115
Using statistics for risk reduction : Swingers Discussion 1937051011
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 ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... More 
Start   11 to 20 of 134   End
User Details are only visible to members.
Leeza,

Can you help me better understand why you put so much weight on the Netherlands research?

It is my understanding that prostitutes in the Netherlands are required to be tested, so using a clinic would seem logical. I would suspect most others generally use primary care rather than going to clinics.

Most importantly, the study said that the infection rates broke down to 5% prostitutes, 10% straight people, 10.4% swingers, and 14% of gay males.

So I can agree that Chlamydia and Gonorrhea appear to be an increasing concern, the study only showed a .4% increase for swingers of non swingers. It doesn't seem like a very powerful argument that swingers are a significant risk group overall. It seems to say the Netherlands take better care of their prostitutes than the general population.

Harmony FL
Username hidden
(192 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Everyone swallows (lol) what the CDC puts out without wanting transparency, yet demand transparency from the EPA.

I find irony in that.

Quantifying the numbers should be a good thing. At the beginning of HIV, the CDC hid the fact that most of the cases was coming from the MSM and Black communities. They wasted several years on funding an "everyone problem" campaign. It was not until they finally released what they already knew and started reach out programs heavy in the high risk communities that a difference started being realized. Politics start coming out of policy when transparency is maintained.

Harmony FL
Username hidden
(192 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Why are the research studies, probability calculation and such not made public? That has always been very troubling to me.

It seems very much like not releasing research documents about global warming.

Harmony FL
Username hidden
(192 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
trudilcane- welcome to the forums and thank you for the information and for your insightful comments.

The study from the Netherlands that enrolled swingers demonstrated that swingers are at risk of STDs. Women who swing were at greater risk than men who swing and more than four times more likely to have an STD compared to prostitutes.

Prostitution is legal in the Netherlands. The majority of sex workers in places where prostitution is legal and regulated (and have access to health care) are regularly tested, similar to actors in the porn industry. Studies have been done in areas of the world where prostitution is legal (since it is a legitimate occupational safety issue), and condoms have been shown to be very effective at reducing risk. The Dutch study showed that one in eight swingers had an STD, and condom use is more common in Europe than in the US.

I have recommended that swingers discuss with their Doctor that they are sexually active outside their marriage. Your Doctor can help manage your risk so that you and your partners can play safer and avoid permanent consequences of untreated STDs or unknowingly spreading them to a play partner.

I've seen many misconceptions on this subject. I saw a profile where they require partners to be fully shaven so that they could check to see if they were "clean and disease free." STDs can be asymptomatic. In another thread, several people wrote that they don't tell their Doctor, because "it's none of their business," or that they fear that their Doctor will tell their employer that they swing. I responded in the thread that with privacy laws, your Doctor could not tell your employer even if they are treating you for something illegal, such as a heroin addiction. I think it devolved into an argument.

And by the way, thanks easland... no hard feelings (pun intended, regrettably so, because I think Mrs E is really hot). Just because we're not a match for a swinging date, doesn't mean we can't get along or even flirt a bit.

Gibsonia PA
Username hidden
(6919 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Just add a few key ingredients and you could have yourself a vajito! :)

Baltimore MD
Username hidden
(13 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
That gives new meaning to the word "firecrotch."

Baltimore MD
Username hidden
(13 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
" The risk of people lying is ALWAYS there"

Exactly. So demanding that condoms are worn while you're playing is the best defense against STD's. Then, try your best to weed out the high risk people and high risk acts.

There's absolutely a risk even if you take all these precautions. There's more risk if you don't. Jump in wherever you want.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17112 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Hey Sed, We're in total agreement. I wasn't saying that people DON'T lie. I was saying that you might as well ask. If the answer is that condoms ARE optional, you can automatically eliminate them from a possibility. It still decreases your risk. The risk of people lying is ALWAYS there. In this scenario, I was simply expressing that people who are actually being honest about barebacking allow you to make an informed decision, so its worth asking. The risk from the liars is going to be there regardless of questions asked.

Baltimore MD
Username hidden
(13 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Some good statistics: For heterosexuals, whose population prevalence was modeled at 1%, choosing one risk-reduction behavior substantially reduced the absolute risk of HIV infection. The model shows that individuals can reduce their risk by choosing a partner who has tested HIV negative, choosing a safer-sex act, using a condom, or some combination of these factors. Vaginal - Per-act infectivity in two studies was found to be low: 0.0005 and 0.0009 for male-to-female transmission, and 0.0003 and 0.0001 for female-to-male transmission. Anal - One recent study estimated the per-act risk of HIV infection from unprotected receptive anal intercourse with a partner who is HIV-positive at 0.82% (82 in 10,000) and with a partner of unknown serostatus at 0.27% (27 in 10,000). It is probable that unprotected anal sex between heterosexual partners carries a similar per-act risk as it would between MSM, with greater risk incurred by the receptive female partner. Oral - HIV transmission via oral-penile sex between heterosexuals was extremely low. Oral-genital sex, both oral-penile and oral-vaginal, can transmit STIs other than HIV with varying degrees of efficiency. Receptive oral-penile sex carries the risk of pharyngeal gonorrheal infection for both men and women, and insertive oral-penile sex, although carrying only extremely low, hypothetical risk of HIV infection to the insertive partner, carries a demonstrable risk of urethral gonorrheal infection. Other risks of receptive oral-genital sex include small probabilities of human papillomavirus and hepatitis C transmission. Insertive oral-penile sex is an efficient route for the transmission of herpes simplex virus (HSV). Oral-anal sex has been shown to be a route of transmission for hepatitis A and B, and parasitic infections such as giardiasis and amebiasis.

From: HIV InSite Knowledge Base Chapter December 2003; Content reviewed January 2006

Baltimore MD
Username hidden
(13 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
We have been honest from the start,Its in our profile,,We are bareback,But play very little and not with just anyone who wants to fuck.

Mickey.

Rayne LA
Username hidden
(4994 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... More 
Start   11 to 20 of 134   End
TOPIC: Using statistics for risk reduction