Co Wife Question

[ImAli]

Might I add a very reliable link for those who wish to educate themselves because it seems we have an abundance of invincible people on this forum. http://www.cdc.gov/std/

BTW....did any of you know that 1 in 5 people have herpes and over half of them don't even know it....oh yeah and you can look beautiful and healthy while being infected with HIV.

Edited September 17, 2011 by ImAli

[Awaiting_for_the12th]

i have never heard any one else beat up the topic of STD's like some are here. An honest question ImAli: Did you ask your husband for his tests when you met him, or you actually had the conversation about how the marriage should be and what the responsibilities are etc (you know the stuff Imams said to discuss). Yes, STD's are real, but that doesn't mean everyone has them. Mostly if a person is from paki background, they dont have STD's hence us guys dont have problem with it. You being in health profession makes sense that you take you job seriously (a little too seriously), but the other sister is pretty much agreeing with anyone who shares her viewpoint even if they are not islamic (definitely someone to be avoided).

Might I add a very reliable link for those who wish to educate themselves because it seems we have an abundance of invincible people on this forum. http://www.cdc.gov/std/

BTW....did any of you know that 1 in 5 people have herpes and over half of them don't even know it....oh yeah and you can look beautiful and healthy while being infected with HIV.

..and 1 in 4 people in my university had Herpes, but guess what only 1% of them were muslims (out of 20000 students). I can throw in random stats too, but they should be kept in perspective

[BabyBeaverIsAKit]

You being in health profession makes sense that you take you job seriously (a little too seriously), but the other sister is pretty much agreeing with anyone who shares her viewpoint even if they are not islamic (definitely someone to be avoided).

Ummm......no...I've met people with STDs like HIV, I've seen people dying of them. This is serious business. It's not a reality to people like you who are living in a sheltered little world.

Oh yeah, Muslims don't have STDs, just like there are no gay Muslims LOL. Muslims don't just do polygamy/mutah with Muslims, so even if this ridiculous statement were true, that Muslims don't have STDs, they are having sex with populations that do have STDs.

[ImAli]

i have never heard any one else beat up the topic of STD's like some are here. An honest question ImAli: Did you ask your husband for his tests when you met him, or you actually had the conversation about how the marriage should be and what the responsibilities are etc (you know the stuff Imams said to discuss). Yes, STD's are real, but that doesn't mean everyone has them. Mostly if a person is from paki background, they dont have STD's hence us guys dont have problem with it. You being in health profession makes sense that you take you job seriously (a little too seriously), but the other sister is pretty much agreeing with anyone who shares her viewpoint even if they are not islamic (definitely someone to be avoided).

Actually we married in Lebanon and we both had a a complete examination along with blood work (mandatory). Obviously the sharia court didn't find the idea of STD's and diseases a non-issue because they wanted the results of ours tests before they married us. I am not taking my job too seriously, but I must say I was very disturbed with a few causes of neonatal herpes I happened to witness and help treat. Also if you read the sisters post...........it seems her new co wife is a recent convert (convert for marriage) of western descent with 3 children. Even if the new woman wasn't promiscuous.....does that make it impossible that her ex husband didn't cheat on her and spread something without her knowledge. They must have divorced for a reason...or did she have the kids out of wedlock from all different fathers? It is not fair that someone gets offended and I find it very selfish of the new co wife to be "offended" by this question because she is not the only person in the picture. Just a clear example of how what happens in one household spills over into the other household, maybe one day people will realize that. So excuse me if mine and another sisters nice dose of reality on the condition of the modern world may seem unislamic. As far as I am concerned and most others are concerned, the protection of ones health and self defense is not against God or unislamic or against any religion for that matter.

..and 1 in 4 people in my university had Herpes, but guess what only 1% of them were muslims (out of 20000 students). I can throw in random stats too, but they should be kept in perspective

The new co-wife was not muslim and not a virgin.

Edited September 17, 2011 by ImAli

[BabyBeaverIsAKit]

ImAli, maybe he has discovered a new cure to STDs. If you convert to Islam, you are cured of all STDs. My goodness, if other people discover this, we'll have throngs of people converting.

[ImAli]

ImAli, maybe he has discovered a new cure to STDs. If you convert to Islam, you are cured of all STDs. My goodness, if other people discover this, we'll have throngs of people converting.

hahahahaha.....True....while converting to Islam may clear your prior sins and mistakes (if the conversion is sincere and not just for marriage purposes).............converting certainly doesn't restore your health.

[Awaiting_for_the12th]

ImAli, maybe he has discovered a new cure to STDs. If you convert to Islam, you are cured of all STDs. My goodness, if other people discover this, we'll have throngs of people converting.

that doesnt help the essence of islam. I was about to say something really mean but then I wont let my ego get better of me.

Since both of you share same opinions, both of you will be put together in the same company in hereafter. (hadith about person being raised in the company he enjoyed.) Hence, i brought up the point to ImAli that the other sister is saying some unislamic things so you rather be careful on whose comments you "Like This"

I heard it in lecture that if you listen to someone you are actually doing their ibadat, and if what he is saying is about Allah (swt) then you are actually doing ibada of Allah (swt) (one of the reason why Azadari holds so much merit). This all relates to Irfan, not sure if they teach you that at health department. The diseases (jealousy, arrogance, etc) of the soul, you know the one that actually matters?

[ImAli]

that doesnt help the essence of islam. I was about to say something really mean but then I wont let my ego get better of me.

Since both of you share same opinions, both of you will be put together in the same company in hereafter. (hadith about person being raised in the company he enjoyed.) Hence, i brought up the point to ImAli that the other sister is saying some unislamic things so you rather be careful on whose comments you "Like This"

I heard it in lecture that if you listen to someone you are actually doing their ibadat, and if what he is saying is about Allah (swt) then you are actually doing ibada of Allah (swt) (one of the reason why Azadari holds so much merit). This all relates to Irfan, not sure if they teach you that at health department. The diseases (jealousy, arrogance, etc) of the soul, you know the one that actually matters?

I see, so according to you I am going to hell because I agree with certain comments that are logical and make complete sense. Not to mention the comments are on a forum full of creepy self appointed scholars. Nice try...I know this trick after being on this forum for a few weeks.......if you don't agree CALL IT UNISLAMIC.

[BabyBeaverIsAKit]

that doesnt help the essence of islam. I was about to say something really mean but then I wont let my ego get better of me.

Since both of you share same opinions, both of you will be put together in the same company in hereafter. (hadith about person being raised in the company he enjoyed.) Hence, i brought up the point to ImAli that the other sister is saying some unislamic things so you rather be careful on whose comments you "Like This"

I heard it in lecture that if you listen to someone you are actually doing their ibadat, and if what he is saying is about Allah (swt) then you are actually doing ibada of Allah (swt) (one of the reason why Azadari holds so much merit). This all relates to Irfan, not sure if they teach you that at health department. The diseases (jealousy, arrogance, etc) of the soul, you know the one that actually matters?

What unIslamic things is she saying? I didn't know it was unIslamic to care about one's health. Haven't you heard that "Saving the life of one is like saying the life of all of mankind"??? That's a very Islamic concept, and you commit a huge sin by playing with people's lives by telling them they can have sex without thinking of the consequences. What if someone actually listened to you and then got an STD that killed them? That death would be on your head, that is like murder and that is a horrible sin in Islam.

Edited September 17, 2011 by BabyBeaverIsAKit

[alimohamad40]

um ali

did you know that by the end of their lives in the western socity 80% of the women end up getting some sort of STD at some stage or another if they have a sexual life?

did this deter them?

also pregnancy causes some health issues did people stop having kids?

you can disable marriage because there is a risk.. the way you minimize the risk is by testing and following the medical advice

[ImAli]

um ali

did you know that by the end of their lives in the western socity 80% of the women end up getting some sort of STD at some stage or another if they have a sexual life?

did this deter them?

also pregnancy causes some health issues did people stop having kids?

you can disable marriage because there is a risk.. the way you minimize the risk is by testing and following the medical advice

Comparing pregnancy with disease is ridiculous. As for 80% of women getting an STD, this could greatly reduced if people would take precaution and educate themselves. Precaution and education seems to be laughed at one this forum....it is sad really. No one is trying to disable marriage alimohammed40, we are bringing up real life issues that can't be ignored.

[BabyBeaverIsAKit]

um ali

did you know that by the end of their lives in the western socity 80% of the women end up getting some sort of STD at some stage or another if they have a sexual life?

did this deter them?

also pregnancy causes some health issues did people stop having kids?

you can disable marriage because there is a risk.. the way you minimize the risk is by testing and following the medical advice

Where are you getting this statistic from? It's easy to make up statistics. Some STDs can cause infertility-- I know most Muslim men (and women) want children. If you get an STD like HIV, that is horrible, devastating disease. Some STDs are curable, but other aren't.

Pregnancy is very different from STDs lol. (And FYI, if pregnancy is too huge a risk, some doctors advise their patients not to get pregnant.)

the way you minimize the risk is by testing and following the medical advice

This is an incorrect statement. You can't minimize the risks of getting STDs with testing. It's not like screening for cancer, where you detect cells that are, in laymen's terms, messed up, and have the potential in the future to turn into cancer. STDs are infectious, not cancerous. Infections are different. Testing for infections tells you if you have it or not right now, it can't prevent you from getting it, it can just tell you after you get it if you have it. It can't predict whether you will get it or not in the future, as can cancer screenings. So sure, you should do regular testing and follow medical advice, but it won't stop you from getting it.

[Awaiting_for_the12th]

I see, so according to you I am going to hell because I agree with certain comments that are logical and make complete sense. Not to mention the comments are on a forum full of creepy self appointed scholars. Nice try...I know this trick after being on this forum for a few weeks.......if you don't agree CALL IT UNISLAMIC.

i never said you are going to hell, reread what i said. Let me break it down:

You are raised out of your grave in Mashar according to who you listen to. You are put in the company of those who you listen to. So, if one listens to Michael Jackson, then he is put in his company. If i am impressed by a person X and i agree to what he says then i should be with him right? hence we try to listen to everything what Imams say so we are in his company "the shias of Ali" in meshar.

Secondly, you claim this place is full of creeps what are you sitting here for then? do something productive, serve your husband which has much more rewards then be in company here. Its like me saying sitting in the bar that this place is full of alcohol.

Thirdly, i said a certain individual (not ImAli) has said certain things which are unislamic (in different other topics not relating to health stuff) and you agreeing with that person is putting you with them. We can either be completely submissive to AhlalBayt principles or be slaves our own opinions. Be aware of who we choose to listen to. Complete submission. Rest of what you said is accusation so doesnt require a response.

What unIslamic things is she saying? I didn't know it was unIslamic to care about one's health. Haven't you heard that "Saving the life of one is like saying the life of all of mankind"??? That's a very Islamic concept, and you commit a huge sin by playing with people's lives by telling them they can have sex without thinking of the consequences. What if someone actually listened to you and then got an STD that killed them? That death would be on your head, that is like murder and that is a horrible sin in Islam.

agreed, based on the principle that it goes by teaching of AhlalBayt (as) other then that your opinion doesnt hold much water for me.

What i said you completely jumbled it up and made what you wanted to believe.

Bottomline, what i said earlier was FOR imAli to be careful of who she agrees to based on that she will be kept in their company in hereafter. Not even sure why you bothered responding to me.

[ImAli]

i never said you are going to hell, reread what i said. Let me break it down:

You are raised out of your grave in Mashar according to who you listen to. You are put in the company of those who you listen to. So, if one listens to Michael Jackson, then he is put in his company. If i am impressed by a person X and i agree to what he says then i should be with him right? hence we try to listen to everything what Imams say so we are in his company "the shias of Ali" in meshar.

Secondly, you claim this place is full of creeps what are you sitting here for then? do something productive, serve your husband which has much more rewards then be in company here. Its like me saying sitting in the bar that this place is full of alcohol.

Thirdly, i said a certain individual (not ImAli) has said certain things which are unislamic (in different other topics not relating to health stuff) and you agreeing with that person is putting you with them. We can either be completely submissive to AhlalBayt principles or be slaves our own opinions. Be aware of who we choose to listen to. Complete submission. Rest of what you said is accusation so doesnt require a response.

agreed, based on the principle that it goes by teaching of AhlalBayt (as) other then that your opinion doesnt hold much water for me.

What i said you completely jumbled it up and made what you wanted to believe.

Bottomline, what i said earlier was FOR imAli to be careful of who she agrees to based on that she will be kept in their company in hereafter. Not even sure why you bothered responding to me.

Not that it is any of your business but my husband works on Saturdays and I have finished all of my responsibilities in the home early this morning....most of what I am not required to do, but I still do them. As for this place being full of creepy self appointed scholars.....how can you not find some of these posts entertaining LOL. Awaiting the 12th.....liking someones comment on a forum is completely different than following everything and agreeing with everything that they say. Just because someone isn't muslim or shia doesn't mean that you have to automatically disagree...and being muslim or shia doesn't mean that you are always right about everything.

[BabyBeaverIsAKit]

i never said you are going to hell, reread what i said. Let me break it down:

You are raised out of your grave in Mashar according to who you listen to. You are put in the company of those who you listen to. So, if one listens to Michael Jackson, then he is put in his company. If i am impressed by a person X and i agree to what he says then i should be with him right? hence we try to listen to everything what Imams say so we are in his company "the shias of Ali" in meshar.

Secondly, you claim this place is full of creeps what are you sitting here for then? do something productive, serve your husband which has much more rewards then be in company here. Its like me saying sitting in the bar that this place is full of alcohol.

Thirdly, i said a certain individual (not ImAli) has said certain things which are unislamic (in different other topics not relating to health stuff) and you agreeing with that person is putting you with them. We can either be completely submissive to AhlalBayt principles or be slaves our own opinions. Be aware of who we choose to listen to. Complete submission. Rest of what you said is accusation so doesnt require a response.

agreed, based on the principle that it goes by teaching of AhlalBayt (as) other then that your opinion doesnt hold much water for me.

What i said you completely jumbled it up and made what you wanted to believe.

Bottomline, what i said earlier was FOR imAli to be careful of who she agrees to based on that she will be kept in their company in hereafter. Not even sure why you bothered responding to me.

OMG I'm so sad and devastated that my opinion doesn't matter to you, how will I ever go on in life?? NOT. LOL I don't care that my opinion doesn't hold much water for you, yours doesn't hold much water for me, either. You can read my posts if you want, or skip them if you want.

Well next time be more clear then :).

Edited September 17, 2011 by BabyBeaverIsAKit

[Awaiting_for_the12th]

Not that it is any of your business but my husband works on Saturdays and I have finished all of my responsibilities in the home early this morning....most of what I am not required to do, but I still do them. As for this place being full of creepy self appointed scholars.....how can you not find some of these posts entertaining LOL. Awaiting the 12th.....liking someones comment on a forum is completely different than following everything and agreeing with everything that they say. Just because someone isn't muslim or shia doesn't mean that you have to automatically disagree...and being muslim or shia doesn't mean that you are always right about everything.

I dont go around reading comments trying to differentiate between creepy vs. noncreepy, i usually skim through and if i find something that i have heard or read is wrong, i tell it. Which is based on Nahianl Munkar. Second part of your response is based on our pespective, i replied based on what i have read and heard in lectures about Irfan.

[Ruq]

It's only her right not to be lied to and there is a big difference between not announcing and actually lying

Presumably this principle of 'if they dont ask youre not lying' can be applied to other situations, like when someone has had a sex change operation, if a prospective partner doesnt ask theyre not abliged to tell (?)

[Haydar Husayn]

Presumably this principle of 'if they dont ask youre not lying' can be applied to other situations, like when someone has had a sex change operation, if a prospective partner doesnt ask theyre not abliged to tell (?)

You would have to ask the scholars that allow sex change about that. Since sex changes weren't performed in the time of the Imams (as), we have no specific information on this. I would think that someone who had a sex change would have to inform a prospective marriage partner, but like I said you would have to ask those scholars about that.

The other situation is different. A man has the right to do muta, given to him by Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì, and that right is not dependent on asking anyone else. Legally speaking, there is no more need to let your wife need know about doing a muta than you would about giving charity. However, ethically speaking, if you believe there is a non-negligible chance you could contract an STD, then probably you should tell her out of concern for her health. Just because something is legal, it doesn't always mean it's always ethical. On the other hand, just because something is not ethical, it does not mean it is illegal. I think this is the distinction that is missed sometimes.

[kadhim]

This isn't the main reason for many women, including me, but it is a stone cold, solid, legitimate reason. So what if it is a convenient reason, another roadblock to polygamy? That doesn't nullify or decrease the legitimacy of such a concern. STDs are REAL and they can ruin lives-- literally-- they can kill. Perhaps the problem is that, to you, STDs belong to another fantasy world, but maybe you've never seen someone dying from an STD.

STDs are real.

Condoms are real, too. And cheap. And effective.

Edited September 21, 2011 by kadhim

[Haydar Husayn]

Condoms are real, too. And cheap. And effective.

I'm sure you see the response coming: they can tear, aren't always used properly, etc. They always have an excuse ready.

[BabyBeaverIsAKit]

^Not 100%. http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

From the website:

Consistent and correct use of male latex condoms can reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of STD transmission. To achieve the maximum protective effect, condoms must be used both consistently and correctly. Inconsistent use can lead to STD acquisition because transmission can occur with a single act of intercourse with an infected partner. Similarly, if condoms are not used correctly, the protective effect may be diminished even when they are used consistently. The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner. However, many infected persons may be unaware of their infections because STDs are often asymptomatic or unrecognized.

[ImAli]

Condoms are real, too. And cheap. And effective.

HPV and herpes can spread even when properly using a condom.

I'm sure you see the response coming: they can tear, aren't always used properly, etc. They always have an excuse ready.

Not an excuse...it is fact.

[Haydar Husayn]

You do know that there is no 100% guarantee your husband won't have an STD when you marry him, or won't have a muta while married to you, or won't commit adultery, etc. I hope you can live with this lack of absolute certainty. Taking the airplane or using a car isn't 100% safe either. There is no such thing as complete certainty. That is why we always say Insha'Allah.

You can't restrict people's rights and freedoms because you need 100% certainty. 99% is more than good enough.

Do you think back in the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and the Imams (as) there were absolutely no diseases going around? That would seem unlikely to me. And they didn't have much in the way of contraception either. Coitus interruptus was probably the most common method of birth control, and I'm sure you know that this is hardly very reliable.

[kadhim]

^Not 100%. http://www.cdc.gov/c...eness/latex.htm

From the website:

Consistent and correct use of male latex condoms can reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of STD transmission. To achieve the maximum protective effect, condoms must be used both consistently and correctly. Inconsistent use can lead to STD acquisition because transmission can occur with a single act of intercourse with an infected partner. Similarly, if condoms are not used correctly, the protective effect may be diminished even when they are used consistently. The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner. However, many infected persons may be unaware of their infections because STDs are often asymptomatic or unrecognized.

They're effective enough. It's all a matter of percentages, relative risk and reducing risk. Little understood fact is that participating in an act with an infected person does not guarantee infection. A lot of factors involved. It is surprisingly difficult to get infected with these diseases. (Small comfort for those who lose the "lottery," but a fact nonetheless)

Take HIV, for example. For the riskiest sexual behavior - namely being on the receiving end of bareback anal intercourse with an infected partner, the estimated risk is 170 per 10 000, with the 95% confidence interval for this estimate being from 30-890. I.e. estimated at a bit less than 2%, with 95% confidence between .3% and 8.9%.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#Transmission ,

So, scientists estimate that from that you'd only get infected 2 times out of 100% (95% percent sure the rate is between .3/100 and 9/100)

If we look at less risky, hetero behaviors for men, the rate of transmission is much lower. For the relevant case of a man having vaginal intercourse, without a condom, with an infected partner, the rate is estimated at 5/10 000. I.e., he'd get infected 5 times out of 10 000 such acts.

Factor in that not everyone out there is infected, and assuming a religious use of condoms, you are pretty safe. I'm not an actuary, but probably more risky driving to her place (car accident), or taking a shower afterwards (slip and fall), to be honest.

Yeah, other diseases probably have higher rates of transmission, but the same probabilistic realities apply.

[Haydar Husayn]

You can also add that circumcised men are much less likely to get infected, further cutting down the risk.

[kadhim]

You can also add that circumcised men are much less likely to get infected, further cutting down the risk.

Aye. True that.

[ImAli]

Good I am happy you are all willing to take that risk. I know my status right now and I am not willing to play with it nor am I willing to allow someone to play with it and put me at risk. If that makes me evil, greedy, and a bad person so be it.

[ImAli]

Also God forbid a daughter, sister, or close female relative of any of you get a disease because of such a reason, because the only thing you will be able to do is shrug and put your head down in sadness.....with these attitudes you have given up your right to say anything or have an opinion on such a situation...even if it involves your own daughter.

Edited September 22, 2011 by ImAli

[kadhim]

Good I am happy you are all willing to take that risk. I know my status right now and I am not willing to play with it nor am I willing to allow someone to play with it and put me at risk. If that makes me evil, greedy, and a bad person so be it.

Not evil. Just probabilistically incompetent when it comes to objectively analyzing relative risk.

I wouldn't feel too bad, though. Most people are lousy at this too.

Edited September 22, 2011 by kadhim

[ImAli]

Not evil. Just probabilistically incompetent when it comes to objectively analyzing relative risk.

I wouldn't feel too bad, though. Most people are loust at this too.

Not incompetent....just unwilling to take ANY risk. What is this? You wouldn't feel bad? You must have never loved anyone...I feel sorry for you.

[kadhim]

Not incompetent....just unwilling to take ANY risk. What is this? You wouldn't feel bad? You must have never loved anyone...I feel sorry for you.

Facepalm. Unwilling to take ANY risk.

Please. Re-read that sentence. Bathe in it. Absorb it in its full nonsensical glory.

"What?! You drive a car?! But you have a family! And there is a significant, NON-ZERO probability of you being killed in an auto collision, making your children orphans, your wife a widow. How dare you!!!

Imagine your daughter's future husband taking such risks - driving a car! Now you have no right to grieve or get upset if your daughter is widowed by a car accident. With this carefree attitude to automotive risk-taking, you have forfeited the right to an opinion."

[Haydar Husayn]

kadhim, these are not reasonable people. Stop trying to use common sense and logic.

If you read the whole thread, it is clear that the primary issue with polygamy was jealousy, then in the face of numerous narrations about the evils of jealousy, they started clutching at these STD straws in order to claim that they were opposing polygamy on the grounds of health, not jealousy. If that was the case, then they would have brought it up first, but they didn't. Since this is the only thing they have left to cling on to, they aren't going to let it go, which is why you get some of these ridiculous statements about taking absolutely no risks. It's a complete red herring.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Haider Husayn

[alimohamad40]

in australia the biggest killer is car accidents

it is killing as much as a war

it is more risky than airplanes

personally we get scared in a plane but by statistics the planes are so much safer

this STD thing if you compare the risk against the the of dying in a car accident youll be shocked

but does that mean you will stop using a car?

what about workplace danger

we did construction projects, you have 7 tonne machinery and excavators lifting steel and you make one mistake and your gone. some times we take crazy risks just to get the thing done

these sort of inevitable risks make the risks of being harmed buy STD a virtual non exitant

any way kadhim i had a question:

when they said its 2% risk of infecting what do they mean? do they mean at each instance ?

its like saying if i throw a punch two percent chance i will connect but this will not mean i will not be able to punch you because its not just one instant,

if you have independent probabilities then they multiply

[kadhim]

alimohamed,

Yes, as I understand it, the percentages are chance of infection for each such instance with an infected partner. The chance of getting away disease free over time drops as the number of such unprotected acts increases.

For that particular act with the 2% rate, your chance of escaping once is 98%.

Chance of escaping twice without getting infected either would be (0.98)^2

For three times (0.98)^3, etc

Basically, the more often you go unprotected with infected people, the more your chance of eventually getting infected increases.

But again, considering most people you meet don't have diseases, and considering that it is within the man's control to use a condom every time,and considering the low rates for men getting infected by an infected woman even unprotected, the overall probabilities will be tiny if a man uses some common sense in the number and type of partners he goes with and always protects himself.

As you note, this admittedly non-zero probability is so small that if you used that level of risk as a consistent rule for whether to do something or not, we would just stand still all our lives.

This is what I meant when I mentioned to ImAli about people being poor at estimating relative risk objectively. You alluded to the same idea with your air travel vs car travel example.

Edited September 22, 2011 by kadhim

[ImAli]

Facepalm. Unwilling to take ANY risk.

Please. Re-read that sentence. Bathe in it. Absorb it in its full nonsensical glory.

"What?! You drive a car?! But you have a family! And there is a significant, NON-ZERO probability of you being killed in an auto collision, making your children orphans, your wife a widow. How dare you!!!

Imagine your daughter's future husband taking such risks - driving a car! Now you have no right to grieve or get upset if your daughter is widowed by a car accident. With this carefree attitude to automotive risk-taking, you have forfeited the right to an opinion."

kadhim, these are not reasonable people. Stop trying to use common sense and logic.

If you read the whole thread, it is clear that the primary issue with polygamy was jealousy, then in the face of numerous narrations about the evils of jealousy, they started clutching at these STD straws in order to claim that they were opposing polygamy on the grounds of health, not jealousy. If that was the case, then they would have brought it up first, but they didn't. Since this is the only thing they have left to cling on to, they aren't going to let it go, which is why you get some of these ridiculous statements about taking absolutely no risks. It's a complete red herring.

These risks you two are speaking of are necessary risks to live every day life. However bringing in a new sexual partner is not necessary to live every day life.