155

|
|
TOPIC: Using statistics for risk reduction
|
|
|
Start
41 to 50 of 147
End
|
User Details are only visible to members.
|
Odds are that people aren't 100% honest.
Odds are that swingers who go bareback fuck mostly other swingers that go bareback. Odds are that condom users are lower risk than non condom users. Odds are tha using a condom will protect you more than not using one. |
||
Pittsburgh PA |
Username hidden
(14584 post)
|
||
User Details are only visible to members.
|
"Evaluating all behaviors of potential playmates for risk assessment you feel is "foolish reasoning?"
YES. You would only be fooling yourself that you could actually do it. You'd need 100% honesty, perfect judgement and much time. You really can only evalute SOME of the behaviors. Determining your risk acceptance level is nothing more than playing the odds you are comfortable with. |
||
Pittsburgh PA |
Username hidden
(14584 post)
|
||
User Details are only visible to members.
|
|||
San Quentin CA |
Username hidden
(8604 post)
|
||
User Details are only visible to members.
|
Perfect,
Evaluating all behaviors of potential playmates for risk assessment you feel is "foolish reasoning?" |
||
Harmony FL |
Username hidden
(192 post)
|
||
User Details are only visible to members.
|
"I can not agree with that. There are way too many other factors. It is likely many condom only couples feel testing is less important because they play "safe" and not test often if at all. A bareback couple may play with only 1 or 2 couples a year. Evaluating all behaviors of potential playmates I think would give a better measure of risk."
While that MIGHT be true in a particular instance, it would be foolish to use the above reasoning in risk assesment. |
||
Pittsburgh PA |
Username hidden
(14584 post)
|
||
User Details are only visible to members.
|
And yes. We realize condoms are not 100%. Everyone will have a story of someone who got an std with a condom.
Just the same as seatbelts in cars. Everyone will have a story of an accident that someone would not have survived if they were wearing a seatbelt. But if 1 in 1000 condoms fail to prevent, or 1 in 1000 accidents are you better without a seatbelt........We're not going to live the edge...lol |
||
Mount Juliet TN |
Username hidden
(662 post)
|
||
User Details are only visible to members.
|
|||
Mount Juliet TN |
Username hidden
(662 post)
|
||
User Details are only visible to members.
|
Fun_Ahoy,
If I am understanding correctly, you are claiming a barebacker would be safer trying to find and have sex with condom only couples because bareback couples would be more likely to have an STD. Is that your claim? I can not agree with that. There are way too many other factors. It is likely many condom only couples feel testing is less important because they play "safe" and not test often if at all. A bareback couple may play with only 1 or 2 couples a year. Evaluating all behaviors of potential playmates I think would give a better measure of risk. There are just way to many variables to paint with a broad brush. |
||
Harmony FL |
Username hidden
(192 post)
|
||
User Details are only visible to members.
|
It's cum
|
||
Ocean City NJ |
Username hidden
(4300 post)
|
||
User Details are only visible to members.
|
It's pee.
|
||
Ocean City NJ |
Username hidden
(4300 post)
|
||
Start
41 to 50 of 147
End
|
TOPIC: Using statistics for risk reduction
|