antisexuality

[wjf]

If rape is being swept under the carpet, perhaps you could be a Champion and bring it out in the open for everyone to see.

I might try to support women's rights and rape victims, but I wouldn't try to be a champion of such activism. I feel that rape is especially damaging towards women, since they can suffer from reproductive damages that men can't. Thus I feel that women have to fight for their rights to abstain from sex, and should lead such activism.

I'm a man who has not been raped, and so would have little motivation to defend women's rights. And I believe that there exists some rape culture supported by some societies, so I would have to combat those societies. I'd probably get falsely accused of raping a lady, honestly.

I'd definitely donate to and support women's rights and rape victim activism, but I would not want to lead them.

Finally, I have found most women do want to have children at some point in their lives.

I hate sex, not children. I know that some women can have children without the lustful, humiliating, exploitative, and sadomasochistic modern-day practice of sex; including through artificial insemination, adoption, and surrogacy.

 

[columbus]

I know that some women can have children without the lustful, humiliating, and sadomasochistic modern-day practice of sex;

I'm not sure where you learned about sex,
But dayum.
That's some seriously messed up stuff.

Tom

 

[wjf]

I'm not sure where you learned about sex,
But dayum.
That's some seriously messed up stuff.

Some societies don't teach adequate sex education because they know the dangerous and destructive truth of sex but would rather not let people know. They want people to have sex for the sake of having children for armies, labor forces, and materials. If people knew the dangerous and destructive truth about sex, the people would largely stop having sex and those societies would diminish.

Some societies also require natural born citizens, and thus can't be supported by immigrants but rather require sex within their borders. Then some societies consider that regardless of the size and greatness of a nation, it would likely severely shrink or collapse without sex after 100 years. In addition to this, some societies and nations wage wars that further shrink populations. To compensate for the loss of human lives in war, more children is constantly needed. Then some populations shrink further from homicides, suicides, disease, natural and manmade disasters . . .

So even though sex can be extremely dangerous and destructive (personally, socially, psychologically, and pathologically) those societies would rather encourage or foster such sexuality for the sake of having children. I believe there are other means of securing children without the modern-day practice of sex (including through artificial insemination, adoption, surrogacy, or reproductive technology) but those means are not as efficient or economic, and some societies sacrifice morality and life for efficiency and economy. I am not a society though, so I hate sex and don't need it.

 

[SomeRandom]

Some societies don't teach adequate sex education because they know the dangerous and destructive truth of sex but would rather not let people know. They want people to have sex for the sake of having children for armies, labor forces, and materials. If people knew the dangerous and destructive truth about sex, the people would largely stop having sex and those societies would diminish.

Some societies also require natural born citizens, and thus can't be supported by immigrants but rather require sex within their borders. Then some societies consider that regardless of the size and greatness of a nation, it would likely severely shrink or collapse without sex after 100 years. In addition to this, some societies and nations wage wars that further shrink populations. To compensate for the loss of human lives in war, more children is constantly needed. Then some populations shrink further from homicides, suicides, disease, natural and manmade disasters . . .

So even though sex can be extremely dangerous and destructive (personally, socially, psychologically, and pathologically) those societies would rather encourage or foster such sexuality for the sake of having children. I believe there are other means of securing children without the modern-day practice of sex (including through artificial insemination, adoption, surrogacy, or reproductive technology) but those means are not as efficient or economic, and some societies sacrifice morality and life for efficiency and economy. I am not a society though, so I hate sex and don't need it.

As someone who had frank, extensive clinical sexual education at school, sex is not dangerous, it’s not even necessarily sadomasochistic as that is a sexual fetish, not sex as a whole. Like what are you talking about? Celibacy is recognised as having unhealthy detrimental mental affects, unless you’re asexual.
You seem to have a phobia of sex, which seems like a thing you should probably speak to someone professional about. But whatever.

 

[wjf]

Sex can be extremely dangerous and destructive, especially because of disease and childbearing complications. Sex presents a very humid and moist environment, ideal for germs, bacteria, and infection. And then both partners are naked, so the chance of infection, germs, and diseases increases profoundly. Not only can a naked lady get infected from her partner, but can also get an infection from the environment like stained sheets and dirty beds. A lady's privy part is especially susceptible to germs, bacteria, infection, and disease since it's more wet and open than men's privy part is. Then imagine rape where the suspect might be commiting the crime because of his sexually transmitted disease that alienated him from some society. And guess what the rapists greatest defense is? "I was having consensual SEX." Rapists use sex as a defense for their actions.

So sex is one of the most pathologically risky activities of earth. Fighting might be equally risky, but when men are fighting, the aim is to kill. Men can kill without touching each other. And even during combat, men usually push each other away defensively. Even medics use gloves to study the bodies of dead allies and enemies. The nature of sex is literally the opposite: the individuals are pressing together. The man is directly putting his germs and bacteria within the woman, sometimes without her consent or knowledge. Condoms break. Condoms do not provide adequate protection from skin-to-skin infections. And since some societies want the production of children; some men do not use condoms, purposely puncture condoms with needles, or take off condoms without women's consent.

Mankind knows very little about diseases, especially cancer and rabies. Some sexually transmitted diseases might still be undetected or undiscovered. Other such diseases might be evolving and adapting to antibiotics. And the medical treatments for sexually transmitted diseases are largely reserved for rape victims or those who can afford them: sexually transmitted diseases will forever be a threat to the poor, including poor women, regardless of technogical advancements. What private doctor would give his free time and resources to help a diseased man who voluntarily gave himself such disease unless he agrees to be a guinea pig? Then we also can have biological terrorists engineering sexually transmitted diseases to slay people, because hindering a society's ability to have children, with sex, is one of the greatest ways to reduce it.

Sex is largely a human experiment, and women are the victims. Nobody knows what will come out of the womb. A mother can die during labor or childbirth. She can birth a dead or disabled baby. Or a child can grow to destroy his parents. And so sex can't even promise children as much as some may think. Rather sex might do the opposite.

 

[oldbadger]

If only sex and sexuality would leave me alone, my friend. But when I am presented with unsolicited romantic sexual content or advertisements, I am uncomfortable.

Nope.
Romance is not sex, for a start.
Men and women are mostly driven by nature, and if you wish to shut yourself off from the adverts, songs and films, then fair enough, but the World will not stop for you or me. We need to live within the World that we are presented with, I'm afraid.
I have known asexual men and women all through my life and they simply are not driven by any sexual forces, but you seem to be overpowered by nature's desire to continue itself.
Counselling could help you with this.

You can tell a lady to avoid sex and sexuality, but when men are touching her and giving her nude photos, then sex and sexuality is harassing her regardless of her abstinence.

Rubbish! Absolute rubbish!
Intentional touching is an assault where I live, and sexual touching can be be arrested.
Handing out nude photos ...? In adverts, you mean? You can disregard them with counselling and help.

Women have been killed for refusing the sex advances of men. Sex and some societies abuse of sex are truly . . . something I wish I could forever avoid.

Here we go, another person who totally ignores the fact that men are killed and raped as well. I reckon that the high incidence of male suicide could be attributed in part to men not being able to tell a single person that they have been raped.

Which country do you live in?

I barely can talk with anyone online without them being romantic sexual or promoting sex. I can't easily walk anywhere in my city without being forced to listen to romantic sexual music from some radio. When avoiding romantic sexual content becomes this difficult, it is very scary and says a lot about the condition of my city.

Again, romance is nothing to do with sex.
And you have brought up the subject of sex right here, surely?

Honestly, I think that professional counselling and therapy might help in your case.

 

[wjf]

Nope.
Romance is not sex, for a start.

But some societies use romance as a tool to foster or promote sexuality.

If two men are publicly romantic, they would be considered homoSEXUAL, and may even be attacked for that. So there is some connection between romance and sex, where I live.

Romantic relationships are unique because they are one of the few relationships where sex is not punishable. A man usually can't have sex with a bud, pet, or a family member; but he can have sex with a girlfriend or wife. So romance and romantic relationships are unique and distinct for their sexual feature.

When I was quitting pornography, some websites have told me to refrain from romance novels and romantic content. Again, there seems to be some implications there that further suggest a connection between romance and sex.

I will tell you right now that I would not be as antisexual if I were indulging in romance like in my past. I might not even still be a virgin if I was still indulging in romance like in my past.

Where I live, romance is somewhat associated with marriage or boyfriend-girlfriend relationships. Both relationships either legally or traditionally restrict sexual activity, where I live. But why? Why do those relationships restrict sexual activity? Why can't a girlfriend have multiple boyfriends? I wouldn't care if I had a girlfriend with multiple boyfriends. Again, it's a very strange sexual restriction that further proves an association between sex and romance. If romance and sex were truly independent, then why do romantic relationship require sexual restrictions for partners?

Where I live, marriage is sealed with a kiss. A kiss is sexual, even because two men kissing would be considered homosexuals and would likely be attacked for that. Kissing can spread Syphilis and other diseases via saliva. I can not kiss a wife without her husband being angry at me. Forced kissing can be considered sexual harassment or sexual assault. So marriage, which I consider the peak of romance, is now known to be sexual where I live and that discovery has greatly depressed me.

When a man is in a relationship where he is not allowed to be sexual with any other women than his wife or girlfriend, such restriction puts a lot of sexual pressure on him. Unlike before where he could just sexually engage with any lady he met, he has to refrain and bottle up that sexual tension, and likely release it all on his wife. there are some societies that foster and allow a pro-sexual environment, further pressuring a man to have sex. All of this pressure is then directed towards his wife. What happens when a man is daily overwhelmed with a lot of sexuality, but can not release that sexuality towards any other lady but his wife? I have not heard of a marriage where the couple did not have sex, where I live. Or what if his wife says "no sex tonight?" I will tell you that I have heard of marital rape though.

You can believe that there is no connection between romance and sex, but I promise you that there are a lot of romantic men who behave sexually. That might not be a coincidence. I can probably also say that there are a lot of older virgins and celibates, even I, who are not romantic or that don't engage in romance. That might not be a coincidence either.

Believe what you want to believe, but examine both the romantic and non-romantic man, and then tell me which one acts more sexual. I am not an idiot and will not be snared by romance to then grow any sentiment towards sex. I hate sex.

 

[oldbadger]

But some societies use romance as a tool to foster or promote sexuality.

If two men are publicly romantic, they would be considered homoSEXUAL, and may even be attacked for that. So there is some connection between romance and sex, where I live.

Romantic relationships are unique because they are one of the few relationships where sex is not punishable. A man usually can't have sex with a bud, pet, or a family member; but he can have sex with a girlfriend or wife. So romance and romantic relationships are unique and distinct for their sexual feature.

When I was quitting pornography, some websites have told me to refrain from romance novels and romantic content. Again, there seems to be some implications there that further suggest a connection between romance and sex.

I will tell you right now that I would not be as antisexual if I were indulging in romance like in my past. I might not even still be a virgin if I was still indulging in romance like in my past.

Where I live, romance is somewhat associated with marriage or boyfriend-girlfriend relationships. Both relationships either legally or traditionally restrict sexual activity, where I live. But why? Why do those relationships restrict sexual activity? Why can't a girlfriend have multiple boyfriends? I wouldn't care if I had a girlfriend with multiple boyfriends. Again, it's a very strange sexual restriction that further proves an association between sex and romance. If romance and sex were truly independent, then why do romantic relationship require sexual restrictions for partners?

Where I live, marriage is sealed with a kiss. A kiss is sexual, even because two men kissing would be considered homosexuals and would likely be attacked for that. Kissing can spread Syphilis and other diseases via saliva. I can not kiss a wife without her husband being angry at me. Forced kissing can be considered sexual harassment or sexual assault. So marriage, which I consider the peak of romance, is now known to be sexual where I live and that discovery has greatly depressed me.

When a man is in a relationship where he is not allowed to be sexual with any other women than his wife or girlfriend, such restriction puts a lot of sexual pressure on him. Unlike before where he could just sexually engage with any lady he met, he has to refrain and bottle up that sexual tension, and likely release it all on his wife. there are some societies that foster and allow a pro-sexual environment, further pressuring a man to have sex. All of this pressure is then directed towards his wife. What happens when a man is daily overwhelmed with a lot of sexuality, but can not release that sexuality towards any other lady but his wife? I have not heard of a marriage where the couple did not have sex, where I live. Or what if his wife says "no sex tonight?" I will tell you that I have heard of marital rape though.

You can believe that there is no connection between romance and sex, but I promise you that there are a lot of romantic men who behave sexually. That might not be a coincidence. I can probably also say that there are a lot of older virgins and celibates, even I, who are not romantic or that don't engage in romance. That might not be a coincidence either.

Believe what you want to believe, but examine both the romantic and non-romantic man, and then tell me which one acts more sexual. I am not an idiot and will not be snared by romance to then grow any sentiment towards sex. I hate sex.

Where do you live?
How were you connected to pornography?

 

[SomeRandom]

Sex can be extremely dangerous and destructive, especially because of disease and childbearing complications. Sex presents a very humid and moist environment, ideal for germs, bacteria, and infection. And then both partners are naked, so the chance of infection, germs, and diseases increases profoundly. Not only can a naked lady get infected from her partner, but can also get an infection from the environment like stained sheets and dirty beds. A lady's privy part is especially susceptible to germs, bacteria, infection, and disease since it's more wet and open than men's privy part is. Then imagine rape where the suspect might be commiting the crime because of his sexually transmitted disease that alienated him from some society. And guess what the rapists greatest defense is? "I was having consensual SEX." Rapists use sex as a defense for their actions.

So sex is one of the most pathologically risky activities of earth. Fighting might be equally risky, but when men are fighting, the aim is to kill. Men can kill without touching each other. And even during combat, men usually push each other away defensively. Even medics use gloves to study the bodies of dead allies and enemies. The nature of sex is literally the opposite: the individuals are pressing together. The man is directly putting his germs and bacteria within the woman, sometimes without her consent or knowledge. Condoms break. Condoms do not provide adequate protection from skin-to-skin infections. And since some societies want the production of children; some men do not use condoms, purposely puncture condoms with needles, or take off condoms without women's consent.

Mankind knows very little about diseases, especially cancer and rabies. Some sexually transmitted diseases might still be undetected or undiscovered. Other such diseases might be evolving and adapting to antibiotics. And the medical treatments for sexually transmitted diseases are largely reserved for rape victims or those who can afford them: sexually transmitted diseases will forever be a threat to the poor, including poor women, regardless of technogical advancements. What private doctor would give his free time and resources to help a diseased man who voluntarily gave himself such disease unless he agrees to be a guinea pig? Then we also can have biological terrorists engineering sexually transmitted diseases to slay people, because hindering a society's ability to have children, with sex, is one of the greatest ways to reduce it.

Sex is largely a human experiment, and women are the victims. Nobody knows what will come out of the womb. A mother can die during labor or childbirth. She can birth a dead or disabled baby. Or a child can grow to destroy his parents. And so sex can't even promise children as much as some may think. Rather sex might do the opposite.

Ahh so you’re a germaphobe?! Well fair enough then.
All those consequences you lay out are the exceptions, not the rule. Again, I’m just some insensitive ******* online. Perhaps you should consider talking to an actual professional person about your concerns. Seems like a decent option.

 

[wjf]

Where do you live?
How were you connected to pornography?

I live in New York City. And I would watch porn online starting around my early teens. I quit years ago though. I may have been addicted to porn. Quitting porn was one of the hardest and proudest accomplishments in my life. It proved that I had amazing self-control. Not many men in their 20s can say that they don't watch porn, and many men don't believe that I quit porn.

Ahh so you’re a germaphobe?!

There is a difference between a poor man getting a terminal illness from working in a forest for food, and a poor man getting a terminal illness due to voluntary lack of self-control. Doctors would laugh at, rather than treat, the latter.

 

[Galateasdream]

I'll just throw my 2p in ...

I'm very sex positive. So long as it is realised that sex is a risky activity and the risks of harm practically managed (as they can be fairly easily these days) then informed consent is my only moral line.

Sex is to be enjoyed. It can, potentially, be a great source of joy and fulfillment. Treated wisely human sexuality is a good.

 

[wjf]

So long as it is realised that sex is a risky activity and the risks of harm practically managed (as they can be fairly easily these days) then informed consent is my only moral line.

The risks of harm will forever be severe for many people, including the poor. Maybe rich people can laugh at sexually transmitted diseases or childbirth complications, but the poor can't. But even the richest man can not cure severe sexually transmitted diseases nor change the sexuality of a lesbian neighbor. Instead, he burns lesbians to ensure that there are local single heterosexual women to have sex with, abusing his Christianity to do so.

Imagine living in a grand city of many people. The city officials believe that, in 100 years, that city would have no able-bodied citizens unless female citizens have sex. Women have the highest right and reason to refuse sex, especially since sex can kill them through disease or childbirth complications. However, if women refuse sex, then the city officials believe the city's population would begin to fall and that the descent is even faster due to war, disease, natural disasters, manmade disaster, homicides, suicides, and etc.

Now some cities do not pay women for sex: prostitution is illegal in some areas. Those societies also provide inadequate welfare programs for women. Men are not obligated to support childbearing women: my father left when I was just a baby. Some fathers don't even pay child support. But surely, some societies probably dedicate more money towards orphanages than towards social welfare for mothers.

I feel very sad for women, because some of them are pressured or tricked into having sex.

There will never really be perfect informed consent: not even mankind knows much about the ever evolving and adaptive nature of disease. Some diseases are still unknown and yet to be discovered. Some diseases are hard to detect. Some diseases adapt to antibiotics and are a constant issue for doctors. Then there are some people, even terrorists, who promote diseases through prostitutes or even engineer diseases.

Sex can be naturally dangerous and destructive. So to engage in sex is quite near cutting oneself, and no educated woman would consent to it compared to safer alternatives like adoption, surrogacy, artificial insemination, and etc.

Some societies do not teach adequate sex education, which could be a solid foundation for informed consent. I don't think that such inadequate sex education is coincidental, especially if those societies want the children produced from sex without regard to women's wellbeing.

You can have sex, but I will refrain and keep myself safe.

 

[Galateasdream]

You're right that there's many risks to sex, and that they disproportionately affect the poor.

You're also right that 'perfect' informed consent (in the sense of the kind that requires omniscience) doesn't exist.

But I think what you've deduced from those points is that 'therefore all sexual activity is highly dangerous and morally wrong', which is false.

You can make a good case for improving many things, like sex education, sex work conditions, gender equality, medical treatments, research into STDs, birth control etc.

But you cannot leap from 'sex is risky' to 'therefore no one should have sex'. The risks can be managed in such a way so as to keep the benefits of sex whilst mitigating the dangers and harm.

And since people are going to continue having sex (even if only with sexbots or similar in the future) regardless, it all seems a somewhat moot point practically speaking.

I will continue to advocate for a positive, risk-managed attitude towards human sexuality (even though I personally don't desire sex with any human, being effectively a sort of asexual) and I feel that you will continue to advocate for a sex-negative position. Which is great - I love having a market place of ideas!

Take care, and let us agree to disagree amicably

 

[wjf]

But I think what you've deduced from those points is that 'therefore all sexual activity is highly dangerous and morally wrong', which is false.

Because the modern-day practice of sex is usually the voluntary exchange and fostering of germs, bacteria, infections, and disease; it is one of the most dangerous and destructive practices on earth. I can only think of a handful of activities on earth that are as dangerous and destructive as sex. Then considering that sex has a very small chance benefit that can be met through other means, now the costs outweigh the gains.

I won't argue that sex is morally wrong, since you are pro-sexual and probably believe that sex is morally right. I can't change anyone's religion or moral belief, as that is a fruitless endeavor that would probably require real-life lessons. Many people learn about the dangers of sex in an unfortunate way, especially from the lady who was stuffed in a suitcase and left in the woods. And I do know that there are some men born with poor self-control that's sexually exploited by others.

But I know that sex is obsolete and pathologically dangerous for me, and no amount of contemporary prosexuality will persuade me otherwise. No amount of unsolicited sexual advertisements or romance movies will pervert my sound judgement. Unlike some people, I've acquired a good amount of sex education that my city failed to teach citizens. Unlike my brothers in jail or hospital beds, I'm using this knowledge to keep myself safe. Many women, even lesbians and sex crime victims, appreciate men like me.

 

[Galateasdream]

Indeed, sex is correlated with many very harmful things but sex qua sex needn't be - the actual sex itself can be, theoretically at least, separated out from all the harms.

There is, in principle, sex that is only beneficial and not harmful.

The question then becomes: is it practically possible to reduce the risk factors of sex to a reasonable degree, so that the likely benefits outweigh the likely harms?

In my society I'd say 'yes'. And since I see no reason why all societies couldn't become as mine, at least in this regard, I can make that 'yes' somewhat universal.

Not that my society is perfect or couldn't be improved. But it has reached a point regarding human sexuality where it is appropriate and sensible to allow individuals to decide for themselves. I hope and pray for continuing development so that my, and all other societies, can reach an even better place regarding sex.

I think that is a far more practical and ultimately better long term goal to work towards. Rather than decrying sex and sexuality itself, and attempting to stop it, decry and change the surrounding negatives so that it may be enjoyed and help people flourish physically, emotionally, relationally, mentally, spiritually.

If sex is obsolete and pathological for you, then yes, I agree that you should not have sex. You are an effective asexual (like me), probably through negative life experiences (like me). And that's fine. If you want to change that, therapy might possibly work. But if you're happy as you are (as I am), then live your life as you best see fit.

But where we will disagree is over the message of anti-sexuality. I respect your right to share what you believe is right, but I will tell people that I think your POV incorrect, probably psychologically harmful, and forward my better sex-positive message

 

[wjf]

Indeed, sex is correlated with many very harmful things but sex qua sex needn't be - the actual sex itself can be, theoretically at least, separated out from all the harms.

You can fantasize about sex all you want. But if you get assaulted or a sexually transmitted disease, then do not be surprised. I warned you of the dangers. Either you might have to waste money and time for treatment from sexually transmitted diseases or therapy sessions to help recover from being assaulted.

I would not even chance those two, especially knowing that sex is utterly meaningless to me. Maybe I would've chanced such foolishness when I was younger and being encouraged by prosexual people, but now I'm a wiser man who avoids prosexuality and realizes the vain poison of sex and marketed lust that exploits men.

 

[Galateasdream]

You can fantasize about sex all you want. But if you get assaulted or a sexually transmitted disease, then do not be surprised. I warned you of the dangers. Either you might have to waste money and time for treatment from sexually transmitted diseases or therapy sessions to help recover from being assaulted.

I would not even chance those two, especially knowing that sex is utterly meaningless to me. Maybe I would've chanced such foolishness when I was younger and being encouraged by prosexual people, but now I'm a wiser man who avoids prosexuality and realizes the vain poison of sex and marketed lust that exploits men.

You seem to be conflating sex with assault/rape, or failing to see that sex can be separated from disease, and other similar mistakes.

But fair enough. I'll happily agree to disagree.

 

[SomeRandom]

There is a difference between a poor man getting a terminal illness from working in a forest for food, and a poor man getting a terminal illness due to voluntary lack of self-control. Doctors would laugh at, rather than treat, the latter.

What lazy doctors do you go to? A doctor will treat an illness or injury regardless of circumstance. Otherwise they’d be sued into bankruptcy for malpractice

 

[wjf]

@Galateasdream Sex is naturally disease. Before condoms and antibiotics existed, sex was very much disease. You can try to seperate sex and disease, but if you get infected, then that's your fault for pursuing such fantasy. Disease adapt and evolve into different strands that are immune to antibiotics: that pathological fantasy is very much real! And anyone can have disease, especially undiscovered disease.

@SomeRandom You can't force a laborer to work, else that's slavery. The same goes with doctors: you can't force a doctor to practice on you, especially if it's a disease that you voluntarily contracted or that can contaminate the doctor. They may pity rape victims though. Otherwise, treatments cost money. Doctors don't get antibiotics and resources for free. Doctors also learned medicine and biology, and such knowledge costs money too. Instead of treating the poor, doctors would likely just quarantine and study them.

Also, the poor can't quite sue doctors. In most places, legal processes cost money. A poor person might not be able to afford a lawyer either, but a doctor sure can! It's the doctor, hospital, and their lawyers against a single poor man. And some diseased poor people don't sue because they are sick and unable to attend court.

 

[SomeRandom]

[

@SomeRandom You can't force a laborer to work, else that's slavery. The same goes with doctors: you can't force a doctor to practice on you, especially if it's a disease that you voluntarily contracted or that can contaminate the doctor. They may pity rape victims though. Otherwise, treatments cost money. Doctors don't get antibiotics and resources for free. Doctors also learned medicine and biology, and such knowledge costs money too. Instead of treating the poor, doctors would likely just quarantine and study the individual.

Also, the poor can't quite sue doctors. In most places, legal processes cost money. A poor person might not be able to afford a lawyer either, but a doctor sure can! And some diseased poor people don't sue because they are sick and unable to attend court.

What? A doctors literal job is to treat the sick. Where do you live where a doctor can literally break the Hippocratic oath and refuse service to someone who contracted an illness on purpose?
Also doctors have this thing called protective gear to avoid contracting diseases. Like what are you talking about?