Timeline for When did 'venereal disease' become STI?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 7, 2014 at 21:07 | comment | added | WS2 | @Tucker Do you mean you have an old version of the OED? You mean all 30 something volumes? I have never before known a private individual to have one. I've only ever seen them in libraries! Do you know of the book 'The Surgeon of Crowthorne' about the inmate of a top security hospital for the criminally insane who was responsible for creating the first version of the OED? I actually live in the village of Crowthorne! | |
| Apr 7, 2014 at 11:49 | comment | added | Tucker | @WS2 I'm unsure about whether or not it was used in the USA during those times, but I'll see if I can find some news clippings or references to it from novels written in that period or about that period. As for the OED, I had realized that it was the Oxford English Dictionary, and not 'Oxford Dictionaries', and I do have a fairly old version in my possession, and sadly rarely used. It is no wonder then that I couldn't use this as a reference as I am not a subscriber to the OED. There is a British Library near where I live, perhaps I can go there and see. Doubt it will, but worth a shufti. | |
| Apr 6, 2014 at 20:25 | comment | added | WS2 | @Tucker I am, of course, talking of Britain. I don't know if Americans called it 'the Pox'. You do realise, don't you, that the OED is not the same thing as 'Oxford Dictionaries'. The latter are just normal dictionaries, albeit very good ones. The 'Oxford English Dictionary' is the authoritative guide to the history of English. It is avaialable on line but they charge a subscription. (The hard version runs to over 30 volumes) Many people (me included) in the UK have on-line access through their municipal libraries, who mostly maintain subscriptions on behalf of their local taxpayers. | |
| Apr 6, 2014 at 13:48 | comment | added | Tucker | @WS2 Wow! Hey, that's great! I didn't think to check the Oxford Dictionary. I guess that should have been the first place to look. Sadly I was not alive during the 1960s. I wasn't even a twinkle in the father's eyes. A personal observation is always a good thing because we know the essence of the times. | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 22:22 | comment | added | WS2 | @Tucker The first reference to venereal in the OED is dated 1475; and to venereal disease, 1658. 'Venereal disease is vulgarly called the French Pox'. The latter is interesting since in the sixties we used to call it 'the pox', and for all I know gonorrhea is still called that today. | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 8:57 | comment | added | Tucker | @WS2 I have to admit, I'm dumb. After scouring through the sources of the Internet, a simple glance at Wiktionary states that this word "Originated 1400–50 from late Middle English venereal, from Latin venereus (“of sexual love”), from Venus (“goddess of love”)." So, we have to go to that period and see if there is evidence of the word becoming commonplace through some means (perhaps a standard introduced by one of the great universities of the time). | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 8:26 | comment | added | Tucker | @WS2 I think you're right. I think we need to go further back than the 1600s and dip our toes into the 1500s to find the source of this, but it was nice to find a reference to the term dating back to the these period. I will see if I can find something. So, to recap, the advent of the acronym STI came about in the 1990s after AIDS and HIV and people were found to have the ability to have an infection without having a disease. STD was the standard prior to this changed during the 1960s to be more gender neutral. All that's left is to find out where VD came from and we'll have our answer! | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 8:04 | comment | added | WS2 | @Tucker I think it proceeded in the form of epidemics in the early Modern period. There was an 'epidemic' in London in the 16th century I seem to have read. | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 7:58 | comment | added | WS2 | @Tucker I didn't read it all but caught an amazing statistic that 65 million Americans have an STI of some sort. I knew that HIV/AIDS was vastly higher in America than in most European countries but had no idea those were the kinds of statistics. I would think some of those STIs thay mention are relatively harmless. | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 7:51 | comment | added | Tucker | @WS2 I've found something quite interesting (Source). Of course it isn't definite proof of the origins, but it helps guide from where the form of the word could have come from -- although I might be a century late from my previous estimates (17th century as oppose to 1700s). I still need to hunt for a more definitive answer, but at least we know we're looking in the right places. | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 7:27 | comment | added | Tucker | @WS2 Yes, something like that. I am trying to find where the term VD originated and how old it goes. Suggested by its origin in the form of a Latin name (Venus, goddess of all good things), I am going to place it in the early to mid 1700s. Therefore I am looking for old medical manuscripts from that period to see what they would have called it. In the meantime, there is this resource that may shed some light on this topic. | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 7:17 | comment | added | WS2 | @Tucker I suppose so. Something like this?flavorwire.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/vintage_std_poster.jpg or this encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/… | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 4:59 | comment | added | Tucker | @WS2 True, but prior to the 1960s there wasn't a feminist movement. I think that I may have phrased it wrong, so allow me to attempt it once more. Despite both men and woman able to contract VDs, they were assumed to be the fault of the female. This is because most VDs were transmitted via prostitutes and males usually got them from there, thus the feminine connotation. This is evident with the attitudes of the times in some WWII propaganda posters, church newsletters, outraged puritans writing to their congressman, etc. After the 1960s movement it changed. Does that make sense? | |
| Apr 4, 2014 at 21:30 | comment | added | WS2 | @Tucker I find that difficult to believe. I well remember the 1960s, long before AIDS and HIV came on the scene. It was well-known that both men and women got VD. | |
| Apr 4, 2014 at 19:48 | history | edited | Tucker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Answering why AIDS played a role in STI being preferred usage in medical terms.
|
| Apr 4, 2014 at 19:44 | comment | added | Tucker | @ColinDeClue Because venereal implied only women could get it. Men were also susceptible, so it became STD. | |
| Apr 4, 2014 at 19:43 | comment | added | Colin DeClue | @Tucker: Still, this does not answer WHY it went from VD->STD. Yes, it did. And we have the reason for STD->STI. But we still have no reason for VD->STD. | |
| Apr 4, 2014 at 19:42 | comment | added | Tucker | @DavidM While the term STD has been around a long time (way back when, it was called venereal disease – named after Venus, the goddess of love), STI is becoming increasingly popular. So it went from VD -> STD -> STI. Hope that clarifies things. | |
| Apr 4, 2014 at 19:40 | comment | added | David M | That answers STD vs STI not venereal disease. | |
| Apr 4, 2014 at 19:36 | history | answered | Tucker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
