The Ethics of HPV

Bboy100

Cro-Magnon Man
Cro-Magnon Man
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
1,107
Location
The Milky Way Galaxy
Hey guys,

So I recently found out I have HPV. For those of you who don't know, HPV is an STD which is undetectable in men. It sometimes has physical symptoms, but usually not. The only reason I know I have it is because my girlfriend got it, and she was a virgin before she met me.

HPV is very very common. Most people encounter it at some point in their lives. So even if a girl doesn't get it from me, she's likely to get it from another guy who doesn't know he has it. Additionally, it has no severe effects. The only thing is that it can cause cervical cancer in women if they don't go in for regular pap smears (something all sexually active women are supposed to do). But even if they don't, it sounds like its still very unlikely (79 million people are infected per year, only 12000 develop cervical cancer). Also, the virus disappears on its own in 6-24 months. After that, the body creates antibodies to protect against that particular strain of the virus. So once it disappears, I can't get it again. If you're interested in finding out more, check this out: https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/

Long of the short of it is, its really nbd. It's a minor annoyance at worse. And tbh, a lot of the times, it will come and go and no one will ever even find out about it. lol

So given this information, do you guys think I'm ethically obligated to tell new girls that I might sleep with that I have the virus? If so, how would you guys go about doing so?
 

GeneralFap

Tool-Bearing Hominid
Tool-Bearing Hominid
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
181
It sounds like you have already justfied your dilemma. If youre planning on going raw i dont think its right to spread a disease no matter how benign. I would wear a rubber. Just ask yourself how you would you feel if a girl did the same to you? I bet youd be pissed af right?
 

Bboy100

Cro-Magnon Man
Cro-Magnon Man
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
1,107
Location
The Milky Way Galaxy
It sounds like you have already justfied your dilemma. If youre planning on going raw i dont think its right to spread a disease no matter how benign.
I never claimed that I have any intention of having unprotected sex. In fact, STD or not, I always wear a condom (unless its with someone I've been seeing for a while and I know she's on the pill and we've both been tested etc. Which hasn't happened since I found out I have it).

I would wear a rubber.
Wearing a condom helps, but I've been told that it's not as effective at preventing HPV as it is with other STDs. So my ethical concern persists even when I wear one.
 

Hector Papi Castillo

Tribal Elder
Tribal Elder
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
2,557
Condoms will only prevent it from it spreading to your penis, and even then, there's usually a bit at the bottom that isn't covered by the condom, especially with the shagging pulling on it. You can still get it in your pubic area. Luckily, the strains that cause warts DON'T cause cervical cancer, so it's mostly a cosmetic problem at that point.

As for the ethics of it, not sure.

Telling women beforehand is probably going to kill your sex life. I know women who have told guys they have herpes and then the guy still shags them raw, but that's cuz dudes are reckless bastards. I doubt a woman would be as understanding when she has so many options (herpes is pretty harmless from what dermatologists have told me, just like genital warts, but it's still considered "nasty" and that's all that matters - don't hope for education to change people's minds).

Though not telling her is pretty shitty, too. If a girl gave me something, knowing she had it but wasn't having an outbreak (it's still contagious then), I'd be pissed but I'd also understand that ethics rarely stops people from doing what they want. But still, fuck that bitch.

What happens if you martyr yourself then? You don't have to deal with the guilt and people will respect you. Is that worth less sex/relationships? Ethics is a question not of what's right and wrong, but of the consequences you're willing to face.

Hector
 

Bboy100

Cro-Magnon Man
Cro-Magnon Man
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
1,107
Location
The Milky Way Galaxy
You don't have to deal with the guilt and people will respect you.
Not even that. I have a strain which doesn't cause any physical symptoms. I've never had any symptoms at all. So to be brutally honest, unless the girl is a virgin when I meet her (like my now ex-girlfriend), she wouldn't know that it was me who caused it. And tbh, I don't feel too guilty about it cause it sounds like this is something almost everyone has and its basically harmless. The only unusual thing about my situation is that I actually know I have it. Whereas 8/10 guys are walking around with it and they have no idea.

But at the same time, you're totally right. I'd be pretty pissed off if someone has an STD and she didn't tell me about it. But maybe that's ok. Even if I piss a girl off, she'll find out its nbd and she'll be over it in a few days. Whereas the alternative is that I have no sex or relationship life whatsoever for the next two years.
I've talked to a few doctors about it, and they're in unanimous agreement that it's not my responsibility to tell anyone about this. Which makes me feel somewhat better. But still...they're only doctors. Just because its their job to treat the disease doesn't mean they're an authority on its ethics.

Anyways...I'm starting to ramble so I'll stop here lol.

Ethics is a question not of what's right and wrong, but of the consequences you're willing to face.
Well, this gets a little bit into Philosophy. But I'd say that's not true. There are probably things which given their context, are not morally permissible regardless of the consequences we do or don't face (e.g. if I can get away with cold-blooded murder with no consequences, does that mean its ok for me to do it?).
 

Hector Papi Castillo

Tribal Elder
Tribal Elder
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
2,557
Well, this gets a little bit into Philosophy. But I'd say that's not true. There are probably things which given their context, are not morally permissible regardless of the consequences we do or don't face (e.g. if I can get away with cold-blooded murder with no consequences, does that mean its ok for me to do it?).

Maybe I should have been more clear of "consequences."

Getting caught isn't the only consequence of doing something. Karma just means action (or reaction).

So, you have HPV and you decide "fuck it, im gonna die one die anyways, I'm not gonna martyr myself to a life of celibacy. If shit happens, it happens."

The list of possible consequences:

- you feel guilty/disgusting as you talk to women, affecting your interaction with them
- You feel guilty/disgusting after you fuck a girl and obsess as to whether or not you're hurting her
- you feel guilty/disgusting as you and a girl get into a relationship and are torn as to whether or not you should tell her. It might eat away at you for years

Think bigger, but also more nuanced.

There is no groundwork for morals. You could quote anyone from Aurelius to Kant and come up with a huge, sprawling code of ethics and still it would eat shit in the face of a situation like this, because there's no way to say "here is where the line is drawn for ethics." You and I can even agree upon a fundamental premise of ethics, but that's just agreement, not Truth.

That's why I say it's not about good or bad, right or wrong - it's about what consequences you're willing to face, because there's no magical ethical equation that's going to make you certain in your decisions. You have to live wth the consequences of your actions, whether that's your emotional reaction to it, or someone else's. I.e., consequences. It's a purely practical consideration not even of ethics (some would call that pragmatism), this is meta-ethics.

Does that make sense?

Hector
 

Bboy100

Cro-Magnon Man
Cro-Magnon Man
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
1,107
Location
The Milky Way Galaxy
Does that make sense?
I think so. Basically what you're saying is that for many situations, there is no theory which can tell us "do x". And even if there is, that doesn't necessarily mean its right or truth. It's just what we as individuals and as a community agree upon.

So what you're proposing is that instead of trying to create theories which try to produce objective moral rules, you suggest that the only thing that matters is weather or not we're willing to bear the consequences (physical, legal, spiritual, emotional or otherwise) for doing any given action.

I've never looked at it that way. That's pretty dope.

Only problem is that if we throw the concept of morals away, we allow crazy or emotionally unhealthy people to justify things which seem unjustifiable. Simply because there are no consequences for them. Let's tweak my original example a little bit. Let's say I'm a sociopath (I can't feel emotions. Therefore, I can't feel guilt, shame, or disgust) who kills someone in cold blood and no one ever finds out.

Given that we take the original claim that ethics is only the consequences we're willing to face, it would seem that what I did is ok. Because I feel no consequences for my action. This seems wrong.

But overall, I'd say this hits closer to home for me than most other ethical theories I've heard. And from a practical standpoint, its more useful than anything I know :)
 

Hector Papi Castillo

Tribal Elder
Tribal Elder
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
2,557
Bboy,

Exactly!

Only problem is that if we throw the concept of morals away, we allow crazy or emotionally unhealthy people to justify things which seem unjustifiable. Simply because there are no consequences for them. Let's tweak my original example a little bit. Let's say I'm a sociopath (I can't feel emotions. Therefore, I can't feel guilt, shame, or disgust) who kills someone in cold blood and no one ever finds out.

Well, what's interesting about sociopaths is that they can feel emotions, it's just that they're not wired to always feel the emotions of OTHERS (i.e., empathy). They do learn to turn empathy on, but can shut it off, too and "off" is their default.

But yes, they won't feel guilt, shame, or disgust at killing someone, stealing from someone, cheating on someone, etc. I had a friend recently who fucked over a friend of mine and then cut contact with me and another friend simply so he wouldn't have to face the music of his deed. I knew he was low empathy but wasn't sure he was a complete psychopath.

As for the consequences of this moral framework - you are right, it makes everything permissible...kind of. In theory, I'll see the most brutal acts of human behavior and think "on some level, they felt justified doing that," but it doesn't mean I still won't respond emotionally.

I don't think there's a such thing as good/evil, not even a little bit, but that doesn't mean I'll sit idly as people abuse me Or those I love, and it also doesn't mean I won't try to act with kindness and love, it just means I accept the ultimate meaningless of all action and choose to be human anyways.

Hector
 
Top