"Why don't you offer studies I'm not aware of??? "

I'm using the studies you are aware of. The difference is I'm interpreting the statistics correctly and you are not.

If you and I both fucked the same infected woman, you once and me 10 times then you're interpretation of the statistic is correct. It is the ONLY scenario where your interpretation is correct.

Why can't you get that through your head????????

you are sooo dense "You believe that barebackers are more likely to engage in sex with infected people than condom wearers." Noooooooooooooo. I believe that barebackers in the lifestyle are more likely to become infected because they have a greater risk of getting infected. THINK about it. "Actually the opposite is more likely to be true." ROFLMAO!!! How can you be so careless as to write something like that. "Condom wearers, as you have so clearly demonstrated, believe they are much safer than the ten times figure arrived at by studies" They are more than 10 times safer because they only have a 10% chance of getting infected IF they happen to have sex with an infected person. Most condom wearers only fuck other condom wearers who are equally as unlikely to be infected. THINK , "and you even believe that because you wear condoms, somehow, you will meet fewer infected people in your fucking." ABSOLUTELY! "Of course this has nothing to do with statistics or with reality." It has EVERYTHING to do with REALITY. You really should try it sometime.

Hmm, the age thing. I've been driving for over forty three years. PD, you've been driving for ? 8, you've been driving for ? But less than forty three years. So you can't understand why having driven more years than you I might know more people who have had accidents than you do?

8, I specifically detailed why I don't care for condoms. But what has that to do with the studies on risks? Why don't you offer studies I'm not aware of??? I'm interested in learning about the risks. After all I bareback, so risks are more important to me than to you. And if you want to bring money into this, I'm not interested. I want information.

Perfect, finally you've clearly explained your perception of statistics: "...I believe that those willing to engage in unprotected sex in a lfestyle of multiple partners have a higher probablility of being infected." Beliefs aren't statistics. We were talking statistics. You believe that barebackers are more likely to engage in sex with infected people than condom wearers. Actually the opposite is more likely to be true. Condom wearers, as you have so clearly demonstrated, believe they are much safer than the ten times figure arrived at by studies, and you even believe that because you wear condoms, somehow, you will meet fewer infected people in your fucking. Of course this has nothing to do with statistics or with reality. This is your belief. Statistics is math, and 1/10 times 10 equals one. If condom wearers have 1/10 the risk of barebackers and they fuck ten times as many people, they have the same risk = 1. If barebackers fuck 1/10 the number of people and have 10 times the risk, their risk is the same = 1. Beliefs aren't statistics aren't math. Stick to math, Perfect.

Thanks for explaining it much better than I could, perf.

DandJ One last time for you, although I'm sure I'm wasting my time "" And a condom is considered to reduce risks of fucking 10 times over bareback. That means having sex with ten people using condoms is the same risk factor as barebacking one person without. " Each time a barebacker fucks an INFECTED person they have have a 90% greater chance of becoming infected. The risks would be equal if the condom wearer fucked 10 INFECTED people and the barebacker fucked 1 INFECTED PERSON. You have to consider the odds of actually having sex with an infected person, which is low, but I believe that those willing to engage in unprotected sex in a lfestyle of multiple partners have a higher probablility of being infected. The odds of a strict condom wearers encountering an infected person go up with number of people they fuck, but the odds of the condom wearer actually becoming infected are only 10% of the non condom wearer. You go on believing that you can fuck 1/10 the number of a condom wearer and have the same odds.....you're WRONG, just hope you're not DEAD wrong.

"Perfect, you've repeated that comment but never backed it up. Repetition seems to be your substitute for reason. "

DandJ

I've explained your misunderstanding of Statistics in GREAT detail, even at a level a 5th grader could understand. I'm not suprised that you still can't grasp it.

DandJ.... why don't you just admit that you enjoy (like everyone does) sex w/o condoms... but, you will throw out any stat or news flash out ther to justify what you enjoy. Priest, child molestors, thiefs, religion freaks, spouse abusers, drug abusers, etc, etc,.... ALL of them will try to justify and get you to understand their rationale for doing so. Doesn't make it right though. How about this.... we go down to the blvd, I pay for you to have bareback sex with the man or woman of your choice, or multilple ppl, for 10 encounters? And we'll check your stats after your tests???? I mean, you'll be safe for the first 199 sex acts.... I've got the money.....

Nine....
age has nothing to do with knowing or hearing of car accidents. Ever driven in Saudi Arabia... I have, and there's lots of accidents. How about Naples, Itay or India or Turkey. Take someone from there, or your avg Nascar drivier, or police officer from ANYWHERE, and a younger one in age would surely KNOW more of more car accidents than you.... age doesn't always factor into everything.

I was going to address that too, Nine. My age does not have anything to do with other people I know and whether they have been in an accident. I know people from age 18 to 76, who drive. And only a handful over the years have been in car accidents.

Thank you, D and J, for replying to my curiosity for the reason you don't like condoms.