darxus | I submitted a question to okcupid for the first time. It was rejected.

I think I am most disturbed by "You thinkg soomeone with those conditions really wants to be reminded of this on a dating site?" I mean, are you (the commenter, not you directly) saying that You date and potentially sleep around as a means to forget that you have an STD? What the FUCK??

I checked "Yes" only because "Disappointed, but not really surprised" wasn't an option.

I am clearly deluded. How is this not surprising?

This is under the "People suck/People are willfully ignorant" part of hating society.

I remember reading some statistic in college about men who were faithfully monogamous being more willing to wear a condom than those who had cheated, because wearing one was like admission of either being high risk (by cheating) or having an STD.
Um.
Ok, people with attitudes like that seem to be willfully ignorant; they'd really rather not know, either so they can't be blamed for it later, or so they can be happily oblivious unless it becomes an issue. And I think a lot of society is like that...especially when, in going for complete STD testing, I got an awful lot of suspicious treatment: "Why do you need this test? Is there something we should know?"

(This is where I really started to see that poly and monogamous folks have veeery different views on safe sex.)

There's stigma in having an STD. Even if, as the person (mostly correctly) pointed out, most people have been exposed to some strain of HPV, and most adults have been exposed to HSV-1. People react to anyone with an STD (minor or not) like they're lepers; so asking what you asked, to them, is like saying, "Is there any reason we might want to ostracize you and you'll never have sex again?"

People are blissful in their ignorance...this simply doesn't surprise me.

(deleted comment)

That's probably the most useful info I've heard about HPV, thanks. I'd still like questions with my wording for the other two.

Don't bother with the HPV test, then. I guarantee you it will come back positive.

huh, i wonder what that's based on... (knowing people who insist on HPV tests in poly contexts, and having just had one myself and come back clean...)

Whoa whoa whoa. I have spoken to 3 doctors/nurse practitioners, at least 7 para-medical staff, health insurance agencies, the stupidest receptionist ever*, and done about 20 million hours of research looking for an HPV test. Everything I found/was told conclusively stated that one didn't exist.

Where is your clinic and how hard is it to get an appointment?

*I called up a PP clinic a few months back and asked them to look through the list of services and tests they they offered to see if an HPV test was included. The receptionist said "Oh, of course we offer pap smears." Seriously. I had to explain to her that a pap smear was not an HPV test. I was pretty pissed off at PP for a long while after that. I mean, this is basic stuff. I know she's not a medical professional, but she is still the first person people talk to when they have a question and she needed to be trained so that she could give accurate information.

(deleted comment)

Ah, I see. Thank you.

Alas, it is actually not the test that I want. I'm looking for a test that detects certain benign strains of HPV. Unfortunately, I have a record of being treated for HPV ~20 years ago and it's making obtaining the vaccine problematic. My health insurance won't pay for Gardisil unless it's proven that I'm not already infected. It's dumb, but that's insurance companies for you.

Ironically, I have several friends who could creat a test. Not that it would be accepted if they did.

I know what you mean. I got guff from a physician once for wanting to get a routine checkup. "Why are you here?" "I want to get a routine STD test." "There's no such thing. Why are you here? What makes you think you have an STD?" "What are you talking about? I want a routine screening."

I signed up with my current doctor when I lived a 20 minute walk away from her clinic. I've moved since, and it's now an hour and a half minimum to get to her, but I am absolutely never leaving her practice precisely because I've never had to deal with that type of thing from her. Routine is something she understands, and she doesn't let my insurance agency get pissy over me getting screened every 6 months. Having had experiences like the one you described, I consider myself very lucky to have found her.

I think within the context of OKCupid's system your question is completely pointless. The system is designed for relative ranking purposes, not for finding out answers to specific questions, so you never find out what someone's answer is to a given question. The only point of such a question would be so you could know what another person's answer is, so it wouldn't be at all useful.

There are also concerns about a website asking questions about an individual's medical history, particularly one that associates the answer with a specific individual (as vs. anonymous website quizzes, which are still a bit tricky due to IP-tracking and the like). An OKCupid employee could find out any user's answer to this question (while those who only use the site could not, as per above), which has both ethical and legal ramifications for OKCupid. I wouldn't want to open up that can of worms either.

The medical history argument seems valid, at least for HIV.

But I would still like okcupid to reduce the rank for people who answered yes to that question. I'd actually prefer 3 separate questions with separate ranks.

OKCupid has a new feature where how you answer questions are ranked against how a potential match answered questions.

I think it is an important and valid question...the only thing that gives me pause is the "too similar to other questios" response. What are those questions?

I'm aware of that new feature, it's called a WTF report. I've done two of them. They're cool. Shows you each answer you disagreed on in descending order of how it harmed your match.

I would also like to know what those other questions are. It really bugs me that there is no example. I've never seen one. I fear the question was answered here: 'Near 100 % of sexually active adults have one or more HPV types, so you could just as well ask "Are you a virgin?"'

(deleted comment)

I would consider dating someone with an STD if it was not incurable. Poorly worded question.

I don't really consider the virginity questions relevant.

(deleted comment)

I'm close to willing to toss out HPV. As I said, I'd prefer three separate questions, with three separate priorities. This is the reason.

Two questions:
1) Why the hell should someone having an incurable STD make them less worth dating? Last I checked STDs don't target the wicked and the unworthy (unless you think that having sex outside of marriage, voluntarily or not, is only done by the wicked and the unworthy, which I'm pretty sure isn't you). That sort of attitude is *why* people refuse to talk about such things, which leads to not discussing it with partners, which leads to more people who can't talk about their STD status. . .

2) I thought that OKCupid questions are part of a relative ranking system, where someone determines not only which answer they'd prefer someone give (I could see someone with an incurable STD wanting specifically to sleep with people who have the same incurable STD, so they won't infect someone who doesn't have it) but also how important they consider the answer to the question. Did they change that?

1) Because I not currently interested in relationships without the possibility of eventually leading to sex. And I currently do not want to have sex with people with incurable STDs. My personal preferences, which I believe is what okcupid is all about.

2) No. I don't see the relevance of that question unless I answered it above. Also, as has been mentioned, the WTF Reports now allow you to see exactly on what questions you match up badly.

i'm in the same camp as answer #1. i know many lovely and wonderful people who happen to have a particular STD, and it squicks me, and the bonus prize is something i can do without right now.

i though okcupid's signup criteria had a question like "if you have an std, this is not the site for you", but perhaps i'm conflating with another dating site.

#

Begging the gentles' pardons here, but are you imposing the same restriction on your partners? Because, really, by the time your partner finds out she's got HPV, you will have had pretty much all the exposure you need and are going to get.

This is not to say you can't have whatever dating preferences you like, but rather saying "being poly and making this restriction for your direct partners but not THEIR partners is roughly the equivalent of locking the front door while leaving the back door unlocked."

I feel this has been sufficiently covered here. Everybody has HPV and I'm willing to drop that part. Also, I'm satisfied with the existing similar but different questions.

well, for the last 3-4 years i've been monogamous - surprised? maybe not.

however, i do have some how shall i phrase this? ridiculously strong preferences for partners... to the point of being non-negotiable squicks in some cases. it's not so much a matter of decision as "ewwww".

i will not knowingly enter into a relationship if i know in advance, and am likely in certain circumstances to have "that talk" immediately, with the strong chance of a breakup resulting should things occur. i'm pretty open about this too. it's not a "SURPRISE!".

for example: smoking. ewww. really.

for example: drugs/addicts/etc, no thank you.

for exmple: STDS, and like drugs, there's not much you can *do* about some of them, but if the person knows, and tells you, knowledge is good. if they get something during, and oh say, we're monogamous, there shall be some reckoning...

and this is reciprocal as well to the point they have similar "rules"... if i found out some problem came up, i'd be informing them immediately.

#

I'm not surprised by anyone's monogamy. It is the default orientation, by a large majority. Also, I'm fine with you or anyone else having whatever restrictions you want to have on whomever you date. The question is, in a poly situation, are those restrictions transitive?

I suppose in a monogamous situation you might want to ask for how long the condition pertained. Would you date someone who had just quit smoking last month? Last week? Yesterday? Those are rhetorical questions - I'm just trying to make the point that it's not a simple yes/no. Both poly and mono people have to sketch out boundaries they feel comfortable within and simple rules rarely describe those boundaries accurately.

many of these, shall we call them traits? ARE binary yes/no. there's just no middle ground.

now for the traits that can change state as it were, there's some flexibility. for instance, cheating: you are or you are not. if that changes, so does the response (ie: strike 1 of 1, you're out). smoking? given how addictive that is, i'd have a hard time believing someone who just quit last week... very few people have that kind of iron will, and i'd like to meet such a person :) a month? go team! longer? how about relapses? tricky not yes/no. has never come up though.

i've been asked to become a vegan. i came back with how unlikely that was, and explained why. that was a condition of theirs, and i can respect that. it is a two way street.

the transitive worries happen when they happen. some of these are also binary, and some are not. the binary ones are perhaps easier, but more sad.

#

It seems like you've not contemplated the the ramifications of your question for people who would answer "yes" beyond "I would like to know this before putting in any effort to getting to know someone". Until answering "yes" is not a social stigma, that question will always be offensive and inappropriate when it is on a site where the answer can be found by anyone with internet access. If this was your personal dating site where only you had access to the answers, it would be fine. Otherwise it's like writing "X told me they have herpes!" on the bathroom wall of The Global Single's Bar, which is Not Cool(tm). I'm afraid you'll have to find out the hard way, by actually asking them in person after you've put in the effort of getting to know them. Sucks, eh?

While it's kind of a nice thought, isn't this part of your normal pre-sex discussion? I might be paranoid, but the whole "when was your last blood test, what were you tested for and what were the results?" thing is part of mine.

I mean, the whole concept that someone doesn't want to talk about their potential sexual issues on a dating site makes me giggle. If you can't talk about it, you're not ready to do it. (This goes for way more than sex, thus "it" is not "IT".)

(deleted comment)

I have seen the questions worded in that direction. My concern is that I don't get to be the one who picks the priority.

Someone with an STD which I'm highly concerned about might click "irrelevant", because they're totally willing to date people who have no STDs, and I feel that would be entirely appropriate of them.

I wouldn't mind having sex with someone who was dating someone with HIV, as long as they were not exposing themselves to risk, so my priority would also be "irrelevant".

Which is why I want to be able to say it's mandatory for my ideal partner to not have, for example, HIV.

Does that make my wording any more valid?

I do really appreciate your comment. And attitude and perspective on the subject.

(deleted comment)

Right, and I want my ideal partner to to answer: no, they don't have an incurable STD. And I want to set the importance high.

I understand your confusion here. If someone is not interested in ever having sex, I could easily imagine them saying it doesn't matter what STDs their ideal partner has, because they will never expose themselves to them.

Did that make any more sense?

Okay, so manybe someone who doesn't care about their ideal partner having STDs because they have no interest in sex would not be my ideal partner. But I maintain that it is a valid example of a problem with the logic, and that head meats are poorly suited to recursion.

Okay, I think I worked it out.

Currently existing questions are along the lines of:
"Would you date someone with an incurable STD?"

My problem with this is that I would set the priority of my ideal partner's answer to that question as "irrelevant", because they may be quite happy with relationships that do not involve contact which would increase their risk, while also being interested in relationships that do involve, for example, PIV sex.

I believe my version:
"Do you have an incurable STD?"
fixes that problem by allowing me to say it is mandatory that my ideal partner say "No.", and still allowing them to say they are unconcerned if their other partners say "Yes."

(deleted comment)

Okay, you win.

I really appreciate getting to have a serious discussion with someone actually capable of effectively articulating their perspective.

(deleted comment)

I've seen questions closer to these:

"Would you date someone with scars from a failed suicide attempt?" (admittedly "failed suicide" and "cutting" are less similar than I expect they realize)

"How would you feel about someone who got emotional about art / music / etc.?"

Don't think I've seen the laughing during sex part. The closest was probably about amount of discussion during sex.

"If you caught someone being extremely silly when they thought they were alone, would you be more or less interested in them?"

So on those four they seem to be doing not to terrible. I recently deleted all my answers and started over, getting up to 500, since I basically hadn't touched it in over a year, and things change.

I said no just because of the HPV part, I think the "doesn't wanna be reminded" response is dumb but I'm not really disturbed by it.

I haven’t read all the comments, but so far I’m with

dan4th and

brynndragon, with some additional issues of my own.

First of all, I think it’s useless to lump all of HPV in with HIV or herpes, because the overwhelming majority of people have had some variety of HIV at some point in their lives and never know it (and in many cases are at no greater risk of anything unpleasant from it). And while HPV is not really curable (except I suppose by surgery if you can figure out exactly where it is on the skin) it often goes away on its own. And a huge fraction (probably most, but I don’t know for sure) of HPV is not sexually transmitted — if your grandmother has a wart on her shoulder, that’s HPV. And if she had a dermatologist paying close attention to her, the dermatoligist might want to keep an eye on it, but nobody would suggest that you not hug your grandmother.

Second, what is an STD is fuzzy. You can get herpes on your mouth from giving a blowjob, or you can get the same virus in the same place from kissing your aforementioned hypothetical grandmother (although granted HSV1 is more common orally and HSV2 is more common genitally).

Third, the three infections you mention are very different in terms of what their risks are, so (to the extent that the OKCupid user base is well informed) the question will distinguish the kind of people who don’t masturbate because they’re afraid of getting an STD from bug chasers, but won’t do a very good job of sorting and matching people in the vast middle category.

Fourth, what is currently incurable might not be in five years. Admittedly, the useful lifespan of data in the OKCupid database may not be that long, but “incurable” (like the S in STD) is a fuzzy and malleable thing. (And the fact that you list HPV among the incurables, when many HPV infections just go away on their own, means that the question is intrinsically confusing.)

It would be marginally better as three separate questions (and I think the HPV one would be pretty useless), and with a different selection of answers, but I agree with a few people that requiring a “no” answer would (while also weeding out some people you presumably want to weed out) tend to weed out thoughtful, responsible people who don’t deceive themselves and actually want to know their STI status, and select for people who think that STIs are things that only happen to “those people”.

I could go on for pages, but I need to run...

This comment starts off on subjects I feel have already been thoroughly addressed.

It's huge.

Once you have read the rest of the comments, I suggest deleting this one and posting again with just new stuff so I feel like reading it.

And while HPV is not really curable (except I suppose by surgery if you can figure out exactly where it is on the skin) it often goes away on its own.

Actually, even surgery won't cure it. I was diagnosed with genital HPV once (admittedly, 20 years ago, so things might have changed - though according to my research they haven't changed much in this regard) and had surgery to remove the warts. It was made very clear to my parents, though, that I was not actually "cured". The surgery removes the symptoms, not the virus. Chances are that the virus will go away on its own, but it is possible to have an asymptomatic infection and is definitely possible to have warts return even after surgery.

This has actually caused me quite a bit of hassle when it comes to the vaccine. I want it, but my insurance is balking at paying for it given that I've already had a positive diagnosis. Their position is ludicrously dumb, but I still need to find a way around it.

Oh, and all three of the questions I submitted were rejected, too. :-) Partly I think it’s just “how many questions do we really need on the site?” The more different questions there are, the more questions any one person has to answer in order to have any reasonable amount of overlap with some random other person.

No, because they give them to everyone in descending order of average importance rating.

The disturbing bit is that you created a poll about a poll. :-)

I just got asked this question by okcupid. Apparently they un-rejected it in the years since. Now that I believe it's a bad question because everybody has HPV and even those who get tested regularly for STDs generally don't get tested for it. I think.

I submitted a question to okcupid for the first time. It was rejected.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject