Biblical Long Term Solution To The Following Diseases

No. Abstinence usually is about only 30% effective over time for preventing the contraction of STD's or pregnancy. Moreover, even waiting to marry someone positive for these diseases, and being completely monogamous with them, will not prevent you from contracting the disease from themSo, no. I'd say there isn't much medical validity to the idea of "abstinence" as a prophilactic. The fact that it hasn't ever stemmed the tide of a disease in several thousand years should have been your first indicator.Retarding the spread of a disease is one prong of fighting an epidemic; actual treatments for the infected are the second. How, exactly, does abstinence until marriage help the poor sod with gonorrhea?

Undesired pregnancy is an STD, if you ask me. Not really; avoiding sexual contact with infected persons is the only way to prevent contracting these diseases. Conflating that with monogamy is dangerous at best. MSM? I don't understand.

If having an unwanted tapeworm or an unwanted bacteria or an unwanted virus is a disease, then an unwanted pregnancy is a disease. What is a disease, if not a lifeform in your body that you don't want there? Simple logic - you can't get a disease from someone who doesn't have one, and you can be infected by your first and only sexual partner.Avoiding fluid exchange with infected persons is the only way to prevent the spread of an STD. How one chooses to do that is entirely up to them. I still don't understand what you mean by MSM. Is that a code for "hetersexual acts between men and women?" Since that's the only thing you could be referring to by saying "the vast majority of AIDS infections." How about you tell me what the hell you're talking about? Juggling the letters around doesn't tell me what you mean.

What has been proven, medically, to reduce the spread of these diseases is access to prophilaxis and knowledge about the medical and sexual history of your potential partners.What has never been proven to work - quite the opposite - is abstinence. Partly because, for one in four women for instance, "choosing abstinence" doesn't translate into not having sex with a "partner" of unknown medical/sexual history. And yet, empirically, it doesn't. Funny old world, isn't it?

But then you're advocating exactly what I'm advocating - don't expose yourself to infected persons, and investigate about your partner's medical and sexual history.How would you know, after all, that they'd followed the "Biblical guidelines?" Male/male intercourse is not the leading cause of AIDS infections, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, and before you repeated the claim to me.Why did you continue to repeat a claim that you knew was false?

No.Advice that is impossible or impractical to follow has no medical validity. The "cure" for the common cold, after all, is to never contract a cold virus. But the reason that's not the advice of doctors is because avoiding cold viruses requires a life spent in immunological isolation, which is impossible or impractical for just about everyone. Homosexuals are not "sodomites"; anal sex is an act much more likely to be done by straight couples than gay ones. (Try to imagine why or how lesbians would have anal sex.) Your continued inclusion of "sodomy" on this list even though it isn't an epidemologically relevant activity is baffling.

At least 25% of surveyed heterosexual couples have had anal sex at least once.Also, about the Japanese - I don't know about promiscuity, but according to surveys of frequency of intercourse, the Japanese have about one third of the amount of sex that Americans have. I don't have a cite offhand but I understand that Japan's culture of labor doesn't put much emphasis on a husband's home and personal life.Sorry, I don't know much more than that. I'd say that, in the country where you can buy used schoolgirl's panties in vending machines (or used to, until they shut them down under violation of the Antiquities Act, of all things), all sexual bets are off.

Did they physically manhandle them into the bordello? That happened to my dad once, right in front of mom, in Korea.Nothing about sex in Japan would surprise me, I guess.

What's your long-term plan for preventing all rapes, then?

But you acknowledge that rape is going to occur (since the death penalty has never been shown to be a deterrent), and that diseases might be passed that way.Abstinence doesn't stop rape, prohibitions against "fornication" (another slang term) or gay sex don't stop rape, and the death penalty doesn't stop anything. So your "Biblical model", even if it could be followed, doesn't live up to the hype.And why should we be surprised? Again, this is the model that has promulgated for many, many centuries, with the result that STD's spread unchecked. Even in our modern setting, there's absolutely no evidence that an abstinence-only message has any effectiveness in preventing the spread of STD's among teens; in fact, every indication is the opposite - while such "education" often does delay the onset of intercourse by a year or two, at the time that they finally do begin having intercourse, they're much less likely to do so in ways that prevent the contraction of disease.Your "Biblical model" has no medical validity. This is the position of the CDC, the AMA, and anybody else motivated by a need to retard the spread of debilitating STDs and not by a need to promulgate sexual mores that never ever had the effect you claim they did.

No, you haven't. You've simply stated that you have.Rape is relevant. It's completely on topic, because it's a kind of sexual intercourse that prohibitions against fornication, adultery, and "sodomy" doesn't prevent. Of course, fornication, adultery, and "sodomy" are acts of intercourse that prohibitions against fornication, adultery, and "sodomy" don't prevent, either.Like I said, it's completely on topic. It's just one more weakness of your argument that you don't care to address.

Your OP wasn't all that long in the first place, so it's not clear to me how you could have gotten confused in the intervening time between then and now, but if you insist:

quote:

---

Biblical Solution = Abstinence from adultery, fornication and sodomy.

​

Is this medically scientific?

​

This purpose of this thread is not to preach morality, but to examine the medical scientific aspects of these Biblical inhibitions relative to the above stated diseases of humanity, given that practitioners often advocate various abstinences in treatment and prevention of diseases.

---

The relevance of rape is that its a form of intercourse, and therefore exposure to disease, that abstinence doesn't prevent. Voluntarily bstaining from intercourse, no matter how hard you try, doesn't prevent involuntary intercourse.