Jump to content

Trojan Defense

Registered
  • Content Count

    50
  • Joined

Community Reputation

15 Good

About Trojan Defense

  • Rank
    Active Contributor
  • Birthday 10/07/1982

Personal Info

  • Relationship Status
    Single Male
  • Location
    Charlotte, NC
  1. Two possible scenarios where even abstinence may not offer a person absolute protection against STDs are when wrestling, and when sharing make up.
  2. Since it is not exactly a black and white issue, perhaps a better way of me saying it is, to whatever extent health concerns are an impediment to swinging, is the extent to which swinging would be viewed as a relatively safe activity once those health concerns had been addressed.
  3. Its a nice suggestion, though, according to my sources, such a plan would not work due to political reasons. That said, I do realize the scope of such an endeavor would require the help of experts whose knowledge and resources exceeds my own. Thanks, but I really do not seek fame, or notoriety in the pursuit of these ideas. Simply put, what I seek is to make a positive difference, and if successful, that is reward in, and of itself.
  4. That it does, or at the very least, complicates things.
  5. Unless I'm overlooking something, I would think the reasons people choose not to swing, or engage in any illicit sexual activity could fall into one of two broad categories: moral/religious convictions/social norms, and health concerns. Once health concerns were addressed, then that theoretically eliminates the group who's sole objection to swinging was based on health concerns. That said, I would agree that it is unclear exactly what the numbers are on that, and that my statement is more a matter of opinion than fact, but even if we were just talking about 1% of the US population, or not even that much, maybe 1/2% of the US Population, that would fit within my definition of "many" since we are talking about a population that is on such a large scale. I suppose I could see that. Sort of like social anxiety disorder, except we might replace the word social here with sexual, in which case maybe a third miscellaneous category as to why people don't swing might be described as being for psychological reasons/hang-ups.
  6. I will agree with you on one thing: continuing this discussion does seem rather pointless. As for my comment to Alura about why I am talking about stds, and safer sex so much, I mistakenly referred to this part of the forum as a forum in and of itself. The point is, posting anything other than stds and safer sex in this part of the forum would be off topic, so that only leaves me with one thing to talk about whenever posting here. (Thought that'd be obvious.)
  7. Another thing I forgot to add under... What if the couple you're talking to has an std, and through the use of this credit score, they decline to get with you because you don't? Maybe they wanted to get with someone who had the same std that they had so they wouldn't be spreading anything. In that case, you should be appreciative of the fact that they took your health in consideration when getting with you. That is unless you just want to get with people that have stds. Then I guess that would be a different story, but at least they saved themselves the possible embarrassment of having it known that they had an std, and can more effectively serosort as a result of it.
  8. Progress would be any improvement over the current way of doing things, albeit it be imperfect.
  9. Highlander is right. What I propose is not a mandate, but a tool. If you don't want it, you don't have to use it, but if you do, its there. Highlander makes another valid point. Many of the people who choose not to swing do so because they are afraid of stds. If such a system adequately addressed their concerns, then that may lead to a large influx of new swingers that are being very careful. So what I suspect successful implementation of these ideas would lead to over time is an exponential increase of new swingers, and a less dramatic, but steady increase of veteran swingers into the system as momentum picked up.
  10. What this is building up to is an advanced form of serosorting that is facilitated through information technology. When viewed in the right context, the viability of such ideas starts to become more clear, as the success of such ideas is not necessarily dependent on how well they work by themselves, but how well do they work as part of a greater system.
  11. I'm sure back in the day of Columbus, when they thought the world was flat, the same joke could have been made. A ship may be safe in the harbor, but that's not what they were built for. The parallel being that while abstinence may offer the most absolute form of protection, it is not practical advice to give to a population that chooses to be sexually active; something better is needed if we are ever to live in a world where stds are in decline.
  12. Well, among those that have posted, that might be interested in such a system, I've yet to see anyone (except for Highlander), suggest how it might work. All I've seen is how a bunch of critics think it could never work - not how it might work. Attacking ideas that are still in their infancy is not exactly the most constructive criticism I've ever received.
  13. I wouldn't put too much stock in any poll taken here. Though if I did, I don't think those are necessarily bad numbers. Even small percentages count for something when put on large enough of a scale. The only one that I have said is making incorrect assumptions is CoupleErotic22.
  14. My reply was that it is a work in progress. What part of "work in progress" is unclear? That is the point. If your credit score is below a certain level, there is no need for the loan officer to do any additional legwork (unless he just wants to waste his time); however, if your credit score is acceptable, then he needs to do some additional fact checking to make sure everything adds up. Same goes for this idea. It functions as a time saver. That depends on what they were looking to get out of the interaction, and just what kind of risk do you represent. Were they really looking for friendship, or were they just looking for a sex partner? If you really want to be friends with someone, you don't need to have sex with them. If they were just looking for a sex partner, and didn't want to catch an std, then who could blame them for that? I wouldn't either, but that only applies if you are an unacceptable health risk. If you are an acceptable health risk, what's stopping them from getting to know you better, and becoming friends? Another point of interest here is even if your credit score wasn't good, who's to say it couldn't change in time? Being rude to people isn't exactly a winning strategy, regardless of what you're looking for. It is quite possible you will cross paths with these people again whether you have sex or not. I think Highlander already addressed that one. Your personal life experiences are not neccessarily applicable to what we are talking about. As stated earlier, I said it was a work in progress. I may have to go back to the drawing board a few times to work out some flaws before finally getting it right, but that's not an uncommon thing in innovation. The Wright brothers also didn't have internet forums back in their day. If they did, they might have used it as a means of exchanging, and building upon ideas. Technology can be a wonderful thing when put to good use. Your frustration? What about my frustration? I'm trying to make things better, and people are telling me that I can not. I might just do that.
  15. You say you are not just being cynical, and that you are not against a system that works, yet you are. You are making incorrect assumptions about a system of which you know little of. One incorrect assumption that you make is that this is necessarily a substitute for getting to know someone. Rather than being a substitute, it could be a supplement. You could use it to quickly determine risk-based compatibility. If they meet your criteria, then you could subject them to the same methods of vetting that you would without this system. If they didn't meet your criteria for a sex partner, and that's all you were interested in (meaning you had no interest in friendship), then you could still waste your time if you wanted to, or you could move on. Your choice. Another incorrect assumption. If all you can see here is a number, instead of what it signifies, then you are missing the whole point of it. Its not to reduce people to numbers. Its to facilitate risk disclosure. You can still be friends with someone who represents an unacceptable health risk if you want to. It is your choice. Again, another incorrect assumption. Having many partners does not necessarily put a person at great risk. It is possible for someone with few partners to be a greater risk than someone with many partners. A well designed system would account for this. Futhermore, If high risk people are significantly reducing their risk, while low risk people are only marginally increasing their risk, that is not a bad thing in the grand scheme of things. Particularly if taken into account with the theory of sexual economics. They said the same thing to the inventor of the airplane, which makes about as much sense as saying the world is flat. We now know those things are untrue, however, the pioneers and innovators of those times had to go against the established way of thinking in pursuing their ideas. Likewise, I suspect it will be the same plight for those who lead the way in the development of these systems.
×
×
  • Create New...