Using statistics for risk reduction: Swingers Discussion 19370510101

155
Using statistics for risk reduction: Swingers Discussion 19370510101

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

TOPIC: Using statistics for risk reduction

GoTo Page: Less ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Start

101 to 110 of 147

End

User Details are only visible to members.	"Just a question, but wouldn't an honest barebacker be all the above (selfish, dangerous, etc) to themselves only?" No. If you are sharing bodily fluids with another person, it becomes their problem, too.
Lakeside CA			Username hidden (15841 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Vanilla couples feel that swinging is stupid, selfish and dangerous. They may be right in that swinging adds risk compared to monogamy. But the statement is not helpful in making people that are swingers safer. I am glad doctors and CDC comprehends the concept.
Harmony FL			Username hidden (192 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Sale of condoms illegal? what? lol
Highland CA			Username hidden (184 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Sed... that without a doubt is the sexiest pic' Oh and just think there or those who want to make the sale of condoms illegal!!!
Dallas TX			Username hidden (2225 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Who called someone stupid? You did. Well, you called barebacking stupid, which for all intents and purposes is the same thing as calling barebackers stupid. It lends to shutting down communication, which appears to be your agenda. The only twisting I did was replace two words in your post so it shows it for what it was -- A condemning attack aimed at shutting down dialog.
Harmony FL			Username hidden (192 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Just a question, but wouldn't an honest barebacker be all the above (selfish, dangerous, etc) to themselves only? I'm trying to understand this.
Highland CA			Username hidden (184 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	TBR, It has been a while since I read the CDC data on the Black population. If I remember correctly, the difference was identified as blacks being less likely to admit to MSM, less condom use specially with anal, and more drug use. That is why I mentioned spending more time evaluating behavior. On another note, I am hoping to continue having free flowing information and ideas. I have not said couples which exclude people because of not always using a condom are wrong or stupid. That layer of protection seems to have sound reasoning. People should tell their doctors what all they do. We have from day one. By what we have found, doctors don't even blink when you tell them you swing. They have been very understanding and helpful.
Harmony FL			Username hidden (192 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Hmmm, interesting... "Sexually transmitted infections are probably not what most older Americans anticipate dealing with as they age. Yet they're becoming an unfortunate reality for some in the over-45 crowd. A study published in the British Medical Journal finds that older "swingers," - the term the researchers used - are at high risk for chlamydia and gonorrhea, two of the most common sexually transmitted infections. The infection rates among older study subjects were nearly as high as in other high-risk populations, including men who have sex with men and young people." "The researchers looked at data collected over a two-year period at a sexually transmitted infections clinic in the Netherlands. All patients visiting the clinic were asked directly if they were swingers. The infections rates were determined using that self-reported data from nearly 9,000 patients. Overall, swingers had the second highest combined rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea with 10.4 percent of swingers being infected. That's compared with 14 percent of gay men, 10 percent in straight people who did not swing, and 5 percent in female prostitutes."
Lakeside CA			Username hidden (15841 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	It would be great Fun to practice various methods of condom application with you!
Gibsonia PA			Username hidden (6628 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	As Leeza pointed out so well, we all have to find a level of risk we find acceptable. I have hope discussion can help identify statistical truths that can be used productively. Obviously everyone will not implement every strategy that reduces risk. But weeding through what is sound and what is not can help. People which enjoy anal sex obviously need to find methods which we don't need to find. Excluding anal works for us. By simply changing a few words of a post, I think it can be seen how condemnations are not helpful. "I know (Swingers) that resort to the statistics + layers of protection, claim that they are safe precisely because of their calculated risk. I think that it's stupid, careless and selfish. At the end of the day (they) all sleep with each other by proxy. I can not trust ANYONE the way that I trust my husband with whom I've been with since the age of 18. Statistics are entirely useless to me. I'm not prepared to play Russian roulette with my or my spouses health, people lie! "
Harmony FL			Username hidden (192 post)

GoTo Page: Less ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Start

101 to 110 of 147

End

TOPIC: Using statistics for risk reduction