Sorry, Einstein, but there’s no need to repeat what DLNB wrote to you earlier. It sums things up pretty well.
However, if you ever decide to answer the basic question I asked you 178 days ago in the other thread where we got into this circular discussion, I might decide to pour a cup of coffee and read some of your short novels. No promises though.
Tramp
Wow.
What a highly intelligent and thoughtful response.
Did it take you all day to think of that?
I am amazed at people who are against reading what PhD's study for and are subject matter experts on and claim that their 'gut' tells them they are correct.
But just like the work of fiction stated, "A fool and his money are soon parted." Similar scenario here.
@Erotica
What DNLB said.
Tramp
@LADY
See this is what confuses me. I recite and regurgitate information from scientists. I do not willy nilly pull this out of my ass. Yet, somehow, I am wrong? Ok, are the scientists wrong then?
I pulled a ton of quotes from a NIH study. These were done with people who have a comma then PhD after their name. Those quotes are what I am saying. So, again, are they now wrong? Being a tad douchey here, but what makes what you say valid and the PhD invalid? And for the record, this is not ONE PhD that said it, but a LOT of PhDs that said this.
The logic goes like this:
Wear a condom # no disease Just like the logic is don't wear a condom = get a disease.
A condom is highly effective in capturing male ejaculate. So . . . any thing that revolves around male ejaculate, it will be highly effective in stopping the transmission.
We have a massive lab right now that we can watch to see how STDs are passed and frequency. It's called the porn industry. The way the condom abolitionists would have you believe everyone in the porn industry should have HIV along with everything else. Funny how they don't. Funny how in the hetero world, there have been less than 10 cases (iirc) since the mid 90s of HIV. Hmm.
So to keep it clear . . . again . . . if condoms give you peace of mind, use them. If you think that by wearing condoms you are protected from all cooties, you are wrong. If you think that wearing a condom will protect you significantly more, that is up for massive interpretation. From HIV? FUCK YEAH. From most anything else, not significantly. And again significant is a subjective word. If I go from 1 to 2, that is doubling, that could be significant. But if I go from 1 to 2 out of 10,000, while it doubled my chance, it is insignificant? Don't believe the math? Here, go buy 1000 lottery tickets. Compare the odds if you buy 1. It is not significant enough to move the needle, even though you increased your odds 1000 times.
I normally try to stay in these conversations as long as I can, but DNLB is doing a much better job than I typically do, so...
I’ll just say continue, go forth, be happy, and I’ll keep my cherry picking to myself. ;^)
Tramp
@DNLB
If you read, I have stated the same thing over and over. If condoms give you peace of mind go for it, I am all for it. If you think that they are a silver bullet and are going to stop the transmission of anything (other than HIV and Pregnancy) you are wrong. Will it reduce the chance? Possibly. Yes, I am using possibly instead of probably. Because it is possible, but it may not be that probable.
My math is NOT wrong. If you think it is, please . . . correct me. If you are looking for absolute precision, oh fuck yeah, my math is off. Would I feel comfortable with a 90% CI? Yeah, probably in that range. But the math is the math. In fact, the only math that I did was to show the chance of meeting someone who is HIV positive. I even stated it is generalized and thus would be inaccurate, but not that far off. Here is the formula :) Number of HIV+ (known + unknown) divided by the number of sexually active people in the US. As the CDC has stated that there are ~1.2m in the HIV+ (known and unknown) now what do you want to argue? How many people there are in the US that are sexually active? Want to argue the CDC's guess that there is 20% unknown? Where is the math wrong? Do you want to geographic? Do you want to exclude the number of HIV+ known and unknown that could be in prison? Do you want to exclude the number of HIV+ known and unknown that are babies? Of course this math will not have an absolutely accurate answer. But saying it is wrong if the chance of meeting someone goes from .0048 to .0065, while technically correct, is missing the BIG PICTURE. The BIG PICTURE is that the chance of MEETING someone who is HIV+ (known/unknown) is extremely low. Staying on this subject, I did this math for someone in South Dakota. I do not remember the EXACT information, but I think it was there were ~500 HIV in a state population of ~900k Their chance was, iirc, .0005.
But again . . . please correct me if it is wrong. I will not be offended. If anything, I will be happy!
If you believe CDC we might not even kiss. One thing I do believe is that unprotected oral can be a means of transmission of gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, genital warts,intestinal parasites, hepatitis A and B, and cumming in a mouth, which has the the risk of transmitting aids. In real life no one is concerned about oral safety except me and my partner, but only because of me. Why?
Tom
Amazon, I didn't see where you advocated the use of condoms anywhere, and it appeared that you were stating that the prevention of infection was insignificant. Without copy-pasting ad-infinitum, your math is incorrect. You use a lot of "always & never" type statements based on terms like "may not prevent infection" as in herpes or syph. Making up statistics and then expounding on the results is still bad math, making decisions based on that rationale isn't something I choose to do. IE: Condoms may not prevent all cases of herpes or syph, but they will usually prevent them if they are in the areas covered by the condom. Outbreaks of those infections are usually on the genitals, but occasionally they are somewhere else, and possibly, they may not be noticeable but still transmit the disease.
Using condoms for penetration provides significantly more protection than not using them,(some>none), If you think it's insignificant that's fine, but throwing out fictitious statistics as support for your opinion is not only incorrect, but seems misleading and argumentative. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and choices, but it appears that you're trying to convince people to agree with you, based on your admittedly flawed math.
And if you had read what I wrote, you would see that I stated that roughly 40% of all HIV + live in the south. The south does not constitute 40% of the US population, or heck, does it? So it can be skewed. What can not happen though is that the chance increasing that much. If anything it will decrease. Why?
That HIV population that the CDC states, again, this includes KNOWN and UNKNOWN would include prisoners and babies. The chances of you or I meeting a HIV prisoner is highly improbable, while it is technically not impossible, it ain't gonna happen.
I just looked something up because the CDC does have some wicked data. I was wrong. The South has 46% of all the HIV cases, not 40%. What is interesting is that GA has the highest rate in the US, followed by Florida, then followed by Louisiana. Heck, if I use the CDC data, here in CA, the chance of me meeting a HIV+ person is .0114%. Yes, barely more than one one hundredth of a percent. Then it can get even lower if I select OUT of meeting people who are black. Then it can get even lower if I select OUT of meeting men. Then it can get even lower if I select OUT of meeting people under 35.
Here is the math for you to ponder.
Assuming a normal distribution for age and geography (their data doesn't break it down well enough to figure out greater precision), the white female population that is HIV+ (known and unknown) is 2.58%. There are 1.2m cases. Again, this is WRONG and I know it, it will actually be lower, but for ease of math. there are approximately 31,000 white women with HIV in the US. Think about that! The CDC states that their model has 20% being HIV + and unknown. Want to assume that the HIV+ known will not fuck me? That leaves 6,200 women in the US, out of roughly 125 million women that are sexually active that have HIV and do not know it. Hmm. That puts the chance of me meeting that person at .0049% That means that I would need to meet over 20,100 women just to have finally met one. Fuck, that's beyond Wilt Chamberlain level :)
My point in all of this is actually very simple. Will condoms be effective in stopping HIV? FUCK YEAH. Will you meet someone who is HIV+ and fuck them? Highly improbable. So what are you protecting yourself from? If you, and that is the generic you, feel that condoms are going to protect you, are you this anal retentive about other things that you can control? HINT: Alcohol, tobacco, sugar, processed foods, not exercising, not sleeping, stress, bad diet, etc. It is, again, how people fail to judge risk well. However, if they give you peace of mind, that is a qualitative value that can not be measured. So go for it.
Here, let me fuck with your head some more. The chance of being struck by lightning in my lifetime is GREATER than the chance of me meeting that HIV+ unknown woman.
My "real life" reference was to your cite about "meeting" an HIV+ person. In the US, the frequency particularly in certain areas and certain circles is much higher. Most of us encounter a person living with HIV and never even know it.
Best,
Lisa
Just because I feel like it . . .
This is from a study commissioned by the NIH. The goal was to learn the effectiveness of condoms.
"While acknowledging the possibility that condoms reduce the risk of HPV-associated diseases, the panel members also concluded that “there was no epidemiologic evidence that condom use reduced the risk of HPV infection.”"
" On the basis of results of a published meta-analysis, “‘always’ users of the male condom significantly reduced the risk of HIV infection in men and women…who engage in vaginal intercourse.” "
" “the latex male condom could reduce the risk of gonorrhea for men,” "
"For STDs spread by genital fluids (HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and trichomoniasis), an intact latex condom should prevent one's risk of infection following a single sexual exposure–provided the condom is used according to the seven 7 steps for correct use recommended by the CDC and does not slip or break. For STDs classified as genital ulcer diseases (genital herpes, syphilis, and chancroid) and for HPV (which appears to be transmitted both by direct contact and through genital fluids), an intact latex condom may not reduce one's risk for a single act of sex, even when the condom is used “correctly” and does not break or slip. Despite even correct condom use, significant risk of infection may remain because disease transmission can occur from infected skin or lesions not covered by the condom."
Title of the study : Condom Effectiveness: Factors That Influence Risk Reduction
I guess this is NOT real world studies?
And wait - there is more . . .
"Peterman points out that the total number of sex acts (exposures) is an important variable in determining condom effectiveness. 36 This concept is supported by the mathematical modeling work of Mann et al 34 and is discussed further in the following section on Cumulative Risk."
There is that whole non-binary concept.
"Educational materials from many professional and governmental organizations acknowledge that condoms are not 100% effective but fail to discuss the actual or predicted effectiveness or additional factors that may influence condom effectiveness. The origin of these assumptions of condom effectiveness in preventing STD transmission is uncertain."
I guess the CDC data is NOT real life. All I have done is quote the CDC data and apply stats to it.
Ok . . .
Good luck in whatever you do.
Amazon, it is not splitting hairs and much of the data you reference does not match real life. I am not going to continue this here and simply refer to my earlier posts and stand by their accuracy as stated.
Lisa
2 of 2
I believe that humans are pathetic at judging risk. I did some math, for fun, yeah, I liked math throughout all my schooling. Do you know what the chances are that you even meet a HIV positive person? The CDC estimates that there are 1.2m people in the US who are HIV+ either known or unknown. Yes, that 1.2 includes people who are UNKNOWN through testing. Going back to the 250mm sexually active that gives you less than one half of one percent chance of even meeting someone. Now of course we can get more granular on this data if you want. Roughly 25% of the HIV positive are hetero. Roughly 40% of all HIV positive are in the South. So this chance of meeting is not going to get higher, it’s going to get lower. Now, let’s assume that ALL the HIV positive’s don’t care and will fuck you. As a woman, again, the CDC says your chance is near NIL.
Here is an interesting quote from the CDC. “In extremely rare cases, HIV has been transmitted by Contact between broken skin, wounds, or mucous membranes and HIV-infected blood or blood-contaminated body fluids.” So yes, it has happened. Statistically insignificant though.
But back to the rest of the cooties :)
Yes, if we play semantics, condoms are more effective in the reducing the exposure to these cooties than without. Congrats. We used English, not Math. However, if I told you that the risk was .003% with a condom and .004% without, that meets your criteria, but it goes back to that judging risk issue. It also goes back to that peace of mind issue. If that extra 100th of a percent means everything to you, congrats, go for it. I am basing my decisions not on English, but Math.
And to have fun . . . and by NO means is this meant as an insult. We, as Americans eat way the fuck too much crap. We are more apt to die from the shit that we eat, the shit that we drink than ANY of this. Yet . . . here, you and I are, arguing over something that, in the scheme of things, is insignificant. We control what we eat and drink more so than sex. (You can get raped, food is not going to attack you and make you eat it!) So if I start calling out hypocrisies here, hopefully you can see why.
Going off on a tangent here. I wonder if people who think that condoms are the silver bullet (aka SAFE sex) are also believers in God. That would be a helluva fun study to do. I think there is that concept of faith that ties them together.
1 of 2 - again
I think we may be splitting hairs here.
First and foremost, high consequences? HUH?
I am stating that condoms are a highly effective tool. So I am curious what the high consequences are.
Granted it has been a while since I had a fuck ton of training on this material and things may have evolved. I used to deal with blood 8 hours a day and was trained out the wazoo about prevention of blood and airborne diseases.
Please educate me though on something. Again, this is where I think we are splitting hairs. As HIV attacks blood cells, it does not attack derma, how can it not be in the blood stream? Of course, I am not talking petri dish here. From a male perspective, if I, as HIV negative ejaculate into a female who is HIV positive, the chances of me getting HIV is almost near nil. It is so insignificant that that CDC does not even count the number of women -> men cases. Is it possible? Sure. I can win the Powerball and Mega Millions three times in a row each. But it’s not probable.
Now let’s gender reverse that. If I am HIV positive and ejaculate into a HIV negative woman will she get HIV? You and I both know the answer is maybe. It is not a 100% yes and not a 100% no. But it lies somewhere between there. I would also reference the CDC data for the amount of times that transmission occurs.
I realize that this is going to be a repetitive post for me. However, I enjoy educated conversations!
Amazon, thanks for being receptive to my follow-up posts and clarifications. However, you state something that is a common misunderstanding about HIV and seriously misinformative, meaning with potential high consequences.
In pertinent part, Amazon wrote: "Let's use the easiest one for discussion: HIV. Hiv is transmitted from blood product to blood. It has to enter the bloodstream. Once it enters, it needs some more for it to 'hook,' but it is blood to blood. Male ejaculate is blood based therefore it passes HIV. Therefore, a condom which does a fantastic job of capturing male ejaculate is a highly effective tool for the spreading of HIV."
This is an inaccurate characterization of HIV. HIV can be transmitted from blood product to blood, but blood alone is not the problem and ejaculate is NOT a blood product. The fact is that HIV, in sum, thrives in white blood cell rich body fluids, where it can exist in high enough volatility OR volume, and requires entry into white blood cell rich fluids and/or vulnerable mucous membranes. HIV does not ever have to be first introduced into the bloodstream itself to completely infect a human being. Human ejaculate -- whether male semen or female cum -- is a white blood cell rich bodily fluid and therefore like blood among the highest risk fluids that do not require a large amount of fluid to have a high risk exposure. Human ejaculate is more risky when introduced into the vagina or anus as compared to an intact mouth.
While some of Amazon's explanations about other STIs show some indicators as to why condoms may be less effective in preventing transmissions of those infections with as great efficacy as with HIV, the truth remains that condom and other similar barrier use reduces exposure and thereby does reduce, even if not at the same measurable scale, new infections. Further, Amazon's analysis actually makes the case for use of the "Female Condom" which provides greater protection from the risky genital skin-to-skin contact Amazon cites. But I will not venture to go there.
I really just needed to clear up this particular misunderstanding regarding HIV virology.
Best,
Lisa
@TheBest
Thanks for the clarification.
I have stated over and over, whatever makes you feel comfortable to have sex, that is the right way. I only get my feathers ruffled when people tell me that condoms are, in essence, the silver bullet for diseases. Life is full of risk. We live in a universe that everything is out to kill us to live. We all can choose the level of risk we wish to take. We do it everyday :)
2 of 2
Now you used a phrase that can be interpreted many ways. You stated disease control. I am going to assume that you meant it the way that the CDC and the medical community thinks about it. Disease control means controlling the spreading of the disease. It does not mean anything other than that. The CDC and medical community has an agenda and that is to stop the spread. Testing does not stop the spread. Someone who is known positive and doesn't infect anyone stops the spread. Testing only tells if someone is or isn't positive for what the test was looking for at that point in time. Human behavior is what stops the spread.
So when I state that condoms are statistically insignificant for the protection of anything other than HIV and pregnancy, I am not wrong. If you really want to do the math, we can. But here, let me just let you think about this for a minute. There are about 250mm people in the US who are sexually active. Want to give them sex 30 times a year as an average? Now we have 7.5 billion times a year that sex occurred. Out of that, there are ~40k HIV cases. 1.7mm cases of Chlamydia, ~105k Syph, ~500k Gono. What you are saying is that ALL of those cases were because they did not have a condom. Hmm. Nope. Let's leave HIV out but stick with the others. Using Gono because it is the biggest number that means of every time that sex occurred the chance of getting Gono was .0067%. Now want to say that half were with condoms? So the chance of getting it wearing a condom is .0033%. Now of course this is flawed because we do not know how many of the 7.5 billion sex acts were with condoms. What we do know is that the total condom sales WORLDWIDE is about 5 billion units per year. So a good chunk of that US sex was without condoms.
In all sincerity, there is NO study that I have found that quantifies, with clarity, the benefit or, as some would say, recklessness, of the condom usage. This is not a binary thing, well HIV isn't :)
1 of 2
@TRAMP
You decided to cut out the rest of the comment to cherry pick. It will be responded to in DNLB's section.
@DNLB
Nope. Before we get into anything of consequence, let's just look at this from the most simplistic level. A condom covers the penis. It does not fully encapsulate the penis. It does not encapsulate the balls. It just covers a few inches down the shaft and captures ejaculate.
Where is herpes on the body?
How is herpes transmitted?
How is gono transmitted?
How is chlamydia transmitted?
How is syph transmitted?
How is hiv transmitted?
Let's use the easiest one for discussion: HIV. Hiv is transmitted from blood product to blood. It has to enter the bloodstream. Once it enters, it needs some more for it to 'hook,' but it is blood to blood. Male ejaculate is blood based therefore it passes HIV. Therefore, a condom which does a fantastic job of capturing male ejaculate is a highly effective tool for the spreading of HIV.
Herpes on the body is NOT strictly on the shaft of the penis. Herpes is NOT transmitted via bodily fluids. Herpes is transmitted by skin to skin contact. As I just mentioned, as herpes is NOT strictly on the shaft of the penis what is the effectiveness of a condom? As herpes on the man can be on, inside or around the penis, the scrotum, balls, anus, buttocks how is that condom effective? For a woman herpes can be on the labia, inside the vagina, the groin, thighs, anus, buttocks. Again . . . how is the condom effective? Therefore it is quite easy to state that YES, it can be effective, but it is statistically insignificant.
Guess what . . . syph is just like herpes. Therefore the answer is the same.
Chlamydia does NOT require ejaculate. It requires skin to skin. This one, a condom will not guarantee you will not get it, but it will greatly increase the 'protection.' The transmission of this is not 'settled' science.
Now to also clarify something that you said regarding medical people with gloves. You do realize that there is a LOT more at play than contacting a STD that they are concerned about. First and foremost, they are concerned about LIABILITY over your health. The are more concerned about LIABILITY from spreading than your health. This is a money issue first. Now they are concerned with a LOT meaner things than a STD which can be treated, unlike a cold. The chances of you getting HIV in a medical field is not nil, but damn near close to it. The chance of you getting Hep is a LOT higher. Hep is fucking mean, that shit don't die when airborne!
@DNLB
I Agree...well said
@TheBest2ForYou
I Agree...also well said
Tramp
And to further clarify, I never said testing is a prophylactic. Never ever. It's not. The interim period between tests is filled with circumstances and factors that "change" the most recent test results reliability.
L.
I don't want to rain on anyone's parade as I am a very sex-positive person, but clearly my post in this thread is being misunderstood or misrepresented.
I (Lisa) am a major proponent of condom use and other barriers when dealing with bodily fluids. I am a proponent of periodic testing and so I stand by my earlier statement which one of the commenters took out of context: "Testing and knowing one's statuses is helpful in minimizing some infections." My statement was regarding minimizing the risk of passing infections following a positive test result and making any necessary and mutually beneficial behavioral choices as a result of knowledge of any change in status.
That said, TESTING absolutely does NOT protect people from risk of exposure during incubation periods or the time in-between tests. Testing is a snapshot of a given moment in time and therefore test results cannot be overrelied on for making decision such as to "bareback" because John Doe has "clean test results." Unless John Doe has been provenly celibate in every dimension, then those papers do not mean a lot about risk of exposures EXCEPT that John Doe seems very conscientious in monitoring his sexual health.
I have seen many profiles from people stating they are DDF. but who note that they only use condoms for penetration. Such practice may "reduce" risk of contagion comparatively, but truthfully, and I saw this caringly not judgmentally, HPV via the mouth that settles in the throat and becomes malignant is just as much cancer as HPV that passes vaginally and becomes cervical cancer or that passes through the anus and becomes rectal cancer. I think, overall, that straight or straight-ish folks generally see HIV as the big risk and believe that condom use for vaginal and anal sex suffices to "protect" from the big worries but epidemiologically that is not necessarily accurate.
There are facts, and then there are our decisions. I have not always decided perfectly in my life, but I have to acknowledge the facts even when I don't. Barriers like condoms reduce the passage of STIs. There should not be a dispute there. Of course there are exceptions, just like there are those who get pregnant on BCP or men with vasectomies that impregnate, but overall the science is on the side of the benefits and not the exceptions.
Thanks for listening! Happy playing!!
Lisa
WTF???
"They will not protect you from Gono. They will not protect you from Herpes. They will not protect you from Chlamydia. They are statistically insignificant when it comes to protecting from skin to skin contact."
This type of statement indicates very little understanding about disease control. Besides being blatantly incorrect, it could lead someone to making a poor choice that turns out to be life-changing, so IMO it's a harmful statement.
Condoms are used for exactly the same reason that all medical personnel wear gloves, a physical barrier is effective in blocking the vast majority of infections. While it's not perfect, it is effective enough to be required in regular practice.
"Statistically insignificant"? You are significantly wrong.
“I think you believe that condoms protect you from STDs. In general, they do not. ”
Sorry, old friend, but I can’t let that one hang out there either.
Condoms do provide protection from STDS as well as the transfer of sperm. Neither of those protections are absolute, and on that point I agree with you.
However, to say that condoms offer no protection, as you consistently do, is as incorrect as saying that they offer fool-proof protection.
Tramp
@888
Honestly, I would prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I am not so sure. If you read further, they start talking about fluids. I am impressed though that they did not use the cliche, 'safe sex' but called it 'safer sex.' That is more accurate but it is still kinda wonky because it is VERY hard, if not impossible, to determine what the value of 'safer' is. If I go from a 1 in a 100k chance to a 1 in 99k chance it is safer in the technical definition, but is it significant? :)
Testing is not a prophylactic. People tend to believe that. Testing is a tool for you to decide what to do when the results come in. It stops nothing but the potential spread.
People can choose whatever makes them feel comfortable in testing schedules and what they test for. It will never stop them from getting anything though :)
