Are these STD numbers correct?

[Malachista]

Ok, ignorant (?) European speaking here

We pretty much only hear about danger to get infected with HIV/AIDS or hepatitis. Here it is said that changes to get Gonorrhea or Syphilisis less then 0.01% and everything else (including any form of Herpes) is not even mentioned

So how big is the chance that this numbers are sponsored by the abstinence/married monogamy preachers of the US?

[austxmark]

How big a chance you ask? How does 100% sound. The CDC is engaging in scare tatics to support the current administrations abstinence policy. The CD is supposed to be independant but when you budget is controlled you listen to the controllers. I mean, come on, is oral sex and anal sex really equal risk??

[personal416]

I'm not surprised to see the "trick" numbers that high, and have wondered how many swingers that like to "enjoy as many others as possible" are spreading it around without their knowledge.

[ross_sally]

"and everything else (including any form of Herpes) is not even mentioned"

Why would they not mention Herpes and HPV, which are the highest risks? Does that mean they are acceptable consequences in Europe?

Mark, I agree that the CDC is motivated to skew the numbers, but your application of percentages and methodology in getting to less than 1% for your situation is not correct.

And as far as being selectively careful. It seems that that relies on swingers being 100% honest or going in with a magnifying glass with a light, neither being very practical. And what about the fact that the STD can be contagious without being visible, as mentioned above?

When the other party is fine NOT wearing a condom, I feel I need to wear a condom, even though I don't like condoms, and when they insist on wearing a condom, I feel better that they are DF. Maybe it's flawed, but I believe someone that already has Herpes or HPV, obviously isn't worried about contracting it.

[ross_sally]

Here is a link to a very sexy video, that will get you and your SO in the mood ...


http://wrongdiagnosis.healthology.co...agnosis&psv=33


OK, April fools .... it's really a Herpes Discussion Video with some stats, however, it's very relevant to this thread.

So make some popcorn, sit back with that special someone and enjoy.

Coming Next Week: No Country for Old Men with HPV

[Malachista]

Originally Posted by ross_sally

"
Why would they not mention Herpes and HPV, which are the highest risks? Does that mean they are acceptable consequences in Europe?

No, not acceptable consequences, but not considerd risks

[rachan]

We belong to a small swinger group and we all are tested for SDTs at least every 3 months. I know this lifestyle is risky but I love having unprotected sex. BTW, I've never had an STD and I've been sexually active since I was 14.

[austxmark]

Well Ross Sally, if my way of getting to less than 1% is incorrect than what would you suggest be done to fix it. When you consider that the estimates for HIV positive people in the US is about 1 million and we have over 300 million in this country it is impossible NOT to come up with a percent less than 1. So please show me where I went wrong so I can understand better.

[good times]

austxmark,

I think your calculations are incorrect because they are overly pessimistic. Your actual risk using an average of the risk numbers put out by experts is considerably lower than "1% of 1/12 of 1% risk out of your population group", based on my calculations.

I totally agree with the point of your post though. I also agree with your math, if one uses the most pessimistic (incorrect) risk numbers available.

[austxmark]

Well I have to admit I intentionally used the more pessimistic numbers. I did so because I figured someone would get on here and attack my numbers as being to optimistic and therefore attempting to slant the outcome to the way I wanted. Its kinda funny how I over compensated to avoid being called out.

[ross_sally]

The question is ... "Are these STD numbers correct?"

HIV is one small subset of STDs. Why ignore all the other STDs?

And secondly, as I mentioned, it's inaccurate to increase your base with irrelevant populations. Namely, the fear of contracting an STD comes only from the sexually active population, not the whole population, which includes the non-sexually active.
So your very first figure,(1/3 of a percent) is not correct.

[HerpesCpl]

I would imagine that those rates are probably quite correct. I think it's a false idea to differentiate between the two types of HSV when you consider that one can easily lead to the other. A girl with a cold sore goes down on a guy and next thing he knows he has genital herpes. Cold sores seem innocent enough but not so much when you think about it.

It's much safer for everyone to assume that anyone they come into contact with may be infected with something, whether they lie about it or just don't even know they have it or they are honest.

[austxmark]

Well HerpesCpl, if you assume everyone has something then swinging is not a good idea. Condoms really are not very effective at stoping herpes or gential warts. They do a decent job at other stuff if there is no penis-vaginal contact whatsoever without a condom on.

[Thron&Thor]

The percentage of gential herpes infections per racial groupings protrays a very interesting picture of the cultural lifestyles superimposed by race in the swinging lifestyle. The numbers, which are startling to some, give pause to consider and these numbers are avaiable thru recently published medical studies to which training is conducted for medical staff at all major medical facilities. Herpes Simplex I (core sores) is so similar to Herpes Simplex II (gential herpes) that having by Simplex I your body has developed a ceratin immune response to Simplex II providing a healthy person with some protection from Simplex II. By researching the percentage numbers yourself you will receive an additonal education to consider risk vs. benefit...but then what is life but the risk of living each day for its own sake.

[JustAskJulie]

Originally Posted by austxmark

Well HerpesCpl, if you assume everyone has something then swinging is not a good idea. Condoms really are not very effective at stoping herpes or gential warts. They do a decent job at other stuff if there is no penis-vaginal contact whatsoever without a condom on.

I have to agree with HerpesCpl on this one. If you don't at least assume at some level that everyone has something or is hiding something all you are doing is lulling yourself into a false sense of security. The point of what several people (myself included) have been trying to say in this thread and others is that there are so many people who have something and don't even KNOW they have it that you can't a) take them at face value assuming you even ask the question, b)attempt to assume that a person's honest answer is really the truth (because again they may not know). Your best bet in the end is to assume that everyone probably has something and realize it is YOUR responsibility to do what you can to protect yourself. And the first step there is deciding how much risk you are willing to take. Some come to the conclusion they aren't willing to take the risk... so they don't swing at all. Others feel that they can minimize their risk by choosing playmates wisely, or by requiring testing, or requiring condoms. In the end, everyone has to make a choice somewhere, but regardless of the choice you make, if you choose to have sex (period. swinging or not) you are taking a risk.

As someone else pointed out elsewhere, there is no such thing as safe sex.