Facebook Leads To Increase In STDs in Britain

ectotherm writes "According to Professor Peter Kelly, a director of Public Health in Great Britain: 'There has been a four-fold increase in the number of syphilis cases detected, with more young women being affected.' Why the increase? People meeting up for casual sex through Facebook. According to the article, 'Social networking sites are making it easier for people to meet up for casual sex. There is a rise in syphilis because people are having more sexual partners than 20 years ago and often do not use condoms.'"

Comments

Damn

[Dyinobal]

Dammit so I didn't have to sign up for fuckbook?

Re:Damn

[WrongSizeGlass]

One place this isn't happening is Shatner's myouterspace.com.

Re:Damn

[K. S. Kyosuke]

HHGG would probably say that on planet Earth, social networking subsumes sexual networking.

Re:Damn

[chronosan]

As long as you think that falls under "Mostly harmless."...

Re:Damn

[dintech]

Head over to Facebook where an encounter with an alien being can leave you with a very different kind of Klingons to defend yourself against.

Anyway, you could learn a thing or two from Shatner he's probably very knowledgeable on the subject. There are few people who could shed light on what happens when you stick your 'enterprise' into something blue.

Re:Damn

[Locke2005]

Isn't James T. Kirk's habit of dating outside his own species more commonly referred to as "beastiality"??? Gene Roddenberry must have been one heck of a kinky bastard!

Re:Damn

[Tetsujin]

Isn't James T. Kirk's habit of dating outside his own species more commonly referred to as "beastiality"???

Actually, this is one of the facets of Star Trek's backstory that isn't frequently spoken about.

Star Trek takes place in the 23rd century, by which time humankind has colonized other worlds, met all kinds of alien life, etc. But in fact all the "alien life" they meet are actually just people in silly costumes and possibly with some makeup on. What happened is that the 22nd century was an era of peaceful exploration. Humankind set out to meet alien life, and they failed. So it became fashionable for individual colonies to adopt their own "alien" customs and styles of dress. In the mid-23rd century this rarely extended beyond some distinctive clothing or some body paint. It was only later in the 23rd century that these rogue colonies really got their act together.

Re:Damn

[FatdogHaiku]

"...Its five-year mission: to explore strange new orifices, to seek out new life and new nookie, to boldly cum where no man has cum before."

Re:Damn

[jwietelmann]

Am I the only one who immediately thought of "Friendface"?

Re:Damn

[Anonymous Coward]

The polite term (when it involves sentient species) is rishathra.

Re:Damn

[SCPaPaJoe]

I liked the way this was addressed in The Next Generation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chase_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)

Re:Damn

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe in the expanded edition. Mine only says "Mostly Harmless."

Re:Damn

[Locke2005]

Even if you do accept the premise that all the planets were originally seeded by the same progenitors, over millions of years they would have evolved into separate species. Genetically, humans would be much more closely related to Bonobo Chimps than they could possibly be to any alien species. And yet, few people would have found it appropriate for Kirk to be fucking monkeys. It's not a question of sentience. As Howard the Duck said, "Sorry kid, but I don't date outside my species!"

Wrong places

[JWSmythe]

    I've obviously been looking at the wrong places on Facebook. Where's the "casual sex hookup" area?

Re:Wrong places

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1: Click on friends of your friends
Step 2: Say hi and be nice, have a good personality. Don't talk about geeky stuff with them.
Step 3: Don't dress like an IT/geek when you go out. Shower, brush hair, teeth, etc.
Step 4: bow-chicka-bow-wow. Or in the case of some geeks on here..bow-ch--ohhh damn.

Re:Wrong places

[MikeFM]

My wife is on my buddy list. Does that count? And no STDs.

Re:Wrong places

[Hatta]

That's what you think.

Re:Wrong places

[spun]

You don't live in the UK, do you? Obviously, something has happened to the stuffy Brits. The UK just had to cut down a bunch of trees because people were 'dogging,' or having public sex there. There is evidently an epidemic of sexy times in the North Atlantic Archipelago. When did 'stiff upper lip' turn into 'stiff willy saluting passing motorists?' and more importantly, can you teach us American how to be a little less puritanical?

Re:Wrong places

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1: Join "Social me"

Step 2: Add pictures making you look like you're a trustable decent and nice guy

Step 3: Give positive comments, if you like them write them in a lighthearted manner

Step 4: After conversing, very subtly mention in the 25-30 agegroup you always had the ideal of a romantic lasting relationship and are going into the stage of trying to build a place you can call "home" yet are a bit distrusting about women in your demography (insinuating they need to "prove you they're going to do better", depending on how they profile themselves or respond you'll know t he stage they're in and how willing they are.).

Step 5: Change phonenumber a few times after being bothered too much by crazy cat-owning psycho's who want your babies.

Re:Wrong places

[DriedClexler]

The gay networks.

Yeah, sorry, not what you were hoping for, I guess.

Re:Wrong places

[TheRaven64]

When did 'stiff upper lip' turn into 'stiff willy saluting passing motorists?'

A little while after we exported all of our puritans to the Americas.

and more importantly, can you teach us American how to be a little less puritanical?

Sorry...

Re:Wrong places

[joss]

There was a nice article in the spectator as to how you people from continental europe list the UK as a favorite destination. This is despite of the food, weather, shitty attitude. It's because we have large numbers of drunken sluts who will fuck just about anything.

Re:Wrong places

[joss]

sed s/you people/young people/

Re:Wrong places

[cayenne8]

Hmm...I've avoided Facebook like the plague so far, mostly due to privacy concerns, and frankly, there's some people from the past that I do NOT want finding me. I've already heard some horror stories from some guys I know that had chicks from decades in the past catching up with them...etc.

However....this does seem an interesting trend to helping to get laid a bit more often, can't ever get too much of that.

"Step 5: Change phonenumber a few times after being bothered too much by crazy cat-owning psycho's who want your babies."

Hmm..would setting up a google phone thing help with this?

I was also considering trying to set up an NYM email account again, to join with...that would help keep things more untraceable too.

Re:Wrong places

[Grishnakh]

It sounds like the answer here is to join Facebook, but use an alias instead of your real name. That way, the people from your past can't find you, and if you need to disappear because one of your new hook-ups turns out to be a psycho, then it'll be easier since you can just create a new alias and start over.

But honestly, this Facebook hookup thing sounds like a lot of work, alias or no. Wouldn't it be easier to just join AdultFriendFinder for casual sex? Probably not; it seems like women want to believe that men they meet might actually be interested in something long-term, even though it's plainly obvious that they're not, so they need men who tell them all kinds of lies, like "my wife are I are married in name only", "we're separated but staying together just for the kids", etc. Then they act all surprised, like Tiger's girlfriends, when they find out that he's been lying to them.

Women, is it really so hard to just be honest? If you want casual sex, stop making men jump through hoops and make up lies for it. If you want a long-term relationship, then find a man who's actually single (not one who's married and supposedly "separated"), and keep your legs shut until you actually know him well enough to know he's the one you want to have kids with, or at least know him well enough to know he's not a psycho or a liar.

Re:Wrong places

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't friended your mom, have you?

Re:Wrong places

[Locke2005]

It's those page 3 girls, I tell ya! That and Viagra, which has led to Brits keeping more than just their upper lip stiff!

Re:Wrong places

[natehoy]

Not sure. There's a "poke" feature, you can try that and see if it works for you.

Re:Wrong places

[jduhls]

...and I'm on your wife's buddy list. If you know what I mean. wahkah-wahkah-wahkah! I'll be here all night, folks!

Re:Wrong places

[jplopez]

Women

Don't tell me you are thinking there is any reading you...

Re:Wrong places

[Tetsujin]

That's what you think.

Translation:

She's a dirty whore who fucks everyone while you're at work... No really... EVERYONE... check her facebook friends list, you don't get over 9000 friends

(or 8000 in the original Japanese...)

Re:Wrong places

[Anonymous Coward]

that is what you think........ do u watch over her 24/7....?

Re:Wrong places

[JWSmythe]

    Nope, but I friended yours. But, they make it sound like there are loose women all over Facebook just begging to get laid. It takes more than a few MILFs for me to be a proper man-slut. I'm looking for like 3-4 per day at least. This one a week just makes me look easy.

Re:Wrong places

[garaged]

And she would be thinking exactly the opposite: "why men don't change?, we need long relationships, we need them to be honest, and specially that they don't tell the same story to 10 other girls"

Re:Wrong places

[rgviza]

>> But honestly, this Facebook hookup thing sounds like a lot of work, alias or no. Wouldn't it be easier to just join AdultFriendFinder for casual sex

LOL. after my divorce I joined facebook. AFF is a site full of scammers, cam girls and hookers. Facebook is real people.

Within a 2 months of joining I had hooked up with 4 women I knew in the past who had a crush on me and I never figured it out. All were divorced or separated. I actually stayed with 4th for a year before she dumped me because I didn't want to get married for "a while" and she wanted kids *now*. After that I met up with a friend of a friend. Then I stopped using facebook for dating.

Facebook wins hands down vs. AFF ;) to meet new women either use a reputable site for dating (if there is such a thing) or you could leave the house and meet people. That's what works for me. After my initial year of tapping facebook, I prefer to stay out of my network of friends for dating since people treat you differently after a breakup and gossip if you both know them all. That's the real drawback about facebook.

I sincerely doubt that using aliases on facebook would work for dating. Starting a relationship with a lie doesn't usually bode well.

AFF is a scam. Been there, done it.

Oh, and wear a condom for chrissakes. I do agree with one of the parents that google voice is indispensable for dating. Anyone that's ever gotten 150 texts in a day from someone you just broke up with will agree. You can block numbers from reaching your cell with GV. My number is xxx-xxx-[first name]. Freaking awesome.

Re:Wrong places

[hey!]

The UK is the nation that gave us Benny Hill. The US is the nation where the Benny Hill show could only be seen on educational television.

Re:Wrong places

[Grishnakh]

And she would be thinking exactly the opposite: "why men don't change?

And that's what makes them stupid. Only an idiot sits around wishing other people will change, instead of seeing things for what they are and working within those parameters.

and specially that they don't tell the same story to 10 other girls"

If the same lie/story succeeds in earning the man sex with those 10 other girls, why should he change it? If women don't like this, they need to stop rewarding this behavior with sex.

Re:Wrong places

[spun]

Whoah. Wait a minute. Are you claiming Benny Hill is not educational? It's intended audience is twelve year old boys. It was sure educational for me!

Re:Wrong places

[Grishnakh]

Within a 2 months of joining I had hooked up with 4 women I knew in the past who had a crush on me and I never figured it out. All were divorced or separated. I actually stayed with 4th for a year before she dumped me because I didn't want to get married for "a while" and she wanted kids *now*. After that I met up with a friend of a friend. Then I stopped using facebook for dating.

If you've never moved out of the town you grew up in, this might work for you. For those of us who moved away from home to go to college, and then moved again (across the continent even) to get a job, we no longer live within 2000 miles of anyone who might have had a crush on us in the past, and is divorced.

I sincerely doubt that using aliases on facebook would work for dating. Starting a relationship with a lie doesn't usually bode well.

Again, what are we looking for here? Casual sex, or a long-term relationship? TFA seems to be about people hooking up for casual sex, and the poster I replied to also seemed to be looking for that. Why look for people interested in a LTR if you just want casual sex (aside from the fact that most women want the former and will give you the latter in the vain hope for it).

I actually stayed with 4th for a year before she dumped me because I didn't want to get married for "a while" and she wanted kids *now*.

See? You yourself only wanted casual sex, so you're quite a hypocrite for bashing people for "starting a relationship with a lie". (Clue: if you're not ready to marry someone after dating for a year, then you're never going to be interested in marrying them. If you keep "dating" them, it's just because you want casual sex.)

Re:Wrong places

[smellsofbikes]

>Women, is it really so hard to just be honest?

If you're really curious about this answer, there are some interesting books that discuss the reasons for interpersonal ambiguity (aka 'dishonesty') and how that gives people (of both sexes) both more negotiation room and better options for negotiation. A few really worthwhile books:

Promiscuity: an evolutionary history of sperm competition by Tim Birkhead, talks very little about humans but discusses (in great detail) how and why out-of-relationship and non-relationship sexual contact can benefit different reproductive strategies.

The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life by Robert Wright, which talks about how often our behavior seems to contradict our professed beliefs but how very well it matches evolutionarily successful mating strategies, and

The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature by Steven Pinker, especially the second-to-last chapter which specifically addresses how ambiguity can be modelled in game theory to show huge advantages to people who use it skilfully.

In short, what people say they want isn't always what they want, but they often don't know that. They're unconsciously using successful strategies they don't actually understand, because we seem to instinctively know what works and what doesn't. In this specific case, there are many animals with mating strategies similar to humans, where females who aren't a male's primary partner benefit heavily from providing sexual access to, and receiving resources (money, food...) from, the males in question.

Re:Wrong places

[Anonymous Coward]

and more importantly, can you teach us Americans how to be a little less puritanical?

Let me look at that map again.

Re:Wrong places

[Locke2005]

Nobody has over 5000 friends. There's a maximum of 5000 friends for every profile.

Re:Wrong places

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Women, is it really so hard to just be honest? If you want casual sex, stop making men jump through hoops and make up lies for it. If you want a long-term relationship, then find a man who's actually single (not one who's married and supposedly "separated"), and keep your legs shut until you actually know him well enough to know he's the one you want to have kids with, or at least know him well enough to know he's not a psycho or a liar.
You poor misguided bastard, short answer yes it is difficult for women to be honest regarding sex. Long answer, given the fact that sex and the promise therein is the best currency most women have dealing w/ men, ergo obfuscation and ambiguity is the best way to maintain the value of said currency. Being honest in regards to whom they will and will not sleep with would rapidly reduce their power in most of their negotiations w/ men(the asymmetry of information is a distinct advantage eg. Women can play a TFT strategy were as men will play a GTFT strategy which can be exploited).

Re:Wrong places

[ae1294]

Nobody has over 5000 friends. There's a maximum of 5000 friends for every profile.

She has more than one account...

Re:Wrong places

[SheeEttin]

The UK just had to cut down a bunch of trees because people were 'dogging,' or having public sex there. [...]can you teach us American how to be a little less puritanical?

Clearly, you are not familiar with the Fens in Boston, where they cut down quite a bit of vegetation (reeds, I think) because they were being used by gay men for hookups.
There was actually quite a bit of outcry, but nothing really happened. You can find out more about it by Googling.

Re:Wrong places

[TheCarp]

> See? You yourself only wanted casual sex, so you're quite a hypocrite for bashing people for "starting a relationship with
> a lie". (Clue: if you're not ready to marry someone after dating for a year, then you're never going to be interested in
> marrying them. If you keep "dating" them, it's just because you want casual sex.)

Thats pretty simplistic and involves some serious conclusion jumps. I got together with a girl, we both wanted an open relationship, we both didn't really feel any need to get married, both didn't want kids. Next thing you know, we are living together, and in an open marriage.

Not everybody gets together with plans in mind, and those plans often change, even when they do. When my wife and I had been living together for 6 months, nobody could have predicted our eventual marriage, especially anyone who asked us. Had one of us really been dead set against it, who knows, the other may have found someone else and moved on by now. Its really hard to say.

Secondly, I don't think the line is "marriage vs casual sex". Theres an entire spectrum of relationships and people who have been in quite committed relationships for years and never been married. Some want monogamous marriage, some can reconcile marriage and casual sex (some by cheating, some with openness), some can even reconcile multiple marriages (some by cheating, some by openess).

-Steve

Re:Wrong places

[icebraining]

"It's YOU. Y-O-U. Not *U*. U is a letter. YOU is a word."
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20041201

Re:Wrong places

[spun]

But I'm not looking for gay hookups, damn it. I'm looking for hetero couples doing it in bushes and I can't find any.

Re:Wrong places

[Shimbo]

The UK just had to cut down a bunch of trees because people were 'dogging,' or having public sex there.

You shouldn't believe everything you read in the funny papers.

Re:Wrong places

[spun]

I know The Register isn't everyone's cup of tea, but must you call it 'the funny papers?'

Re:Wrong places

[MaskedSlacker]

You can block numbers from reaching your cell with GV. My number is xxx-xxx-[first name]. Freaking awesome.

Awesome. Got any invites?

Re:Wrong places

[Hurricane78]

Sorry to tell you this, but the common prejudice here in Germany, is that the average UK girls is a fuck-ugly fatass.
(Not my judgment. I’m just the messenger of prejudiced people.)
Although I must admit, everyone of my friends who went there, had to emphasize that this is true. ;)

Re:Wrong places

[Grishnakh]

Seems to me that this strategy isn't working out too well for the women. The men still have all the money, and the women are stuck raising kids alone with lower-paying jobs and chasing after lying men for child-support payments which they generally never get.

Re:Wrong places

[xaxa]

The UK just had to cut down a bunch of trees because people were 'dogging,' or having public sex there.

You shouldn't believe everything you read in the funny papers.

It seems it really happened, except they felled the trees because they were old and a "safety risk" and are planting new ones.

Re:Wrong places

[aztektum]

Giggity.

Re:Wrong places

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno. I was staying in Orlando, Florida, USA some months ago during an annual martial arts tournament. I stayed on the Disney resorts with my teammates. We met a bunch of girls from the UK and they were certainly not fat and most assuredly not ugly. We took care of them. They took care of us. We couldn't do much until the last couple nights after tournament, but I am convinced that UK girls are a heckuva lot less prudish than they're made out to be.

(And yeah, I am an amateur athlete, believe it or not, and I post on Slashdot. Probably quite a few geeks on /. are also pretty physically fit. Maybe dorky and socially inept still, but physically fit. Sometimes that's all it takes. Oh and beer. Lots of beer.)

Re:Wrong places

[jsvendsen]

Wow, you are incredibly american.

See? You yourself only wanted casual sex, so you're quite a hypocrite for bashing people for "starting a relationship with a lie". (Clue: if you're not ready to marry someone after dating for a year, then you're never going to be interested in marrying them. If you keep "dating" them, it's just because you want casual sex.)

While this may accurately describe you, there's just no way you can pass it off as a blanket statement about every individual in every situation ever. Also, while there might be a stronger tendency to separate "casual" and "meaningful" sex in the U.S., that's just not how it works in most of Europe. People, especially young people, meet, become attracted and have sex because it's a fun way to get to know each other. From there, it could really go either way. Many relationships start as strings of one night stands where you're never completely sure if it's going to happen again or not. The level of commitment one feels during this stage varies from person to person and from relationship to relationship, there are really not any set rules. Thus, there is also no clear definition of sex as either "casual" or "committed". As in most other areas of life, there are only shades of gray

Additionally, the premise that you can't live in a committed relationship for an extended period without wanting kids or marriage is frankly archaic. Many choose different lives, and with divorce readily available and socially acceptable you could easily argue that the institution is without meaning anyway

Re:Wrong places

[Maxo-Texas]

Many women have to be in denial that they actually want sex or are headed towards it.
They prefer an atmosphere of "whoops--- how the heck are we having sex??"

On the flip side, many men also want women who act that way since a man hunting sex predator makes their jumbly bits shrink.

Ironically, many men really only want orgasms- not sex. So they finish in 6-10 minutes. Meanwhile, women can easily have sex for 2 to 3 hours. So you have the people who are saying "no" actually able to enjoy it much longer than the people who are saying "yes" all the time. Women can have and enjoy 10 to 13 hours a week of sex as long as they are having orgasms.

Mean while, many guys really want to play sports, compete in games, go hunting or fishing and do guy things more after the orgasm.

Read up on tantric sex. Learn how to have sex longer before orgasm-- trust me- it can be like a continuous orgasm, floating along the edge.

Re:Wrong places

[Maxo-Texas]

I have to say, you are incredibly american to paint all americans with the same brush too.

It's just ironic.. that's all.

Re:Wrong places

[networkconsultant]

Right right, nothing to see here! c'mon they are called Cheeky for a reason.

Re:Wrong places

[Grishnakh]

Additionally, the premise that you can't live in a committed relationship for an extended period without wanting kids or marriage is frankly archaic. Many choose different lives, and with divorce readily available and socially acceptable you could easily argue that the institution is without meaning anyway

I never said anything about kids. Lots of people have long, happy marriages without any kids. Kids are a huge strain on a relationship anyway.

But if you're in a long-term relationship, and then one partner suggests marriage and the other refuses and then the whole thing collapses, that shows that it was never a serious, committed relationship to start with. The one who didn't want marriage obviously wanted the freedom to walk away at any time, and that's opposite the very definition of "committed".

Yes, most marriages end in divorce, but that's because too many people aren't serious about them, and also partly because a lot of people simply don't know how to (and haven't been properly raised to) keep their marriage successful. They think it's like Disney movies where everyone lives happily ever after, when in reality it takes a lot of work and sacrifice. This is definitely a societal problem; I don't know about Europe, but here in America I blame the Baby Boomer generation for being the worst bunch of parents ever conceived.

Re:Wrong places

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, many men really only want orgasms- not sex. So they finish in 6-10 minutes. Meanwhile, women can easily have sex for 2 to 3 hours.

Strangely enough, my wife is completely the opposite. I wouldn't mind going longer, but my wife wants me to finish quickly. It's not that she doesn't want sex (she likes it most nights actually), she just likes it quick most of the time.

Re:Wrong places

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because we have large numbers of drunken sluts who will fuck just about anything.

And a good thing too or the whole island would be depopulated in a generation!

Re:Wrong places

[Maxo-Texas]

Everyone is different. As long as both of you are happy, then more power to you!

Re:Wrong places

[Anonymous Coward]

My friend Mike tapped it Monday in their bed while the guy was at work...

Jesus Christ! I FUCKED HER LAST TUESDAY over at 'their' place. What the hell is wrong with that whore? Does she have some sick fucking /. fetish?

I'm just glad I wore my jimmy hat.

Re:Wrong places

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummmm she finger fucked and went down on me at a POE concert last year.

Wow, I didn't know she was into women. Clowns however, now that's a different story!

I did this kids birthday party about a month ago which is where I met her. All I can say is, well, I've just NEVER met a women who could suck a clown's dick without laughing. It was great but a little disturbing at the same time...

(Posting anonymous because I don't want to get fired)

Re:Wrong places

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like the answer here is to join Facebook, but use an alias instead of your real name. That way, the people from your past can't find you, and if you need to disappear because one of your new hook-ups turns out to be a psycho, then it'll be easier since you can just create a new alias and start over.

uhhh... doesn't that defeat the purpose of joining a social networking site? most people join the thing because they want others to see themselves (aka whoring yourself over the net)

Re:Wrong places

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this is wrong, there are as many reasons not to get married as there are for it. "Freedom" is not typically the most common qualm. Change (stability), religion, relevance, principles (against), wealth, state laws... it goes on.

If you think you *know* someone after being in a relationship with them for only a year, you are not only woefully mistaken, but immensely naive. It is not a difficult (nor uncommon) task for the average person to keep up a total charade for six months... and it can take more than a decade to predict thought and reaction to a sufficient degree.

Additionally, you are overlooking the reason for marriage in the first place. If, as it tends to be, and as the parent said it was in his case, the partner desires marriage for babies, religion/tradition, (outside) pressure, insecurity ... then only a fool would accept, because if these are the reasons for marriage, then that marriage is doomed from the start. Refusing marriage on this basis cannot be attributed to feeling inadequate commitment.

TBH, now that I reflect, the couples I have come most to respect during my lifetime were unmarried, considered monogamous. It should not come as a surprise that they were, without exception, all highly educated persons.

Re:Wrong places

[RivenAleem]

"There has been a four-fold increase in the number of syphilis cases detected, with more young women being affected"

Facebook has caused an additional 3 people to contract syphilis. Further updates at 11.

Re:Wrong places

[Xest]

That's okay, most Brits think German women are big butch hairy armpitted monsters named Gertrude.

I guess stereotypes work both ways, but they're rarely accurate.

That said, in some parts of Yorkshire where I currently live I'd be inclined to agree, although it's certainly not true for most of the rest of the country ;)

Re:Wrong places

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Seems to me that this strategy isn't working out too well for the women. The men still have all the money, and the women are stuck raising kids alone with lower-paying jobs and chasing after lying men for child-support payments which they generally never get.
Wow, you really haven't been paying attention, look at average lifespans. Once medical science reduced the lethality of the child birth, women have virtually no risk of dying. And after you account for leaving the work place to raise children you find women make more money not less. Therefore, the strategy is working out pretty well for women.

What?

[Em Emalb]

lolwut? facebook/myspace/craigslist/etc/etc/etc.

But hey, a lot of people are on facebook, let's blame it on that.

Vanessa Kensington: Mr. Powers, my job is to acclimatize you to the nineties. You know, a lot's changed since 1967.
Austin Powers: No doubt, love, but as long as people are still having promiscuous sex with many anonymous partners without protection while at the same time experimenting with mind-expanding drugs in a consequence-free environment, I'll be sound as a pound!

Re:What?

[emm-tee]

lolwut? facebook/myspace/craigslist/etc/etc/etc.

But hey, a lot of people are on facebook, let's blame it on that.

You do realise that Britain is not part of the United States, don't you?

From http://www.clickymedia.co.uk/2009/07/uk-social-network-statistics-july-2009/ :

Facebook has long been the UK’s most popular Social Networking site and now has over 19 million active users. In May 2009 alone Facebook.com received 23.9 million visitors in the UK. Other popular social networking sites continued to struggle to keep up with Facebook – Bebo followed as the second most visited UK Social Network (8.5 million visitors), then Windows Live Profile (6.9 million visitors) and MySpace Sites (6.5 million visitors)...

Re:What?

[Em Emalb]

You do realise that Britain is not part of the United States, don't you?

What? When the hell did that happen? You mean there's a world outside the US' borders? That's B.S.

(Yeah, I understand that. But I'm not from England, and frankly haven't kept up on the latest and greatest social media stuff going on over there, therefore my examples of things like craigslist, myspace, etc., are all from stuff I know about, being here in the US.)

The Austin Powers joke was basically to state that this has happened so many times before due to "various" things that this isn't new and frankly isn't news.

You heard it here first, folks:

[PhasmatisApparatus]

You heard it here first, folks: Facebook users cannot figure out how to use condoms!

Re:You heard it here first, folks:

[cayenne8]

"You heard it here first, folks: Facebook users cannot figure out how to use condoms!"

Well, in defense of not liking them...having sex with one on, is about as much fun as eating a nice steak with one on your tongue.

Sure, you know it is supposed to be juicy, fun and pleasurable...but you can't can't feel anything.

Re:You heard it here first, folks:

[Kymermosst]

Try polyisoprene.

Re:You heard it here first, folks:

[NotBornYesterday]

Yeah, and chances are they don't use (or don't know how to use) anything else that might prevent infection. What is it about using computers that makes people think "It won't happen to me"?

Re:You heard it here first, folks:

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that this is just Latex with the proteins that can cause latex allergy problems not in the mix, how is this really any better than a latex condom?

Re:You heard it here first, folks:

[Kymermosst]

It's a bit more... rubbery, I guess. Hard to describe it but it's a bit more stretchy and seems to transmit friction a little better.

C!=C

[Sta7ic]

Correlation is not causation. Facebook usage may correlate, but doesn't cause it.

"Don't drink and park. Accidents make people."

Re:C!=C

[DriedClexler]

Yes, but you can reduce (thought not eliminate) this risk by making sure you pull out and climax on her tits.

Re:C!=C

[Anonymous Coward]

Correlation is not causation. Facebook usage may correlate, but doesn't cause it.

"Don't drink and park. Accidents make people."

I'd love to see your data disproving causation in this scenario. Or are you just making a blind guess?

Just because "facebook usage may coorelate" you cannot take the logical leap and say that it "doesn't cause it"

Correlation is often a good grounds for doing a study to determine causation/non-causation.

People who don't understand what "correlation != causation" is supposed to convey should avoid using it.

Re:C!=C

[Red Flayer]

Yes, but you can reduce (thought not eliminate) this risk by making sure you pull out and climax on her tits.I believe in the UK the proper term is "put some gravy on her biscuits".

But I could be wrong.

Re:C!=C

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up.

Re:C!=C

[MrHanky]

Wow, how "insightful"! Did you learn about that on Slashdot?

Did it occur to you that maybe the patients diagnosed with syphilis were questioned about their sex life? Why the fuck is this idiocy always modded up on this site?

Re:C!=C

[dcollins]

Dvorkin said it best: "The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using 'correlation is not causation' as an argument is close to 1."

Re:C!=C

[ceoyoyo]

"but doesn't cause it"

Your error is at least as great as someone who says Facebook usage definitely causes STD increase. Correlation != causation is misleading at best. The proper statement is correlation !==> causation: correlation does not imply causation.

Re:C!=C

[Anonymous Coward]

Failure to use condoms is leading to a rise in STDs. Facebook is just helping more people have sex.

Re:C!=C

[Anonymous Coward]

Camera-cell phone use correlates just as well. Are you saying Facebook is a more cause likely than camera cell phones?

Re:C!=C

[jlintern]

I read the GP as "Facebook usage may correlate, but doesn't necessarily cause [increased STD rates]." In which case it would be perfectly correct.

Regardless, any discussion of causation based on the information provided in TFA is completely worthless. It simply says that there is geographical correlation between Facebook use and STD rates, that some people with Syphilis have had sex with people they met online, and that people who meet over the internet are more likely to engage in "risky" behavior.

The titles "Facebook Leads to Increase in STDs in Britain" (/.) and "Facebook blamed for rising STD rates in Britain" (TFA) both imply causation when in fact none has been shown. I think this is what the GP was pointing out. I'm sure you'll find plenty more alternate theories of causation in other threads.

Re:C!=C

[jdgeorge]

Failure to use condoms is leading to a rise in STDs.

No, the rise in STD infections is due to more uninfected people having sex with infected people.

It is true that condom use in cases where one of the two people involved is infected would reduce the risk of infection resulting from sex. Generally, increased adherence to condom use is correlated to reduced infection rates among sexually promiscuous people.

So the health advice is: Don't do it with someone who may be infected with something other than whatever you already have. If you really MUST do it with someone who may be infected, use a condom.

Oh, and remember, even though it may be a sin in your religion, you won't get a disease by taking care of your own business, if you know what I mean.

Re:C!=C

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Correlation is not causation. Facebook usage may correlate, but doesn't cause it.

Yeah, they are blaming the tool these people are using to hook up. Might as well blame the telephone or sexting or the back-alleys these idiots are getting it on in. My guess would be that that part of the UK already hit hard by the industrial decline got hit harder by the recession and a lot of people are bored AND some idiot is running around infected and not giving a damn. Of course that doesn't sell papers.

Re:C!=C

[Locke2005]

So you're saying that perhaps there are more Facebook members because everyone has STDs now?

Re:C!=C

[xaxa]

I've not heard "biscuits" for breasts, but maybe it's regional British slang (there's lots, and I've lived here all my life and still sometimes find new words that only people from the north/west/Wales/Scotland use).

"Baps" makes a bit more sense (see).

Re:C!=C

[Anonymous Coward]

Burden of proof is on you. Correlation is interesting, but the causation could run in either direction.

Re:C!=C

[Anonymous Coward]

The data has to prove it causes it before one can say it causes it. No data available does not prove causation.

Re:C!=C

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to see your data disproving causation in this scenario. Or are you just making a blind guess?

Just because "facebook usage may coorelate" you cannot take the logical leap and say that it "doesn't cause it"

Correlation is often a good grounds for doing a study to determine causation/non-causation.

People who don't understand what "correlation != causation" is supposed to convey should avoid using it.

but if you read the article you will see that there is no empirical evidence supporting the conclusion of causation.

Re:C!=C

[CoffeeDog]

They didn't use the correlation to prove causation, they actually asked people "hey how'd you get the clap" and a lot of them said "I hooked up with a stranger on Facebook". That is the causation right there, the correlation came after.

Re:C!=C

[Red Flayer]

I've got a Welsh friend who refers to particular nice ones as "cheddar biscuits". Maybe it's because "cheddar" means good, and "biscuits" follows naturally. But then again, he makes a point of using unusual slang in a kind of try-to-figure-out-what-I'm-saying way that he claims is very common in Wales.

Re:C!=C

[Anonymous Coward]

Correlation is not causation. Facebook usage may correlate, but doesn't cause it.

"Don't drink and park. Accidents make people."

I'd love to see your data disproving causation in this scenario. Or are you just making a blind guess?

Just because "facebook usage may coorelate" you cannot take the logical leap and say that it "doesn't cause it"

Correlation is often a good grounds for doing a study to determine causation/non-causation.

People who don't understand what "correlation != causation" is supposed to convey should avoid using it.

... Uh... No it means you can argue either way. It correlates so it might cause it or it might not but we can say it contributes. So yes I can say it does not cause it but it does contribute to it. Depending on the statistical significance of course.

Correlation != causation, you should avoid using it.

Re:C!=C

[Anonymous Coward]

Onus isn't on him to disprove causation. Onus is on Professor Peter Kelly to prove causation. Right now, all he has is a theory. He may as well be saying "We have the Bible, so God must be real."

(Disclaimer: This is not an argument regarding the validity of religion, nor does this make any claims about the validity or invalidity of religion. It's only pointing out bad arguments. If Professor Peter Kelly doesn't take the task of proving his theory, he may as well be starting his own religion.)

Re:C!=C

[ignavus]

Correlation is not causation. Facebook usage may correlate, but doesn't cause it.

"Don't drink and park. Accidents make people."

Of course Facebook usage doesn't cause it.

It is when they stop using Facebook (and the whole computer) that causes it.

i call

[JackSpratts]

shenanigans

Re:i call

[icannotthinkofaname]

I swear to God, I'll pistol whip the next guy that says "shenanigans"!

Re:i call

[svtdragon]

Shenanigans.

Come and get it, motherfucker. :)

Re:i call

[Quiet_Desperation]

shenin- shenano- shin- shenanigu- DAMMIT!

Re:i call

[acidrainx]

Hey Farva.. what's the name of that restaurant you like with all the crazy stuff on the walls?

Re:i call

[spartacus_prime]

You mean Shenanigans?

Re:i call

[RivenAleem]

He just said "shenanigans", oh no, now I said it! *stoned*

Really?

[Gomer79]

Because people could not find partners through any other means besides facebook? Maybe we should take a little bit deeper look into the numbers and see if there as actual causation vs. just correlation?

Re:Really?

[MikeFM]

After you farm, or zoo, or mafia, together you just wanna get down in the barn together.

Re:Really?

[nelsonal]

How bout, facebook makes it easy for women to filter and select the few men they all want to sleep with, so those men sleep with huge numbers of women (and disease spreads rampantly).

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the way the contact is made DOES matter.

See, you need to put Mr. Johnson into Ms. Puuter for it to be called "sex." There are usually 3 different hole choices for Ms. Puuter.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's already a rebuttal here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/mar/25/sun-dailytelegraph.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't really matter how the contact is made, does it?

It does matter as to how contact is made. RTFA, and don't make contact without a condom.

Re:Really?

[ejasons]

How bout, facebook makes it easy for women to filter and select the few men they all want to sleep with, so those men sleep with huge numbers of women (and disease spreads rampantly).

Wow, that's one of the most insightful statements I've ever read on Slashdot...

Really?

[cbope]

Wow, that's about as enlightening as saying bars and nightclubs lead to more casual sex. People socializing more, and it leads to sex? No shit. Doesn't really matter how the contact is made, does it?

Facebook??

[esobofh]

Ahh facebook? I think craigslist takes the blame here...

Um...

[Pojut]

...I wouldn't say this is a problem with Facebook so much as a problem with fucking stupidity. It's not my place to question someone's sexual activity, but come on...who has sex with a stranger without using a condom?

Re:Um...

[char70ger]

Why would you want to have sex with a "stranger" even if you did have a condom?

Re:Um...

[phantomfive]

Yeah, seriously. We already have the cure for syphilis and AIDS, all we have to do is use it. If everyone used condoms, both diseases would be wiped out in a generation, less for syphilis. Much like vaccinations, some idiots who don't get them cause problems for the rest of us.

Re:Um...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's fun? And they are less of a stranger afterwards.

Re:Um...

[Pojut]

I personally wouldn't, but plenty of people would. Like I said, it isn't my place to judge someone's sexual appetites...but I'll judge the hell out of someone recklessly screwing around.

Re:Um...

[sharkman67]

I think the GP is wrong. I'll bet you find that in most cases people are hooking back up with high school sweethearts or other long lost boy/girl friends. So these people are not "strangers". Still not excuse for unprotected sex though.

Re:Um...

[lorg]

There is a cure for AIDS? Really? Putting on a condom isn't a cure, it's at best a preventative action, if you already have AIDS putting one on won't cure it. You might as well just come out and say that you think we should euthanize all the "sick" or infected people, that way we won't have to wait generations for the disease to be wiped out, aka "the cure".

Re:Um...

[cbope]

Someone who is fucking stupidly?

Thanks, I'll be here all evening, try the salmon.

Re:Um...

[Pojut]

It was meant to be a double meaning :-)

My favorite instance:

"Selling is legal...fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?" -George Carlin

Re:Um...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and if everyone used them we'd be wiped out as a species in one generation. =). No people = No AIDS

Re:Um...

[Seth Kriticos]

I agree! That's why I always ask for the name before the fucking starts. I mean, what can you shout while screwing: "Oh, your cunt is so tight, stranger!"?

Re:Um...

[Andy_w715]

...I wouldn't say this is a problem with Facebook so much as a problem with fucking stupidly,. It's not my place to question someone's sexual activity, but come on...who has sex with a stranger without using a condom?

FYP.

Re:Um...

[Anonymous Coward]

gosh why on earth would you WANT to use a condom?

Re:Um...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree! That's why I always ask for the name before the fucking starts. I mean, what can you shout while screwing: "Oh, your cunt is so tight, stranger!"?

I believe the term is "beotch"

Re:Um...

[wisnoskij]

People with STDs apparently.

Re:Um...

[pak9rabid]

Why would you want to have sex with a "stranger" even if you did have a condom?
*Quickly glances at significant other and away*

Fixed that for you.

Re:Um...

[pak9rabid]

Why would you want to have sex with a "stranger" even if you did have a condom?

Oh I don't know...maybe because of this wacky thing called testosterone...maybe you've heard of it?

Re:Um...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wife watching you type, eh?

There's never been anyone you didn't know but wanted to have sex with?
How's the eunuch life treating you? must simplify a lot of things..

Re:Um...

[ffejie]

If everyone used condoms all the time, we also wouldn't have that other problem of reproducing. We could solve a lot of problems if we just let all the humans expire. I figure it would take about 75 years or so.

Re:Um...

[Threni]

> Why would you want to have sex with a "stranger" even if you did have a condom?

And why would people drink beer? It's gross. And as for smoking - yuck! Don't you know it's bad for you?

Re:Um...

[Duradin]

Why buy the cow (and incur all the continuing expenses and liabilities) when you can buy the milk conveniently and affordably whenever you want to. It'd put the whole Marriage Industry out of business. Think of the poor divorce lawyers!

Re:Um...

[Anonymous Coward]

...I wouldn't say this is a problem with Facebook so much as a problem with fucking stupidity. It's not my place to question someone's sexual activity, but come on...who has sex with a stranger without using a condom?

Is there a real difference between a stranger and someone you've known for a couple of weeks or months?

Have you ever - has anyone ever - told your partner-to-be, "hey sweety, before we do the wild thing, let's get tested for STDs"? I guess that depends on the culture, but in my (sad) experience, it's usually met by "you don't trust me?!" and "fuck off, you moron".

To make things worse, and I swear to god I'm not making this up, I can't wear condoms. My penis is well over the average diameter/girth, and to this day, I haven't found a single condom that I could use. I can't roll it on; I have to stretch it around slowly, and when doing that doesn't kill my erection, the condom eventually breaks; either when I'm placing it, or soon after penetration. That is, if I even get to penetrate a woman. I've had a couple of relationships go bad because sex was physically impossible, others broke because it was unpleasant for my partners. Blowjobs? More like lickjobs.

Am I irresponsible for not wearing a condom? Yes... I'm perfectly aware of that. On the other hand, I'd die a virgin otherwise. The best I can do is hope for the best. It's not like I'm promiscuous or something.

Anyway, this went completely offtopic, so I'd just like to say that people should be happy that they *can* wear condoms and that they *can* have sex. I'm in my thirties, and I'm in my single digits (and I'm not talking about the number of partners). At least get tested for HIV, people, because if you get that, your sex life is going to be like mine - totally fucked up (pun intended)... And you really don't want that.

Be smart.

Re:Um...

[phantomfive]

Oh please, is your entire post an outlet to your anger over the fact that I used the word 'cure' instead of the words 'way to eradicate?' I am ok with grammar nazis, but people who completely ignore the obvious meaning of a post, and then extrapolate things that aren't even remotely implied really annoy me (that we should kill people with AIDS, talk about sensationalistic strawman).

Be intellectually honest in your conversation. If everyone practiced safe sex, AIDS would be gone soon, and you know it. And to those people who took my sentence 'use condoms' to mean 'never ever get pregnant' (not you, Mr Lorg) you are idiots. Practice safe sex, that's all.

Re:Um...

[Locke2005]

Why would you want to have sex with a "stranger"...? Because she has really big tits? Because after I've bought her enough pints to get her wasted, I no longer consider her a stranger? Or how 'bout simply because I'm horny?

Re:Um...

[Anonymous Coward]

And you think you're safer with someone who's not a "stranger"? People lie, cheat, and hide things all the time.

Re:Um...

[roman_mir]

I know, I know, all the sisters, the brothers, the mother, the father, the dog...

Who needs strangers?!

Re:Um...

[Creepy]

Except junkies sharing needles is a major spreader of HIV/AIDS. Putting a condom on a needle seems a tad counterproductive.

    Incidentally, I've known two people that have contracted STDs, one is gay and is HIV positive from screwing around, and the other was a punker that moonlighted as a gigolo while in high school (and he contracted gonorrhea that way - he was also on most forms of drug and probably sharing needles, but all I know from hearsay is he went to rehab and cleaned up after high school). I imagine prostitutes of any kind are a major purveyor of STDs because their job is to screw around and in many cases, neither the prostitute or the john/jane is tested.

The cure is much simpler - avoid drugs and transfusions and only have sex with virgins who also have not used drugs or had transfusions (yes, I know the chances of getting HIV is very low through transfusions these days, but you can't take any chances, right?).

Re:Um...

[Anonymous Coward]

Him, has anyone done that study? Does having unprotected sex cause STDs or do STDs cause unprotected sex?

Re:Um...

[Jason Levine]

This reminds me of my college days. When my father visited the campus, he'd look at all of the nice looking female students. (And by "look" I mean turn his head so quickly that I was afraid he'd get whiplash. No subtly!*) As each one passed, he'd tell me that I should walk up to her and ask her to sleep with me. My answer was if she said yes, then I definitely didn't want to sleep with her!

* Of course, this is the same guy who thought having "the talk" with me was "Hey, let's watch porn together!" There's just something Not-Right about watching porn with your dad!

Re:Um...

[garaged]

I have avoided sex with KNOWN girls, but sudenly I don't feel so special about it

Re:Um...

[svtdragon]

And at least with a stranger, you know that you don't know.

Re:Um...

[xero314]

who has sex with a stranger without using a condom?

Because not everyone knows that once you get to know someone they can't transfer STDs to you.

Re:Um...

[rgviza]

I can think of a couple of reasons:
1. you are drunk
2. you are horny
3. they are hot
4. they start making out with you out of nowhere and you get horny.

I suggest you try it sometime, but wear a condom. Being with someone you love can lead to better sex, but nothing is more exciting than having sex with a near or total stranger. This includes the girls from high school that are hitting on you 10 years later. Did you _really_ know them? That's what I thought.

Re:Um...

[Guido del Confuso]

...I'm in my single digits (and I'm not talking about the number of partners).

That may be the best euphemism for masturbation I've ever heard. It was even worth reading through your nauseatingly detailed description of your chode for.

Re:Um...

[an unsound mind]

I have seen several people ask their partners to get a STD check together pre-sex. I live in northern Europe though.

Not such a big deal here.

Re:Um...

[Hurricane78]

Only on Slashdot would this question be modded insightful!

Now tell me you don’t wanna fuck a hot girl that you just met. When you don’t see her again, even better. Because then you can do all the nasty shit without risking losing her. (You’ll lose her anyway. ^^)

Re:Um...

[Hurricane78]

Oh, I dunno, perhaps only about every life-form on this whole planet, before the invention on condoms!! ^^

Re:Um...

[Hurricane78]

Yeah, we all never would. It’s the wizard alien’s fault! *shifty eyes*

Re:Um...

[phantomfive]

Surprisingly, prostitutes who work in places where it is legal, and always use condoms (like in Nevada), show a very low rate of STDs. Condoms are amazingly good. You are right about needles though, sharing is a bad idea. Also, condoms don't stop herpes or HPV, but neither of those is as bad as AIDS. Not by a long shot.

Re:Um...

[Pojut]

I can't speak for others, but in my case I found the perfect woman (at least according to my standards) :-)

Re:Um...

[Pojut]

Wife watching you type, eh?

Not at all, I've always been this way.

There's never been anyone you didn't know but wanted to have sex with?

Honestly? Not that I can remember. Naturally, I've looked at women and thought they were hot, beautiful, cute, or whatever...but no, the idea of sex with someone I don't know isn't very enticing. I'm very much a "giver" kind of person when it comes to sex, and if I don't know a person then I don't know how to "provide" for them. Knowing someone's personality makes that much, much easier for me...and, as would be expected, I can't be with a woman who doesn't like to have attention paid to them.

Sounds weird, but I have known some to be that way.

How's the eunuch life treating you? must simplify a lot of things..

Definitely not a eunuch, but yes, it does simplify things not wanting to screw every good looking woman I see :-)

Re:Um...

[bar-agent]

I'm very much a "giver" kind of person when it comes to sex, and if I don't know a person then I don't know how to "provide" for them. Knowing someone's personality makes that much, much easier for me...

Figuring out their *ahem* quirks is part of the fun. It's like exploring unknown territory. Plus, we all need a challenge to improve our skillz.

Re:Um...

[Pojut]

Agreed! But I like having a "rough draft" of sorts, if you know what I mean :-)

Re:Um...

[mjwx]

Why would you want to have sex with a "stranger" even if you did have a condom?

She's hot.

Re:Um...

[mjwx]

I personally wouldn't, but plenty of people would. Like I said, it isn't my place to judge someone's sexual appetites...but I'll judge the hell out of someone recklessly screwing around.

What if you're not doing it recklessly, I know the term "responsibly screwing around" doesn't make a good headline but quite a few of us young people take STD's seriously.

Re:Um...

[Pojut]

I'm all for responsibly screwing around...just because it isn't for me doesn't mean I don't support its practice :-)

Re:Um...

[JCZwart]

Heh. I remember someone telling a very similar story not so long ago here...

same old

[Tobor the Eighth Man]

Hey, look, an interesting statistical effect. How to explain it? Rigorous analysis? Nah, let's just blame it on new technology, 'cuz that wasn't around before and now things are different - obviously, there's a meaningful correlation!

Reminds me of the piracy/global warming graph: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/~pdeh/piratesarecool4.gif

Fuckbook?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try SitOnMyFacebook.

..as reported by Murdoch's newspapers

[RMH101]

...as they pointedly do NOT mention MySpace. Hmm. Wonder why that could be, NewsCorp?

Re:..as reported by Murdoch's newspapers

[TheRaven64]

That's because no one uses MySpace anymore.

Re:..as reported by Murdoch's newspapers

[dunezone]

Myspace is the ghost town of the internet.

Re:..as reported by Murdoch's newspapers

[Anonymous Coward]

My last three partners were from MySpace. Although I'm not British so maybe it's not popular there.

Re:..as reported by Murdoch's newspapers

[tool462]

Especially since just creating a MySpace account gives you the clap.

Re:..as reported by Murdoch's newspapers

[Anonymous Coward]

Because this article is about sex, not about teen bands making bad music.

Re:..as reported by Murdoch's newspapers

[Anonymous Coward]

If you knew anything about human nature, you'd know a story like this would drive up usage of facebook. Sort of like if toysrus banned a video game. All the teenagers would say "wow, there must be something really nasty in there! I'm going to find it!!!" Or are you thinking Murdoch was hoping to crash their servers with a whole bunch of new traffic?

Network promiscuious mode

[Tei]

I want this. How I can get that? I have already tried to recompile the network driver in promiscuos mode. But all I get is the packets of other peers on my lan :-/, :-I , :-), :-O

Re:Network promiscuious mode

[natehoy]

Young whippersnappers hanging their ports out promiscuously.

Get off my LAN!

Murder!

[DIplomatic]

Hmmm... that's a pretty good shock-headline-mostly-unrelated-to-the-facts, but I bet I can do better.

"Levi Jeans are Murdering Texans"

In a whopping 80% of deaths in the state of Texas, the deceased was wearing denim jeans - says a study conducted by the University of Jumping-to-Silly-Conclusions.

Re:Murder!

[Em Emalb]

And they deserved it to, what with their fancy-schmanzy "button-fly" jeans and delicious BBQ.

Re:Murder!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm... that's a pretty good shock-headline-mostly-unrelated-to-the-facts, but I bet I can do better.

"Levi Jeans are Murdering Texans"

In a whopping 80% of deaths in the state of Texas, the deceased was wearing denim jeans - says a study conducted by the University of Jumping-to-Silly-Conclusions.

This is very funny! Thank you! You gave me the best laugh of the day.

Re:Murder!

[WonkoS]

Oh sure, and 99% of people who died of cancer wore underwear.

Re:Murder!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to buy stock in Levi Strauss according to this hot tip, but they're a privately held company.

Can you tell me any other companies which are helping to kill Texans?

Re:Murder!

[Thud457]

McDonald's, Burger King, Little Debbie, Smith & Wesson, Altria, Frito-Lay and Jimmy Dean Foods would be a good start.

There's an app for that?

[CodingHero]

I'll bet there is, or will soon be, an app for just such a purpose, "friend" suggestions and all.

False report

[Anonymous Coward]

The german media watchblog BILDblog just reported (in german) this to be a hoax. The connection between Facebook and STDs was constructed by The Sun, not by Prof. Kelly.

The Department of Public Health even issued a counterstatement according to the BBC.

Re:False report

[Faluzeer]

If correct that does not surprise me. The Sun is well known (in the UK) to never let the truth get in the way of a good story, especially if the story involves sex.

Re:False report

[Orange Crush]

Hogwash, next you'll tell me that global warming isn't really caused by the decline in pirates since the 1800s.

Re:False report

[Spad]

The Sun links this to a survey last month suggesting that the region is Britain's Facebook capital - "figures released last month showed that people in Sunderland, Durham and Teesside were 25% more likely to log on regularly."

But Mr Kunonga points out that Sunderland and Durham are not in the NHS Tees area - so the syphilis statistics do not apply to those apparently Facebook-mad cities.

Keep up the good work guys!

Re:False report

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah - ask anybody from Liverpool who was around the time of Hillsborough. However, you can't entirely blame the Sun. If sheeple bothered to think for themselves instead of letting Murdoch do it for them, the Sun would long ago either have gone out of business or cleaned up its journalistic standards to the point where at least some of its stories weren't invented.

Re:False report

[blitzkrieg3]

For anyone who wants to know the actual numbers

Apparently, in 2008 in the NHS Tees area (Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, Redcar and Cleveland) there were fewer than 10 cases of syphilis - so few that, under data-protection rules, the NHS can't give out the exact number.
But in 2009, 30 cases of heterosexual syphilis were notified to the NHS. So, yes: a four-fold increase, but a very small sample from which to drawn any very big conclusions.

Long story short, they noticed an increase, asked the patient where they got the disease. The patient said they met partners on the internet, which gets translated into Facebook. I'd put my money on it being Craigslist, as someone mentioned earlier.

Public awareness campaign

[ThreeGigs]

So someone says social networking sites are to blame, instead of the amazing coincidence that syphilis cases increased as the government stopped their public awareness campaigns against STDs. I'm thinking someone needs to expand their search for causalitis.

"These are your genitals. THESE are your genitals on Syphilis. Any questions?"

Re:Public awareness campaign

[Anonymous Coward]

we got that treatment annually in the military, with graphic photos to accentuate, and idiots STILL would go out and fuck the locals at every port sans condoms.

I have no sympathy for anyone who gets an STD from promiscuous sex. I am,however, jealous they are getting laid more often than I...

Re:Public awareness campaign

[rgviza]

Wouldn't that be a Pubic awareness campaign?

UK

[TheMeuge]

Well, it's the UK, so I doubt I'd be the first:

"Ban Facebook now!"
"They're corrupting our innocent children"
"It's all the work of secret terrorist pedophiles... we must root them out by recording all facebook conversations and having a central database"

Sounds good?

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you forgot "monitor facebook" and "take video of all computer screens". This is the UK after all.

Practice safe hex

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't do cyber-sex without a cyber-condom.

Mixing cyber-sex with real-world sex requires additional special precautions.

Re:Practice safe hex

[Bugamn]

Safe hex involves putting on my wizard hat and robe before any action?

ITDs

[strangeattraction]

Internet Transmitted Diseases: Who would have thought it possible.

Damn

[Arancaytar]

I knew there was something on Facebook I was missing out on aside from Mafia Wars.

Syphilisbook

[Aphoxema]

Well, at least it isn't something that's untreatable.

Come back when you find a correlation with herpes, because Herpesbook has a better ring that Syphilisbook. You can also turn it into Faceherpes, but Treponema pallidum can't really find a good place to live on the face.

Re:Syphilisbook

[ceoyoyo]

Maybe not, but Faceherpes is pretty scary.

Facebook?

[Broken scope]

I'll state the obvious then.

This is about sex education and access to reproductive health services/products. Facebook is just a way to shift blame.

Re:Facebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

People know they're supposed to use a condom, and they know how to get one.
Education and access don't cure stupidity and lack of self-control.

Re:Facebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since this is about the UK, the obvious part would also contain the amount of English sluts...

Re:Facebook?

[Tetsujin]

People know they're supposed to use a condom, and they know how to get one.

Hey, speak for yourself. I was out fishing all day with my OLD ROD and I didn't catch a single one...

Wrong. FB leads to increased casual sex.

[Kenja]

Its all the stupid people having sex that leads to the STDs.

Re:Wrong. FB leads to increased casual sex.

[Locke2005]

If by "stupid" you mean "too ignorant to use a condom", then I would say you are correct... don't any of these women worry about getting knocked up?

Re:Don't forget Britain's refugee problem.

[TheRaven64]

Actually, they don't need to hide behind their anonymity, we put them on television.

Less Focus on Facebook...

[dhermann]

Director of Public Health in Great Britain? So this guy is in charge of their teeth, too, right? I think he may want to stop spending time on Facebook and more time looking into that... situation.

Re:Less Focus on Facebook...

[natehoy]

Give 'em all good teeth, and you'll have even MORE casual sex going on. Don't you see there is a plan at work?

If Facebook give you an STD....

[noname101]

You are doing it wrong...... Slashdot good. Long live FARK

Re:If Facebook give you an STD....

[Anonymous Coward]

Fark is for retards with a superiority complex.

Re:If Facebook give you an STD....

[ihatejobs]

So you are saying its Slashdot 2.0 then?

Now that you've cried "racism", let's face reality

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, what does race, let alone "racism", have to do with this?

Have you ever been to a third world nation? I don't think you have, otherwise you'd realize how poor the hygiene and sanitation is in such regions.

In some countries, especially where overcrowding is an issue and sanitation is poor, people urinate and defecate directly on the streets, and sometimes even into the water that they drink and bathe in. You wouldn't believe how this promotes the spread of all sorts of diseases that are basically unheard of in Western nations.

There are some African countries where over 50% of the population is infected with AIDS. That means that if you slept with just two people, there's a good chance that you've gotten AIDS. It doesn't help that in some African nations, rape is commonplace. So not only does the woman become pregnant and get AIDS, but her child is born with AIDS, as well. Plus there's a good chance both of them have also acquired several "lesser" diseases, too.

I'm sorry that reality doesn't correlate well with your fantasy land where everybody lives in Western-style conditions.

syphilis cycles

[GayBliss]

There is also the theory of syphilis cycles, that have little to do with a change in sexual behaviors by the masses:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6935-syphilis-cycles-not-driven-by-risky-sex.html

Re:Don't forget Britain's refugee problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

fucking their own sisters and other dogs while bravely hiding behind the shield of anonymity.

We are legion.. we never forget..

The media report is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a case were media make connections not claimed in the original report, in order to make it more newsworthy. The BBC quotes Prof. Kelly, stating:

"Our press release was simply trying to highlight the risks of casual sex. We did not make the claim that social networking sites are causing the rise in the incidence of syphilis."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/rorycellanjones/2010/03/technophobia_facebook_and_syph.html

Thats right

[C_Kode]

Thats right. YOU have syphilis Facebooker! :)

I've Never Had Casual Sex

[mindbrane]

Pleading, desperate, begging, even grovelling sex, sure, that's pretty much my norm, but casual, no. My ex, I'm pretty sure she had a lot of casual sex, even disinterested sex, at least it seemed that way to me, but then I really didn't care. I was just so grateful just to be getting some.

Re:I've Never Had Casual Sex

[Hurricane78]

And that’s also the reason you won’t ever get it. You are fulfilling your own prophecy. You are what you expect to be, and what you expect to be what you are. How about... changing who you think you are? And then letting you fulfill that prophecy instead. :)

F*&(ing FARMVILLE!

[forgot_my_username]

Great,
I blame farmville, all that trading about of farm animals.

It used to be that a man's sheep where a man's sheep... and you did not touch another man's sheep.

But, there you go... all this willy nilly trading of farm animals was bound to have a bad end!


Spurious link:siRNA and protein synthesis video with stupid article I wrote attached

Yea right

[ickleberry]

Facebook is the anti-social network, most people on there refuse to talk to people they don't know (although a lot will accept a random ad to appear more popular).

People might be meeting up for casual sex online more than before, but I severely doubt it's through facebook

Re:Yea right

[Locke2005]

Just because they are not talking to or meeting up with YOU, doesn't mean their not talking to or meeting up with anyone! My 9-year old daughter appears to have to problem picking up men online... maybe you're just a dick.

Just curious

[AskFirefly]

Is any of this happening in Farmville????

Re:Just curious

[natehoy]

Naaa-aaa-aaa-aaah.

toothing

[confused one]

This sounds too much like the toothing hoax from a few years ago.

Everybody's Doin' It

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't everyone have unprotected sex with strangers while surfing Facebook? Why is this news?

POF

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm from England, I don't have a Facebook account. I did use plentyoffish.com, that's where I got my STDs from anyway.

Facebook Suggestions

[Tetsujin]

Herpes
120 of your friends are members
Join This Group

Toothing anyone?

[kellererik]

Children, try to remember that history repeats itself here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toothing

This hoax worked because the people wanted to believe. So here we go again. The usual "The Internet is evil"-fodder for the water cooler on friday, a.k.a. nothing new here, moving on.

Re:Toothing anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on what I overheard at a Sushi restaurant on Valentine's Day I would say that Facebook does get used for casual hookups.

Best Response

[DeadCatX2]

Yours is the best response to the question so far. Mostly because I agree, beer is gross and smoking is yuck.

Re:Best Response

[level_headed_midwest]

If you think beer is gross, you're drinking the wrong beer!

Re:Best Response

[DeadCatX2]

People tell me all the time, "beer is an acquired test." My response is that "I hear cum is an acquired taste, too, but that doesn't mean I'm interested in giving anyone head."

I've tried a few beers, and I'm pretty sure it's the hops that gross me out.

Re:Best Response

[Threni]

I tried a beer which had been made without hops a few years ago, but I didn't enjoy it at all.

Lots of things are an acquired taste. Are you telling me you don't eat/drink anything which you at one point didn't like?

Re:Best Response

[DeadCatX2]

>.>
<.<

Actually, yeah, I'm quite possibly the pickiest eater that you've ever known. I mean, if I didn't like it before, I don't see why I'd like it later.

Now, not liking something is not the same as feeling neutral about it. But if I'm barely able to swallow the food or drink, I take that as a cue from my body that it really, really doesn't want that in my stomach.

Re:Best Response

[Threni]

> But if I'm barely able to swallow the food or drink, I take that as a cue from my body that it really, really doesn't want that in my stomach.

It's not your body, it's your brain. And brains can be altered. Different contexts, circumstances etc. You might have had a bad instance of a foodstuff (ie some horrible celery soup), and labelled the whole class (celery soup, or even celery itself) as bad, rather than just that one instance of celery soup.

The original article didn't mention Facebook

[alanw]

Here's an article in the local press of March 19th:

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/2010/03/19/syphilis-cases-rise-400-on-teesside-84229-26067098/

No mention of Facebook.

There was then an article on the 24th in The Daily Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/7508945/Facebook-linked-to-rise-in-syphilis.html

Again, no direct claim that Facebook was responsible, just an unsubstantiated paragraph stating that

Case have increased fourfold in Sunderland, Durham and Teesside, the areas of Britain where Facebook is most popular.
[sic]

There was another instance recently where Facebook are threatening to sue the Daily Mail

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/mar/11/facebook-daily-mail

after the Mail took some general research into unnamed social networking sites and attributed the dangers specifically to Facebook.

I would think it far more likely that AdultFriendFinder or GetItOn would be responsible for any increase in STDs, and that it's bad journalists seeking to sensationalise stories, by trying to make them more familiar and relevant to their readers, who are using Facebook as a synonym for any social networking site.

Right...and video games create mass murderers

[grapeape]

Can we please have a sanity check. Sure social networking has become a convenient way to meet people for random encounters, but classified ads and drunken bar visits have provided that for generations. I wonder if they bothered to consider that perhaps Facebook and its ilk aren't actually increasing the amount of infections but instead increasing peoples awareness and as a result more people getting tested. In previous times if someone gave someone else an STD the victim's only way of exposing the person passing it was to talk to mutual friends...with social networks there is easy access to friends of friends and acquaintance so spreading the word is now as easy as it was to spread the virus.

User education

[david_thornley]

If we could only get more people to use anti-virus and firewalls....

what is that?

[roman_mir]

What is this s...se.... sekes? What is this sekes you are talking about? What is that?

I call...

[jlintern]

Shenanigans.

Actually...

[killmenow]

you don't get over 9000 friends without sucking a few cocks along the way...

IT'S OVER 9000!!!!!

Fucking leads to increased STDs in Britain

[Locke2005]

There, I fixed the headline for you.

Re:Fucking leads to increased STDs in Britain

[Lunzo]

Your headline is almost right. Fucking without protection leads to increased STIs. Australian research shows that young people are having about the same amount of promiscuous sex but use condoms much less frequently than previous generations (there might have been a slight increase in casual sex but I don't remember). Sleeping around + no condom = infection. Don't be a fool, wrap your tool!

Slashdot causes decrease in STDs

[sc0p3]

In a new publication just released, reading Slashdot has been found to miraculously reduce the number of STDs in males.

Prof. Wild Claim

[nfc_Death]

So this guys proof is "I don't get the names of people affected, just figures, and I saw the several of the people had met sexual partners through these sites," he said Which means that facebook is the cause of an increase in syphilis? Or maybe its this statement he made "Social networking sites are making it easier for people to meet up for casual sex," Prof. Peter Kelly, director of pubic health in Teesside, told the paper. "There has been a fourfold increase in the number of syphilis cases detected, with more young women being affected." Hmmm seems to me hes just made a bunch of inflammatory statements about something he has no data, proof, or clarity about. So the story is, Public Health officer makes wild claims about facebook use and casual sex, when he should have just made a statement about using condoms. Why is this being considered as news? Why wasnt this story vetted properly?

An analysis from a professional in this field

[musicalmicah]

Dr. Petra Boynton has a much more critical analysis of this issue on her blog here.

They just need a panic button for this.

[TermV]

They need to add a button to Facebook so that if anybody feels like they're going to get the clap, they can push it and immediately generate a medical response.

WRONG HEADLINE!

[Anonymous Coward]

The headline should read "Brit singles had no sex before computers - facebook brings 4 times increase!"

It's 2010

[Anonymous Coward]

Alex Fleming discovered Penecillin's over eighty years ago. HOW THE FSCK does anyone still get syphilis?

Re:It's 2010

[Nyder]

Alex Fleming discovered Penecillin's over eighty years ago.

HOW THE FSCK does anyone still get syphilis?

But having sex without protection with an infected partner.

What, did you sleep thru sex ed?

Kirk banging monkeys

[Tetsujin]

As Howard the Duck said, "Sorry kid, but I don't date outside my species!"

I'll have to take your word for it... I started up that film but after about three minutes I felt compelled to turn it off. :)

In what way is it not a question of sentience? If we're talking about morality, I think the real question is whether the subject of those sexual advances is capable of making a good decision on their own behalf, and given liberty to refuse the advances. If we're just talking about some generic "ick" factor (i.e. feeling compelled to assert one's normality by rallying against anything "weird") then good god I don't care. All that really matters is, will this alien look hot in a William Ware Theiss costume?

The green chick passes this test. So did Marta from Star Trek VI (in her humanoid form). Really, all of Kirk's women did... Yeah, realistically it seems likely there could be an abundance of reasons why sex with an alien woman would be unappealing - different proportions, odors, differences in physical anatomy - whatever... And I think you have a point that even taking "Protoculture" into account, it doesn't necessarily make sense that cross-breeding could work (especially given the bizarre differences in body chemistry established in the various series). But it is just a TV show after all... All these characters are human actors in silly costumes. Don't worry too much about it.

Re:Kirk banging monkeys

[Locke2005]

So in your opinion, if a chimpanzee has nice tits, wears makeup, can talk, and tells you it likes all the same bands you do, you don't have any problem with fucking it? IT'S STILL A FUCKING MONKEY! On the other hand, if it is really just an actor in a furry costume, yeah, go ahead, knock yourself out.

Re:Kirk banging monkeys

[Tetsujin]

So in your opinion, if a chimpanzee has nice tits, wears makeup, can talk, and tells you it likes all the same bands you do, you don't have any problem with fucking it? IT'S STILL A FUCKING MONKEY!

Hey, it's an APE! Show some fucking respect!

If Kirk wanted to bang a talking, sentient chimp, I wouldn't find a moral obligation to that. It doesn't mean I'd enjoy seeing this chimp featured on Star Trek, though. Again, you have to apply the Theiss test. In the context of the show, if the alien woman looks hot, this is quite enough.

If this is about me personally (and how did it suddenly become about me, anyway?) - that's not an appealing idea, no. Mainly because I can't picture an anthropomorphic Chimpanzee looking hot. (Maybe because, from a human perspective, a chimp is similar enough to human that its look is defined by the extent to which it's not human...) But in general? The question and only be expressed as a tautology. Will I think X is hot? If I think X is hot, the answer is yes. And there'd be a huge difference between the fantasy and reality, so it's always possible the idea would be appealing only outside of reality.

STD's

[mjwx]

I didn't think the internet used Subscriber Trunk Dialling

Safe Social Netwroking campaing

[Optali]

I recommend putting a condom on the monitor. Another safe way to avoid STDs is not using Facebook at all and go directly to the pr0n sites!!! (recommended by the pr0n webmaster association)

After seeing a recent...

[cmdrwhitewolf]

Two MANswers shows basically dissing British girls, I'm wondering "What's with all the axe grinding going on here? Did someone in the media circles get his nads caught in the celebrity bad rumor button masher with a British gal?"

shenaniggers!

[Anonymous Coward]

oh mylanta, do you even have a soul?

I've seen this shit before

[Anonymous Coward]

And there are like 30,000 (aleck) members in my area: fuckbook. Right, sometimes I think I'm the only one with computer in town :))))))))))