STD and COVID-19

Anti-vaxxers:

What would you say is the best way to avoid getting an STD?

  • Abstinence
  • Condoms
  • Natural immunity

I would bet by the current logic, it would be C.

  • 3
  • Condoms
  • Abstinence
  • Natural immunity

0 voters

Well condoms are definitely not one-size-fits-all :rofl:

11 Likes

tenor

3 Likes

I will bet no one answers this.

The anti-vaxx neocons will be too pissy or scared.

There is no “natural immunity” to STDs that I am aware of.

People are not going to abstain from sex anymore than they are from breathing.

There are several options not listed.

People who are not dull would understand to “wear a mask” as it were in high risk situations.

A for both, don’t interact with people beats a mask or a vaccine.

1 Like

Abstinence works every time it’s tried.

What fun would that be? :rofl::rofl::rofl:

And therein lies the problem.

But the OP asks for the best option, not the one most likely to be chosen😁

One person of the opposite sex who never had another also completes that equation.

The so-called sexual revolution was just an explosion of unrighteousness and licentiousness, like when a river breaks it’s banks and destroys everything in its path in floodwaters.

1 Like

As for natural immunity, these “vaccines” don’t confer any immunity at all. They may help manage symptoms but at an unknown future cost.

Still, the prattling of those who think everyone should be yet another test subject in the largest ever unscientific medical trials is rather tiresome.

False equivalence. I chose 3 for that reason.

1 Like

Not a supporter of Gardasil, & am not sure why that makes me an “anti vaxxer” as I am very much a supporter of vaccination against actually contagious diseases.

Of the minority of women who test positive for HPV, , as it isn’t a recommended test until after 30, only a tiny percentage develop cervical cancer:

1 Like

In the poll, marked condoms. They work effectively in preventing STDs and pregnancy:

Lambskin condoms are not effective at preventing STDs, but are an option for preventing pregnancy, which begs the question: Why does the left demand coverage for female bc when condoms are available OTC & are quite effective?

Yes, how dare those women demand options for their BC. Insurance companies want to cover it because it is much cheaper for them than childbirth.

Just how expensive are these options that they can’t pay for it themselves?

Or pay a small copay for it like the rest of us for our meds?

“…insurance companies want to cover it because it is much cheaper for them than childbirth.”

Got a link to support this assertion?

“Yes, how dare those women demand options for their BC.”

No women are young and married and want the option of having a baby? None in the 30s or 40s want the option of a child or another child?

Sounds as if the liberal left is pro choice all right—pro contraception and abortion. Someone dares to want something else, like a live birth, they don’t want that choice available.

To be fair about it, there are some cons who don’t either—particularly if the choice is going overseas to adopt, but at least they aren’t calling themselves pro choice.

Funny I’m not seeing any female posters on this board demanding their or anyone else’s BC be covered.

Like abortion, this so called right is being demanded by men. If men want their whatever’s—wives, fiancées, girlfriends, quickies, those whatever’s—to he on BC, maybe THEY should pay for it.

1 Like

55%, 33%, 22%, 11%.

Everything is perfect in the land of 11’s.