125
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

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsSafe SexUsing statistics for risk reduction
TOPIC: Using statistics for risk reduction
GoTo Page: Less ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Start   101 to 110 of 134   End
User Details are only visible to members.
There's more to be concerned about than just HIV. HIV is not as common as other STDs such as gonorrhea, syphilis or chlamydia. Of particular concern are new strains of syphilis and gonorrhea that are resistant to treatment. Condoms have been proven to reduce the risk of HIV, gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia and other STDs.

According to the CDC, there are 19 million new cases of STD infections every year. This figure does not include genital herpes or HPV which are becoming more common, but do not require reporting.

Why is this a health concern? Untreated syphilis, for example, can lead to serious long-term complications, including brain, cardiovascular, and organ damage. Syphilis in pregnant women can also result in congenital syphilis (syphilis among infants), which can cause stillbirth, death soon after birth, and physical deformity and neurological complications in children who survive. Untreated syphilis in pregnant women results in infant death in up to 40 percent of cases.

Rather than looking at a few statistics about HIV prevalence among different races, you would get better information through your physician. Tell your Doctor that you regularly have unprotected sex with other consenting adults who share your interest in "swinging." Better yet, make an appointment with an ID (Infectious Disease) Specialist. I think you need to look at the big picture.

Gibsonia PA
Username hidden
(6796 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Fun,

I agree. Other stds should be considered as well. It seemed logical to start with the big one.

Respectful conversations I think are helpful. As illustrated by below, adding layers of protection, even to those that always use condoms, can reduce risk.

From the CDC,

Genital ulcer diseases and HPV infections can occur in both male and female genital areas that are covered or protected by a latex condom, as well as in areas that are not covered. Consistent and correct use of latex condoms reduces the risk of genital herpes, syphilis, and chancroid only when the infected area or site of potential exposure is protected. Condom use may reduce the risk for HPV infection and HPV-associated diseases (e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer).

Harmony FL
Username hidden
(192 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Solely out of intellectual curiosity, I would like for Mrs. Leeza to personally demonstrate for me her tips on properly using a condom.

Belle Chasse LA
Username hidden
(10892 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I completely agree - a condom is a mandatory layer of protection for us and because it is not 100% failsafe we therefore add on additional layers of protection by getting to know our sex partners, not getting sexually involved with the weekly anal gangbang set, those that do not use condoms with their play partners, etc.

None of these layers of protection are infallible, but we believe that the condom has the lowest probability of failure on demand. All of the other layers of protection have much higher probabilities of failure because they are based on human error. Unintentional human error is usually about 1 in 10, but that doesn't take into account that the person may be lying. And I do realize that there is human error associated with condom use as well, however I believe I can affect that error rate in a positive manner personally.

Gibsonia PA
Username hidden
(6796 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Most of these stats y'all are tossing around pertain to HIV only. Don't forget about HPV, HSV, and all the others. I'm not sure that the demographic stats would be the same for those as they are for HIV. My guess is they would not be.

Belle Chasse LA
Username hidden
(10892 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
TBR,

Considering the rate for blacks you site was 10 times higher than whites, it would seem reasonable that even though higher socioeconomic status would reduce the rate, the spread would probably stay the same.

I think the take away is there is good reason to recommend more frequent testing for blacks, and to spend more time evaluating potential playmates behaviors.

Harmony FL
Username hidden
(192 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
From the CDC,

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)1 represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 4% of new infections. At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU. Since the beginning of the US epidemic, MSM have consistently represented the largest percentage of persons diagnosed with AIDS and persons with an AIDS diagnosis who have died. -----------------------

Considering I have no desire for males, excluding bi and bi curious males from potential playmates we feel adds another layer of risk reduction.

I realize there are liers, which I think is silly and dangerous, but I would suspect there was also liers in the stats as well. Chances are good that part of the rate given to hetero was males which simply did not report to the CDC their MSM activity. So, I would think there is still a risk reduction benefit excluding bi-male with no sacrifice to desire for us.

Harmony FL
Username hidden
(192 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Based on the latest prevalence rate in the United States, about .2% of the white male population over 13 is currently infected with the HIV virus. About 2% of the black population, and about .5% of the Latino population.

Now I would imagine that the ethnic stats are somewhat affected by socioeconomic factors. So (and this is a WAG) I would think that the likelihood of infection among most of our play groups would be on the lower end of the scale.

Lakeside CA
Username hidden
(17357 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Four studies provided estimates of the transmission risk for a single act of unprotected receptive anal intercourse. Pooling their data, the summary estimate is 1.4% (95% CI, 0.3 to 3.2).

Two of these studies were conducted with gay men and two with heterosexuals, and the results did not vary by sexuality.

The estimate for receptive anal intercourse is almost identical to that in the recently published Australian study (1.43%, 95% CI, 0.48 to 2.85). This is despite the fact that the Australian data were collected after the widespread introduction of combination therapy.

The review did not identify any per-act estimates of the risk for the insertive partner. However, the recent Australian study did produce estimates of this: 0.62% for men who are not circumcised, and 0.11% for men who are circumcised.

Baggaley and colleagues note that their estimate for receptive intercourse is considerably higher than the estimates they produced in their previous reviews. In developed country studies, the risk of transmission during vaginal intercourse was estimated to be 0.08%, whereas the receptive anal intercourse estimate is 18 times greater. For oral sex a range of estimates exist, but none are higher than 0.04%. --------------------------- Now, considering Mrs Care doesn't crave anal and I prefer vaginal, we add a layer of risk reduction by taking anal off the table.

Harmony FL
Username hidden
(192 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"The best available information conjured up by those who depend on the notion of man made global warming for their continued revenue."

Thank you for illustrating my point, Mr. Akron. But this thread is not about climate change, so lets leave that aside for now.

I found this in a short google search...

"The current likelihood of male to female infection after a single exposure to HIV is 0.01-0.32% (2, 3), and the current likelihood of female to male infection after a single exposure is 0.01-0.1% (2). "

However...

"several factors (co-infection with other sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision practices, poor acceptance of condoms, patterns of sexual partner selection, locally circulating viral subtypes, high viral loads among those who are infected, etc.) can increase the likelihood of heterosexual transmission to 20% or even higher (4)."

This data is from peer reviewed studies published mostly in the 1990's, so take it for what it is worth...

Lakeside CA
Username hidden
(17357 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Start   101 to 110 of 134   End
TOPIC: Using statistics for risk reduction