Using statistics for risk reduction: Swingers Discussion 1937051071

155
Using statistics for risk reduction: Swingers Discussion 1937051071

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

71 to 80 of 147

End

User Details are only visible to members.	Kinddraggon, By no means am I advocating someone to "remove" layers of risk reduction. Also, by no means am I a Statistician. It would be great if someone like Leeza or TBR took the ball and ran with it, as I think they are probably much better equipped for this type of exercise. However, to try and answer your question, I would think the first thing to consider is what are you comparing? Using condoms for anal sure does significantly reduce the risk of contracting HIV. But if the question is, "Is protected anal less risky than unprotected oral," I don't know. Maybe someone that does know can chime in.
Harmony FL			Username hidden (192 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	ty caretakers, i love your posts and appreciate them very much. they actually make me think of more questions, but cant seem to articulate them enough to post. but a couple quick ones... in your opinion: 1. is playing with couples that -use condoms with anal penetration- any less of a risk? and as far as risk management goes... removing layers of risk sounds really good, but doesnt it all go down the drain knowing that any of our playmates could have just had one moment of lapse of judgement in recent past, (even tho they say 'they always use condoms, or dont like anal) put us right back up to the top layer of risks
Kunkletown PA			Username hidden (2981 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Earlier in this thread, I tossed out one layer of protection that we found to be very common in the lifestyle -- Excluding Bi-Males reduces HIV risks. It is a belief that is VERY flawed, which I think is why it makes people like Leeza cringe badly, but is also very common. There are many logical reasons why people may not want to consider Bi-Males as potential playmates, but believing it significantly impacts HIV risk is not a good one. As is well known, the highest percentage of HIV is in the MSM group, so it sounds good that staying out of that risk group would help. But lets consider the factors that are likely at play. First, by other studies I posted, unprotected Anal is 18 times more risky than unprotected Vaginal, and unprotected Vaginal is 2 times more risky than unprotected Oral. If my math is right, that would imply unprotected anal is 36 times more risky than unprotected Oral. Also, there was no difference in risk between receptive male anal or female anal. The way I see it, for swingers that means the risk level is the same for straight couples that include Anal penetration and Bi-male couples that include Anal penetration. So, a layer of protection that can be taken away is that anal penetration adds a high level of risk for HIV. These are the types of misconceptions I was hoping to explore with this thread, but it appears too many cannot drop their agendas and have a civilized conversation. Its a shame really. I would think most of use would love to spend some time talking about Risk Management; you never know what gems might be found.
Harmony FL			Username hidden (192 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	@AkronNoFunTimes: Hi, I thought that everything was already said. Since I don't want to be impolite, I want to thank you for a picture which was displayed in your post. I see an older redneck hiding behind a pair of non-flattering sunglasses showing an obscene gesture.......................... Is that you???? If so, I feel REALLY sorry for you if you cannot express yourself in a more civilized way. Since you don't seem to be capable of having a normal discussion I will end my part right here. Thanks for all the valuable input from you.
Riverside CA			Username hidden (23 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	easland, We made a bareback thread,its in here somewhere I think, If yall were closer we would love to meet yall and get to know yall,We bareback only unless asked to glove up,We were asked to do so once but the guy had no problem fucking my wife without one,Which ofcourse when I saw that,,It was over, From then on we will not ever glove for anyone. If thats what it takes to play with them? Oh well we will move on. Mickey.
Maurice LA			Username hidden (3731 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Thanks AkronNoFunTimes for letting me know what a fool I am. Have a nice day now. You will need it after all the YELLING. P.S. Just to let you know by looking at your profile, looks are NO substitute for brain. Ciao Adios Auf Wiedersehen. Happy swinging
Riverside CA			Username hidden (23 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	If one really wants to evaluate risk and improve understanding, you should start with the highest risk you can find. Evaluate and quantify the real risks and start adding layers of protections. Different combinations starting with the base line can give insight into effectiveness. Obviously, it is a win win for everyone. I do not understand people that go to any length to stop dialog. Learning and exploring is never a bad idea. It is a win win for everyone.
Harmony FL			Username hidden (192 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	@Othergoofball: Thanks for your posts. We like you. As you said, a few couples, one with over 4800 posts, "control" this board and if you don' t have the same opinion you are "ridiculous" or "desperate". So be it. I really don't care about some opinionated airheads pretending to be swingers spewing hatred towards couples with different attitudes. Swinging is supposed to be fun and not politics. I don't rant about all these people not showing their faces, not having pictures at all, not answering emails, disliking this or that.................. Not worth writing on this board anymore. You get yelled down immediately anyway.
Riverside CA			Username hidden (23 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	@AkronFunTimes: Thanks for opening our eyes and telling us that we are "ridiculous" since we prefer bareback. Since we already have "bareback" in our profile we might have to add "ridiculous" as well. Guess we won't play we you anytime soon.............or ever. LOL
Riverside CA			Username hidden (23 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	TBR might be right -- why have statistics when there is common sense. :) Bias can also distort perceptions, as can be seen by claiming this thread was created to promote barebacking. Actually, I think the Netherlands study referenced earlier and again by Leeza, along with the takeaways were sound. To my knowledge, that is the only study that has attempted to assess swingers. Hopefully there will begin to many more, as many questions are left unasked and unanswered, as well as probable flaws in the hypothesis reached. But even flawed, it is eye opening and scary. I will say it once again. I hope to explore many risk statistics to flesh out sound advise. Bringing STIs into the spotlight is helpful, as I think many risks with STI and unprotected oral are not considered. Risk management is getting a whole picture that fits a persons situation. Most likely, I would think as statistics are evaluated for risk reduction the benefit of condom use will become more clear for many people.
Harmony FL			Username hidden (192 post)

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

Start

71 to 80 of 147

End

TOPIC: Using statistics for risk reduction