Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Biotech Medicine

Gonorrhea As the Next Superbug 456

Posted by timothy
from the lord-have-mrsa dept.
WrongSizeGlass writes "Reuters is reporting that Gonorrhea risks becoming a superbug: 'The sexually transmitted disease gonorrhea risks becoming a drug-resistant "superbug" if doctors do not devise new ways of treating it, a leading sexual health expert said.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gonorrhea As the Next Superbug

Comments Filter:
  • I've got the cure (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheKidWho (705796) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @10:05PM (#31682126)

    I've got the cure!

    It's called a condom and not screwing nasty hoes!

  • What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @10:06PM (#31682138) Homepage Journal

    Gonorrhea? I thought we had that one licked.

    Thank god we all agree that teaching adolescent kids about condoms is a good idea, or this could get really become a big problem.

  • by TheKidWho (705796) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @10:08PM (#31682160)

    Maybe, but at least I don't have gonorrhea!

  • Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by X0563511 (793323) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @10:09PM (#31682168) Homepage Journal

    Unfortunately it seems it will take an outbreak of Gonorrhea 2.0 to get the lesson to stick.

    Thankfully, it will be a hell of a lot easier to prevent than the bugs roaming the hospitals now.

    As another poster put it: 'It's called a condom and not screwing nasty hoes!'

  • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZekoMal (1404259) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @10:12PM (#31682202)
    I smell sarcasm; in my school 90% of the kids firmly believed that abstinence was the best preventive measure, but decided that meant having boatloads of oral sex without condoms. 8% thought that they didn't need condoms, and the remaining 2% were split up by reasonable people and virginal nerds...

    Maybe we can get some well needed crowd thinning.

  • Re:What? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @10:15PM (#31682228)

    Gonorrhea? I thought we had that one licked.

    Gross.

  • by Nutria (679911) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @10:17PM (#31682248)

    your pecker in your pocket. No worries about broken or slipped condoms, or being overcome by the moment and not using one.

    Of course, mentioning this to young, self-righteous members of an incredibly hedonistic and narcissistic society is akin to pissing into the wind, so I fully expect to get modded into oblivion.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @10:18PM (#31682268)

    Your method has a track record of never wiping out a single venereal disease.

  • Here's an idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Vyse of Arcadia (1220278) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @10:19PM (#31682276)
    Howsabout people stop having unprotected sex with people with gonorrhea? I realize that people may lie about not having it or something similar, but one's policy should be use a rubber unless one is very, very certain it's safe.
  • by Alarindris (1253418) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @10:37PM (#31682462)
    Do you really think it's self-righteous, hedonistic, and narcissistic to have sex? It's how you got here.

    Live a little!
  • by eln (21727) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @10:44PM (#31682534) Homepage
    Sure, and hormone-soaked teenagers whose brains are still trying to develop good impulse control always think rationally and choose abstinence when a member of their preferred sex is hot to trot for them. This is why abstinence-only education has been such a rousing success everywhere it's been tried.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @10:52PM (#31682596)

    Name one religion that allows sex outside of marriage but insists that no condom be used.

  • Re:Here's an idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @10:57PM (#31682636)

    A lot of people don't realize they have been sleeping with someone who has been sleeping with someone else.

    I can't even count the number of people I know that are cheating, or have been cheated on. And all these people will think they are all faithful and will not use a condom, but one of them will get something and pass it along to everyone else.

    My wife cheated on me once, but I was far more upset that she came back to me and didn't use a condom after god-knows-what the bitch did or didn't use with the other guy.

  • Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LordLucless (582312) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @10:57PM (#31682638)

    Abstinence is the best (well, most effective) preventative measure. It's just that, like the pill and condoms, it fails when people don't actually use it. What your anecdote shows is that there should probably be a greater emphasis placed on STDs and the possibility of infection via oral sex in current sex ed.

  • by wooferhound (546132) <tim@@@wooferhound...com> on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @10:58PM (#31682640) Homepage
    Using a condom is like taking a shower with your cloths on
  • by ZekoMal (1404259) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @11:02PM (#31682654)
    Please; don't throw around Fox News memes. I mean, if I wanted to believe that the majority of the world [wikimedia.org] was killing itself because of health care it's had, I'd go ahead and let Glenn Beck talk for me too.

    Stupid people should die. But if that were true, Fox News would be out of business, wouldn't it?

    Besides, it's not my job to demand people die. Are you saying that you want people to die just so you don't have to pay the same goddamn premiums you already pay for private healthcare?

  • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @11:03PM (#31682662)

    On the one hand, if you're playing around without wearing a condom, then you're a Darwin Award.

    You heard it here first on slashdot, folks: a claim that unprotected sex will lead to natural selection AGAINST you for that behavior.

    I have to agree that if we all don't use condoms, that will definitely cause the extinction of the human race.

  • by LordLucless (582312) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @11:04PM (#31682670)

    Hedonistic? Yes. Hedonism is the pursuit of pleasure as the goal of life. I'd say sex qualifies.
    Narcissistic? Not necessarily, but it you're having sex without thought of the consequences - especially unprotected sex - then yes, I'd say it does.
    Self-Righteous? No. But being self-righteous makes you less likely to accept any criticism of your lifestyle, which is what the GP was trying to say.

    All in all, those three qualities in a society makes it likely they will have lots of sex (hedonism), and in doing so spread disease (narcissism) , while being unlikely to change when someone tells them it might be a good idea (self-righteous).

  • by LordLucless (582312) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @11:05PM (#31682680)

    Hormone-soaked teenager brains already have all the physiological necessities for impulse control; what they don't have is any motivation to develop it, since excuses like the above are always made for them.

  • by Yosho-sama (800703) <[Yosho.NIN] [at] [gmail.com]> on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @11:13PM (#31682740)
    Here is a take on your intellect: You are a fucking retard. Here is the same situation, without health care.

    Some asshole sleeps around without a condom, and because they do not have health care, they do not get it treated and spread it to more people, one of whom is your mom.

    or

    Some asshole sleeps around without a condom, gets gonorrhea, and starts taking antibiotics without medical consultation and so on and so forth until the disease becomes drug-resistant AS THE ARTICLE IS DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW.

    or

    Some asshole gets a physical at the doctor, finds out about the consequences of having sex without a condom and sees some lovely pictures of herpes/chlamydia/gonorrhea and the asshole starts using a condom from then on and the spread of disease is stopped at a lower cost to society than having X amount of people needing treatment for STIs.

    Grow the fuck up, biology and disease prevention have nothing to do with politics.
  • Re:Here's an idea (Score:3, Insightful)

    by the_humeister (922869) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @11:19PM (#31682780)

    That's a nice sentiment. Unfortunately there's a not too small contingent of people who believe that sex education = abstinence education leading to people who will have sex without proper protection.

  • Well, it's a good thing that you have such great discipline regarding your sexuality.

    Is there anything in yourlife that you consume even though you know it's bad for you? Smoking? Any particular food? Or are you just the model of perfection with no vices whatsoever? Or do instead lead the most boring life ever, and so never have to worry about these things?

    This isn't about what should or what could be. This is about the reality of things. Nobody advocating sex ed will deny that abstinence is the only 100% prevention for abstinence, but the reality is that some people will have sex in spite of the consequences, and so they are entitled to the most medically accurate info about it, and how things like condoms will mitigate the risks.

  • by tsotha (720379) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @11:20PM (#31682784)

    And if the people are listening to a religious restriction, saying condom use is against their faith, now we're back to the Darwin angle.

    I wish people would stop peddling this ignorant crap. The Catholic church is against condoms, yes, but it's also against extramarital sex. If you're really an observant Catholic the lack of condoms isn't going to increase your risk of contracting STDs.

    Catholics having extramarital sex aren't acting within the tenants of their faith, and if they don't wear condoms it's because nobody likes to wear condoms, not because of any church teaching.

  • by Jedi Alec (258881) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @11:22PM (#31682794)

    Good plain abstinence goes along way.

    If you want an exciting life, go skydiving with your prospective girlfriend instead of s3x0r. You will live a lot longer and have a lot more fun.

    Uhuh...or just pop down to the local clinic, have some blood and urine samples taken and wait a few days. Tada! Either there's nothing wrong with either of you and hence no reason to avoid s3x0ring except choice, religion or fear of conception or the tests will show up positive for something and you're glad you found before stuff started to fall off/rot your brain/etc.

    The numbers don't lie. Trying to pretend teenagers will not have sex does not have sex. Teaching abstinence only and restricting access to birth control methods such as is often seen in fundamentally religious communities leads to more teenage pregnancies, abortions and STD's transmitted, not less.

  • Re:What? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Paul Jakma (2677) <paul+slashdot@jakma.org> on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @11:46PM (#31682950) Homepage Journal

    Abstinence is less effective than condoms. Anyone who says abstinence is 100% perfect is an idiot, probably with an agenda. It's the equivalent of saying "condoms would be 100%, if they didn't tear, or get put on wrong, or ...".

    Let's say it again and again till it sticks: Abstinence is *less* effective than condoms, based on real-world data.

  • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nemyst (1383049) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @11:51PM (#31682992) Homepage
    Abstinence is like communism: in a perfect world, it'd work.
  • Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TerranFury (726743) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @11:53PM (#31683006)

    It does not take doing a ho to get it. [...] it is not who you screw, but who the person 5 removed from you that had it and passed it on

    True true.

    This is no different than HIV

    Except, on the plus side, it's currently curable, and on the minus side it's a hell of a lot more common.

  • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LordLucless (582312) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @11:55PM (#31683026)

    No. Abstinence is 100% effective. If you say you're using abstinence as a birth-control method, and then go have sex, then that's not abstinence.

    It's analagous to saying you use condoms, but then don't bother putting them on. That doesn't say anything about the efficacy of condoms, it just says your lying about your birth control method.

    What you (probably) mean to say is that abstinence is a hard method to keep to, and that most people fail. That while it might be an effective birth control method, it's not a suitable method for most people. Abstinence works fine, but horny people have trouble using it. Same way as how the pill works fairly well, but forgetful people would have trouble using it. Problem is, abstinence is being sold to teenagers, who are generally not inclined towards self-control.

  • Re:Here's an idea (Score:1, Insightful)

    by mogness (1697042) on Tuesday March 30, 2010 @11:59PM (#31683050) Homepage
    Those things aren't actually fun. As opposed to sex, which is. Please try again.
  • by eln (21727) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @12:00AM (#31683062) Homepage
    There have been several studies [nytimes.com] (third question in the interview, feel free to google for more information) showing that the areas of the brain linked to complex decision making and impulse control are still under development in the adolescent brain, and in fact continue to develop into the 20s. These findings may explain, in part, why teenagers are more prone to risky behavior (such as, say, unprotected sex) than older people. In short, studies indicate that hormone-soaked teenage brains do NOT have all the physiological necessities for impulse control.
  • Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Decollete (1637235) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @12:11AM (#31683120)
    Saying abstinence is 100% effective is like saying window shopping is a 100% discount. Sure you avoided STDs/spending money but its considerably less enjoyable.
  • by timmarhy (659436) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @12:20AM (#31683172)
    fail.

    hedonism is the pursuit of everything in EXCESS. having sex is just normal not in anyway an excess.

    narcissism is a far more extreme psyhcological condition then just being horny and acting on it. that'd be like calling someone narcissistic just because they took the last coke out of the fridge.

    This idea that we somehow have more sex now then in the past is the biggest load of bullcrap. guess what? people fuck, your grandma had he same urges in the 1920's as you have now. the biological drive is exactly the same, it's just socially we are less afraid to express it, so you hear about it more.

    the idea that teenagers won't fuck is laughable.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @12:21AM (#31683182)
    1.
    wikipedia:
    break or slip due to latex degradation (typically from usage past the expiration date, improper storage, or exposure to oils)
    it was probably expired, too drunk to read it

    2. you were drunk, you probably did other stuff...

    3. you said you carried it, heat from your body can also degrade it, it not reccommend to have in like a wallet for extend periods

    4. it was 4 freaking years old

    you did basically everything wrong
  • by drsmithy (35869) <drsmithy.gmail@com> on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @12:23AM (#31683208)
    Are Catholics forbidden from marrying non-Catholics ?
  • Re:Here's an idea (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jamesh (87723) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @12:35AM (#31683308)

    Condoms take away a large amount of the pleasure of sex.

    So does a good case of <insert STD here>, which can also remove a bunch of other pleasures in life, temporarily or permanently (gonorrhea is associated with infertility, and a bunch of other STD's hurt from what i've heard)

    Seriously, if you are going to have unprotected sex with someone you don't know, just remember that you are going to have sex with someone who isn't adverse to having unprotected sex with someone they don't know. Proceed cautiously.

  • Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nadaka (224565) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @12:43AM (#31683352)

    Lesbianism and homosexuality are also 100% effective birth control.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @12:45AM (#31683372)

    And that is relevant... how, exactly, unless she was going to pose for naughty pictures for us?

    If this were 4chan, this would be the obligatory tits or gtfo.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @01:00AM (#31683452)

    Unfortunately, the "beat it to death" method you use necessitates that stronger antibiotics be prescribed by doctors. It's the penicillin resistance that requires newer, stronger drugs.

  • by Hognoxious (631665) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @01:23AM (#31683574) Homepage Journal

    1) You list China as a country with "ideal" healthcare?

    No, the *map* showed China as country with *universal* healthcare.

    A country where they inject formaldehyde into a baby if it's a second pregnancy?

    I suspect they aren't trying to cure it of anything, so that'd be a social/political problem rather than a problem with the medical system.

  • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ppanon (16583) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @01:23AM (#31683582) Homepage Journal
    Actually the GPs post is right on, both fail because the practices are incompatible with human nature. Communism can work in small communities where there are significant advantages from altruistic cooperation and interpersonal bonds to discourage abuse (see most primitive hunter-gatherer cultures with communal child-raising and food production), but breaks down in larger environments where gaming the system for personal benefit becomes easier because there is a degree of anonymity which facilitates exploitation of others. Abstinence theoretically is the most effective method of birth control and STD prevention, but it ignores that the urge for sexual reproduction is one of the strongest and most basic drives of the human hormonal and neural systems.
  • by Nutria (679911) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @01:32AM (#31683646)

    Sure, and hormone-soaked teenagers ... always think rationally

    So, we let them run wild, and not even try to impart some self-discipline?

    No wonder this country is in it's current shit pile state of affairs, sinking even deeper.

    This is why abstinence-only education has been such a rousing success everywhere it's been tried.

    Re-read my post. Nowhere did I say "Only teach abstinence." It's why there are speed limits and safety belts.

  • Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by srothroc (733160) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @01:45AM (#31683750) Homepage
    Lesbianism IS homosexuality.

    Beyond that, what about lesbian couples where both wives decide to go for artificial insemination?
  • by h4rm0ny (722443) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @02:17AM (#31683944) Journal

    If you want an exciting life, go skydiving with your prospective girlfriend instead of s3x0r. You will live a lot longer and have a lot more fun.

    Flaws with your post:
    1. You describe falling out of a plain strapped to another guy as more fun than sex.
    2. You neglect the possibility that one can have sex whilst sky-diving.
    3. Your logic presumes that it's an either / or. If you're doing so much sky-diving that you don't have time for sex, well...
    4. Sky-diving is massively more costly than having sex. If you think otherwise, then you need to meet a different sort of girl.
    5. People die during sky-diving and not many people do it. Few people die during sex and everybody does it. Statistically, your suggestion of living a lot longer through sky-diving is screwy. Have sex a few hundred times a year, or jump out of a plane a few hundred times a year.

  • Cancer (Score:2, Insightful)

    by komap (1416423) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @02:19AM (#31683966)
    Why is this story tagged as "cancer"?
  • by benjfowler (239527) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @04:11AM (#31684670)

    *Dons tin foil hat*

    In the meantime folks, please get your sex-ed and medical advice from a DOCTOR, and not your local crank. These people spend a decade in college for a reason.

  • Wait a few days? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @04:19AM (#31684718) Journal

    You don't know women very well. Your method only verifys she was clean several days ago, when she was all hot and bothered and you turned her down.

    This is like going to your bank, walk into the vault, check your money is there and then be happy your money is safe... lets see who is clever enough to spot the problem.

  • by pandrijeczko (588093) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @04:43AM (#31684870)

    ...people who stay faithful to one partner, use proper contraception & have enough responsibility to not inflict more screaming brats on the social support system won't get it and therefore won't die of it.

    So where's the problem? Natural Selection in action, folks...

  • by demonlapin (527802) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @05:43AM (#31685206) Homepage Journal
    The only interesting drugs we have access to are depressants and stimulants (and the stimulants are watched much more closely than the depressants). If you want psychedelics, you'd be far better served by getting a PhD in organic chemistry.

    BTW, is your friend an anesthesiologist? I've always contended that the relatively high rate of drug abuse among anesthesiologists is a result of high-functioning drug users making a rational choice to go into the specialty with the keys to the candy store, and some of them getting in over their head.
  • Technically ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DrYak (748999) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @06:06AM (#31685346) Homepage

    My philosophy when it comes to infections - hit them hard and don't let up until they are dead, dead, dead!

    Technically, the proper medical procedure is, indeed :
    - to use the lowest powerful antibiotic (if penicillin works, use it, damn !) and only if needed (most cold are caused by viruses and don't need any)
    - make it really, really, really clear to the patient, that he/she had to take the antibiotics all the way until the end of the cure, until all the bacteria are clearly and definitely dead. And not stop abruptly as soon as he/she feels better.

    That slows down the evolution of super-bugs.

    (and in addition to what you said :
    - most antibiotics kill all bacteria indiscriminately, not only bugs, but the normal flora : which perturbs some normal function and leave the place free for bad yeast to rush in. So always explain to the patient which food contain good probiotics to compensate (like some yogurts) and prescribe some probiotics too (usually some good yeast) )

    That's what we're taught in our medical education.
    The only problems comes into getting the correct choice of the lowest denomination antibiotics.
    - On one hand, hospitals have proven and tested recommendation (based on tests against resistance, etc.) And might even have some quick tests to predict resistance (so even when super bugs become prevalent, you can still detect which don't need the super-drug).
    - On the other hand, pharmaceutical companies have an agenda to push for newer (and still patented) drugs.

  • by ipquickly (1562169) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @06:12AM (#31685382) Homepage

    NO religion teaches abstinence as an ideal circumstance.
    Religions teach abstinence until the person meets another person, and then makes a permanent commitment to that person.
    Then religions say Go for it!

    Many people have major misconceptions about religion and sex, and then make strong statements rooted in ignorance.

    Sex is an addiction to anyone who has done it. Once you start, you don't stop.
    Religions know this, and that's why they say to wait until you found the right person, to not only have sex with, but to also have a family with.

    Last time I checked, most people do want to get married someday, and do want a family someday.

  • by tibit (1762298) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @08:06AM (#31686318)

    What a strawman. An addiction is not something that once started, you don't stop. If you define things like that, then walking is an addiction too. So that argument is just stupid.

    Sex can be an addiction if it quacks like one. If it negatively affects your daily life, then yes it is an addiction. Never mind that married couples have *intramarital* sex addiction problems too, you don't automatically get excluded simply because you married. If you sneak out of work twice a day for sex, it doesn't matter if you do it with your secretary or with your wife/hubby.

    Anyway, all of the not-yet-married couples I know or knew, and there were quite a few, were rather definitely not addicted to sex, so I don't see it as a problem of *addiction*. Some of them would be addicted to other things, but not to sex.

    Your arguments don't pass the smell test, IOW. They are just one more in an endless stream of religious rhetoric that falls on its face if looked at from any angle other than blind acceptance.

    I don't think that people have "major misconceptions" about sex and religion like you insist. You're laying some smoke bombs, OTOH. Catholic Church does *not* allow *married* couples to have sex with contraceptives. That's hardly saying *go for it*, isn't it? There are more examples like this, hopefully you know them and just pretend to ignore them. If you didn't know, then perhaps it's time to get educated?

  • by thasmudyan (460603) <udo@schroeter.gmail@com> on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @08:42AM (#31686740) Homepage

    Religions teach abstinence until the person meets another person, and then makes a permanent commitment to that person.
    Then religions say Go for it!

    I sincerely hope you're being sarcastic. Religions perceive sex as a necessary evil, to be used for procreation only. Actually, most religions go even further and condone the concept of love (and by extension sex) only if it subject to some kind of religious regulation mechanism, because anything else gnaws away at the oppressive stranglehold religion has over everyday life. In order to exist, religion needs to have a monopoly on everything fulfilling and meaningful.

    Sex is an addiction to anyone who has done it. Once you start, you don't stop.

    Again, you're kidding, right? Sexuality, for most people, is a natural part of their existence, a part of themselves. Sex addiction is not a recognized medical condition, it's a catchphrase invented by tabloid media designed to appeal to stupid people.

    Religions know this, and that's why they say to wait until you found the right person, to not only have sex with, but to also have a family with.

    And until you found "the right person", you are required to act as if you're a sexless, joyless, dishonest zombie. You're not even allowed to find out if that person is actually sexually compatible, until ít's too late. Oh, I forget "the right person" has to meet certain requirements of gender and, in many cases, social status. Otherwise, they're obviously not the right person. And once you have declared one person to be "the right person", you can never change your mind, or an invisible sky tyrant will crush your immortal soul for all eternity. Sounds awesome.

  • by infinite9 (319274) on Wednesday March 31, 2010 @12:15PM (#31689844)

    I sincerely hope you're being sarcastic. Religions perceive sex as a necessary evil, to be used for procreation only. Actually, most religions go even further and condone the concept of love (and by extension sex) only if it subject to some kind of religious regulation mechanism, because anything else gnaws away at the oppressive stranglehold religion has over everyday life. In order to exist, religion needs to have a monopoly on everything fulfilling and meaningful.

    I can only speak as a Christian. And from my perspective, you have no idea what you're talking about. The list of activities that the vast majority of Christian woman won't do is very short. The main restriction is having to wait until marriage. After that, there are virtually no restrictions at all. Any restrictions there are have to to with respecting each other and making each other happy.

    Sex addiction is not a recognized medical condition, it's a catchphrase invented by tabloid media designed to appeal to stupid people.

    I disagree. There's a neurochemical hit humans get from sex. Some people get addicted to this. Most people don't. Just because you're not an alcoholic, it doesn't mean there aren't any alcoholics.

    And until you found "the right person", you are required to act as if you're a sexless, joyless, dishonest zombie. You're not even allowed to find out if that person is actually sexually compatible, until ít's too late. Oh, I forget "the right person" has to meet certain requirements of gender and, in many cases, social status. Otherwise, they're obviously not the right person. And once you have declared one person to be "the right person", you can never change your mind, or an invisible sky tyrant will crush your immortal soul for all eternity. Sounds awesome.

    There's two things wrong with this attitude. First, I believe it's unrealistic to expect people to wait until their 20s or 30s to get married. If people were getting married right out of high school, it would be far easier to wait until you were married. It was like this in the past and worked. Our present society is broken. And don't try to tell me that 18 year old kids haven't experienced enough to know who to get married to. It's not like the divorce rate is heavily skewed toward young people. I'd rather my kid get married at 18 and get divorced 6 years later than have a different girlfriend every 6 months for 6 years. Which one is far less likely to get an STD?

    And secondly, how difficult is it to have many explicit conversations about this before you get married? What do you like or not like? What's acceptable behavior and what isn't? How often is too much or not enough? The wedding night doesn't have to be a surprise if you don't want it to be.

Things equal to nothing else are equal to each other.

Working...