January 17th 09, 01:59 PM
((THere are two reasons for this gross disparity. One is that some
venereal diseases are simply more biologically 'productive' in certain
subspecies of humans than in others, just as some dog diseases don't
bother wolves and coyotes and disproportionately affect certain breeds
of domestic dog and do not much afflict others. The other is that the
percentage of individuals that will **** anything that moves and a
substantial percentage of that which doesn't is also disproportionate
by race. Bret.))
Why don't they call them "venereal diseases" anymore?
>>"A professor at the Yale Medical School named Sydney Spiesel writes in Slate:
About this time every year, the CDC issues its annual statistical
report about sexually transmitted diseases in the United States. The
surveillance report for 2007 has just come out (it takes about a year
to compile and process the statistics). It is long—almost 170 pages—
and, as usual, disquieting. Our uncomfortable feelings about sexuality
have caused STDs to be stigmatizing ...
Now, I'm not a doctor, but it's my impression that rather than our
"uncomfortable feelings about sexuality" that "have caused STDs to be
stigmatizing," it's more the oozing sores.
Later on the good doctor notes, without specifying any facts, "the
very different case rates between ethnic groups." He doesn't explain
what those differences are, but looking in the government report, I
find that it looks like STD rates are quite similar to crime rates in
their racial ratios. For example, the CDC says: "In 2007, the
gonorrhea rate among black men was 26 times higher than that in white
men," although that is anomalously high -- the usual black-white ratio
for the various diseases is more like 8 to 1, with the Hispanic to
white ratio typically in the 2 or 3 to 1 range, and Asians the same or
healthier than whites.
In Slate, Spiesel asks plaintively:
Are the germs really ethnically and geographically prejudiced?
Haven't the germs heard about Obama yet? We live in an era of post-
racial transcendence. Get with the times, germs!"<<
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-dont-they-call-them-venereal.html
venereal diseases are simply more biologically 'productive' in certain
subspecies of humans than in others, just as some dog diseases don't
bother wolves and coyotes and disproportionately affect certain breeds
of domestic dog and do not much afflict others. The other is that the
percentage of individuals that will **** anything that moves and a
substantial percentage of that which doesn't is also disproportionate
by race. Bret.))
Why don't they call them "venereal diseases" anymore?
>>"A professor at the Yale Medical School named Sydney Spiesel writes in Slate:
About this time every year, the CDC issues its annual statistical
report about sexually transmitted diseases in the United States. The
surveillance report for 2007 has just come out (it takes about a year
to compile and process the statistics). It is long—almost 170 pages—
and, as usual, disquieting. Our uncomfortable feelings about sexuality
have caused STDs to be stigmatizing ...
Now, I'm not a doctor, but it's my impression that rather than our
"uncomfortable feelings about sexuality" that "have caused STDs to be
stigmatizing," it's more the oozing sores.
Later on the good doctor notes, without specifying any facts, "the
very different case rates between ethnic groups." He doesn't explain
what those differences are, but looking in the government report, I
find that it looks like STD rates are quite similar to crime rates in
their racial ratios. For example, the CDC says: "In 2007, the
gonorrhea rate among black men was 26 times higher than that in white
men," although that is anomalously high -- the usual black-white ratio
for the various diseases is more like 8 to 1, with the Hispanic to
white ratio typically in the 2 or 3 to 1 range, and Asians the same or
healthier than whites.
In Slate, Spiesel asks plaintively:
Are the germs really ethnically and geographically prejudiced?
Haven't the germs heard about Obama yet? We live in an era of post-
racial transcendence. Get with the times, germs!"<<
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-dont-they-call-them-venereal.html