The Swingers Board - View Single Post

SnowwwWhite · 07-10-2008, 05:29 PM

The statistic you quote says that 3 to 5% of people living in DC have HIV. Does that mean of every man, woman, and child or does that mean every man and woman in their most sexually active years?

Statistics have a way of being molded for the purpose of the person trying to make the point. I'd be willing to bet that the HIV percentage is much higher than 3-5% if you exclude the young and the old from the final figure. If that is correct, the chances of contracting HIV would be significantly higher because the exposure risk is spread only among the most sexually-active population.

Personally, to really assess the risk of random casual sex, I'd prefer to know the statistic for only people 20 years younger and 20 years older than myself. I know it's not the most scientific way to look at it, but it would be a more realistic assessment of my personal risk.

Erase the segments of the population who are truly monogamous (what, maybe 25% of the total?) and then you have an even higher established risk.

Erase the segment that has just tested negative in the preceding month (and assuming you are about to play with someone who hasn't been tested recently) and you can keep going higher and higher with that HIV positive number.

Just some thoughts.

07-10-2008, 05:29 PM	#61 (permalink)
SnowwwWhite Swingers Board Addict Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 102 Location: Home Status: Female	Re: For those who dont use condoms The statistic you quote says that 3 to 5% of people living in DC have HIV. Does that mean of every man, woman, and child or does that mean every man and woman in their most sexually active years? Statistics have a way of being molded for the purpose of the person trying to make the point. I'd be willing to bet that the HIV percentage is much higher than 3-5% if you exclude the young and the old from the final figure. If that is correct, the chances of contracting HIV would be significantly higher because the exposure risk is spread only among the most sexually-active population. Personally, to really assess the risk of random casual sex, I'd prefer to know the statistic for only people 20 years younger and 20 years older than myself. I know it's not the most scientific way to look at it, but it would be a more realistic assessment of my personal risk. Erase the segments of the population who are truly monogamous (what, maybe 25% of the total?) and then you have an even higher established risk. Erase the segment that has just tested negative in the preceding month (and assuming you are about to play with someone who hasn't been tested recently) and you can keep going higher and higher with that HIV positive number. Just some thoughts.