Asian-american women have more STD's than Caucasian women Options

[monster123]

Interesting article I found. It says Asian-American women have a higher rate of STD's than Caucasian women. And Asian-American women are 4 times more likely to have STD's than Asian-American men.

I don't know what this allmeans.



http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/news-cms/news/?de...92&id=52827

Over the course the study, Hahm unmasked some myths common about Asian Americans. She said, “There’s a perception that Asian Americans in particular aren’t practicing sexually risky behaviors. But we found that Asian American young women are at risk of high STDs. For instance, Asian American women had a higher prevalence of STDs than White women in both 1995 (10.4% vs. 7.7) and 2001 (13.5% vs. 8.3%). The incidence of STDs (not diagnosed with STDs in 1995, but developed STIs in 2001) among Asian American women was also higher than that of White women."

Moreover, the power dynamic between genders became immediately clear. Asian American women were four times more likely to have a STD than their male counterparts. “This was shocking,” said Hahm, “It was so much higher than the males.”

[monster123]

You know why there is a double standard for men and women? A guy who gets laid a lot is called a stud or player. A girl who gets laid a lot is called a slut.

Why is that? When a guy gets laid, he was overcome some obstacle and made an accomplishment.

On the other hand, ANY woman can get laid as much as she wants. It's no big deal.

Don't believe me? My next door neighbor in my apartment building is this fat, ugly, 40 something, loudmouth single mom with 4 kids on welfare. She literally brings home a different guy every other night. Granted, the guys are every bit as ugly as she is. But she has no problem getting laid as much as she wants. Yes, there are guys out there that will screw anything.

So I don't think any girl who has a lot of STD's is considered "desirable" or must be wanted by others.

[SemperFidelis]

You know why there is a double standard for men and women? A guy who gets laid a lot is called a stud or player. A girl who gets laid a lot is called a slut.

Why is that? When a guy gets laid, he was overcome some obstacle and made an accomplishment.

On the other hand, ANY woman can get laid as much as she wants. It's no big deal.

Don't believe me? My next door neighbor in my apartment building is this fat, ugly, 40 something, loudmouth single mom with 4 kids on welfare. She literally brings home a different guy every other night. Granted, the guys are every bit as ugly as she is. But she has no problem getting laid as much as she wants. Yes, there are guys out there that will screw anything.

So I don't think any girl who has a lot of STD's is considered "desirable" or must be wanted by others.

If a key opens many locks, its a master key. If a lock is opened by many keys, its a $hitty lock.

Not that I agree there should be a difference between a man having 10 sexual partners and a woman having 10 sexual partners.

[Jacq]

If a key opens many locks, its a master key. If a lock is opened by many keys, its a $hitty lock.

Not that I agree there should be a difference between a man having 10 sexual partners and a woman having 10 sexual partners.

I get the analogy; inanimate objects are not people though. Unless you literally see your penis as only a key to try in as many locks as possible. In which case.... =/ Also, the point was already made... It logically follows that women are not letting just any key in, since men are having to 'work harder' at it. The anecdote about the neighbor contradicts this point that was first made. Also, by that measure (in the aforementioned post), the polygamous practice polygyny is just fine, but polyandry isn't (therefore double standard).

In case anyone still isn't getting why this analogy doesn't work though (and I don't know why, as the logical fallacies are obvious)... Locks are designed to only fit one key, and as we all know, women (or men for that matter) do not “work” like that. Every human “lock” fits every human “key” and vice versa; applied to real locks and keys, this would render them useless.

Any person in the world can copulate with anyone else; but again, any key in the world will not fit into every lock, and any lock in the world will not work for every key.

Hence, keys and locks are not people.

It could easily be said that if you have a pencil that can be sharpened by any sharpener, you have a normal/non-exceptional pencil; or that if you have a sharpener that will only sharpen certain pencils, you have a $hitty sharpener. They're analogies that make just as much sense, but obviously lead to very different conclusions. False analogies, in case people really think it was meant to be more than an actual joke.

This post has been edited by Jacq: Feb 2 2012, 02:41 AM