NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 1:30 am
and non-testable HPV's also which increase risk of cervical cancer and other cancers.
@Cirion Spellbinder Ah, I forgot that one.
There are also untestable diseases/strains that increase risk. While the untestable diseases aren't as immediately severe/life threatening, they increase risk for life threatening disease.
This is also why it can be important to maintain closed sexual generations. E.g. why it can be wrong for a 50 year-old man to have sex with an 18 year-old, because large jumps through generations can help maintain these diseases in circulation, whereas if people only have sex with those roughly their ages these diseases are more likely to die out with them. Unless that 50 year-old was a virgin, in which case you could argue that he belongs in the 18 year-old sexual generation since he held off catching anything from his generation, I guess?
And of course bestiality is wrong because of the potential to become patient zero for a new very dangerous STD.
NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 1:30 ambut can we say it's quantifiable that the average polyamourous couple are taking a bigger risk by doing that than potentially having more partners over their life if they were monogamous? I imagine poly friend networks could be better at being honest about number/date of past relationships/health checks, than in buttoned up community where relationship history are not talked about openly.
Not sure what that has to do with open vs. closed circles.
It's likely true that a closed circle small poly relationship (like two or three couples swinging) is safer than the average monogamous relationship rife with cheating. (Although it's also possible that adds more opportunity for cheating outside the group.)
Much like, despite lower purity, it may make sense to advocate more vegetarian-eating when going out for most people rather than being strictly vegan because more people are likely to stick with it. Although that doesn't mean that vegan isn't better in the abstract if you *do* stick with it.
Most people either can't or won't stick with monogamy, and shame may just tend to encourage lying. But any limits at all may encourage lying, even saying you have to wear a condom if you're HIV positive... so should we just throw out all limits?
In terms of public policy I don't think the line is clear, but if you provide for what people seem to perceive as needs (like multiple partners) it seems like limits beyond those needs can be taken fairly well.
NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 1:30 amyou could be coming across as someone who wrongly looks down on people you meet who presents as promiscuous or polyamarous for a period of their life and is more on top of health checks
I think we can be careful about it, saying more partners = increased risk = bad, but more health checks = reduced risk = good. So it's possible to balance the good and bad. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be better to do both.
Just as a vegetarian or reducetarian can balance the bad of remaining animal products with good of more outreach, for example. It doesn't negate the harms (or risk) but it mitigates them and potentially compensates for them. But it would be best to do both.