155
Using statistics for risk reduction: Swingers Discussion 1937051041
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 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... More 
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)
GoTo Page: Less ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... More 
Start   41 to 50 of 147   End
TOPIC: Using statistics for risk reduction