115
Question to all you Bare Back only folks : Swingers Discussion 11760310832
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsSafe SexQuestion to all you Bare Back only folks
TOPIC: Question to all you Bare Back only folks
GoTo Page: Less ... 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 ... More 
Start   832 to 841 of 930   End
User Details are only visible to members.
Nine, there are many ways to reduce the risk of getting infected with HIV. We are not talking about the risk of spreading HIV because I am not infected and assume you are not also. If I were to become infected there would be zero risk of spreading it, since I would not be swinging at all.

Condoms are only one way to reduce risks. Another is to reduce the number of your partners. Third is to be circumcized. Fourth is to get a vasectomy. Fifth is to screen those you play with very well. The most effective way to reduce risk is to not swing at all. Since you are not doing that, you are not using the most effective means to reduce risk of infection.

Enosburg Falls VT
 
 
Username hidden
(970 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Perfect, this is the second time I've explained your misreading of the study on condom effectiveness. The study was of the relative risk between wearing condoms and not wearing them. Condoms reduced the risk by 90%, or ten times. Reduced whatever risk both faced. Relative, not actual risk. It said nothing about the actual statistical risk of fucking an infected person. Rather it said that wearing condoms reduced whatever that risk was by 90% over wearing nothing.

The other, completely separate study delineated the actual risk of fucking an infected person bareback at one in 200, or 0.5%. So using that figure, condoms theoretically would reduce that to one in 2,000 or 0.05%.

Enosburg Falls VT
 
 
Username hidden
(970 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Well DandJ it seems you believe that study and do not mind taking 'the risk' were others do not. Some might say people like yourself that prefer barebacking will always keep the STD's including spreading AIDS around, if only condoms were used more often, we can slow the spread of AIDS and STD's. Unless you disagree ?

Baltimore MD
 
 
Username hidden
(2085 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
DandJ

Each time you 'add' a partner it comes from the "50 gallon Drum' not the '5 gallon bucket'. Do you understand that?

Pittsburgh PA
 
 
Username hidden
(16572 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
" I don't see how your math can find it any different."

That's because you don't understand statistics. Your 'math' assumes incorrectly that all the people are infected. If all the people that a condom user fucks are infected then he has a 10% chance of getting infected! If a condom fails (for whatever reason) and there is no infection then nothing happens.

I'm sorry but I'm done trying to explain your error. Live with it for all I care. You're wrong and obviously not inclined to figure out why.

Pittsburgh PA
 
 
Username hidden
(16572 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Seduction, so you are saying that my posting the study which determined that condoms are ten times safer than barebacking is posting misinformation?

Enosburg Falls VT
 
 
Username hidden
(970 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Perfect, there are many variables in actual risk. That is why risk statistics are a guide, not an actuality. Risk statistics are based on huge numbers of people to average out the variables.

If statistics show that the relative risk of barebacking is ten times more than using a condom, which is the figure I've seen and quoted from studies, then condom users having sex with ten times as many people as barebackers do, equalizes the risks, as far as statistics go. I don't see how your math can find it any different.

The statistics average out all the variables. It doesn't mean that if I have sex with person Q that those statistics predict my risk exactly. In one individual case what matters is whether Q is infected or not. If Q is not, my risk is zero, unprotected or protected. If Q is infected than my risk depends on many things. The studies I reported say my risk is one in 200 bareback and one in 2,000 with a condom.

I asked if you thought I was uneducated because you implied I was deficient in math and that I needed a GED. I wanted to know if that was hyperbole or you truly believed it.

Enosburg Falls VT
 
 
Username hidden
(970 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Nine, the one in 200 figure is not my statement. It is from the only study I've found that actually addressed the "how many times does it take" question in HIV infection. I'm certainly not going to take it as gospel. But it does provide evidence that the "loaded gun" version often posted here is way off base.

I also do not know the prevalence of infected people within the lifestyle. If the one in 200 figure is correct, to have a one in 40,000 risk per unprotected sex, the prevalence of infected people would have to be one in 200. If the prevalence were more like one in 2000, then the risk would be one in 400,000.

Enosburg Falls VT
 
 
Username hidden
(970 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
So DandJ you still stand by this statement or has it changed ?? As an example, if that figure is accurate, then having unprotected sex with an HIV infected person gives you a 1 in 200 or less chance of becoming infected. That sounds much less than some "loaded gun" and similar references to risks I've read in posts here. Furthermore, if your chance of meeting and having sex with an HIV infected person here is, say, 1 in 200, then the risk of unprotected sex in the lifestyle would be around 1 in 40,000.

Baltimore MD
 
 
Username hidden
(2085 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
DandJ

I've tried to explain to you several times that the 90% effective rate of condoms doesn't mean that barebackers have the same risk if they only fuck 10% of the people that condom users do. The effective rate is based on too many user action variables, and failure if it does occur could be with a non-infected person (blue marble from the 50 gallon drum).

What do you expect me to think of your education?

Pittsburgh PA
 
 
Username hidden
(16572 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 ... More 
Start   832 to 841 of 930   End
TOPIC: Question to all you Bare Back only folks