosed with AIDS to identify sexual partners, do either of you?
Do you how many people are dead because their partner didn't know they had the disease? Do you realize how many lives could have been saved? How much suffering could have been avoided?

Many of our laws are based on the idea that some things are too important to allow people to follow their own impulses, like speeding in school zones and the like. But those considerations get thrown out the window for special cases. Is that not worth discussing? Even if I sometimes use "insensitive" language to raise the issue?

I'm actually all for identifying sexual partners if you have an STD. It's a useful tool for stopping the spread of harmful diseases.

Is it so incomprehensible that I actually care about *people* more than *causes*?

Honestly, most people spend their entire lives trying to find happiness; some never find it. It becomes even more difficult when, for political or ideological reasons, special-interest groups who confuse the issue by insisting on how things "ought" to be in direct contradiction with the basics of human nature.

Maybe there's a less asshatted way of saying that, dunno. If asshat I truly be, then y'all may want to invest in an asshat-to-English dictionary.

Nathan: A former boss of mine used to say to me all of the time: "Jerry, it isn't what you say, it's how you say it." You could have made the exact same points without being sarcastic and intentionally baiting. By starting out the conversation with your inflammatory language you simultaneously devalued both the original post and your own argument. That is what makes you an asshat.

By starting out the conversation with your inflammatory language...

Jerry, if that's what makes someone an asshat, maybe your own comments also qualify.

OTOH, I'm willing to suppose you're just in a bad mood. When I'm in a bad mood, I usually don't go looking for friends to pick fights with.

As for Nathan, you might consider the possibility that because he does remember the beginnings of the AIDS issue (as do I), he might have some basis for being exasperated with the way it's framed. I know I am.

Just remember, if you kayak with someone, you're not just kayaking with them, you're kayaking with everyone they ever kayaked..

I'm thinking these STD notification cards are a practical joke goldmine.

I'd also like to say that there's a difference between being an asshat and coming across as one. I do hope in my case it's the latter...

On the other hand, I'm not bothered by your reaction, Jerry.

The thing I try to keep in mind, both in reading and writing comments, is that only 40% of the communication is in the words we use, the other 60% is in tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language. Sometimes I forget that, but you know: the comment I　made might have gone over alot better in a bar over a beer or two...

Remember, Jo and I　met in Seattle, and no one got hurt...[grin]

I am initially thinking this may be a good idea, but only if anonymity can be maintained (you know, the one who tested positive might not have to reveal their name in the e-mail).

The responsible thing to do would be for a person to attempt to personally contact all their former sexual partners and let them know, however embarrassing it may be. So, on one hand, it is an individual responsibilty and maybe the government shouldn't be involved, but then, maybe the government should force the hand of it's citizens in the name of public health?

I am not sure (can you tell?)

Nathan, I think you typed before you thought about how your comment might be perceived. I don't think you to be an asshat, but you might have unintentionally offended. I do that frequently in my life and fortunately those who "know" me typically check my motive and words against who they know me to be. I don't think Jerry thinks you are an asshat inherently (right, Jerry?) but you came across as lacking any compassion.

Rae, were you the Peacemaker in your family growing up? [grin]

"...only 40% of the communication is in the words we use, the other 60% is in tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language."

If you know this then you know how important it is that the words be very clear in the absence of the non-verbal cues.

Very true, Jerry. It gets me confused more often than not in the virtual world as I am a strong reader of those non-verbal cues.

I just think that we (the most common commentors on RS) have read enough of Nathan on his blog and his comments here to know that he has very definite opinions on certain subjects. Sometimes Nathan comes across as harsh, but I personally think him humble enough to recognize it, apologize (in his pun-worthy, reparteé way) if necessary, or agree to disagree.

That all said, yes, Jerry, I agree that we must be very careful to communicate exactly what we intend to say as there is so much that cannot be intuited over the net.

Nathan: peacemaker? I think having four children of the same sex has shaped me more for that role did my youth :)

Yeah, but sometimes I'm tired/lazy/busy. However, like I said, I had no real problem with your rebuke. It was justified from your point of view.

It doesn't change the substance, though, which we are missing in the midst of all the rhetoric.

Have any/all the participants of this discussion read "And the Band Played On?" It's an excellent description of the early days of the "fight" against AIDS. It matches what I remember growing up at that time, which was that the needs of actual people (sufferers) were sacrificed on the altar of Political Correctness. Individuals were treated as unimportant in comparison to promoting a specific view of a population defined mainly by willful, deliberate behavior.
The things I saw then left an indelible impression on the selfishness, lack of moral grounding, narcissism, and downright inhumanity of liberal activism. I haven't seen anything to indicate they've changed, or give a flying rat's butt about individual people. They'll still sacrifice 1,000,000 people to avoid admitting they are wrong about an issue, and then turn around and compare Bush to Hitler.

The only reason Shad0runr's post made me think of all this is that we've had a generation abandoned to their own impulses by a liberal ideology that refuses to admit and actively obscures that:

Actions have consequences. Sometimes the consequences can be avoided for a time, but you cannot depend on avoiding them forever, and so you are still responsible when things go wrong as a natural consequence of your behavior.

To me, it's all wrapped up together in one concept: that people supposedly have the right to seek pleasure in any way they want, without consideration for the damage they do to themselves and others. Teen sex, STDs, HIV/AIDS, pregnancy/abortion...the prevailing societal attitude is: the government will collect taxes and provide free/cheap services to let people continue acting in a selfish/immature manner.

Two words: Personal responsibility.

As someone who is an abysmal failure at personal confrontations, I can see the allure of e-mailing a partner that you have an STD; but I still think if you've gotten naked with someone, you should have the decency to inform them face-to-face.

Nathan, you know we love you. ::: grin :::

I'm also getting old enough to be cranky and curmudgeonly and not care about it anymore!

Being a bitter old ex-Army sergeant doesn't hurt, either.