What if there were no such thing as stds?

[Stacyzee]

I hear many people say, " I wouldn't be more promiscuous because there are too many diseases out there." Well, what if there were no such thing as stds? Would you engage in a lot of sexual activity with different people? Would you still wear a condom? Why or why not? If you are religious would you compromise your beliefs just to gain experience with another?

[InquisitiveMale]

My view would be this...

Women would start having allot more sex and the activity level for men would only go up slightly.

I don't see STD's in society as really a main concern for most men. The fact is that probably only 5% of the male population is having sex with 90% of the female population. That's not because they don't want sex, they certainly do, it's because most men are clueless as to what a women wants from a guy.

So how does this affect me directly? Well I consider myself in that 5% so... I would start having ALLOT more sex because women would become more willing to give it out freely. I would still use a condom in many instances but I would use them less frequently; there is still a need to worry about pregnancies.

However, if STD's didn't exist, and we never had any knowledge of them in our history, I think sex would be viewed allot differently then it is today. How differently? can' really fathom because we still have religion, but I could see it being a very different world. One with a lower suicide rate and a higher population of happy human beings.

[Pedantic]

I wouldn't be more promiscuous if there were no STDs.

I am a man of faith, so compromising that to gain experience with another is a question that would apply to me. Since I'm currently happily married for over a decade, I'd say no, I'm not interested in adultery right now :)

But, if I were single and young, I would view it differently. Let's just say in Genesis where it says, "Isaac took her into a tent and they were married" -- I should be willing to commit to her, whether I perform a ceremony or not :) Thus, her worthiness to commit to would be have to be on par with the experience I think I would gain.

If you are referring to being "more sexually experienced," I would say no, just because experience is overrated. A person figures it out sooner or later anyway... and some will do good at it because they want to be, and others will be lousy because doing good isn't important enough to them. Competence in anything just works that way. The people who care to do well will always find a way to do well.

[saltycheeks]

I would sleep around like crazy lmfao. I don't care about the "easy" label and I like sex so taking out STDs from the picture would be amazing haha

I would still use protection though because I don't want a baby lol

[Stacyzee]

Fair enough :)

[pepper01]

id still use protection because I don't want pregnanct either. if there was no pregnancy, stds, or hiv I would screw everyone lol

[Stacyzee]

Haha, nice and honest :)

[smbcomix]

And then you wouldn't be born. Don't forget that.

[pepper01]

shes talking about now not the past. if now than no pregnancy I hate kids

[archer86]

If STD's were eradicated, I would hold back NOTHING! I'd have hired at least five hundred sex workers by now even though I would have no idea how to afford all that sin. All I would do is get a vasectomy and all my problems would be solved. No kids, no crotch-critters, no shame, no looking back, no nothing! I wouldn't even bother trying to find that "special" woman in my life for the simple fact that women aren't very attracted to me in the first place. They want the perfect man and sadly, I'm just not that at all. I don't like rejection and sex workers would never do that when I'm paying their monthly expenses!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

[stubbsy]

It would still be looked upon as cheap and nasty, because without STI's or STD's people still have morals, so its not really down to what you can catch, but more so of how much you respect yourself, so no, I still wouldn't sleep about, one girl one life, many memories, well that's what the future should sound like anyway lol,x

[michitas]

I wouldn't engage in more sexual activity, since it wouldn't really change anything...

I've never heard someone say that they aren't more promiscuous because of stds.

secondly: when I have sex, I'm usually in a relationship with that person and in love. if she takes the pill or something similar, then I won't wear a condom. also because then, I usually get tested and so does my new partner. with a stranger I would always wanna wear a condom though. sometimes unwanted pregnancy can be much worse than stds...

[l-hedoniste]

There's still pregnancy, so there's still condoms. No changes.

[kheserthorpe]

Well, right now I'm married and monogamous, so no impact.

If that changed? I've had a vasectomy, and I would not rush into monogamy again so ...

Yeah, I'd engage in a lot of sexual activity with different people and not wear a condom.

[Belgie]

If there were no STDs at all... I think I'd be even more sexually liberated than I am.

Would you engage in a lot of sexual activity with different people?

Yes.

Would you still wear a condom?

Maybe not as often.

[-Darling]

Nop I wouldnt

[Stacyzee]

Please elaborate.

[-Darling]

Nop I wouldn't sleep around. :-p

[Stacyzee]

wow n/m.

[defytraditiongirl]

i'd probably be more sexually active

[Anonymous]

If there was no such thing as stds, and I was on birth control, I'd f*** whoever I wanted. I'd be super promiscuous.

[Anonymous]

If there was no such thing as STDs it wouldn't effect me at all. For one thing, I'm a virgin; and no one in my family has a history of STDs of any sort. For another, I have never had a girlfriend, nor do I see myself finding love any time in the near future. Finally, by the time it does happen, I'll be far too old to be sexual and thus completely useless.