How to Program a Sex Robot: List-Based vs Open World
There are two ways to approach the programming of sexuality & sexual functions into a sex robot.
Sex can be envisioned as a set of serialized, goal-oriented tasks that must be accomplished in a given order by the bot. Or sex can be explored as an open world experience with side missions available that allow the bot to deviate from the primary objective in order to aggregate more experience/pleasure/adventure points.
In the list-based model, the bot is programmed with a number of checkpoints it must reach with its human partner. These may include items such as Comfort, Attraction, Consent, Arousal, Physical Stimulation, Climax, and finally Auto-Climax (if the bot’s reward system is programmed to include some kind of auto-climax function).
These checkpoints may not need to be reached in a strict chronological order: Consent, for instance, may come before or after Comfort. Certain thresholds would, however, have to be reached before others: Consent would need to come before Physical Stimulation, and Arousal would usually come before Climax.
A list-based model gives the bot a clear set of goals which may be reached by performing a varied but limited set of tasks. This simple, straightforward model avoids confusing the bot and ensures that a safe, acceptable-minimum level of pleasure is guaranteed to the human partner.
The open world model may still include many of the same primary objectives, but these are accompanied by a layer of secondary objectives which can be more open-ended. These secondary objectives can be treated as side missions which may or may not directly contribute to the primary sexual objectives, but which may be based on an alternative reward system made to emulate in some ways the human sense of adventure.
Having sex under the stars, for instance, may actually detract from the primary objectives of Arousal and Climax due to temperature or comfort factors. As such it would have no place in the list-based sexual model.
In the open world model, however, the bot is programmed to see value beyond its rote set of basic tasks, and perhaps even to recognize the uncommon as a kind of value in itself (within certain limitations). It is thus driven to seek experiences and adventures that deviate from the fundamental elements of its sexual functions.
This can then become a sort of ‘Let’s Try This…’ subroutine which can be inserted as an IF-THEN initiative loop to be presented to the human partner for final approval during any given sexual encounter.
Trying out new sexual functions, activities, locations, velocities, and angles may be added to the bot’s reward system as an expansion pack to ensure the bot’s programming continues to evolve as it learns new things, as well as to avoid monotony for the human partner. The bot’s primary objectives would, of course, still remain as overarching principles running in the background, gently guiding the side missions, and available to be completed whenever desired by the human partner.
I didn’t give up my seat on the bus today to the tired, heavyset woman standing beside me.
What exactly is it that offends you about this?
If we are two organisms jostling around on a rock in a vacuum, I would say I think the arc of the moral universe is indifferent towards me keeping my seat. At this long term level of morality, you being offended makes no sense.
If it’s polite for a man to give his seat to a woman, I would say I think you’re a misogynist.
If the stronger should protect and care for the weaker, I would say I think this is the specific level of morality where you have the strongest argument. As the more capable being, I have a moral obligation toward beings less capable than myself, and to keep my seat would be the moral equivalent of a conquistador annihilating a tribe or an extraterrestrial annihilating the human race. If you look at the situation through a morally-nearsighted lens, I have a moral imperative to bequeath the poor soul my seat. At this short term level of morality, the high ground belongs to you.
If sitting is the new smoking, however, I would say I think my moral imperative would be to keep my secondhand smoke to myself. If sedentary lifestyles kill in the medium term, then I am doing this woman a favor by keeping her on her feet. I exercise a lot more than she does and am therefore more capable of assuming on my shoulders the considerable risks involved in sitting. She may or may not even literally tell her friends that she doesn’t need the gym because she gets her exercise standing on the bus every day for an hour.
If diminishing pain and maximizing pleasure is your morality, the minutes of discomfort she may have to endure today will save her from a world of pain in the future.
If by sitting in her stead, I can prolong her life for even a mere hour – by keeping her heart rate up, her muscles flexed, and her blood circulating, which in turn will increase her organs’ lifespan, her physical capability, and her quality of life – do I not owe it to her to snatch that seat away, to remove the danger that lies in her path? Am I not sacrificing my own wellbeing for hers?
Should not we all grab the seats for ourselves, laying down our lives on the altar for humanity? Or is humanity under the perpetual curse of an instinctively narrow purview of morality that prevents us from seeing into even the medium term much less the long term?
Men who are unhappy with their sex lives find solutions.
We buy porn and hire prostitutes. We invest in our sex lives because they matter that much to us.
Women who are unhappy with their sex lives… complain about it to their friends?
You rarely hear a man whining about how his wife can’t find his glans. If you aren’t doing something right in bed, we won’t fake an orgasm and go to sleep, we’ll show you how to do it right. And if you can’t learn, by God, we’ll find someone else who will, even if we have to pay them for it.
That’s how much of a shit we give.
It’s telling that the disparity between people who complain about their sex lives and people who spend money on their sex lives is divided about equally across gender lines (estimated 25% of women regularly fake orgasms, & estimated 20% of men hire prostitutes). If I only drive cars that arrive on my doorstep for free, I would be a pretty shitty person if I complained about the condition of those cars.
And as they say, don’t look a gift cock in the mouth.
If you’re a woman and you complain about your sex life, tell me when’s the last time you demonstrated how much it mattered to you by spending money on it?
If you think porn is disgusting and way too male-oriented, tell me when’s the last time you paid for some you liked?
If your partner doesn’t do what you like in bed, tell me when’s the last time you hired someone who would?
Sex, like any other industry, follows the money.
So put your dirty money where your mouth is.
(This week I didn’t write a SexyLittleIdeas article because I was finishing my thesis for the Music Business course I’m taking from Vanderbilt University. This is what I came up with, in case you’re interested.)
If we tie music or anything at all in life, inextricably to money, in terms of worth, it changes the essence of that thing.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, and I’m not here to solve all the problems of capitalism in one essay. But when I think of the worth of music, in terms of monetary value, my relationship with music becomes less like a love affair and more like a rich guy wondering if he has any true friends.
Adding money to anything removes some of its truth.
Money + sex = prostitution.
Money + love = gold digging.
Money + happiness = misery.
Money + family = evil stepmother.
If we want to think about music as something that belongs in the same commodity-driven sentences as: cars, mining, petroleum, lead, cotton – then we should think about its worth primarily in terms of money. But if we want to continue to think about music as something that belongs in the same sentences as: joy, love, creativity, family, friendship, happiness – then we need to define its worth differently.
or A Short Study on Weapons Legislation vs Crazy People
I think the gun control issue is a question of percentages. We have to weigh acceptable Weapons Legislation against the percentage of Crazy People with a Chance of Going on Killing Sprees. If the latter was exceptionally high, say around 50% of the population, we might only legalize the possession of exceptionally mild weapons such as swords or slingshots. If we had 0% Crazy People, we might be able to legalize nuclear bombs and light sabers.
To decide where you are as a rational person on the issue of gun control, you have to decide how many people you are comfortable with putting at risk of dying, say each year, in Crazy Person Killing Sprees.
In a nation of 320 million people, you have to assume that there will be some Crazy People and that some of them will go on Killing Sprees for whatever Crazy Reason. If all they have is slingshots or their bare hands, they will be able to kill very few people, maybe one or two per incident. If they have nuclear bombs, they will be able to kill maybe 100,000 per incident.
Weapons Legislation usually looks at weapons and victim numbers somewhere inbetween those two extremes.
or 5 Important Differences Between Sex Blogs and Sex Politics Blogs
Sex politics blogs come with an ulterior motive – an agenda that sneaks around the corner behind every word, staining those words, for better or worse, in its own colors.
That agenda may be to promote:
Male rights activism
Here are 5 crucial differences between sex blogs and sex politics blogs:
or How to Create an Asshole
Beautiful people, both men and women, always seem to have a complicated relationship with reality.
There is a common misconception, however, that beautiful men are equally as spoiled as beautiful women, or:
Really Attractive Men = Really Attractive Woman
This idea is categorically incorrect, and I can prove it scientifically.
First we have to accept one simple assumption, that I think will be easy to agree with. This assumption is that, all other things being equal, the amount of adoring attention you receive is directly tied to the amount of asshole you become. Or, in mathematical terms, where X represents the Amount:
(X)Attention = (X)Asshole
This is human nature:
If you are constantly being told how amazing you are, you will begin to feel very entitled.
If you occasionally get told how amazing you are, you will feel less entitled.
If you rarely get told that you are amazing, you will probably not feel very entitled at all.
Can we agree on that?
Boring Science Box:
There are many studies about the effects of perceived physical beauty upon human psychology that seem to back this up. This series of five studies by Neale and Belmi from the Stanford Graduate School of Business indicated that physically attractive people (to a much greater degree than people with perceived power, self-esteem, empathy, or even integrity) believed they belonged in higher social classes, which in turn motivated them to have increased support for inequality, such as toward minorities.
This is a graph sourced by OkCupid that illustrates the stark difference between the attention attractive women receive and the attention attractive men receive. It shows messages received per day plotted against attractiveness based on user ratings. ‘Women’ are in dark blue; ‘Men’ are in light blue. (This graph was made from analytics of 600,000 messages to 64,000 profiles voted on by 1.5 million users. Here are two articles with more in-depth analysis of the OkCupid study.)
As you can see, even a man at the highest end of attractiveness barely receives the number of messages that almost all women get, every day. Very attractive women, on the other hand, receive much, much, much, insanely much, more attention.
So (perhaps due to an evolutionary flaw in the balance of human predatory reproductive instincts between the genders) beautiful men max out the attention they receive around the same level at which average women are just getting started. In real life (on a scale of how much an Asshole a person becomes due to the Attention they receive based on how Attractive they are) this translates to:
Really Attractive Men = Average Women
Really Attractive Men receive about as much attention as Average Women. This infers that Really Attractive Men feel just about as entitled/spoiled as any Average Women. Because of the approximate parity between the amount of attention they both receive, Really Attractive Men are therefore about the same amount of jerk and the same amount of nice as Average Women.
Really Attractive Women, on the other hand – according to the science – are off the charts in both attention and entitlement. Really Attractive Women receive around 4 – 5 times more attention than both Average Women and Really Attractive Men. Really Attractive Women, it follows, are therefore that much more bratty.
Some studies (such as those on the Halo Effect) indicate that perceived physical attractiveness translates to increased wealth and life opportunities as well as the many social benefits. This OkCupid graph charting job interview requests plotted against attractiveness shows similar trends.
Boring Science Box 2:
Yep, there are also schools of research that back up this correlation between specifically attractive women – not men – and increased entitlement. This study by Evolutionary Psychology professor David Buss from the University of Texas indicated that attractive women calibrated their standards based on their own desirability (more desirable = higher standards), while simultaneously indicating that men’s standards did not correlate with their perceived physical attractiveness.
If you are an Average Man, an Average Woman, or a Really Attractive Man, this idea probably resonates with you.
If you are a Really Attractive Woman, you’re probably thinking right now that I am totally wrong and being a complete dick.
The Beauty Bubble (That Only Time Can Pop)
To you Really Attractive Women I would like to say this: YOU’RE VERY SPECIAL AND WE ALL LOVE YOU!
To the rest of you I would like to say this: DON’T SAY ANYTHING TO UPSET HER, YOU CANNOT FATHOM HOW MUCH OF A BUBBLE SHE IS LIVING IN!
or Men Oversexualize Women, and That Might Not Be a Bad Thing
The survival of the human race depends on men sexualizing women.
Male sexuality is fragile. It’s more easily distracted and more easily discouraged than you might imagine. It can be worried to death or stressed to death or laughed to death or even just bored to death. And while these same dangers apply to female sexuality, if it happens to men, well, there goes the future of the human race.
The survival of Homo sapiens as a species depends on men and our fragile sexuality for two main things: erections and orgasms. Erections are needed for vaginal penetration (erections being the most fragile part of male sexuality). After an erection is achieved and maintained, orgasms are needed for insemination (her orgasm is nice, his orgasm is crucial).
The survival of Homo sapiens as a species depends on women for just one thing: lying there. Reproductively speaking, women have to literally just lie there and receive. She doesn’t have to be turned on, not even a little bit, and she definitely doesn’t have to climax.
Women sexualize men to a far lesser degree than men sexualize women. Let’s take a look at female sexuality to see how that’s working out for them. According to Elizabeth Lloyd’s comprehensive analysis of 33 studies over 80 years, 75% of women don’t always orgasm during sex; about half the women studied have orgasms about half the time; and about 1/3 rarely or never have an orgasm during intercourse. A further 5%-10% of women have never achieved orgasm at all, ever. And as Lloyd says, “To further complicate matters, there remains a lack of complete agreement on what constitutes female orgasm.”
Fortunately for the human race, reproductively speaking, none of that really matters.
But imagine if men suffered from these problems and, consequently, the conception rate, the birth rate, and the growth rate of the entire human species were all proportionately affected. If Homo sapiens in its puppy stages had had its expansion rate cut by 30% to 70%, we might have never made it out of the Stone Age. Sentient giraffes or caring squid might be the dominant intelligent species on this planet.
Once again, fortunately for all of us, men found a way to make sure they were able to consistently perform sexually by:
- whistling at women who pass by construction sites
- staring at women’s asses
- calling their secretaries ‘Sugartits’
- never leaving a lone woman alone
- always being the one to approach and buy her drinks
- being giant sleazeballs
- and generally acting disgusting and making women uncomfortable by consistently sexualizing them to extreme levels.
It’s a dirty job, but someone had do it.
If you’re thinking, “Yeah, but what about artificial insemination? Women don’t even need men anymore!” I want you to really think about what you’re thinking. Reality is no movie or hard sci-fi novel.
Only recently has science been able to even begin thinking about bypassing the sex act to jumpstart life (although even that still requires a, possibly autosexual, male orgasm). Trying to keep up the human population using only artificial insemination would be an unspeakably mammoth (pun intended), expensive, and completely unfeasible undertaking. In lieu of the sudden death of every male human on the planet, actual sex is still by far the cheaper, more efficient, and more ecologically-friendly option.
So the survival of the human race, even today, still depends on men sexualizing women. For better or worse, it’s the age-old Darwinian saga of the survival of the filthiest.
That’s why he won’t stop staring.
(In light of recent events, I take this entire article back. Donald Trump is no feminist. Donald Trump is an asshole. Here it is for posterity.)
Trump’s Struggle with Feminism vs Fascism
I don’t like Donald Drumpf. I don’t want him for my president. I think he has a fascist, ego-driven side that would dictate the majority of his actions in the Oval Office.
I also think he has a feminist side that struggles against his fascist side. And even though it may not always win, it’s still refreshing when it pops its cute little head out.
On the one hand, he objectifies some women and throws gender-specific insults at women who oppose him. On the other hand, he supports closing the gender pay gap, both with his actions and his words, and he’s the first Republican presidential candidate ever to offer any kind of support for Planned Parenthood and the “millions of women (it has) helped greatly.”
One of the strongest feminist statements Donald Trump has made, however, is often interpreted as a racist generalization.
Yes, I’m talking about when he denounced rape culture in Mexico.
Don’t get me wrong, I love Mexico with all my heart. But I hate rape. And I think it’s about time we faced the fact that there is an ugly and very deeply-entrenched culture of rape and sexual harassment marring this very beautiful country.
And honestly, if anyone else with a little more finesse than Donald Trump had stood up and spoken against the widespread anti-woman sentiments poisoning so much of Latino culture, the rest of the world might have listened.
Here are some examples that will make your skin crawl:
According to a 2011 United Nations study, Mexico was awarded the planet’s gold medal for sexual violence against women. The UN study estimated that almost one out of every two women in Mexico have been victims of some kind of physical sexual aggression ranging from forced sexual contact to all out rape.
Once again, that is: according to the UN, Mexico is #1 in the world concerning sexual violence against women.
Suck it, Iraq.
Mexico’s Ministry of Health estimates that 120,000 rapes are committed per year in Mexico, one every four minutes. Only about 15% of these are ever officially reported, and of those that are reported, only a shocking 5% ever make it to trial.
This means that if you decide to rape a woman in Mexico (which apparently is happening to about half the women here), about nine times out of 10, your life will continue being pretty cool.
If these statistics have left you feeling depressed and angry, here is a fun and alliterative list of some words that should never be put together, to lighten your mood again:
- Harassment Heaven
- Sexual Assault Shangri-La
- Coercion Cloud Nine
- Rape Disneyland
No Never Means No
Sociologist and NYU professor Eric Klinenberg has studied extensively what he terms the Latino “culture of male aggression,” stating that in Hispanic cultures there’s an idea that “no doesn’t mean no. If she’s really not interested, she’ll just ignore you.”
You can try this one out for yourself: repeat the above “no”-negation statement to any of your Mexican friends and, instead of shock and horror about this dangerous anti-woman sentiment, you will be greeted with laughter and hearty agreement. Even the most feminist women I know here have resigned themselves to this as a simple fact of life, and many have even embraced it.
Unfortunately, all of this leads to…
A Culture of Coercion
…in which it is normal and everyday for men to be constantly begging, convincing, and intimidating women into having sex with them. This is so commonplace here that when she tells you no and you say okay and walk away, she will ask you what happened, what’s wrong, don’t you like her.
It’s almost impossible to have any kind of a sex life in Mexico without some form of, “C’mon, baby,” a sprinkling of, “I know you want it,” and a dash of, “Baby, it’s cold outside.”
Minor Gold Mine
This one is as easy as it is heartbreaking, and I could go statistical (boring) or anecdotal (incomplete), because both are aplenty.
The fact is that right now there is a 50-foot tall campaign in front of every IMSS building (Mexican Social Security Institute) that screams in giant letters, “1 out of 2 women who begin their sex life before the age of 15 will get pregnant.”
The fact is that about 99% of all the men I know here will sit around telling jolly stories of that time they banged (raped) a 14-year old.
The fact is that the Mexican National Health and Nutrition Survey Institution (ENSANUT) is alarmed that the percentage of girls who begin having sex between the ages of 12 and 17 years old has risen from 15% in 2006 to 23% in 2012 and is still rising.
The fact is that you if you tell these adult males who are slapping each other’s backs and one-upping each other’s child rape stories that of course you wouldn’t sleep with a 14-year old, not only will you be laughed out of the room, but no one will even believe you because it sounds so unlikely to them.
The sobering fact is that Latin America has the second highest underage pregnancy rate. IN. THE. WORLD.
In case it isn’t clear why I put this section in here (and it wasn’t clear when I ran this topic by a few of my Mexican readers): having sex with a minor, even consensual sex, is rape.
Rape a Lesbian
The other night I happened to glance at my Twitter trending feed and I noticed that the hashtag #ViolaYCuraAUnaLesbiana – Rape A Lesbian To Cure Her – was trending specifically in Mexico. I don’t know where it started or what exactly it was referring to (apart from the self-explanatory obvious), but it continued to trend for about four hours before tapering off.
The next day I referred to this odd and revolting hashtag in the context of, “I bet Donald Trump would be real proud.” I didn’t hear back any type of remorse or surprise or disgust or condemnation from the 20,000+ men who had been laughing on Twitter the night before about raping lesbians. I did, however, hear back that I was a “fucking racist.”
So I guess I’m sort of beginning to understand what Donald Trump was referring to.
Mexico’s Struggle with Racism vs Feminism
I love Mexicans, and I know not all Mexicans or all Mexican demographics are rapists (just mostly the adult male demographic, I’m assuming). But when you have numbers that scream this loud for attention, I feel like they’re just begging for someone to do something.
And it would suck if I had to choose between being a racist and being a feminist.
or How to Calculate and Minimize Your Sex-Risks
Sex comes with risk.
So does crossing the street or making an omelet.
In no area of life is zero risk ever achievable. Just sitting there in front of your computer or phone (I see you), you run the risk of a meteorite barreling down through the atmosphere and slapping you in the face (.00014% chance).
You also run a slightly better risk of winning an Olympic gold medal (.00015%). It’s a small risk, but it’s a risk.
Like sitting in front of your computer, sex comes with its own particular risks and rewards. It’s important to be familiar with the risks that you take on a regular basis and how to best minimize them, both in your sex life and in your life in general.
Driving, for instance, has a worldwide death rate of about .01%, a very low and generally acceptable risk (although we are working to get it lower). Additionally, if you decide never to drink and drive, you can reduce that risk by about 1/3 to an even lower and more acceptable risk of .0071%. (This is statistically similar to the 1/3 risk differential percentage between road fatalities in the USA and those in Afghanistan or Colombia.)
I play basketball. Among recreational basketball players, there is an ankle injury rate of about .39%, with three major risk factors (history of ankle injuries, type of shoes, and warm up routine). Two of those risk factors I can control. If I stretch before playing, I can reduce my risk of ankle injury from .39% to .1% (one tenth of one percent). If I both stretch first and wear the right shoes, I can reduce my risk of injury by leaps and bounds.
On one hand, the amount of risk you’re willing to accept in your life is sort of up to you. But on the other hand, everyone has to live with some amount of risk.
You really like bacon, but it comes with a risk of causing cancer. But you really like bacon, so you accept that risk and charge deep into cancer territory, crunching merrily.
In actual numbers, your risk as an average human of developing colorectal cancer at some point in your life is about 5% (no decimal). If you eat bacon, your risk goes up to about 6%. So the overwhelming majority of the risk of developing colorectal cancer comes with being a human and cannot be avoided by abstaining from bacon. But you do have control over that last 1%.
It can be hard to nail down what percentage of risk is ‘acceptable’ or ‘tolerable’ to you. The World Health Organization cites the following examples of acceptable/tolerable risk levels:
- .1% – UK HSE annual tolerable risk for general death rates of workers
- .01% – US EPA annual acceptable risk for microbial infection from drinking water
- .0001% – US FDA definition of essentially zero
How to Calculate Your Sex-Risks
Here is a step-by-step guide on how to calculate the amount of risk you accept in your sex life. Thinking this way can help you minimize your risks as much as possible. Analyzing and controlling your sex-risks can also help you minimize your sex-worries.
- 1: Decide on a sex-risk you would like to be informed about.
- 2: Start with finding out the prevalence rate in your region.
- 3: Subtract any high-risk communities you are not a part of.
- 4: Add any prevention measures you are taking, making sure to subtract their failure rate.
- 5: For STIs, factor in the transmission rate.
- 6: Compare to similar statistics.
Let’s demonstrate this using myself as an example.
- 1: What are the odds that I will contract X? Let’s use HIV for our example.
- 2: Mexico has an overall HIV prevalence rate of about .2% and falling.
- 3: Key at-risk communities that I am not a part of are gay men (MSM), female sex workers (FSW), and intravenous drug users (IDU), which together can be estimated to account for approximately 75% of all cases in Mexico. Subtracting these leaves us with an HIV prevalence rate, in my demographic, of .05%.
- 4: Consistent condom usage has a conservative HIV prevention rate of 85%, leaving a generous failure rate of 15%. Condoms break about 2% of the time, and the rest is an additional margin of error for incorrect usage or slippage. Adding this safety net and then subtracting its 15% failure rate lowers our HIV infection risk to .0075%.
- 5: Unprotected insertive vaginal sex has an HIV transmission rate of .04%. Coitus involving a penis inserted into a vagina will transmit the virus approximately one time out of 2,500. Factoring the HIV transmission rate into our calculation brings our HIV infection risk to a grand total of .0003%.
- (Double check: To be clear on the math, we took the prevalence rate of .2%, subtracted the unconcerned high-risk communities of 75% [.2 x .25 = .05], added a condom failure rate of 15% [.05 x .15 = .0075], then added the transmission rate of .04% [.0075 x .04 = .0003.], leaving us with a protected insertive vaginal sex HIV transmission rate in my heterosexual male demographic of Mexico – deep breath – of .0003%.)
- 6: 0.0003% translates to odds of about one in 333,333. This tiny fraction of a percentage point is a very difficult number for our brains to process. Statisticians usually solve this by comparing events with similar rates of low probability. One in 333,333 is about equal to the probability of being killed (not just struck) by lightning. These are also similar to the odds that global warming is fake (specifically, that the global warming statistics for the Northern Hemisphere are due only to natural variability). Or the very unscientific odds that you will be electrocuted by your alarm clock.
Here it’s important to note the ‘law of truly large numbers,’ which states that with a sample size large enough, even outrageous things can be likely to happen. But let’s not underestimate the breadth of ‘truly large.’ If I have sex with 500 people (which is in itself outrageously unlikely), my risk barely inches from ‘acceptable’ to ‘tolerable.’ It’s only when I begin to have sex with 100,000 people that my risk jumps to ‘broadly possible but still improbable,’ or 200,000 people when it finally moves to ‘probable.’
I’m looking at you, Wilt Chamberlain.
Stigma vs Solutions
Also worth mentioning is today’s treatibility of most sex-risks. Adding PrEP, for instance, to any step of our calculations will instantly bring the risk rate of contracting HIV to zero, no questions asked. PrEP can be an excellent-albeit-expensive solution for both high-risk and high-worry communities, and there are similar medical solutions for most other sex-risks.
Because there is a greater negative stigma associated with sex, people often tend to overestimate the risks involved. This can lead to more negative judgement, which can lead to more negative stigma, which can lead to even riskier behavior such as dishonesty with sexual partners or avoiding regular checkups. Taking a look at the numbers with an honest, open mind can help to solve this negative spiral.
Don’t be afraid; be informed.