Trump has severe secondary syphilis that has progressed to neurosyphilis.
The red sores/rash on his palm in photos today are syphilis sores that show up on palms and the soles of the feet of people with stage 2 syphilis.

https://www.cdc.gov/std/syphilis/stdfact-syphilis.htm

1/6 American adults have herpes, 1/2 don’t know they have it. Herpes can spread without a visible outbreak. Herpes is not unique in that.
Just sayin’. Maybe instead of a picture of their spouse, they should require a clean std screening as part of the application process.

Whatever you need!

Just between you and me, *looks around* I had syphilis once. But don't worry I got the shots.

PSA Always use a condom kids. STD's are a pain in that ass.


THUMBS UP! I can send it to a PO near you.

No, it's not really a no brainer. The few studies done, when other known factors are considered, showed that virgin marriages had <2% difference in satisfaction, probably within the margin of error....divorce rates are obviously skewed because most virgin couples are extremely religious, which accounts for lower divorce rates...it doesn't mean they have happy or successful marriages.
STDs and unwanted pregnancy are easily avoided with responsible safe sex...granted, most teens aren't very responsible.

Your reasoning is flawed...if Christians raise Christians, (and I assume you think the same goes for other religions) where do atheists come from? Also, you do know that children given abstinence only sex ed, usually Christians, have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and STDs, don't you? Very few follow church instructions once outside of church, that's why less than 5% of marriages are by virgins.

It's really a no-brainer that those who wait until marriage will have better outcomes in life. Teen pregnancy and std statistics tell us that very plainly.

The reasoning for this is simple:

Christian parents raise Christian children. That means, no premarital sex because fornication is a sin. That means you don't date someone except to see if they are suitable as a spouse. That means that as teens are not ready for that kind of commitment they don't need to date. That is why their parents serve as gatekeepers for their children.

The biblical role of a parent is to train their children to know and serve the Lord. It is not to let the world in and allow their children to fornicate in the name of personal freedom. It seems alien to a secular audience because you don't know what kind of life God requires you to live.

*ban
Valley STD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x00X9F8vw0

Playing devil's advocate...
Even where it's legal, it's usually not legal to smoke in public. It's certainly not responsible to smoke in public where kids are nearby...or others that might be drug tested. You could be doing them great harm. (As a legal smoker, I think about these things). Also, if you're caught and go to jail, you won't be at work, that is direct harm to the company and why most have clauses in the employment contract that criminal activity at any time is grounds for termination.
Sleeping with a 'lady of the evening' is incredibly risky behavior...and illegal. Many people are harmed by STDs, not just the one that contracts them first. Many are easily spread by normal social behaviors, so having someone in the office with, say, a massive herpes outbreak who wipes their face then shakes hands/shares drinks/sneezes/etc is a real safety/health issue. Also, your company is harmed if you're caught and go to jail because you won't be at work.

To the religion example, there's little to be done if people lie and cheat to get around the agreed on rules....but I'll go out on a limb and say that it's wrong, and they'll all burn in hell forever for bearing false witness. ;-)

insane, back when I was in highschool there was no cops/guards/etc

We even had a smoking section, and guns could be brought on campus.

For smoking section you just needed a letter from parents that they knew you smoked. and on recess the smokers all hung out there.

To bring gun to school, it was during any hunting season. You had to have note from parents that they know. The gun had to be visible, either gun rack in back window of truck or in passenger seat. Rifles and Shotguns only no pistols.

You had to have your Hunter's Safety Course card, Your Hunting License both on you to give copies at office.

You had to leave your vehicle keys with the front office and submit to random vehicle search of the hunter's vehicles only.

So while everyone could go to their cars at recess, or if you had extra empty elective, some of us juniors would drive up to Hardees before lunch and grab fast food then be back before 4th period started, but the hunters had to leave their keys with front office and they could not retrieve them until end of school.

So much more freedom.

Smoking was banned on campus for students only my 10th grade year, but Teachers had the smoking lounge in building. There was a teacher's lounge on each hall, the back hall F where weight lifting, welding, home ec, and vocational classes were was where the teacher's smoking lounge was. Most students friendly with teachers could sneak in there and smoke anyhow.

crazy times.

I had a 84 Camaro and kept a flare gun under seat my dad owned a boat and had couple extra flare guns. So I had that for some crazy reason thinking if someone attacked me, at point blank range I'd put on a huge firework show


Then there was the stereotypes that were proven right not wrong.

The jocks hung out together, the headbangers/smokers hung out together, the nerds, the band folks like me as my senior year I was drum major
and the blacks stayed together all in separate cliques at lunch and recess and before/after school.

stereotypes even went further.

the only highschool girls with babies (during time I was there I stress) were black girls, they had to build a daycare from the old mechanic shop behind the highschool for them. And even though this was the early 90s in the south, you'd hear over the Intercom every 6 months "All Black female students to gym at this time please" where they'd get lectured on abstinence, or condom use, and std's and such.

the only time rest of the student body went through that was in 10th grade they'd take the boys one day, and girls the next day.

We had a blast though as the guys, the protection/std talk was given by one of the football coaches, and during the talk with the guys and showing various "shock images" of std's on penis on the TV, when he got to the "sex ed" portion, he flipped in a Nina Hartley porn intro where a nude Nina Hartley showed the correct way to place a condom on. haha was hilarious looking back before "political correctness" went out of control.

I loved highschool and college.

Graduated high school in 94, got associates in 96, took year off then got bachelors in computer science in 99.

But 89-94 (our highschool here in the deep south is 8th through 12th) most are 9-12, but not here. It's still 8-12th here. So it's nothing seeing 12th graders dating 8th graders. Freaky yea, but not unusual.


If you got into a fight, if a coach was around he'd let the fight finish, unless it got a bit too over the top then they'd break it up. You didn't get suspended, you lost recess privileges usually 3 days plus the starter of the fight got 10 licks of the paddle in principle office, the other only got 1 to 3, or if person was just dominated and got ass kicked you just got detention.


Kids didn't act up at all most times. And the reason was Corporal Punishment. Not private paddling either.


Once I was having a bad day, me and "highschool" sweetheart were having a bit of a spat. We sat next to each other so we were bickering a bit during class. Teacher had yelled at me to shut up and do the work. I sighed "Leave me the fuck alone"

bad move.

She called me to front of class and I got 5 licks of paddle in front of everyone. They'd stick finger in your belt loop and yank it up tight to put that extra sting on it. Embarrassing as hell! Even female older teachers who didn't paddle hard, it was just too embarrassing to get paddled, so kids behaved.


And of course if you refused paddling which you could but you'd take a zero for the day's work. few of those in a semester and no matter how hard you worked you were flunking that semester.


But the system worked.

It wasn't until they went crazy insane on political correctness, stopping corporal punishment, and putting cops/rent a cops/guards in schools and after the No Child Left Behind was signed into law, they severely dumbed down kids forcing the smartest to learn at the slowest kids pace. Doc's prescribing SSRI's like candy to kids in MASSIVE quantities, that schools in today's culture are crazy.

The point of the video.

I've used well over 100 condoms, and never once had a failure, a pregnancy, or an STD. Then again, I not only read the instructions, I was also shown how to use them, and I don't try to use expired or damaged condoms, or store them in heat and sun, or any of the other things people often do wrong with them....so you're wrong, they are not only >98% effective in labs...they have been 100% effective in my experience, for instance, which is >98%, and not in a lab. ;-)

It is not a lazy abandonment of people who disagree with me, it's a long over due abandonment of people who disagree with reality and science (honestly or not) usually in order to be a roadblock for action.
The skeptics have had their hearings, time and time again. At some point, you must admit that those still 'skeptical' either pick and choose/misinterpret information that allows that mindset, are knowingly lying for some gain, or are completely ignorant and only listening to those that pick and choose information or are liars, and they're doing so willfully. Because further 'debate' is consistently at the expense of any overdue mitigating action, and action is imperative for long term survival, the time for more 'listening' to deniers should have ended decades ago.
Examining theories with a critical eye and being a denier are not the same thing by far. Deniers examine theories with a pre-conception, and if it's not agreed with, they discard the theory, then figure out a reason why.
Deniers aren't 'skeptics', they're conspiracy theorists. The only way their argument stands up is if they can convince you that the overwhelming majority of scientists are actually not scientists, but are really just liars that somehow stand to make a fortune if they convince people of the big lie....to most people that's just nuts....and to reasonable people it's long past time to stop giving the nuts equal time and consideration.

Liked the scenery and scale. After "my sister has it" I thought of posting a snarky comment about STD. But then, at 1:35 I went all 10 year old again. *doublepromote, *doublequality.

Related Posts: Basrats and Bereta: Construction Cat Calls
I found that especially funny because of these "dress like a slut, get treated like one" type of responses here.
I know, the word "slut" isn't nice and I'm not good a political correctness (I actually loathe it) but maybe the problem is not with the word but with our associations with it.
You see, the problem I have starts with the idea that there's something wrong with sluts. As a man (and therefore certainly a pig, at least in my case) I enjoy sluts tremendously. They are women who share, at least in general terms, my sexual morals and enjoy their sexuality as much as I do (theirs and mine). I see nothing wrong with that. Sure, I dislike STDs as much as anybody but being slutty doesn't mean automatically being careless, just more at risk. Maybe I just don't understand men who like their female sex partners to be well behaved little princesses. They either prefer very conservative sex (you know, when blowjobs seem kinky) or they are strangely rapey. Maybe it's just our manly discomfort of loosing control over female sexuality.
Then there is this notion of dressing "like a slut". Sure, there is unappropriate clothing. I wouldn't go to a funeral in my Spongebob Squarepants pyjamas. But why is it in todays times, in the western world that is covered in billboards full of women in bikinis, so wrong to walk the street dressed in your best "sexy hooker" halloween costume? Are these women on the billboards, the ones who strike sexualized poses to sell me beer, dressed like sluts too? Is a bikini "slutty clothing"? I'm pretty sure my mom once wore one and yours probably too. As long as the important parts are covered, it should be fine.
The real issue, though, is the idea that anybody has a right to comment on that. Loudly.
If I have a right to comment sluttly clothing, can I also comment on other clothing that isn't the percieved norm? Do I get to shout ghost and terrorism related jokes at women in burkas? Can I yell at cops to come and strip-search me because I have a thing for uniforms? Should I yell at anyone with unfortunate clothing choices? "Hey lady, don't shake that ass, it's too fat for these pants! I don't want the Blob to escape!"
No, it's only sexually provocative clothing that gets these reactions. And that's why I like the video above so much, because it shows what kind of comments you get. It's never "young lady, I disagree with your clothing choice and insist you put on something decent!" nor "What a beautiful skirt, is it silk?"
It is always amused, approving and at the same time disrespectful and sexually dominant. Often gleefull and too often actually misogynistic.
These are never positive comments and even if the words seem positive, they're harassment. It's nothing but sexual harassment. Otherwise these men would be yelling "Young lady, I disagree with your clothing choice and insist you put on something decent!"
Dress like a slut, get treated like one, that's just a lame excuse for men trying to control female sexuality.
Personally, I think if you dress like a slut, I should treat you with respect and kindness. Because I want sluts to like me. I'm a pig.

For readers who aren't versed in U.S. crime, many home-invasion robberies like this result in women like her being sexually assaulted and getting STDs. But in this case, she was saved by her gamer friends calling the cops. Recent example.

Circumcision of a person without consent and without immediate medical reason should be made illegal. It's unbelievable in this day and age that it occurs and is seemed as normal, and yet people scream foul play over female circumcision.

Barbaric practice, needs to go. We don't accept unnecessary female circumcision, there is no reason to accept male. It offers significant drawbacks and no benefits to a healthy baby born into a western civilised country.

If you're likely to live and have sex with members of a population in which HIV is rife, i could see it being used to save a couple of lives out of every few hundred thousand. However if you live in a country where HIV is uncommon, circumcision is not any kind of protection - the child is not going to grow up using circumcision as a defence against STDs especially when trivial solutions exist that provide 99.999% protection. So you've taken away a wealth of nerve endings in the skin and furthermore deadened the sensitivity of the tip by exposing it to 'rough' surfaces, but there's no benefit.

That "prevention" method (above) only works in the same way as pre-emptive breast removal works. You'd only recommend it to those massively at risk.

Barbaric definitely is the word. And archaic. And the words "improper use of statistics and research to come to a poor conclusion". A bit like the fallacy of autism/immunisation that people bang on about to this very day despite it being bollocks of the highest order. Christ, even if it were true (which it categorically isn't), i'd rather my kid have ASD than die from polio or any of the other countless diseases that literally killed millions before being eradicated through immunisation.

Yep, but as the video says, all of those potential risks (urinary tract, stds, etc) are better managed by simple hygiene or the use of a condom.

If there are legitimate medical reasons for a particular individual to be circumcised, then of course you should do it. But that's the rub for me. It is a surgical procedure that involves removing part of your body. It shouldn't be done just because some puritanical flake merchant hated sex.

Put it this way. We're all born with an appendix. It's utterly useless and every now and then, just straight kills you for no good reason. Surely every child should have this dangerous organ removed? Well, it turns out that's really not a good idea, because that would ultimately do more harm than good.

We don't go around doing random medical procedures for anything else, and the vast majority of the world gets along just fine with their dicks intact.

My last word on this is that I will continue to call it barbaric, because I'm trying (in my own tiny way) to change attitudes on this. Using milquetoast terms doesn't help that. I'm not going to change this myself, but hopefully I'm contributing to a gradual shift in attitudes where infant boys are not mutilated (even "harmlessly") on the whims of their parents.

edit: really really last word. Kudos to all involved for a thought provoking discussion. You can have a rational argument on the internet!