need to know
- Thread starter rad1
- Start date
If you are so paranoid about this hobby,the best thing for you to do is to leave it alone. No matter how hard you are going to protect yourself,there is always a chance of catching any std!rad1 said:
BTW,you should ask this question in the lounge !
What a shitty review!
Or is this simply in the wrong category?
Anyhow, as long as your skin didn't touch her skin, you have nothing to worry about.
Or is this simply in the wrong category?
Anyhow, as long as your skin didn't touch her skin, you have nothing to worry about.
By my calculations, .03%, or 3 chances in 10,000 attempts...rad1 said:
It's based on the fat content in a certain no fat yogurt...
Let me guess how you derive your results. Fact is, compare to other STD, HIV is hard to get. Lets say 1 in every 100 eposide of unprotected sex(1% that is) and condoms are 97% effective(meaning 3% fail rate). You multiply that and you have 1%*3% = 0.0003. But I think you forgot about the fact that the SP has to be HIV positive to start with. The SP have a 50/50 chance of being HIV positve, so you should multiply 0.03% by 0.5 and get 0.0015% or 1.5 in 10,000 attempts...I dont know if everyone is comfortable with this number, it seems like a small chance, yet there is always someone who wins the lottery. Like others pointed out in earlier thread, its all about balancing the risk.lenny said:
BTW, HIV does not equal to death sentence. Although most people eventually die from the virus, there has been a significant improvement in methods/techniques in fighting the HIV. The life expectency of HIV positive has greatly improved over the past decade. Not that I want to get HIV, I am just saying that dont stress out too much about getting HIV(or other STI) if proper protection are taken and that you are aware of the risk in this hobby.
In fact, I just ran a regular check up at the STD clinic on 12th and cambie. I told the nurse who was doing the test for me about my sexual habit(BBBJ and protected vaginal) and asked her that how often should I get checked up. She told me that there has been a syphilis outbreak in Vancouver for the past
couple years and if BBBJ is something I do, this should be my main concern. As for HIV, she said unless there are visible blood in her mouth, i shall be fine.
She recommends me to check up once every year or 6 month and tells me that eventhough condoms do fail, it shouldn't be something that I should worry too much about.
Oh yeh good advice! What's good for the goose is good for the gander right? So if I test positive I'm just gonna go get bbbj anyhow cuz I can say to my victims: Hey its not a death sentence - although you will eventually die from the virus! Your life expectancy is now greatly improved, no problem! Don't stress out too much. You knew there were risks involved so you shouldn't have allowed bareback, and you have only yourself to blame.shak said:
I've seen similar stats. It's true that HIV is harder to get... but your stats are wrong and don't tell the whole story. A more accurate assessment of risk are those studies that illustrate seroconversion rates between monogamous couples, one of which is positive and one of which is negative. Over a period of time, the seroconversion rates range from 1/3 up to 1/2 of all couples. The period was usually under 6 months. Seroconversion is when you go from HIV- to HIV+. I might add that the behaviour of most pooners is not to take a one-time risky action, such that you can not apply any minimal percentage only once. Every single bare contact is an exposure risk. If you thrust 10 times, multiply the risk percent by 10. Stats I have seen for unprotected intercourse are anywhere from 0.3% to 3% per action. Surprisingly, uncircumcised men take a 20 multiplier to the percent because the foreskin tissue is a membrane highly susceptable to viral penetration. If there is blood, take a 10 multiplier. Also, just being female gives her a 5 multiplier. The behaviour of the average pooner is to have a hugely wide variety of female partners, with a variation of exposure risks. I think this behaviour is actually closest to the studies I mentioned. Public health policy does take an overly cautious near alarmist approach to HIV transmission, but that aside, the scientific studies show that prudence about protection is the best policy for an individual.shak said:
Lastly, I want to illustrate again the flimsy logic of your post:
And this one for the blockheads out there: Dying from the virus does not equal a death sentence. Dying from a gunshot wound does not equal a death sentence.shak said:
