Talk:Sexually transmitted infection/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Oldest text

should the links be STDs/diseases or should the diseases stand by themselves?

They should stand by themselves, although "thrush" is a slight problem. --Zundark, 2001 Nov 5

Comment

I don't understand the whole paragraph. It should probably be moved to the talk page. --snoyes 18:46 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

STD?

Does "STD" only go back to about 1990, and I only think it's older because I'm so young? --Calieber 21:11, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)

Title of article

It seems to me that the title should not have a hyphen, and that "Sexually-transmitted disease" should redirect to it, rather than how it is now (where the correct form redirects to the incorrect form). Sexually is an adverb, and does not need a hyphen (as it would if the term were, say, sex-transmitted). --Max power 15:45, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

hear, hear. IIRC, it was that way before until someone "fixed" it. I don't recal lthe reason that was done. Can anyone expand on this? Alex.tan 16:04, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Wrong, Max power, it's hyphenated because it's an adjectival phrase. "sex-transmitted" would never be a construction. Now, how about someone write about the origins of these diseases? I heard they were called STInfections now. lysdexia 04:31, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is you who is mistaken, Lysdexia. Adjectival phrases (of two words, but a similar rule applies to longer phrases) are hyphenated when there is a possibility of that the first component could be taken to modify the noun to which the phrase applies rather than the second word of the phrase. For example, the sentence "The board criticized the slow acting director" is ambiguous, as "slow" could refer either to "acting" or to "director", as it is both an adverb and an adjective: are we talking about an acting director who is slow, or a director who is slow to act? If the latter is intended, we must hyphenate: "the slow-acting director". However, this rule applies ONLY when the first component could be read as modifying the noun, in other words, when it is, or could be taken to be, an adjective, as is the case for "slow" in my example. There is no possibility of confusion with most adverbs ending in -ly, and so hyphenation is redundant. (Remember that the purpose of punctuation is to clarify the sense, and no clarification is needed here.) "Sexually" is an adverb, not an adjective. The hyphen should therefore be removed from the page content and the redirect should be swapped round. — Paul G 17:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The US isn't different in it's methods of stopping/ preventing STDs, abstinence is a world-wide prevention of STDs. The US's methods aren't much different from those used in other countries, no matter what. Juicyboy 325.

Limerick thing

Does that limerick section belong at all? Seems irrelevant and silly to me. -Grick(^{talk to me!}) 04:42, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, agree. That section on that limerick does not belong in this article. Removing. Alex.tan 07:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone help with a distinction betweem sexually transmitted and sexually transmissible, please? I was under the impression that they mean different things. A sexually transmitted infection is one that can only be caught throough sexual activity; a sexually transmissible infection is one that can be passed on through sexual contact but wasn't necessarily picked up via sexual activity. An example of this is Candidiasis.

Thanks

Hepatitis A

The article currently states that Hepatitis A is not transmitted sexually. However, people who engage in oral-anal contact can contract Hepatitis A. Would anybody be opposed if I change the hepatitis section to reflect the possibility of sexual transmission of Hep A? Calindigo

Pranksters Edit the Article

This article has been vandalized by someone, and a great deal of useful information has been replaced by crude humor. I have reverted the page to the last version without the altered text. However, I believe an administrator should restrict editing of the page in some manner so that this does not happen in the future.

More Pranksters

This is my first Wiki edit, so forgive me if I've made some sort of faux pas, but I removed the line "michael lichterman is the leading cause for STD's" which seemed to be a little short on scientific validity. I suppose if someone can prove that Michael Lichterman is the leading cause, it can go back up. Perhaps restricting the page would be a good idea.

STI's? When did this happen?

What the hell?! Is that actually what the medical establishment is calling it now? What kind of nimrods are they? How can you educate the public about the dangers of something if you keep changing its damned name? This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. "STD" might be 0.001% less scientifically accurate than "STI" but it already has widespread recognition making it a useful piece of terminology for spreading information. The public awareness campaign can only be harmed by the confusion this sort of short-sighted meddling will produce. Someone explain to me why it should be changed on Wikipedia, and give a GOOD reason, not just "everyone else is doing it". Or does "no original research" mean that if the scientific establishment jumps off a cliff, we have to follow? -Kasreyn 06:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my health teacher told us that "they" are calling them STIs now, so unless he got that from wikipedia, there is at least some merit behind this name change. however, someone still needs to change most of the references to STDs in the article to STIs. I would do it, but im not totally clear on the differentiation, because this article still treats STD as a legitimate term, just something different from STIs. so STDs became STIs, and now STDs refer to the diseases caused by those STIs? basically should we change all the "STD"s in this article to "STI"s? Bonus Onus 03:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

See, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Changing the name just because a nameless and unaccountable "they" are doing it also is not good policy for an encyclopedia. If no one can provide better reasoning or substantiation than that - such as, oh, say, guidelines from several major, legitimate health organizations providing reasoning for the change - then I'm reverting the article to STD's in the interests of avoiding unneccessary confusion. When people come to wikipedia to research STD's, they type in "STD" because that's what everyone in the english-speaking world calls them today. Why should they be confused to a redirect to "STI"? -Kasreyn 15:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

As to STI, my books (Mandell's Principles and Practices of Infection Diseases or this site, Cecil Textbook of Medicine, The Oxford Textbook of Medicine, Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, Intensive Care Medicine, The ICU Book) use STD. Clearly STI is an uncommon medical term. --Nomen Nescio 04:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

• Talk:Sexually-transmitted infection — Sexually-transmitted infection → Sexually transmitted infection Hyphens don't go after adverbs according to the hyphen article. --Evice 18:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As per below, countermove to sexually transmitted disease is proposed. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Weak oppose Having worked in the sexual health field, professionals increasingly use the term sexually transmitted infection (STI). However, sexually transmitted disease (STD) is not an incorrect term (and I think the article should actually be moved back to that location and tweaked appropriately): it is noted in the Oxford and Webster's dictionaries and Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (while STI is not), it is the preferred term used by the WHO +, prevails in common usage and online (with more than 3 million Google hits for STD outstripping STI by a 6-to-1 margin), and its initialism is much more recognisable by John Q. Whatever the article title, it should not include the hyphen as proposed. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care either way, both seem fine to me; could we decide on one, though? —Nightstallion (?) 08:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hi! Based on the above, I recommend moving to sexually transmitted disease ... and seeing as how no-one else responded, I don't think this will (or should) be problematic. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. —Nightstallion (?) 10:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

transmissible vs. transmitted

While a quick google seems to indicate that the term tranmsitted is overwhelmingly prefered (14,200,000) to the aletrantive transmissible (403,000), this neverthless belies the fact that the latter is in fact more accurate in as much as while such diseases 'can be transmiited by sexual contact, this is by no means the only means of transmission. as such i have edited the text accordingly. [[1]]

Molluscum contagiousum

Need to add this to the viral infections. Can appear similar to genital warts, but can occur almost anywhere on the body. Easily transmitted by skin contact. It's a raised red bump, that has a hard white core (aka mollusc). Can be effectively treated with Tea Tree Oil. Usually goes away by itself in a few months.

above posted by User:70.132.19.137 12:15, 2 April 2006

• Nonsense, firstly the condition is spelt Molluscum contagiosum, secondingly its NOT considered a "sexually transmitted disease". It occurs most commonly in young children, but can be spread between adults on skin-to-skin contact (i.e. no sex required - and is thus as much a STD as staph aureus in impetigo is not) "and has occurred in wrestlers, patients of a surgeon with a hand lesion" (read the eMedicine link on the MC article). David Ruben ^Talk 23:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hep C

This article contradicts Hepatitis C, which states that Hep C is not a STD. On Googling, there seems to be some debate about whether Hep C does actually have a significant risk of spread by sexual contact without blood exposure - see e.g.here[2]. Regardless of whether the answer is 'yes', 'no', or 'uncertain', these two articles should be consistent with one another. --Calair 02:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hepatitis C is very rarely spread sexually. The best review is the CDC MMWR update on sexually transmitted diseases, which clearly says that sexual transmission of C is very rare. PMID 16888612 [3]. -- Samir धर्म 00:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

List of STDs

The list of STDs is garbage, and most of the items on the list lack sourcing as an STD. Please evaluate each name and remove names that are rarely sexually transmitted. JBKramer 11:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hepatitis D

There is limited evidence on sexual transmission of Hepatitis D. The best study is from Hepatology in 1995: PMID 7489970: this is a study of 52 couples that are HBV and HDV coinfected and showed a likely common source of the HDV RNA in the majority of couples. However, the literature is scant, and more recent worldwide evidence tends toward HDV being spread by a number of mechanisms depending on age of acquisition (as with HBV) PMID 16896150, PMID 15481349, PMID 14708706. The CDC MMWR on treatment of STD's does not list HDV (although this is likely due to the low rate of HDV in the USA). My bias would be to list spread of HDV as indeterminate, and not to put it down as an STD given the evidence above -- Samir धर्म 00:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sexual acts with animals

Although a small aspect of STD's, its not a trivial one. There should be a couple of lines on STD implications of sex with animals, for two reasons:

• There is significant practice of this act, and some diseases can be transmitted from animals to humans (although most human ones cannot; these tend to be animal infections humans can catch).
• In some parts of the world sex with animals is regularly used as a form of safer sex to avoid AIDS.

I don't regularly edit this article; could someone please review Health aspects of sexual acts with animals and HIV and AIDS misconceptions: Sexual intercourse with an animal will avoid or cure AIDS, and write a couple of lines with a "main article:..." link? In the meantime I've added a "see also" but I don't really think that's what's needed. Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Article has moved back to original name --> Zoophilia and health Skoppensboer 15:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted passage

"Since prostitutes tend to have large numbers of sexual partners, prostitution without the use of safer-sex precautions has often been associated with the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Some travellers such as truck drivers and sailors also often have high numbers of sexual partners (often prostitutes). However, sexually transmitted diseases are potentially transmitted in any form of sexual relationship, so it is important that all members of the community that are engaged in sexual relationships use safer-sex precautions, regardless of the nature of their relationships."

I think this is relevant and should be rephrased for encyclopedic tone. Prostitution isn't even mentioned in the article. Xiner (talk, email) 00:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A thought experiment... the strategy of let's get tested TOGETHER for A VARIETY of STDs BEFORE we have sex.

A thought experiment... the strategy of let's get tested TOGETHER for A VARIETY of sexually transmitted infections BEFORE we have sex. What are your thoughts?... Collaborators comments at http://community.livejournal.com/gay_sex_tips/500292.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donwarnersaklad (talk • contribs) 14:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Masturbate 2-5 times a day

Don't you think that's kind of exagerate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.161.9.134 (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

WAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. I MASTURBATE 4 TIMES A DAY!

Protected page

This site will be protected for the next month due to excessive vandalism. Only registered Wikipedians will be allowed to edit, no anonymous users.--Coryarlo 20:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Pregnancy is an STD

Scarlett Johansson said so! And so did Dr. Gregory House, MD. Seriously, it is a foreign body or a parasite to be more exact (American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source par·a·site (pār'ə-sīt') Pronunciation Key n. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

WordNet - Cite This Source parasite

noun 1. an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host [ant: host]

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source parasite

An organism that lives off or in another organism, obtaining nourishment and protection while offering no benefit in return. Human parasites are often harmful to the body and can cause diseases, such as trichinosis.

American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source par·a·site (pr-st) n.

An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. In conjoined twins, the usually incomplete twin that derives its support from the more nearly normal fetus

and many other dictionaries supporting this definition, which means, a baby is a parasite, and pregnancy is the STD. Just because it doesn't make having children sound pleasant, doesn't mean it isn't true! Anyways... look at the amount of money and resources put in by people to prevent pregnancy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martycota (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Clearly, pregnancy is not a disease. Go bother someone else.--Coryarlo 01:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly crabs aren't a disease so they need to take that part off then, same with Scabies!

Clearly you need to invest in a dictionary and look up the word disease. And sign your remarks, instead of being ingnorant anonymously.--Coryarlo 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)