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

[darxus]

Do you have an incurable STD (Genital warts (HPV), genital herpes (HSV), or HIV/AIDS)?


[Poll #1050519]

The options were: 1. Yes 2. No


Here is some of the user feedback we received:

Response Comment

Offensive / worthless

Uninteresting or too obscure for most people
Near 100 % of sexually active adults have one or more HPV types, so you could just as well ask "Are you a virgin?" - which is a question that does not exist per se, but is part of the answer of a few others

Offensive / worthless

Too similar to other questions

Uninteresting or too obscure for most people
You thinkg soomeone with those conditions really wants to be reminded of this on a dating site?

Offensive / worthless

Too similar to other questions

Too similar to other questions(Emphases added.)

UPDATE: Resolution here.

Comments

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

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.

[darxus.livejournal.com]

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.

[msbutterpecan.livejournal.com]

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?

[darxus.livejournal.com]

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?"'

[darxus.livejournal.com]

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.

[darxus.livejournal.com]

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.

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

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?

[darxus.livejournal.com]

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.

[perspicuity.livejournal.com]

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.

#

[drwex]

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."

[darxus.livejournal.com]

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.

[perspicuity.livejournal.com]

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.

#

[drwex]

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.

[perspicuity.livejournal.com]

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.

#

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

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?

[greylady.livejournal.com]

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".)