Numerical risk data for HIV: Swingers Discussion 112474

SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

TOPIC: Numerical risk data for HIV

Created by: DandJforplay Original Starting post for this thread:
Found a study that gave numerical relative risks for HIV: "For instance, research indicates that anal sex is 2 to 3 times more risky than vaginal sex, and vaginal sex with a condom is said to be 10 times less risky than vaginal sex without a condom (Hearst & Hulley, 1988; Padian et al., 1987)." Another study: "RESULTS: Choosing a partner who tested negative instead of an untested partner reduced the relative risk of HIV infection 47-fold; using condoms, 20-fold; and choosing insertive fellatio rather than insertive anal sex, 13-fold."

Created by: DandJforplay
Original Starting post for this thread:

Found a study that gave numerical relative risks for HIV:

"For instance, research indicates that anal sex is 2 to 3 times more risky than vaginal sex, and vaginal sex with a condom is said to be 10 times less risky than vaginal sex without a condom (Hearst & Hulley, 1988; Padian et al., 1987)."

Another study:

"RESULTS: Choosing a partner who tested negative instead of an untested partner reduced the relative risk of HIV infection 47-fold; using condoms, 20-fold; and choosing insertive fellatio rather than insertive anal sex, 13-fold."

GoTo Page: 1 2 3

1 to 10 of 21

End

User Details are only visible to members.	"So then the answer is that, you don't really know? I understood you correctly Glendale?" That is correct. Life is absolutely PACKED full of "don't know for sure"s. The couple I spoke about before was our nextdoor neighbors. After hanging out with them 3-4 night a week for many, many months, it came out that each of us had been in 3-somes in years past. It then took about a year to progress from talk, to strip poker, to soft swing, to full swing. In that environment, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know that the other couple was not swinging with others, just as it is impossible to know that my spouse was not out having sex with others. The point is, we take risks ALL THE TIME. However, you have an unreasonible trust of condoms that you do not want challenged. So, rather than listening to the full context of my comments, you suck out the one aspect that supports your unreasonible trust of condoms. Yet another "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up" mindless drone.
Glendale AZ			Username hidden (118 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	How can you really know anything? How can you know the condom you made the guy wear isn't defective? How do you know he doesn't have Hep-B and could give it to you just by sweating on you? How do you know that a meteor isn't about to fall from space, crash through your roof, and kill you? Everytime you get in your car, how do you know you won't be killed in a car crash? You calculate the odds as best you can, weigh the risk vs reward, then decide on your course of action.
Glendale AZ			Username hidden (118 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	I have swung bare.... okay, KI hate this term since no anal involved...back before. Both guys were shootin' blanks, and the two couples ONLY swang with each other. With 4 known clean people in the circle, odds were low to say the least. But, if you are swinging with other who are also swinging with others who are also swinging with others, and you end up with a couple hundred in the "tree".... Then what are the odds?
Glendale AZ			Username hidden (118 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Withdrawal is not as effective as condoms because of precum and the "whoops" factor, which is very common. In your case of mmf, if the pitcher has no STD's there is no risk of STD's that you don't already have. If the pitcher and catcher both have no STD's there is no risk of STD's. In the swinging world virtually no one has no STD's. Herpes and HVP are normal and ubiquitous for sexually active adults. HIV on the other hand is very rare among swingers.
Enosburg Falls VT			Username hidden (969 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	"So the relative risk of transmission depends on which role you play pitcher or catcher." Oh yeah... But, is withdrawl as effective as condoms? If not, how close? If the pitcher has no STDs, what really is the risk? What is the risk with a condom? Is the risk enough to just, as DandJforplay asks, not bother swinging. Some people act as if sex with a condom is exactlly the same as sex without one. For me, at least, it is not the same. To me, sex with a condom is a couple steps below masterbation. I've never achieved O while wearing a condom.... never. A big part of why we're only looking for a man for MFM is we can make sure the 3rd is willing to wear a condom. For me, I'd rather do a MFM where I do not have to wear a condom, then MFMF where I do have to bag it.
Glendale AZ			Username hidden (118 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	The point of this thread is what the risks are for the catcher, for the pitcher, and what risk reduction do condoms provide? The data is not very clear, conflicting, and done using very different populations. Often data derived from a broad group, such as men who have sex with men, are applied without any conversion factor to a smaller group, such as bisexual men who swing. There are many ways to approach risk. Most popular is condom use. The data on how much condoms reduce risk are conflicting. Another might be condom use with no depositing. Yet another is soft swap. At what point it becomes not real enough sex is an important judgment. Being a little older than Mischief, we knew swinging before HIV. The question of when risk reduction is not worth swinging is a very important one.
Enosburg Falls VT			Username hidden (969 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	"I was strictly trying to explore the factors that effect the transmission rate, should I have sex with someone that is HIV positive and I do not know it. What are the relative risks? " OK, I understand now. But here's the problem. Semen depositors. Meaning the guy or gal who ends up with the semen has the risk. Yes there is back channel spread to the "inserter" but it's much less than catching the load. So the relative risk of transmission depends on which role you play pitcher or catcher. And I say that risk is unacceptable. Therefore I always use condoms. We dodged HIV the first time around.. I'm not planning on a second run. ;) Mischief...is very rarely the pitcher.
Glen Burnie MD			Username hidden (2785 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Then we agree. I also would not have sex with an HIV positive person. I was strictly trying to explore the factors that effect the transmission rate, should I have sex with someone that is HIV positive and I do not know it. What are the relative risks?
Glendale AZ			Username hidden (118 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Glen: We disagree and that's cool. Spelling properly is about communicating and respect for the person reading the message. If I use a word they don't understand, they can look it up if it is spelled correctly. What I said regarding STDs stands. There are simply NO cofactors if the individuals having sex are NOT INFECTED. They can be gay, drunk, and anally linked.. No HIV, No Transmission. period. The idea that you can extrapolate away the risk of HIV transmission to the point of infinity means NOTHING in the real world. I simply would not have sex with someone known to have HIV. Statistics mean nothing when N=1. We do agree on one risk. Unless we are going to a gang bang at the local AIDS ward...Driving there ..or better yet driving home tipsy is a MUCH higher risk. Mischief.
Glen Burnie MD			Username hidden (2785 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	"My purpose in starting this thread was to get more recent and accurate numerical information about HIV transmission." Then perhaps you should not have started this thread with a 20 year-old story. "Where did you get the 10 fold figure of anal vs. vaginal? " Sorry, I look at so many stats, they start to blur. Vaginal is 10x the risk of oral. Anal is only 5x the risk of vaginal, not 10x as I posted last. w w w cdc gov/hiv/topics/treatment/PIC/pdf/chart.pdf Again, these are agrigate risk, and do not factor in other causal facors such as withdrawl, lack of other STDs, no sex during menses, non-drug use, race, lubrication, etc. w w w cdc gov/std/hiv/STDFact-STD&HIV.htm#WhatIs "Individuals who are infected with STDs are at least two to five times more likely than uninfected individuals to acquire HIV infection if they are exposed to the virus through sexual contact. In addition, if an HIV-infected individual is also infected with another STD, that person is more likely to transmit HIV through sexual contact than other HIV-infected persons " content nejm org/cgi/content/full/331/6/341/T3 Couples that don't withdrawal: 24 HIV Transmissions: 6 Withdrawal about half the time: 34 HIV Transmissions: 2 Always withdrawal: 12 HIV Transmissions: 0 12% conversion rate is non-infected person has no other STDs 40% conversion rate if non-infected person has uncerative STD Yes... Condom is safer than non-condom, ignoring other factors. I'll never argue otherwise. Yes... No sex is even safer than sex with condom. However, it appears from the data that: If neither person has another STD, if the male withdrawals prior to ejaculation, if neither person is a drug user, and other risk factors are removed, then condomless vaginal sex, even with an infected person, has a very, very low transmission rate. Factor out enough causal factors, and soon the risk becomes on par with the risk of driving to the swing party.
Glendale AZ			Username hidden (118 post)

GoTo Page: 1 2 3

1 to 10 of 21

End

TOPIC: Numerical risk data for HIV

		HELP
FORUMS: General Discussions: Safe Sex: Numerical risk data for HIV