Jump to content

crazykatie

Registered
  • Content Count

    45
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

crazykatie last won the day on May 5 2009

crazykatie had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

139 Excellent

About crazykatie

  • Rank
    Contributor
  • Birthday 03/13/1961

Personal Info

  • Relationship Status
    Partnered Female
  • Location
    Wheeling, WV
  1. I wish you well and hope you find happiness. It is great that he has decided to join you in counseling. I suggest that you move quickly to arrange your first sessions. I still doubt that he will stop pressuring you until he knows that you are prepared to leave the relationship rather than return to swinging. But, perhaps the counselor will be able to facilitate your exploration of your views and needs in this area and assist you in communicating your feelings openly and honestly to your partner.
  2. I understand that you think that you are giving your relationship "one last shot" by avoiding talking about divorce. But, in my opinion, what you are really doing is giving him one more chance to disappoint you so that you can justify a decision to leave. If that is what you need, so be it. But, he has made clear (now, apparently on several occasions) that he is not giving up the non-monogamous behavior so long as he thinks he can have both it and the relationship. If you want him to make a decision--you or swinging--you need to make clear that is the choice. Or, you may have already decided that you no longer want a relationship with him. If that is the case, then it is difficult to see why you haven't taken the necessary steps to end it. I really do not understand what you think time is going to buy you--other than exposure to more pressure and more misery. You are right not to go back on the meds just to placate your husband. If you are truly happy with everything but your marriage, then there is no reason to continue to delay taking action. You choose to expose yourself to his continuing pressure by not being definitive concerning your resolve to leave rather than go back. You are right to see his actions as suspect. He wants to move you to a space he wants you to be in and is willing to do it in small steps. The truth is that people change. You have changed and he has changed and it is possible that you now each want irreconcilably different things. Temporizing will not make things better--it will only expose you to continued pressure to alter your thinking. Tried what? --to change him? Tried how? --by indicating a preference not to go back to the way things were? You cannot change him. The question that remains unanswered is whether he will select you over the swinging. A second question that remains unanswered is whether you want the relationship under any circumstances. Continued temporizing is (in my opinion) not trying anything.
  3. Couldn't agree more. They need to resolve their problems. And, I agree that it is unlikely, given the tenor of her postings, that swinging will be a part of any resolution. Hey, relationships come apart over sexual differences ALL THE TIME. This is not the first, it will not be the last. It is easy to tell her to insist that he change and, when he doesn't, affirm the correctness of her decision to leave him. That conforms with societal expectations of monogamous commitment within a married relationship. And, as statistics amply confirm, that is how a great many relationships in this country resolve. There is an inherent tension between sexual compatibility and monogamous commitment in relationships. Most couples are not completely sexually compatible and the monogamous commitment severely limits the options of the partner with unfilfilled sexual desires. Most couples end up struggling over the incompatibilities throughout the life of their relationships (with varying degrees of success). In the abstract, it is easy to suggest that the higher interest partner should conform their desires to the nature and degree of sexual interaction that is naturally supplied by their partner. But, love and desire are tricky emotions and, despite what society would have one expect, they are not integrally linked. Otherwise, her love for him (if she ever really loved him) would naturally cause her sexual interest to align with his. Society doesn't expect this of the lower interest partner, but society does expect the higher interest partner to adjust downward their expectations in the name of love. In my experience, love will not cause sexual desire to either increase or abate (although anger and hatred can certainly reduce or eliminate sexual interest in a partner). I do not know and cannot tell what is in her heart. In my opinion, her words are inconsistent with her actions. In my experience, actions are a better indicator of true feelings than are words (particularly where relationship issues are concerned). She has stayed with him for years and has dabbled in non-monogamous behavior. So, there has to be something good in the relationship and she cannot have an absolute emotional bar to non-monogamous behavior. She is looking for people to tell her that she should not swing--OK, she should not swing. But, and this is my point, as much as we may think he should act differently, it is very likely that he will not be willing to abandon the non-monogamous behavior. So, her decision to abandon swinging will likely equate to a decision to tank the relationship--because, at this point, swinging (or non-monogamous sex) appears to be a relationship imperative to him. It is conceivable (notwithstanding what she has written) that ending the swinging is not a relationship imperative to her. It is possible that stopping the swinging is merely a preference--and that she is just put out that he wants to continue when she is indifferent to it. She may be responding solely to society's expectations that he modify his behavior to meet with her expectations. And, while this may be society's expectation, (again) in my experience, it is nowhere near this easy. I do not know whether her angst is truly the result of a complete inability to enjoy swinging or her unwillingness to enjoy swinging when her husband is resistant to giving it up at her request. If we believe what she has written, then it is the former. But, I am at least leaving open the possibility of the latter. If the latter is the case, then it would be (and has been) my advice to her to consider carefully her options.
  4. Wonderful statements about how life should be. Sadly, life is rarely how we think it should be. If he feels that his legitimate sexual needs are not being met--that is his reality (whether we think it should be or not). We can all pass judgment on who he should be or what decision he should make. But, he isn't the one communicating with this board. She is. Parroting back to her the vision of him that she is painting for us will not help her. If he is the troll that she says he is...then what has she been doing staying married to him for all of these years? There are always two sides to every tail and we are only being supplied one side. Moreover, just because we believe that he should be something or act some way will not make it so. She is the one communicating with this board, she is the one who is making decisions. Neither she nor we can make him change. So, the issue is really what is she to do.
  5. I think she is the one who had the emotional affairs with swing partners. Don't get me wrong. I think she paints the picture of a complete cad who should be tossed to the wolves. But, we are only getting one side of the story (a side which is calculatedly being presented to paint a picture to all of us favoring her position over his). If he is all of the things that she is saying, then the expectations that he will remain faithful are probably slight. But, should he stray, he will do so because he places the need for non-monogamous behavior above the need to stay in the relationship. He will know that it is an either or proposition (something that he does not know today). That he opts against monogamy is a risk in any traditional relationship in today's society (and a high one given the divorce rates in this country). Still, I think it would be wrong for her to assume that he is going to choose non-monogamous behavior over the relationship and get a divorce because that is what she thinks he might do in the future. Now, if his (supposedly) uncaring and inconsiderate behavior is, alone, reason enough to end the relationship--then end the relationship for that reason. Also, I agree that counseling would be good for them. But, I think it unlikely that they will find a counselor that he will connect with. Counseling is rarely effective when both parties do not accept the counselor as being open to their individual issues. She is unlikely to accept a counselor who is open minded about swinging. He is unlikely to accept one who is not. And, IMO, it will still come down to whether swinging is an imperative to her. As long as he thinks he should be able to have a relationship with swinging, he has no reason to give it up.
  6. I would not be so quick to reinforce the picture of him which she is attempting to paint. Surely she is painting the very picture that you describe. But, we are getting only one side to the story and (I submit) a side that reflects her very negative attitude about the relationship, generally. It is not unusual for couples in the throes of marital problems to paint their partners in the harshest terms. Now, it may be that he is all of the things that she is saying. But, it is also possible that he has a number of good qualities which are not being discussed or disclosed. In my experience, it is rare that one spouse is as great a villain as the other attempts to paint. The issue here is one of choice. No man or woman is perfect (though I think women come closer ). No relationship is perfect. Relationships tend to work or not work when couples are willing to work together to find common grounds that are acceptable to them both. In some instances, that is not possible because what is important to each is in irreconcilable conflict. That may be the case here. However, a surprising number of marriages fail, not because of irreconcilable conflicts, but because anger builds within the relationship over the changes each party expects the other to be making for them in the name of love. Too many people (particularly in today society) enter into relationships with the completely unrealistic expectation that their partner will change in every way necessary out of love for them and, yet, will not expect them to change at all (also because of love). The resolve not to change becomes more important than the desire to stay in the relationship. Now, I am not advocating that anyone ever change to accept swinging when they are completely adverse to abandoning monogamy. But, in otherwise wonderful relationships where sexual mismatch is the only major issue between a couple, one must necessarily consider how critical monogamy should or must be to the relationship. I say this because there are, in my experience, so very few truly wonderful relationships out there. Also, I know from personal experience, that it is very difficult for higher libido individuals to remain content in a monogamous relationship when their sexual needs are not perceived to be being met. I know that society creates the expectation that high libido individuals should be willing to deny themselves the sexual pleasure that they crave when their monogamous mate proves less than interested. But, that societal expectation is (again, in my experience) more often than not unmet. If this is not a wonderful relationship (and that is surely the picture she is now painting), by all means she should end it. But, she should end it because it is not a wonderful relationship and not simply because he is unwilling to stop pressuring her to swing.
  7. I think that you are right that there are middle grounds that could be explored. But, IMO, he will continue pressuring her for the full monty until he knows (I mean, really knows) that she is ready to end the relationship before going back to swinging. He has no motivation to accept half a loaf when he still believes that he can (and should) have the whole loaf. So long as she is unwilling to swing and sees no benefits to swinging, she will be angry at and unhappy about the pressure. Over time, her anger and unhappiness will poison whatever good may have once existed in the marriage. Reading between the lines, that appears to be where she is today. I only hope that she understands that no relationship is likely to give her everything that she wants. So, the real question is whether monogamy in the relationship is a necessary prerequisite. For many people in our society, it is (of course, for most of us, it is not). If it is an imperative for her (and not merely a preference), then she needs to make that clear to him. In the end, she runs the risk that she will have no relationship because there is no assurance that she will find a replacement life partner. IMO, she must believe that no relationship is better than a relationship with him with swinging. Only she can answer that question (which, apparently, she has).
  8. OK, I am going to risk another--- I wonder if you are seriously committed to a need for monogamy or merely engaging in a passive aggressive attempt to coerce him to stop the behavior. I am not in your shoes and do not know what is in year heart, but if I were you, I would not allow my husband to play alone. The choice for me would be to play together--make it a together thing--or restore the monogamy. It seems to me that the option you are considering is based upon what I think is a bad premise, that it is difficult for middle aged married men to find sex partners. In my experience, there is no shortage of women on the market for desirable middle aged men, many with designs on establishing a relationship with that man. You seem to assume that he will continue to swing (if allowed) with women who are generally interested in recreational sex. I will agree that he is likely to have difficulty locating such swing partners. So, if this becomes your long term solution, he is far more likely to step out with women who are in it, not just for the recreational sex, but also for emotional affairs. I would not leave things as they are for very long. If you really cannot stand the thought of sharing him--then you know what you need to do. But, if the real issues are jealousy and lack of personal enjoyment in the activity, I suggest you consider what you may be faced with if you elect to completely disassociate yourself from his sexual outlets. Now, it is easy for me to say, because I totally get recreational sex and enjoy it a great deal. But, if I were you, I would take charge of the things I can control rather than leaving my husband adrift in the arms of women who I could not monitor. So, I'd look hard at why I am resisting engaging in recreational sex if monogamy is not a sufficient imperative to simply end the relationship. Good luck.
  9. I don't think the original poster can just decide not to continue swinging without putting THE ultimate question to the husband. Someone in the relationship has to affirmatively decide which is more important--continuing the relationship they way they prefer (either with or without swinging) or ending the relationship. They cannot each attempt to continue avoiding making that affirmative decision (hoping that the other will come around) and, in the process, make the other's life miserable. Unless they each face the prospect of ending the relationship, they will each continue playing the same game of chicken in which they are currently engaged. He will continue to up the amount of pressure he is putting on her (both direct and passive aggressive) to continue to swing. She will continue to cycle down into a depressive pit in the (forlorn) hope that he will recognize just how miserable he is making her and discontinue pressuring her to swing. The only way the pressure to swing will stop is if she makes clear her decision to end the relationship unless he commits to restoring the monogamy. Then, should he attempt to reassert the pressure to swing, she will be empowered to stamp it out with a reference to her ultimatum and his affirmative election to place the relationship above the swinging. Of course, what I think she really fears is that he will decide to end the relationship. Indeed, her initial posting tells of her continuing practice of deciding to appease him in an effort to avoid the specter of divorce. So, it seems to me that she has already decided that staying in the relationship is more important to her than living in a monogamous relationship. It is easy for us to say that she "deserves" better. But, she has spent years making this "bed" by avoiding the potential alternative--ending the relationship. I don't doubt that she is unhappy with the choice and would wish that he was a different man. But, the fact of the matter is that he isn't that man and there must be something else that is good in him or she would have no reason for holding on to this relationship so hard. Further, by now he has been conditioned by years of her appeasement to believe that he can coerce her into doing his bidding in the bedroom. There is absolutely no reason to believe that he will abate the coercive pressure merely because she newly announces her desire to discontinue the activity. In my view, this is a classic story of a battle for supremacy in the bedroom between individuals with mismatched libidos (right down to the low self esteem and depression suffered by the lower libido individual). Painting her a victim does not help her solve her problems. The fact of the matter is that we are all not made with the same degree of sexual interest. If the relationship is the most important thing to her, she may need to adjust her view of what is desirable in a sexual relationship with her husband. Again, it comes down to whether ending the swinging is an imperative to her or merely desirable. If it is an imperative, she must tell him of her decision and risk the end of the relationship. If it is not an imperative, then (IMO) she needs to consider what she is willing to accept in terms of non-monogamy to meet his desires--and stop wishing he was someone that he is not.
  10. At the risk of getting This is a debate that rages in many relationship where each partner wants decidedly different things in their sexual relationship. He is clearly happy rejecting monogamy for the recreational aspects of swinging. You, on the other hand, want (to return to) a monogamous relationship. He feels that you should be willing to accept a little bit of discomfort for him. You feel that he should forgo what he is clearly enjoying for you. Here are my opinions: 1. You should not have sex with anyone against your will. 2. It seems to me that you want him (and expect him, maybe) to change his stripes for you. Right and wrong have no meaning here. There is only what he is willing to do and what you are willing to do. And, it very well may be that he is unwilling to give up swinging at this point in order to stay in the relationship with you. So, you can want him to be different. But, at this point, it seems to me that your choices are to leave him and the relationship or be prepared to live with constant pressure to return to swinging. Moreover, the more you resist returning to swinging, the more he is likely to view your resistance as an unreasonable rejection of him sexually and an affirmation that you really don't love him the way he wants (needs) to be loved. 3. So, you have said that you can live without the swinging. How committed are you to having a life that does not include swinging? Are you prepared to leave him? If the choice is no swinging or I am leaving--then you need to tell him that. And, you need to be prepared to live with the possibility that he will choose the swinging over the relationship with you. 4. Alternatively, if swinging is not a relationship imperative to you and is simply something that you can take or leave (which your post seems to suggest) and you are frustrated because (right now) you want to leave it and he isn't following--I wonder why you feel empowered to control your joint sexual life in this way. Maybe what he is rejecting is your right to decide unilaterally how the two of you should interact sexually. Now, I expect to get flamed here, but IMO the truth is that a number of relationships are defined by differences in sexual interest and libido. And, many, many married couples spend years working to find acceptable middle grounds between what is ideally desirable for each independently. Our society expects married couples to remain monogamous. But, I contend that divorce rates are a strong indicator that the expectation of monogamy is maybe, just maybe unrealistic in many relationships (particularly where the degree of sexual interest differs greatly). So, what is more important--the relationship or the sexual monogamy? If you cannot have both, which are you willing to live without? Because, it is possible that with this man, you may have to choose. Before you choose, be sure to talk to some number of unmarried females in your age bracket and ask them how easy it is to find an otherwise good man at your age. You may find out that your choice is really between having a relationship without monogamy and no relationship at all. I am not saying that this reality should cause you to accept something which you cannot stand. But, if what we are talking about is a preference and not an imperative, I suggest that you truly consider what your options are. All the complaining in the world (whether to this board or to other locations) will not make your man see the "rightness" of your position. And to everyone who would flame me--I am not defending him. He may be a cad and he may not be worth staying with under these circumstances. But, that is a decision that she must make. I am merely observing that he is unlikely to change his spots. And, getting angrier and angrier at his decision to remain intransigent can only serve to cause her to become more and more committed to him changing his position when, in fact, she may be able (just unwilling) to live with the non-monogamy. If that is the case, it may be better for her to select that path than to take another. OK - flame away...
  11. I understand that the best current thinking is that the body, not wanting to destroy nerve cells to eliminate the virus, instead floods the infected cells with an enzyme that inhibits replication. One theory has the disease reoccurring when something inhibits the immune system's delivery of the enzyme to the infected cells (something suppresses the body’s immune response).
  12. When Herpes presents orally, either because of HSV1 or 2, the source is thought to be the nervous ganglia in the head area (the trigeminal ganglia) and not the ganglia at the base of the spine. As I indicated, I presented only one theory as to why the condition becomes chronic. There are many theories as the exact reasons are not well understood. In my view, that the virus resides in a cell alone is not enough to explain the anti-bodies' inability to completely eradicate the disease. All viruses reside in cells. In my view, if residing in a cell were enough, no one would ever get over any virus. Neither the sacral nor trigeminal ganglia have the most robust circulation (particularly, lymphatic circulation). In my view, this could explain why this tissue is not as completely saturated by antibodies as are the nerve cells leading from the ganglia to the skin (where active virus cells are completely eradicated) when an outbreak occurs. I do not subscribe to the "cell does not express viral antigens" theory in the case of ganglia and HSV2 as I believe it has been established (in separate studies) that such is not the case with HSV2 in nervous system ganglia tissue. But, why Herpes is chronic really wasn't the point of my posting.
  13. The truth is, Herpes has not been studied to the same degree as many other viruses because it is not viewed as a significant public health risk. It does not result in death. It is asymptomatic in the majority of infected humans. And, because our society has been largely monogamous, the threat of significant spread in somewhat limited. However, here is some of what is known.... The virus, when it takes hold in a human, resides in the nervous tissue at the base of the spine. When an outbreak occurs, the virus spreads along the nervous system and, in some cases, results in open sores in the genital area (not necessarily on the shaft of the penis or in the vaginal canal). The virus is believe to be passed by skin contact in the genital regions and mucous membranes of the lips and mouth (probably because the large number of nerve endings in these regions increase the number of channels for the virus to invade the body and take hold). Accordingly, condoms provide varying degrees of protection against contracting the virus. There are various theories as to why the disease can become chronic (reoccurring). I subscribe to the theory that the limited blood and lymphatic flows at the base of the spine limits the body’s immune response in that region inhibiting the body’s ability to completely eradicate the disease. All that is required is that a single virus remain active (live) within the body for there to be a risk of reoccurrence. It you have antibodies, it means that some amount of virus has at some time entered your body. Thus, you have been infected. However, it is possible to be infected to such a slight degree that the disease did not "take hold" in your system (you carry no live virus today). Also, it is possible that even if you have an outbreak, your condition will not become chronic. Or, that your body's response to an outbreak will be sufficient to keep the virus from making it all the way down the nervous system to the skin (thus, no symptomatic outbreak). Most symptomatic HSV sufferers describe a "tingling" feeling which proceeds development of a skin sore. This tingling feeling is believed to be reflective of the involvement of the nervous system in the spread of the disease to the skin. Accordingly, symptomatic sufferers who recognize this tingling can reliably predict the onset of an infective outbreak. However, the best research today suggests that a large percentage of HSV sufferers, while potentially capable of passing the disease, suffer no outward symptoms at all (or, if they had such symptoms, did not recognize them for what they were). For diagnosed Herpes sufferers, there are now drugs which inhibit the virus’ ability to reoccur. It has been my experience that Swingers like to view themselves as generally enlightened and non-judgmental. However, in the case of Herpes, this is simply not so. I know a number of couples who carry the Herpes antibody including some who still report recurring outbreaks. A few are open an honest about their infection. Others remain underground. It is easy for those on this board to express the view that swingers should be open an honest about their condition. However, Herpes carries with it a stigma in the swinger community that spreads much faster than any virus, with much more debilitating results. If one is open an honest about having the disease, in my personal experience, word of their infection quickly spreads. While everyone within a local community may not play together, almost everyone talks. In short order, everyone knows. Then, if others choose to play openly with that couple, suspicion spreads. What possible reason could someone have for playing with an infected couple unless they were infected, too. Guilt by association even if that couple has done their research and come to the conclusion that they are safer playing with someone who knows they are infected and takes all reasonable precautions over playing with someone who may be infected and does not know it. Herpes is to the swinger community as leprosy was in biblical times. So, the majority of infected couples we know do not openly discuss their condition. If they are not suffering the tingling of an outbreak and have no sores, they play just like everyone else. Moreover, it should be no shock that people do not ask to be tested for the antibodies. What use is knowing something that you don’t want to know in the first place. Better to be able to swing without knowledge of your true medical condition than to know something which you may be unwilling to deal with anyway. We have stopped playing with unknown new couples because we despise the hypocrisy of the swinger community at large. We continue to meet friends that we have previously made and who know of our condition (only I have ever had outbreaks, but my significant other is positive for the antibody, which is no surprise). We also have been introduced to others privately with whom we will agree to play. But, we no longer go to clubs, etc. But, be forewarned. The person sitting across the table from you could be an HSV sufferer. There is at least a 25% chance of that being true. The vast majority of the time, that couple will not know that they are infected (and does not want to know). As a result, they will be unable to discern whether they are at risk for spreading the disease to you. In those limited cases that you come in contact with someone who is a HSV sufferer and knows of their infection (but is not disclosing it to you), take solace in the fact that they are far more likely to know if they are infectious. By the way, when you get Herpes, you should know that the person who gave it to you probably had no idea they were infected or contagious. Don't fool yourself into believing that someone had to be a lying sneak in order for you to be infected. Happy hunting!
  14. Julie is absolutely right!! The problem is that most swingers think they are safe because they are using condoms. However, herpes is transmitted by skin to skin contact in the genital region and the male condom does not provide complete protection against all such contact. In fact, it does not cover many of the areas. Think about it. The rubber ends well before the base of the penis. The woman's outer and inner lips almost always contact the base of the penis. So, when a woman is infected, she is almost always exposing the man. The CDC still recommends using condoms but admits that there are no reliable studies on the overall effectiveness of condoms as a preventive measure against HSV. I think it is nearly universally admitted that condoms are not 100% effective. But, a growing body of evidence is suggesting that condoms are far less effective than had been previously thought. The other thing that most swingers refuse to recognize is that most infected people don't even know they are infected because they develop no external symptoms or have symptoms so slight that they don't recognize themselves as being infected. Moreover, most health professionals will not run a blood screen for HSV with an STD test because HSV is so common today that one in four will screen positive for the antibody even though they may never have contracted a sufficient infection to be a carrier or had any symptoms. Even when you ask to be screened for STDs, the HSV test is generally not ordered unless you specifically complain of symptoms related to HSV or have an observable outbreak (or specifically ask for the test). So, that long trusted couple who tells you they don't have anything, they probably don't know and don't think they do. Truth is, this disease is so misunderstood and stigmatized that those with it simply will not admit to it under any circumstances. And, why should they. An honest couple might be respected, but they would still be treated as lepers by the swinging community at large. Worse, anyone choosing to associate with them (either because they were HSV positive themselves or because they had evaluated the risks and had decided to play anyway) would run the risk of being branded as lepers purely through association. So, you should assume that your playmates know that they are HSV positive but are unwilling to tell you the truth because they know that they are on a suppressive therapy and haven't had an outbreak in years. It is probably a rationalization, but the HSV positive couple probably thinks that the risk of contracting the disease from them is lower than having sex with someone who thinks they are clean. After all, a person who suffers symptomatically generally knows when an outbreak is in progress or on the way and is benefiting from suppressive therapy. Also, there is at least a 25% chance that the supposedly clean couple you might play with is not.
  15. The problem is that you cannot know that the person you are playing with is not infected. Accordingly, you can never take your chances to 0% so long as you choose to play. But, of course, you don't want to deal with that point because--once you acknowledge the truth of it--you must face the reality that you will play with the infected, you just won't know it. You're right; I am not surprised. Frankly, I think your mental health depends upon your ability to ignore or reject the studies on the subject. I'm not sure whether your complaint with the study is that it likely over estimated the rate of viral shedding or underestimated it. In point of fact, the study was attempting to quantify the reduction in the shedding rate when using suppressants when compared to the rate in individuals not taking suppressants. If anything, the exclusion of certain subjects on the grounds that you have identified would tend to reduce the rate of shedding, both in those that were taking the suppressants and those that were not. Thus, the overall risk of potential exposure to viral shedding would be reduced. That the researchers rejected those subjects because they questioned whether they had been properly collecting the samples probably is of no difference to you. Also, the study's focus on higher risk patients would, if anything, tend to indicate a lower overall shedding rate in the general population (both for those on suppressants as well as those not taking anything). So, if your point is that you think the odds are more likely 1 in 200 or 1 in 250 that your partner who does not think they have herpes actually has it and is shedding during your play, I would probably tend to agree with you. But, similarly, the associated reduction in the shedding rate of those on suppressants would mean that the equivalent odds of a person who knows that they have herpes and is on a suppressant shedding during play is more likely 1 in 300 to 1 in 400. But, if one is going to make decisions about playing based upon a worst case assessment of the risk, there is no reasoned basis for rejecting the shedding rates identified in the study as they are more likely to be conservative estimates of the risk. Since you didn’t like my first study, I’ll cite a second (so that you can continue to take shots at more scientific information). This one involves men and older, second-generation suppressants. This study expressly discloses its findings with respect to the shedding rates of men without lesions both on and off the then available suppressants. “When days without lesions were examined separately, the subclinical shedding rate declined from 2.5% on placebo to 0.6% with valacyclovir and 0.7% with acyclovir treatment.” (p.S38) It should be noted that this is an older study dealing with two of the second generation suppressants, not the third generation suppressants which are now available. Still, the 2.5% unmedicated shedding rate found in this older study compares favorably with the 3.1% unmedicated shedding rate found in the later study which I previously cited. Also, the viral suppressant rates with men (using the older suppressants) compares favorably with the rates found with women (using the newer suppressants) in the newer study. Interestingly, statistically you are wrong. If you were to choose to exclusively play with individuals who knew that they had herpes and were taking a suppressant, you will actually have a lower risk of exposure to shedding over time than you have making the decision to play exclusively with those who think they are not infected. This is because the higher incidence of shedding in those who don’t think they have the disease (and to which you would be exposing yourself) more than off-sets the limited risk of exposure that comes with playing with someone on a suppressant. Add in the potential of playing with someone who is in the midst of an outbreak and doesn't even know it, and the odds aren't even close. Still, I understand that you do not accept any of the science or statistics underlying this proposition.
×
×
  • Create New...