STI

[Jonathan Lighter]

>
My understanding was just the opposite. VD as an initialism had to go
because "Venerial disease" had to go because it was both too elliptical
and--if someone did bother to figure out what it meant--suggested something
that might have been inevitably related to love--as opposed to being related
to sex.

I think that's what I said, but the ironies of semantics are getting so
dense that I may have said the opposite.

Or perhaps I am getting thus.

JL
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 12:28 PM, victor steinbok <aardvark66 at gmail.com>wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       victor steinbok <aardvark66 at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: STI
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> My understanding was just the opposite. VD as an initialism had to go
> because "Venerial disease" had to go because it was both too elliptical
> and--if someone did bother to figure out what it meant--suggested something
> that might have been inevitably related to love--as opposed to being
> related
> to sex. The distinction between STD and STI is more refined, but, again,
> was
> deliberate, to emphasize the infectious nature of the ... --what's the
> word?--well, infections.
>
> It might have been a post-hoc justification, but the change was driven by
> "public health professionals" and government organizations. I can't tell
> who
> made the actual decision to do this or who was the engine behind the
> change,
> but the transition was fairly swift. A natural process would have taken
> much
> longer. The change was sudden in public health pamphlets that you often
> find
> in a doctor's office next to the fine literature in the waiting room,
> particularly in college clinics. Government and AMA-sponsored PSA also used
> new language. I would say the generations born after 1980 never heard of
> "VD" after they reached school age. If my timeline is correct, it would
> suggest a relationship with acknowledgement of AIDS. The change to STI is
> much more recent and less enforced.
>
> VS-)
>
> On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> >
> > My understanding was that "VD" had to go because it sounded like
> something
> > bad. I mean morally bad. If you had "VD" you were loathsome. (And
> remember,
> > God knows what "venereal" means, unless you're a radical Whorfian and
> > deduce
> > the whole phrase is a slur on  sex, love, and Venus.)
> >
> > But with an "STD" you're not loathsome. You're just unlucky, and you
> > maintain that great self-esteem!  People respect you.
> >
> > And with an "STI," you're already almost well!
> >
> > JL
> >
> >
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>



--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org