115
Question to all you Bare Back only folks : Swingers Discussion 11760310841
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 ... 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 ... More 
Start   841 to 850 of 936   End
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
(17025 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
(17025 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
(972 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
(972 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
(972 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
(17025 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Perfect...get my GED...that is a howler! Did you intend that as humor?

Don't you find it a little odd the aspersions you cast upon a person you don't know at all? Do you really perceive me to be uneducated? Or do you cast them through anger that somehow will solve our differences?

It's your aspersions that demonstrate precisely that you don't know.

Enosburg Falls VT
Username hidden
(972 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Seduction, let me point out once again what you seem to have missed in my posts: "Why do you claim I ever said that barebacking is as safe as using a condom??? I've repeatedly said that condoms reduce the risk 90%,..." which is ten times in my GED deficient statistics book.

I know you claim to be protecting the impressionable youngsters just entering the swinging arena and who are simply dying for an excuse to bareback, and who will look at DandJ's posts and say, "Why it is only ten time safer to use condoms so we'll definitely bareback!" In reality it is us old farts who attempt evil barebacking and you younger swingers who take us to task for speaking that word.

Enosburg Falls VT
Username hidden
(972 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I see people with the typical liberal outlook: It feels good so it must be right, blatantly ignoring the facts.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17025 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 ... More 
Start   841 to 850 of 936   End
TOPIC: Question to all you Bare Back only folks