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

[darxus.livejournal.com]

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.

[darxus.livejournal.com]

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?

[darxus.livejournal.com]

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.

[darxus.livejournal.com]

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."

[darxus.livejournal.com]

Okay, you win.

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