bareback gangbang with strangers?

[Fundamental Law]

Originally Posted by SW_PA_Couple

Is this part of the War on Science?

It's sort of a war on logic.

Despite decades of research, isolation of the virus, proof of the efficacy of retroviral therapy and--this is important--the effectiveness of condoms and of circumcision in preventing transmission, there are still people who refuse the believe the data.

There is always room for skepticism, but the data are the data. HIV is transmissible through sexual contact, and condoms reduce the transmission rate.

Logic dictates that those who play take reasonable precautions. Condoms strike us as eminently reasonable precautions.



As a curiosity, a tiny fraction of the population lack the receptors necessary for the HIV virus to enter a cell and replicate. These few percent will never become infected.

[highlander]

Well, it is a little more complex than that. I _would_ agree condoms can reduce transmission rate. In this high risk population, it was 57% or so among those that reported consistent use(I understand that folks like serodiscordant couples couples where one is a hemophiliac report better results) The thing is there are a _whole bunch_ of other factors that can affect just how susceptible one is to HIV-it really is understandable to me why some folks were wondering just what is going on. It is going to take some really good statistical analysis to figure out just what is going on-and that just isn't being done in any broad sense.

[Greg & Sheryl]

Originally Posted by Fundamental Law

It's sort of a war on logic.

Despite decades of research, isolation of the virus, proof of the efficacy of retroviral therapy and--this is important--the effectiveness of condoms and of circumcision in preventing transmission, there are still people who refuse the believe the data.

Indeed, regardless of the topic, there are always a few holdouts to a scientific consensus. Denialism is a fascinating phenomenon. In regard to STDs, it would be one thing to concede the risk and state you are comfortable with that risk, but to deny both the risk and the risk reduction behaviors is pretty bizarre.

[highlander]

Originally Posted by Greg & Sheryl

Indeed, regardless of the topic, there are always a few holdouts to a scientific consensus. Denialism is a fascinating phenomenon. In regard to STDs, it would be one thing to concede the risk and state you are comfortable with that risk, but to deny both the risk and the risk reduction behaviors is pretty bizarre.

The issue around whether HIV is just one dimension here. What bothers me a bit is that the role of other STD's and a variety of other factors in HIV spread got obscured in the pissing match here. The strength of those factors is collectively strong enough that in their presence is stronger than condoms are a preventive.

What I also see is a lot of folks that want to believe that condoms are 100% effective. One was as a friend of mine who is statistician-and I had to trounce out a series of studies-and it was VERY hard for him to read those studies. He is enough of a professional that he had to admit I had a case.


It isn't just the denialism. There is strangeness on both sides that catches a lot of folks in the cross fire-and has stalled a lot of good work.

[HornyPisces20]

I personally could not do a gang bang without a condom. I was just reading an article in an online medical journal that said that documented STD infections in swingers are twice as high as the general public. 13%. The recommendation was to put swingers in a Doctors high risk category.

That to me is not a small risk.

I will always remember the fear that Marlyn Chambers had till the end of her life (miss her terribly) that she would develop AIDS at some point.

She worked primarily before the HIV virus created itself with in her words "hundreds of guys" which of course was all bareback and in many cases didn't even know there names because of the way the Porn industry worked back then.

Just that subconscious suggestion to me would put me in the same fear category.

I definitely understand the thrill of a new "affair", and know the heat of a gang bang but none of them are worth dying for, at least not yet...but I'd love to watch your gang bangs, call me.

[bbarnsworth]

Originally Posted by HornyPisces20

I personally could not do a gang bang without a condom. I was just reading an article in an online medical journal that said that documented STD infections in swingers are twice as high as the general public. 13%. The recommendation was to put swingers in a Doctors high risk category.

Journal and edition/issue please?

I've seen these things before, and it's always equivocal.

No, I'm not denying anything.

[highlander]

That sounds a lot like the Dutch study in the
June 23,2010 issue of the journal Sexually Transmitted Infections.

That study was flawed because it was looking at visitors to a specific STD clinic.
What it showed was that swingers are less likely to go to a clinic with false positives than other populations.

Swingers are a rather diverse group. One of the big rules of data analysis is to try to get a representative sample of whatever group you are talking about.
That is hard with swingers. There is a huge difference between folks that periodically swap partners among a group of old friends vs. Clubbers vs. folks that hang out at adult theaters.

The thing is this:
the technology now exists to test for many common STD's on the spot.
Home Bio Tests - Rapid Std Test - Orasure sells this sort of stuff. Testing is not foolproof-and neither are condoms. However, if you use both together, you'll get more safety than either alone. Also, the risk of HIV in particular is largely concentrated among hard drug users and heavy drinkers. The first group can be easily weeded out among gang bang participants-and those tests are even cheaper than STD tests.

Life comes with risks. Driving a car can be life threatening. I have never seen any analysis that suggests that HIV can spread very well in any general population that takes some basic precautions-except in the presence of other medical issues like parasites. There are specific identifiable populations that have different risks(i.e. alcoholics and hard drug users).

[HornyPisces20]

Originally Posted by bbarnsworth

Journal and edition/issue please?

I've seen these things before, and it's always equivocal.

No, I'm not denying anything.

I'll go back and see if I can find it. It came up in a google search where I was looking for Doctors for swingers, i.e., sympathetic to swingers.

While I am on that subject I never looked at demographics but are there any MD's here? It would add to the discussion if they were?

I am sharing my thought with you all here. I already said that I wouldn't do a gang bang without a condom but I haven't experienced the heat of the moment YET. Can't wait too though?

What is this DNA test for HIV that the Porn people are referring to? Anyone know, and HOW do they get STD CERTIFIED FREE? Hey Folks, I don't know everything, need to learn from the experts as much as I can. I want to be confident that I'm not a Typhoid Mary and passing anything on either since so many of the Ladies prefer no condoms.

[slevin]

Originally Posted by HornyPisces20

I'll go back and see if I can find it. It came up in a google search where I was looking for Doctors for swingers, i.e., sympathetic to swingers.

While I am on that subject I never looked at demographics but are there any MD's here? It would add to the discussion if they were?

I am sharing my thought with you all here. I already said that I wouldn't do a gang bang without a condom but I haven't experienced the heat of the moment YET. Can't wait too though?

What is this DNA test for HIV that the Porn people are referring to? Anyone know, and HOW do they get STD CERTIFIED FREE? Hey Folks, I don't know everything, need to learn from the experts as much as I can. I want to be confident that I'm not a Typhoid Mary and passing anything on either since so many of the Ladies prefer no condoms.

I wouldn't be involved in a bareback gangbang either. In fact, I won't be involved in swinging bareback at all. Almost as much for pregnancy prevention as for any amount of STD protection.

The DNA test that AIM Healthcare uses is HIV-1 DNA by PCR. How that compares to other tests for HIV I don't know. I know that the porn community in LA have to be tested very 30 days for HIV, Chlamydia and Gonorrhea and Herpes/Syphilis every 6 months (not sure on this timeframe, but it's not every 30 days).

[two4youinswva]

Originally Posted by HornyPisces20

While I am on that subject I never looked at demographics but are there any MD's here? It would add to the discussion if they were?

There are a few on here, and they provide very valuable input. Look through the STD/Safe Sex threads and you'll see many of their posts. Most have posted their opinions on this subject numerous times, so they may, or may not, have the desire to do so again.

[highlander]

Originally Posted by slevin

I wouldn't be involved in a bareback gangbang either. In fact, I won't be involved in swinging bareback at all. Almost as much for pregnancy prevention as for any amount of STD protection.

The DNA test that AIM Healthcare uses is HIV-1 DNA by PCR. How that compares to other tests for HIV I don't know. I know that the porn community in LA have to be tested very 30 days for HIV, Chlamydia and Gonorrhea and Herpes/Syphilis every 6 months (not sure on this timeframe, but it's not every 30 days).

Consistent condom use appears to reduce risk of transmission of HIV 90-60%
(the estimates vary significantly).

What that means in a practical sense:
if you are playing in a high risk pool, you are still taking on significant risks. Conventional analysis included bisexual men and IV drug users as high risk pools. There are statistical correlations of HIV infection to heavy drinking, even non-IV use of cocaine and methamphetamine-and even tobacco use(and intimate partner violence).

The test AIM uses tests for the actual presence of even small amounts of HIV DNA in a patients. This is an extremely sensitive test-but can give some false positives. However, the test isn't going to catch all infections for 10-12 days after contact. The aim protocol isn't foolproof. They have had a few HIV cases since this protocol was introduced. However, the AIM protocol means that porn actors-with all the risky acts they perform have a lower risk of HIV than the general population in LA.

One well documented case was Darryl James. James apparently picked up HIV on a porn set in Brazil. Came back to the US-tested negative his first test. James proceeded to infect some actresses until his next test caught that he had HIV. James actually did show some of the initial symptoms of HIV(fever and cold like symptoms) and chose to work in porn anyhow.

That case has been used as an argument for requiring condoms on set. The thing is, even that measure couldn't have assured that none of those actresses James infected would have remained healthy. What might have worked was requiring that actors get their temperatures checked every few days before working. About 2/3 of people that pick up HIV show flu like symptoms a few days after infection-which James did. This information is contained in AIM's orientation video.

I think the moral of this story is that it isn't a good idea to swing with self-centered people-no matter how hot they are.

[HornyPisces20]

Originally Posted by highlander

I think the moral of this story is that it isn't a good idea to swing with self-centered people-no matter how hot they are.

...or high-risk activity is high risk. Thanks doc.

[highlander]

Originally Posted by HornyPisces20

...or high-risk activity is high risk. Thanks doc.

The thing is:
there is a LOT of evidence that suggests the risk per sex act varies a lot among different pools of partners. Porn actors are a _lower_ risk population despite a lot of sexual activity on their part with a variety of partners.

Beyond that, we have in the US specific populations where HIV spreads well heterosexually-and places where it doesn't. The difference appears to be largely rooted in some combination of drug use, presence of parasites and use of public health measures to handle treatable STD's.

Transmission of STD's can vary with things like age(young women appear more susceptable per coital act to HIV and some other STD's).

The basic idea that we should model spread of STD's just using risk per coital act is overly simplistic.

[lovinher]

Although informative, this debate could go on forever and there have been many threads on the subject of condom use with no consensus.
I wear a seat belt because I know in most situations it might save me from injury. But we all know people die in accidents using them. I use a helmet most of the time when riding. It is well documented that using one saves lives. But then again, many still die while using them.
It's all about reducing risk, not eliminating it.

Personally, I can't participate in a gang bang. With or without a condom. Even if the woman wants it, I just can't get over the feeling that I'm somehow abusing or degrading her. But that's just me. I have no problem women or men who have a different opinion though. To each their own. In fact, my wife has this fantasy. If the situation were to arise where she could have one, I would have no problem with it under the right circumstances-condoms only.

[HornyPisces20]

Doesn't the way data is interpreted play a big part? (I think you just said that in effect right Doc)?

What I mean is the following. If we could come up with a comparative analogy like for instance equating the likeliness of one person walking in and buying THE winning ticket to the Mega Millions Lottery to contracting HIV from one bareback contact to a person of a pretty much well know controlled group?

What are the odds that you are going to win the Mega Millions even with 100 tickets. Personally three tickets to the gang bang would most likely be beyond my limits?

Intravenous drug users still scare me, but some of the people that are doing it, don't normally fit into a know risk group, and you would never suspect that a popular run way model would be sharing needles with other IV users.

If you were doing even a full body physical on here, you probably would never even find the spot she uses unless there was some type of a rash?

There are probalby a hundred places she can hide it and if she uses them all it would be back to the odds of the lottery that you discovered it as a Physician?

Anyway. That is the rationalization that I think of, i.e., that the odds are so low that it is next to impossible, but there is really no counter answer to...someone IS going to win that lottery?

As a secondary thought that has ocurred to me here, and I apologize in advance because I don't mean to insult people with my clumsiness of proposing questions that are hurtful, but since there obviously MD's that are "swingers", maybe even husband and wife MD couples, are Gynecologists and Urologists suspiciously abscent from the life, about the same as everyone else, or in greater numbers, AND are there as many female MD's that swing as males?

Like I said, I apologize for that question, but I had the thought that maybe the absence of one of these MD groups from "swinging" could be the unspoken truth answer that I'm looking for, i.e., the group of female Urologists essentially saying, what are you people freakin' nuts?

Sorry if I'm not making sense here (I think that I am) but I might just be not delineating my poinst correctly or clearly enough?

The last thing I want to do is turn off the MD segment. The insight by you is immeasurable, and yes I know, just like in all other medical decisions, the individual patient still has to make their own decision on weather or not to accept the professional advice or opt out. I think I understand that much, clearly enough?