How Do Sex Diseases Spread So Easily?

docprostate said:

Possibly, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) may influence sexual activity.

Herpes, for example, may heighten sexual feeling because it makes that area terribly itchy and makes you aware of it all the time.

And that makes you want to have more sex - which can only be a good thing for the virus.

All living things - including viruses and bacteria - have only two basic urges: to survive and reproduce.

An STD knows that to survive it has to be passed from host to host, and that means doing all it can to make you want to have sex.

Click to expand...

What sort of nosense is this. If you need to post something find an SP to write about

An STD knows that to survive it has to be passed from host to host, and that means doing all it can to make you want to have sex.

Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? A STD is not exactly a thinking organism. It doesn't 'know' anything or have any survival instincts or 'urges'.

Techman said:

You're kidding, right? A STD is not exactly a thinking organism. It doesn't 'know' anything or have any survival instincts or 'urges'.

Click to expand...

and yet they can adapt and overcome, they can mutate and become resistent to drugs. every living organism has the need survive and procreate.

the blind watchmaker

there is actually a genetic theory relating to "selfish genes" that inhabit your body... as their only purpose is to continue after you die, they encourage all kinds of behaviour in their host ( you) to allow themselves to continue in another body... like getting a your sp pregnant.... maybe herpes is like that...lol

its a matter of semantics

emgeef said:

there is actually a genetic theory relating to "selfish genes" that inhabit your body... as their only purpose is to continue after you die, they encourage all kinds of behaviour in their host ( you) to allow themselves to continue in another body... like getting a your sp pregnant.... maybe herpes is like that...lol

Click to expand...

When scientists use such language as above its meant to be a simplified notation to express in a few words a phenomenon that would otherwise take too many words to explain.

In the above case the actual meaning is as follows -
"Only those genes get inherited that consistently happen to be the ones whose presence is associated (not necessarily cause) with you behaving in a way that leads to you having sex with someone of the opposite sex. The others fall by the wayside"

For example giraffes that had a longer neck could get at more food thus becoming healthy and able to fend off other males when it came to mate selection. Thus the long neck gene thrived and got passed along from generation to generation. The gene for shorter necks fell by the wayside as such individuals could mate less.

In the scientiest's (somewhat misleading in my opinion) short notation, the above is expressed in a few words as follows -
"The long neck gene in order to survive had to provide the individual a mating advantage"

In reality, the gene (or an STD) has no will / volition / purpose as Techman rightly observed.

I suspect many of you know this. In one of Richard Dawkin's books (I forget which one) this notation is explained.

This is a very interesting idea.

There is no proof of it as far as I know, but parasites have been proven to alter the behavior of animals in some species (including humans). I don't see why it couldn't work for virii or bacteria.


http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/parasitology/1997-April/002144.html
http://www.makesitgood.net/2006/08/03/cat-parasite-could-alter-human-behavior/
http://www.livescience.com/animals/070402_cat_urine.html

etc.

Maybe scientists will investigate this one day.

Interesting theory doc!
So, if I gather 100 peoples in a room and decide only those with blue eyes have the right to have sex, it will be because the gene for blue eyes made me do it, or will the blue-eyes gene only allowed to thrive because of an external event in it's existence?

Evolution is caused in a big part by accidents and events. Like a virus who survive to antibiotics. That virus, for some reason, was able to survive so, that virus will reproduce, not the ones who died. It have nothing to do with the virus's intelligence, only with it's genetic make-up, who was altered somehow, that allowed him to survive.

Unless intelligence allows organism to change their genetic profile "on the fly" and adapt while alive, not by reproduction, your theory is flawed because, with death, the genetic information also dies.

Kepler, but what if the effect is nothing more than accidental? What if, at the beginning of these parasites, they had all sort of effects but, those who caused these specified comportemental effect were the ones who survived the best because more disseminated?

There's nothing in there about intelligence or awareness of a greater process, awareness that is needed, in order to plan a rationalized course of action that would allow to infect specific parts of an organism, in order to get the specific desired effects.

This is only the survival of those better adapted, not intelligence.

prophetofdoom said:

When scientists use such language as above its meant to be a simplified notation to express in a few words a phenomenon that would otherwise take too many words to explain.

In the above case the actual meaning is as follows -
"Only those genes get inherited that consistently happen to be the ones whose presence is associated (not necessarily cause) with you behaving in a way that leads to you having sex with someone of the opposite sex. The others fall by the wayside"

For example giraffes that had a longer neck could get at more food thus becoming healthy and able to fend off other males when it came to mate selection. Thus the long neck gene thrived and got passed along from generation to generation. The gene for shorter necks fell by the wayside as such individuals could mate less.

In the scientiest's (somewhat misleading in my opinion) short notation, the above is expressed in a few words as follows -
"The long neck gene in order to survive had to provide the individual a mating advantage"

In reality, the gene (or an STD) has no will / volition / purpose as Techman rightly observed.

I suspect many of you know this. In one of Richard Dawkin's books (I forget which one) this notation is explained.

Click to expand...

I think I would distinguish accidental traits with the fundamental desire to exist and perpetuate... Which if an std has such an impulse , could , at least theoretically, make you want to spread the little devil... Which may be why we are all so horny...lol... Excuse the shouting, but wanted to distinuish comment from the quote

emgeef, the system take care of separation by itself when quoting. With over 100 posts, you should know this. Now, use the "edit" function and please, re-write your post normally. Caps all over are really annoying and hard to read.

Anyone ever notice how cigarette smoke always seems to find it's way to the nearest non-smoker? Maybe the smoke is actually aware and trying to create a desire for nicotine in the non-smoker, leading him to take up smoking, bringing more profits to the tobacco companies.








Or maybe it's just the air currents.

Techman, what you wrote was funny/hilarious.

metoo4 said:

Kepler, but what if the effect is nothing more than accidental? What if, at the beginning of these parasites, they had all sort of effects but, those who caused these specified comportemental effect were the ones who survived the best because more disseminated?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

Of course virii, bacteria and genes are not in any way 'intelligent'. Evolution doesn't work with any particular goal in mind, there is no preordained 'grand scheme'.

The interesting question is whether or not some STDs have evolved a mechanism that alters a host's personality to promote sexual encounters.