Scarlett Johansson: 'Not Promiscuous'

I think thats because she was single for a while. Nothing wrong with making sure.

That's a very judgemental way to look at what is basically a very responsible action, with the best interests of not just herself but others in mind.

People have sex. It's not gross, and it's not wrong, but being able to handle it like an adult is in everyone's best interest.

Agreed. Part of the reason AIDS is such a problem worldwide is because we have put such a stigma on people TAKING the test to find out whether or not they have HIV/AIDS.

That's really a juvenile and stupid response; and the kind that gets people killed.

Besides, sex and IV drugs aren't the ONLY way to get infected.

That's really a juvenile and stupid response; and the kind that gets people killed.

I'm fairly certain that what I've said will not kill anyone.

To clarify, I have no issue with people taking the test. If you are going to be engaging in sexual relations with multiple partners with any frequency, it makes sense [to get tested often], both for personal responsibility as well as civic responsibility. I understand that - it is not what I was addressing at all.

I'm personally unaware of any stigma associated with taking these tests and am sorry if I offended you. The tests are not public. People take the tests as a precaution, for assurance and for confirmation. If you suspect you have HIV or AIDS, taking the test is the only way to know for sure that you have one or the other. Avoidance of the test is often based on the same reason that people avoid other tests (mammograms, prostate screening, etc.) - the results can be more scary than not knowing. It is not that if you went out and took an HIV/AIDS test that there would be a public forum denouncing you as a test taker. People are afraid to take it because they don't really want to know or because they don't think it could happen to them. I don't believe you get a red letter on your forehead when you sign up for one of these tests.

Besides, sex and IV drugs aren't the ONLY way to get infected.

Understood. That said, it does require interaction with bodily fluids or some sort of injection. There are other things that could happen to you that suggest you might need to take the test.

My original point was only that saying you're in a monogamous relationship AND that you need to get tested for HIV twice a year indicates that there is a lack of trust or that the relationship is not monogamous for both parties. If both partners are committed to a relationship and are not out having sex with other people during that time frame, you don't need to keep getting tested unless there are trust issues. I'm not denouncing sex or multiple partners or anything really. I was just pointing out what seemed (to me) like an inconsistency in her story. I wasn't trying to provoke a serious discussion about the personal life of an actress.

Yes, but the largest reason HIV/AIDS is a problem is because people have sex promiscuously and with multiple partners. Getting tested does not stop the problem. Aside from the pleasure factor, what is the benefit to the human race of not being monogamous?

Maybe I am reading between the lines too much, but I took her words to mean that she checks herself twice a year perhaps because she had an unsafe encounter in the past and she's simply trying to keep watch in case something develops. HIV and other STDs can take years to show up.

Many of us have probably had relationships we can't be sure about. You might not see consequences for a long time, and it only takes one unsafe encounter to pass a problem. Even under the best safe sex plans, condoms break and stupidity and accidents happen.

So testing like this is actually kinda prudent.

Who knows. I am probably completely off base. What I DO know is that I really admire her courage to speak so openly about it.

I am about 1000% more impressed with her now than I was yesterday, and yeah, I did know what she looked like. But now I know she's got pretty good brains too. And that's very cool.

ajk - thanks for clarifying. A perfectly reasonable post.

I would counter on one aspect, however - STD test stigma. Part of my argument is actually validated by yours - the very nature of special privacy concerns when it comes to HIV tests reinforces the perception that it is something uniquely distasteful. Privacy when it comes to personal medical issues is a good thing, don't get me wrong, but when it is combined with mandatory pre- and post-test counseling, as well as specific consent (rules which are not applied to any other medical conditions or tests), it sets HIV tests on a very different social plane from what's viewed as more routine tests that have no such special considerations.

I'm not arguing to do away with test confidentiality, or eliminate counseling as a preventative and informational measure. Lacking these qualities has actually been shown to reduce confidence in and frequency of testing. I am saying that exceptionalizing HIV tests reinforces its stigma, which is very much a current obstacle in making HIV tests more widespread and routine.

Additionally, I think the "hot-chicks" tag is needed.

Haha. Promiscous sounds like a type of Middle-Eastern breakfast pudding.

Umm, what? Why? I don't get it.

Because I don't want to be a good boy with her?

Because she's way hawt.

And awfully talented.

And awfully talented.

If by talent you mean large breasts, yes I agree. If by talent you mean a skillful actress, I'd debate that.

I did find her statement somewhat intelligent, which adds to her attractiveness.

She did a wonderful job in "Lost In Translation". I thought that the chemistry between Bill Murray and her was what made the movie (since the movie was almost entirely dependent on the need for chemistry between the actors).

Of course, as I've said before, it doesn't hurt that she is way hawt.

And remember, she was 19 when Lost in Translation (2003's best movie, I might add) came out.

I'll give it up for Lost In Translation... thats fair.