FabSwingers.com > Forums > Swingers Chat > compulsory sti tests.
compulsory sti tests.
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
So I was reading an article regarding condom usage and there was a study done by superdrug regarding how many people actually make sure they wear one. And more often than not guys will try and chance their luck by stating they don't have any to hand, women can be just as bad at insisting on the usage of them.
It appears that the most common fear with not using is unwanted pregnancies, most people will try and convince their potential shag that they are clean.
This got me thinking should there be some sort of compulsory sti test carried out on all sexually active people? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
To what end?
A clean result is only valid on the day it's taken, and if the testee abstains from sexual activity for the next 3 months to achieve another clean test. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
How could you enforce that? Would that include a couple who have been married monogamously for 40 years? Would just be unworkable.
I think education is the key and perhaps more hard hitting adverts like the tombstones in the 80's.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
It is just an idea as to how to educate people about STI's, at the moment people are always reactive rather than proactive.
As for who pays for it we don't by pay for the tests at the moment, but what would be more expensive a test or the drugs to treat a possible STI? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It is just an idea as to how to educate people about STI's, at the moment people are always reactive rather than proactive.
As for who pays for it we don't by pay for the tests at the moment, but what would be more expensive a test or the drugs to treat a possible STI?"
I agree that generally our health service as a whole is far to reactive. Prevention has to be better than cure. I actually think we should pour money into sexual health education as it has to be cheaper than curing or treating these diseases.
Also an awful lot of STIs are treated with antibiotics and the costs of them no longer working is incalculable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don’t get how people have sex at clubs  "
The same way as at home or in hotels. What's your problem? Most clubs have condoms freely available and some have pop up testing sessions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It is just an idea as to how to educate people about STI's, at the moment people are always reactive rather than proactive.
"
But how would it educate people? Like many things, some people are knowledgable and aware of the risks while others, often those who'd benefit most, don;t care and probably never will |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Compulsory, as in the way the driving test is compulsory??"
Exactly the same. The examiner hits your penis with a clipboard and you have to do an emergency stop.
You also need to ensure you indicate before pulling out and be able to read a bra size from 15 paces.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don’t get how people have sex at clubs
The penis goes into the vagina. "
Arrrrh thats where ive been going wrong !!! I always try and stick it in the ear , no wonder why they always here me coming. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Men often chance a meet with no condoms. That's why I always carry some.... much to the look of disappointment on their face
"
This is what the article was about. It's quite a worrying statistic.
I wished I could pay the link to it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Well here goes , here is our ten pence worth , we get told down the clinic that they get hell of a lot of swingers who go to the clinic who are open about what they do and also aware of the risk.....its the Guys and Girls who are shagging behind their partners back are the ones who dont get checked .....so we were at a club a few years ago and played with condoms on etc...but hubby managed to get Chlamydia in the eye(yes the eye)so not sure how a condom would have prevented that and the number of women who like cum over the face etc and then say wear a condom to fuck them ...its a token gesture .....as a previous post said the test is valid for the day you have it done unless you are monogamous....i think we are know what the risk are all we can do is manage it ..we would be more concerned about intravenous drug users in the swinging scene.....well thats our take.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *olliPineCouple
over a year ago
swingers clubs |
"I don’t get how people have sex at clubs "
Really unsure about your hating on the clubs here.
We are regular frequenters and have always tested sti free.
Maybe you go to different clubs than others do, are you sure it's clubs and not brothels you're attending?
Anyway, we've always played safe (although bb with each other), it's the only way we'll play. It works for us - and pretty much everyone else we've ever played with at clubs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"To what end?
A clean result is only valid on the day it's taken, and if the testee abstains from sexual activity for the next 3 months to achieve another clean test. "
Well, actually a test isn’t ever a snapshot of your actual status, especially when it comes to HIV, which has a 3 months incubation period where the carrier is undetectable and ironically has an i credibility high viral load...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Well here goes , here is our ten pence worth , we get told down the clinic that they get hell of a lot of swingers who go to the clinic who are open about what they do and also aware of the risk.....its the Guys and Girls who are shagging behind their partners back are the ones who dont get checked .....so we were at a club a few years ago and played with condoms on etc...but hubby managed to get Chlamydia in the eye(yes the eye)so not sure how a condom would have prevented that and the number of women who like cum over the face etc and then say wear a condom to fuck them ...its a token gesture .....as a previous post said the test is valid for the day you have it done unless you are monogamous....i think we are know what the risk are all we can do is manage it ..we would be more concerned about intravenous drug users in the swinging scene.....well thats our take.
"
Very true, but should a test be mandatory then the lady would have known and could have been treated, who's to say she's been treated still?
I understand its pretty much un manageable to do, but surely it could help in keeping the level of STI's down? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
No there should not be compulsory testing of all sexually active people, what a ridiculous suggestion.
Who decides what people are sexually active or not, little men listening under Windows at night with a clipboard to note down sexual noises, then send you a notification that you must attend the clap clinic.
XXX |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well here goes , here is our ten pence worth , we get told down the clinic that they get hell of a lot of swingers who go to the clinic who are open about what they do and also aware of the risk.....its the Guys and Girls who are shagging behind their partners back are the ones who dont get checked .....so we were at a club a few years ago and played with condoms on etc...but hubby managed to get Chlamydia in the eye(yes the eye)so not sure how a condom would have prevented that and the number of women who like cum over the face etc and then say wear a condom to fuck them ...its a token gesture .....as a previous post said the test is valid for the day you have it done unless you are monogamous....i think we are know what the risk are all we can do is manage it ..we would be more concerned about intravenous drug users in the swinging scene.....well thats our take.
Very true, but should a test be mandatory then the lady would have known and could have been treated, who's to say she's been treated still?
I understand its pretty much un manageable to do, but surely it could help in keeping the level of STI's down?"
It's an interesting suggestion. Pregnant women get tested. No idea how it would work or cost etc but the stats on sti's are useless because they only refer to people getting tested. No stats on people that don't get tested.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I never understand people who respond to such questions with "education" as if there are a mass of people with weepy dicks saying "i didn't know that sexual transmitted infections come from sex". What exactly do you want them to know that you think they don't? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well here goes , here is our ten pence worth , we get told down the clinic that they get hell of a lot of swingers who go to the clinic who are open about what they do and also aware of the risk.....its the Guys and Girls who are shagging behind their partners back are the ones who dont get checked .....so we were at a club a few years ago and played with condoms on etc...but hubby managed to get Chlamydia in the eye(yes the eye)so not sure how a condom would have prevented that and the number of women who like cum over the face etc and then say wear a condom to fuck them ...its a token gesture .....as a previous post said the test is valid for the day you have it done unless you are monogamous....i think we are know what the risk are all we can do is manage it ..we would be more concerned about intravenous drug users in the swinging scene.....well thats our take.
Very true, but should a test be mandatory then the lady would have known and could have been treated, who's to say she's been treated still?
I understand its pretty much un manageable to do, but surely it could help in keeping the level of STI's down?
It's an interesting suggestion. Pregnant women get tested. No idea how it would work or cost etc but the stats on sti's are useless because they only refer to people getting tested. No stats on people that don't get tested. "
Well sorry we didn't answer the question should testing be compulsory well we didn't know swinging or being sexually active was a regulated activity .....i think most people with an ounce of common sense would get checked a few/4 times a year......Compulsory NO |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I never understand people who respond to such questions with "education" as if there are a mass of people with weepy dicks saying "i didn't know that sexual transmitted infections come from sex". What exactly do you want them to know that you think they don't? "
I think that you think that an STI has to result in a weepy dick shows that you need education about STI's...
Weepy dick is one *possible* symptom of an STI...
But, some STI's are "silent" and symptomless.
But yeah - There are a shit load of clueless people out there...
It might be their age, it might be their education, it might be their race, religion or culture... (Catholics anyone??)
Same with how some people think the pull out method or rhythm method is contraception.
The stats speak for themselves.
In June 2015, Public Health England released a report on sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in England. The report showed there were 439,243 cases of STIs in 2014. Young people under the age of 25 and men who have sex with men (gay and bisexual) are most at risk of getting STIs.
In England, young heterosexual people aged 16 to 24 accounted for:
63% of chlamydia cases
55% of gonorrhoea cases
52% of genital warts cases
42% of herpes cases
So - that's a half a million 16-24 year olds that tested positive for an STI.
How many have an STI and haven't been tested?
And this is for an age range that really should know better.
Something to digest for you, and others.
So - if that's not a mass of people, what is?
Flames |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irginieWoman
over a year ago
Near Marlborough |
"I don’t get how people have sex at clubs
You seem to be preoccupied about people having sex in clubs. Did no one want to play on your last visit?"
Laugh. Exactly what I was going to say.... although I would have been a bit less polite and added “diddums”. Having said that... perhaps he really truly just doesn’t know how it’s done.
V x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I never understand people who respond to such questions with "education" as if there are a mass of people with weepy dicks saying "i didn't know that sexual transmitted infections come from sex". What exactly do you want them to know that you think they don't?
I think that you think that an STI has to result in a weepy dick shows that you need education about STI's...
Weepy dick is one *possible* symptom of an STI...
But, some STI's are "silent" and symptomless.
But yeah - There are a shit load of clueless people out there...
It might be their age, it might be their education, it might be their race, religion or culture... (Catholics anyone??)
Same with how some people think the pull out method or rhythm method is contraception.
The stats speak for themselves.
In June 2015, Public Health England released a report on sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in England. The report showed there were 439,243 cases of STIs in 2014. Young people under the age of 25 and men who have sex with men (gay and bisexual) are most at risk of getting STIs.
In England, young heterosexual people aged 16 to 24 accounted for:
63% of chlamydia cases
55% of gonorrhoea cases
52% of genital warts cases
42% of herpes cases
So - that's a half a million 16-24 year olds that tested positive for an STI.
How many have an STI and haven't been tested?
And this is for an age range that really should know better.
Something to digest for you, and others.
So - if that's not a mass of people, what is?
Flames"
And absolutely none of that proves they caught them because they weren't educated. Maybe some people know the risks and take them? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
And absolutely none of that proves they caught them because they weren't educated. Maybe some people know the risks and take them?"
The stats and facts don't bear that out.
Heck, the outbreaks in the post menopausal age brackets are pretty intense.
Speak to someone who delivers STI training (I did)...
There's a general ignorance compounded by the fact they don't know the risks.
If you assume the risk is super low, then sure, you'll chance it.
It's a double fallacy.
HTH.
Flames |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
And absolutely none of that proves they caught them because they weren't educated. Maybe some people know the risks and take them?
The stats and facts don't bear that out.
Heck, the outbreaks in the post menopausal age brackets are pretty intense.
Speak to someone who delivers STI training (I did)...
There's a general ignorance compounded by the fact they don't know the risks.
If you assume the risk is super low, then sure, you'll chance it.
It's a double fallacy.
HTH.
Flames"
Ok, are there any facts that prove your case? For example "for every £1 spent on public education the infection rate goes down x% saving the NHS £x"? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Compulsory, as in the way the driving test is compulsory??
Exactly the same. The examiner hits your penis with a clipboard and you have to do an emergency stop.
You also need to ensure you indicate before pulling out and be able to read a bra size from 15 paces.
"
I like it good one  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Ok, are there any facts that prove your case? For example "for every £1 spent on public education the infection rate goes down x% saving the NHS £x"?"
Although entirely a non sequitur for this thread, I'll indulge you.
Unfortunately it's hard to extract the exact data from UNESCO's or the NHS stats, because sex education encompasses both STI's and pregnancy education.
It which case you get £2-£5 saved for every £1 spent "more or less".
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Ok, are there any facts that prove your case? For example "for every £1 spent on public education the infection rate goes down x% saving the NHS £x"?
Although entirely a non sequitur for this thread, I'll indulge you.
Unfortunately it's hard to extract the exact data from UNESCO's or the NHS stats, because sex education encompasses both STI's and pregnancy education.
It which case you get £2-£5 saved for every £1 spent "more or less".
"
Ok well that's more than i expected. I guess there are a lot more stupid people out there than i realise! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Yup. It's pretty scary considering that all the councils have had their funding slashed, and there's fear in schools for mandatory education (let alone the free school / faith school nonsense).
We're sleep walking in to an STI bomb *again*.
Like the gay community loving PrEP and PeP... Forgetting that HIV / AIDS isn't the only STI out there...
Heck - You, like us, probably suffer the same Biphobia from people that think that Bi men are the "disease carriers", when we should be the ones most likely to actually have been tested - and regularly!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"No there should not be compulsory testing of all sexually active people, what a ridiculous suggestion.
Who decides what people are sexually active or not, little men listening under Windows at night with a clipboard to note down sexual noises, then send you a notification that you must attend the clap clinic.
XXX"
Not really a suggestion more of a question! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yup. It's pretty scary considering that all the councils have had their funding slashed, and there's fear in schools for mandatory education (let alone the free school / faith school nonsense).
We're sleep walking in to an STI bomb *again*.
Like the gay community loving PrEP and PeP... Forgetting that HIV / AIDS isn't the only STI out there...
Heck - You, like us, probably suffer the same Biphobia from people that think that Bi men are the "disease carriers", when we should be the ones most likely to actually have been tested - and regularly!
"
I don't see it as biphobia. As a group bisexual men are a higher risk of STDs than straight men, that's statistical fact. If someone has hundreds of potential meets then it's perfectly rational to filter out my group. If they got the chance to know me as an individual then they'd realise that my habits are actually lower risk than the group they prefer but that's their problem not mine. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
As I see it, it's the MSM - Men who have sex with men, that's by far the bigger risk.
How many "straight" guys message you saying "I'm actually Bi?".
They are the biggest risk, but that's where the biphobia comes in.
:-/ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As I see it, it's the MSM - Men who have sex with men, that's by far the bigger risk.
How many "straight" guys message you saying "I'm actually Bi?".
They are the biggest risk, but that's where the biphobia comes in.
:-/"
Well yes I'm very sceptical how many people are actually straight, but ultimately if people want to be lied to then they can knock themselves out with it. Personally we wouldn't want to play with dishonest people as it has a whole load of knock on problems, so it's good other people do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Not sure if this link will work or not.
https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/wjqdwb/why-are-all-these-adults-not-wearing-condoms-an-investigation?utm_campaign=sharebutton |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yup. It's pretty scary considering that all the councils have had their funding slashed, and there's fear in schools for mandatory education (let alone the free school / faith school nonsense).
We're sleep walking in to an STI bomb *again*.
Like the gay community loving PrEP and PeP... Forgetting that HIV / AIDS isn't the only STI out there...
Heck - You, like us, probably suffer the same Biphobia from people that think that Bi men are the "disease carriers", when we should be the ones most likely to actually have been tested - and regularly!
I don't see it as biphobia. As a group bisexual men are a higher risk of STDs than straight men, that's statistical fact. If someone has hundreds of potential meets then it's perfectly rational to filter out my group. If they got the chance to know me as an individual then they'd realise that my habits are actually lower risk than the group they prefer but that's their problem not mine. "
Apparently swingers are the same risk level. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yup. It's pretty scary considering that all the councils have had their funding slashed, and there's fear in schools for mandatory education (let alone the free school / faith school nonsense).
We're sleep walking in to an STI bomb *again*.
Like the gay community loving PrEP and PeP... Forgetting that HIV / AIDS isn't the only STI out there...
Heck - You, like us, probably suffer the same Biphobia from people that think that Bi men are the "disease carriers", when we should be the ones most likely to actually have been tested - and regularly!
I don't see it as biphobia. As a group bisexual men are a higher risk of STDs than straight men, that's statistical fact. If someone has hundreds of potential meets then it's perfectly rational to filter out my group. If they got the chance to know me as an individual then they'd realise that my habits are actually lower risk than the group they prefer but that's their problem not mine.
Apparently swingers are the same risk level. "
Depends what for really. Some diseases have a risk thats broadly proportional to the number of partners you have (e.g. HPV and herpes) whilst HIV is more about who you play with. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I can't remember what I was going to say about it now? Ummm well I use condoms but I know they break, happened to me so I'm not going to be uppity about bb
Smoking kills but smoking has exploded among young people, diabetes is life shortening but obesity is rising so maybe humans are just willing to risk the consequences?? Sorry I promise I had something more meaningful to say  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can't remember what I was going to say about it now? Ummm well I use condoms but I know they break, happened to me so I'm not going to be uppity about bb
Smoking kills but smoking has exploded among young people, diabetes is life shortening but obesity is rising so maybe humans are just willing to risk the consequences?? Sorry I promise I had something more meaningful to say "
do you know what..you have just hit the nail on the head...we all take risk in various guises
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I as a gent that’s partied and attended a few clubs with friends always take my own condom supply, only polite to ensure everyone’s safety!! And of course you can slip a usb wand in that charges in the car and several oils and lubes for fun times |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Who is going to pay for all these tests and the extra NHS staff required to carry them out?
Promoting Safer practices is more cost effective rather than numerous testing which is only an on the day result and as soon as you have sex not really valid!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well here goes , here is our ten pence worth , we get told down the clinic that they get hell of a lot of swingers who go to the clinic who are open about what they do and also aware of the risk.....its the Guys and Girls who are shagging behind their partners back are the ones who dont get checked .....so we were at a club a few years ago and played with condoms on etc...but hubby managed to get Chlamydia in the eye(yes the eye)so not sure how a condom would have prevented that and the number of women who like cum over the face etc and then say wear a condom to fuck them ...its a token gesture .....as a previous post said the test is valid for the day you have it done unless you are monogamous....i think we are know what the risk are all we can do is manage it ..we would be more concerned about intravenous drug users in the swinging scene.....well thats our take.
Very true, but should a test be mandatory then the lady would have known and could have been treated, who's to say she's been treated still?
I understand its pretty much un manageable to do, but surely it could help in keeping the level of STI's down?"
That's pretty much the definition of a non-sequitur, and deserving of the 'slippery slope' award.
With the exception of asymptomatic STIs (e.g. chlamydia) you have to assume that most STI's are transmitted by people who either know they are infected, or that they are at risk, but still go ahead and do it.
All compulsory testing would do is give false reassurance to people who're bad at understanding risk that something had been done. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yup. It's pretty scary considering that all the councils have had their funding slashed, and there's fear in schools for mandatory education (let alone the free school / faith school nonsense).
We're sleep walking in to an STI bomb *again*.
Like the gay community loving PrEP and PeP... Forgetting that HIV / AIDS isn't the only STI out there...
Heck - You, like us, probably suffer the same Biphobia from people that think that Bi men are the "disease carriers", when we should be the ones most likely to actually have been tested - and regularly!
I don't see it as biphobia. As a group bisexual men are a higher risk of STDs than straight men, that's statistical fact. If someone has hundreds of potential meets then it's perfectly rational to filter out my group. If they got the chance to know me as an individual then they'd realise that my habits are actually lower risk than the group they prefer but that's their problem not mine. "
Putting the word fact on the end of a shallow generalization about statistics doesn't actually bolster the argument.
We could argue all day about the difference in risk and health between bi men, queer men and MSWM's, not least because, as CDCP in the USA have suggested, biphobia or risk averse partner selection by people badly inormed about risk can lead to more men going under the radar as MSWM's rather than being out, but there are some basics that need to be said.
Statistics are no comfort when it comes to risk management; they tell you how likely something is to happen, but the risk resets each time you test it. If anyone ever says to you 'I'll have bareback anal with X because he presents as low risk' then run a mile; they don't understand risk and they don't understand people. Filtering out openly bi men (or queer men) is no more effective a tactic than no filtering at all, because it's no protection against men who lie. The only risk reduction tactic you can own, and deploy, is safe sex. Anything else is simply a misunderstanding of how risk works. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So I was reading an article regarding condom usage and there was a study done by superdrug regarding how many people actually make sure they wear one. And more often than not guys will try and chance their luck by stating they don't have any to hand, women can be just as bad at insisting on the usage of them.
It appears that the most common fear with not using is unwanted pregnancies, most people will try and convince their potential shag that they are clean.
This got me thinking should there be some sort of compulsory sti test carried out on all sexually active people?"
yes and certifiable penalties and fines oh and CCTV we should where electronic tags and check in everyday  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So I was reading an article regarding condom usage and there was a study done by superdrug regarding how many people actually make sure they wear one. And more often than not guys will try and chance their luck by stating they don't have any to hand, women can be just as bad at insisting on the usage of them.
It appears that the most common fear with not using is unwanted pregnancies, most people will try and convince their potential shag that they are clean.
This got me thinking should there be some sort of compulsory sti test carried out on all sexually active people?yes and certifiable penalties and fines oh and CCTV we should where electronic tags and check in everyday "
wear |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So I was reading an article regarding condom usage and there was a study done by superdrug regarding how many people actually make sure they wear one. And more often than not guys will try and chance their luck by stating they don't have any to hand, women can be just as bad at insisting on the usage of them.
I’m not v sexuality active unfortunately but I’d absolutely hate it if condom wasn’t used madness. Utterly crazy.
It appears that the most common fear with not using is unwanted pregnancies, most people will try and convince their potential shag that they are clean.
This got me thinking should there be some sort of compulsory sti test carried out on all sexually active people?"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I don't think it should be compulsory. I do think it should be offered at every given opportunity. So whenever you go to the doctors or SH clinic for smears, contraceptives or reviews on contraceptive. My area is quite good for it in the SH clinic but if I was getting my contraceptives through my doctor I wouldn't be offered any testing. I think both should ensure it's offered and available. If you can get close to half of the population regularly testing you may have a chance of reducing the rate of STIs. It should also become less of a taboo subject and someone is more likely to say yes to testing if they are already there rather than making an appointment specifically for it. Although obviously that still remains an option. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yup. It's pretty scary considering that all the councils have had their funding slashed, and there's fear in schools for mandatory education (let alone the free school / faith school nonsense).
We're sleep walking in to an STI bomb *again*.
Like the gay community loving PrEP and PeP... Forgetting that HIV / AIDS isn't the only STI out there...
Heck - You, like us, probably suffer the same Biphobia from people that think that Bi men are the "disease carriers", when we should be the ones most likely to actually have been tested - and regularly!
I don't see it as biphobia. As a group bisexual men are a higher risk of STDs than straight men, that's statistical fact. If someone has hundreds of potential meets then it's perfectly rational to filter out my group. If they got the chance to know me as an individual then they'd realise that my habits are actually lower risk than the group they prefer but that's their problem not mine. Putting the word fact on the end of a shallow generalization about statistics doesn't actually bolster the argument.
We could argue all day about the difference in risk and health between bi men, queer men and MSWM's, not least because, as CDCP in the USA have suggested, biphobia or risk averse partner selection by people badly inormed about risk can lead to more men going under the radar as MSWM's rather than being out, but there are some basics that need to be said.
Statistics are no comfort when it comes to risk management; they tell you how likely something is to happen, but the risk resets each time you test it. If anyone ever says to you 'I'll have bareback anal with X because he presents as low risk' then run a mile; they don't understand risk and they don't understand people. Filtering out openly bi men (or queer men) is no more effective a tactic than no filtering at all, because it's no protection against men who lie. The only risk reduction tactic you can own, and deploy, is safe sex. Anything else is simply a misunderstanding of how risk works."
Well I'm afraid you seem to be misonformed about what probability is. There's no such thing as a "shallow generalisation about statistics", that doesn't even make sense as a concept. Statistics express the risk of a group, the fact that individuals in the group vary from the aveage is incorporated into the concept. It's ridiculous when people put 'phobia' on the end of everything, a phobia is an irrational fear. There's nothing more rational than using statistics to inform your decision making. The rest of your comments are just gross ignorance of what probability is. Do you have any training in risk management or have you ever read a book on risk management? It's all about statistics and probability |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I don't think it should be compulsory. I do think it should be offered at every given opportunity. So whenever you go to the doctors or SH clinic for smears, contraceptives or reviews on contraceptive. My area is quite good for it in the SH clinic but if I was getting my contraceptives through my doctor I wouldn't be offered any testing. I think both should ensure it's offered and available. If you can get close to half of the population regularly testing you may have a chance of reducing the rate of STIs. It should also become less of a taboo subject and someone is more likely to say yes to testing if they are already there rather than making an appointment specifically for it. Although obviously that still remains an option. "
This is a very sensible suggestion, this is more of the point of my OP could regular testing reduce the rate of STIs. Much like a BCG was used to reduce TB in the UK, or how we have to carry out a MOT on our car to try reduce risk. I know there is no real solution.
As for the sarcastic answers they don't really add to the debate and just come across as childish. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
All areas should offer free NHS postal test, thats how we do ours. Takes seconds on line to register, arrive 2-3 days later, within 7days of receipt by them you get a text with result - great when can't get to clinic due to work. It does at least give peace of mind things are clear now but its more of a sex history not that guaranteed safe unless abstained |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yup. It's pretty scary considering that all the councils have had their funding slashed, and there's fear in schools for mandatory education (let alone the free school / faith school nonsense).
We're sleep walking in to an STI bomb *again*.
Like the gay community loving PrEP and PeP... Forgetting that HIV / AIDS isn't the only STI out there...
Heck - You, like us, probably suffer the same Biphobia from people that think that Bi men are the "disease carriers", when we should be the ones most likely to actually have been tested - and regularly!
I don't see it as biphobia. As a group bisexual men are a higher risk of STDs than straight men, that's statistical fact. If someone has hundreds of potential meets then it's perfectly rational to filter out my group. If they got the chance to know me as an individual then they'd realise that my habits are actually lower risk than the group they prefer but that's their problem not mine. Putting the word fact on the end of a shallow generalization about statistics doesn't actually bolster the argument.
We could argue all day about the difference in risk and health between bi men, queer men and MSWM's, not least because, as CDCP in the USA have suggested, biphobia or risk averse partner selection by people badly inormed about risk can lead to more men going under the radar as MSWM's rather than being out, but there are some basics that need to be said.
Statistics are no comfort when it comes to risk management; they tell you how likely something is to happen, but the risk resets each time you test it. If anyone ever says to you 'I'll have bareback anal with X because he presents as low risk' then run a mile; they don't understand risk and they don't understand people. Filtering out openly bi men (or queer men) is no more effective a tactic than no filtering at all, because it's no protection against men who lie. The only risk reduction tactic you can own, and deploy, is safe sex. Anything else is simply a misunderstanding of how risk works.
Well I'm afraid you seem to be misonformed about what probability is. There's no such thing as a "shallow generalisation about statistics", that doesn't even make sense as a concept. Statistics express the risk of a group, the fact that individuals in the group vary from the aveage is incorporated into the concept. It's ridiculous when people put 'phobia' on the end of everything, a phobia is an irrational fear. There's nothing more rational than using statistics to inform your decision making. The rest of your comments are just gross ignorance of what probability is. Do you have any training in risk management or have you ever read a book on risk management? It's all about statistics and probability "
no, risk management is about either reducing the risk of something ocurring or about mitigating the consequences or both.it's a tradeoff and usually you have a choice. When it comes to sex and STIs the likelihood of having reliable info to avoid all risks is low; risk mitigation via barrier methods is, however, easily available and backed up by good testing and treatment regimes. So which do you choose?
No one is perfect at risk management and strategies adopted are often a reflection of the style of individuals; I'm a cynical control freak so rely on strategies I control.
Risk management is a huge area of study but it's a human activity and the dunning kruger effect is often evident as individuals over rely on either imperfectly understood stats or an over estimation of their own ability to spot risks. Just about every large cohort study on STIs and HIV has come down on the side of risk mitigation via barrier methods.
Have a lovely day... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Compulsory, as in the way the driving test is compulsory??
Exactly the same. The examiner hits your penis with a clipboard and you have to do an emergency stop.
You also need to ensure you indicate before pulling out and be able to read a bra size from 15 paces.
"
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yup. It's pretty scary considering that all the councils have had their funding slashed, and there's fear in schools for mandatory education (let alone the free school / faith school nonsense).
We're sleep walking in to an STI bomb *again*.
Like the gay community loving PrEP and PeP... Forgetting that HIV / AIDS isn't the only STI out there...
Heck - You, like us, probably suffer the same Biphobia from people that think that Bi men are the "disease carriers", when we should be the ones most likely to actually have been tested - and regularly!
I don't see it as biphobia. As a group bisexual men are a higher risk of STDs than straight men, that's statistical fact. If someone has hundreds of potential meets then it's perfectly rational to filter out my group. If they got the chance to know me as an individual then they'd realise that my habits are actually lower risk than the group they prefer but that's their problem not mine. Putting the word fact on the end of a shallow generalization about statistics doesn't actually bolster the argument.
We could argue all day about the difference in risk and health between bi men, queer men and MSWM's, not least because, as CDCP in the USA have suggested, biphobia or risk averse partner selection by people badly inormed about risk can lead to more men going under the radar as MSWM's rather than being out, but there are some basics that need to be said.
Statistics are no comfort when it comes to risk management; they tell you how likely something is to happen, but the risk resets each time you test it. If anyone ever says to you 'I'll have bareback anal with X because he presents as low risk' then run a mile; they don't understand risk and they don't understand people. Filtering out openly bi men (or queer men) is no more effective a tactic than no filtering at all, because it's no protection against men who lie. The only risk reduction tactic you can own, and deploy, is safe sex. Anything else is simply a misunderstanding of how risk works.
Well I'm afraid you seem to be misonformed about what probability is. There's no such thing as a "shallow generalisation about statistics", that doesn't even make sense as a concept. Statistics express the risk of a group, the fact that individuals in the group vary from the aveage is incorporated into the concept. It's ridiculous when people put 'phobia' on the end of everything, a phobia is an irrational fear. There's nothing more rational than using statistics to inform your decision making. The rest of your comments are just gross ignorance of what probability is. Do you have any training in risk management or have you ever read a book on risk management? It's all about statistics and probability no, risk management is about either reducing the risk of something ocurring or about mitigating the consequences or both.it's a tradeoff and usually you have a choice. When it comes to sex and STIs the likelihood of having reliable info to avoid all risks is low; risk mitigation via barrier methods is, however, easily available and backed up by good testing and treatment regimes. So which do you choose?
No one is perfect at risk management and strategies adopted are often a reflection of the style of individuals; I'm a cynical control freak so rely on strategies I control.
Risk management is a huge area of study but it's a human activity and the dunning kruger effect is often evident as individuals over rely on either imperfectly understood stats or an over estimation of their own ability to spot risks. Just about every large cohort study on STIs and HIV has come down on the side of risk mitigation via barrier methods.
Have a lovely day..."
The dunning kruger effect is about people overestimating their abilities at tasks (e.g. test scores) it has nothing to do with risk. Your misunderstanding of risk management is evident to anyone with even a basic understanding of the subject so we'll leave it there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Arguing about risk and statistics is pointless. If the person you fuck has an sti you may catch it.That's actually my point; the fact that someone was low risk is no comfort."
High 5  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Arguing about risk and statistics is pointless. If the person you fuck has an sti you may catch it.That's actually my point; the fact that someone was low risk is no comfort.
High 5 "
Yup, why have facts when you've got feelings |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yup. It's pretty scary considering that all the councils have had their funding slashed, and there's fear in schools for mandatory education (let alone the free school / faith school nonsense).
We're sleep walking in to an STI bomb *again*.
Like the gay community loving PrEP and PeP... Forgetting that HIV / AIDS isn't the only STI out there...
Heck - You, like us, probably suffer the same Biphobia from people that think that Bi men are the "disease carriers", when we should be the ones most likely to actually have been tested - and regularly!
I don't see it as biphobia. As a group bisexual men are a higher risk of STDs than straight men, that's statistical fact. If someone has hundreds of potential meets then it's perfectly rational to filter out my group. If they got the chance to know me as an individual then they'd realise that my habits are actually lower risk than the group they prefer but that's their problem not mine. Putting the word fact on the end of a shallow generalization about statistics doesn't actually bolster the argument.
We could argue all day about the difference in risk and health between bi men, queer men and MSWM's, not least because, as CDCP in the USA have suggested, biphobia or risk averse partner selection by people badly inormed about risk can lead to more men going under the radar as MSWM's rather than being out, but there are some basics that need to be said.
Statistics are no comfort when it comes to risk management; they tell you how likely something is to happen, but the risk resets each time you test it. If anyone ever says to you 'I'll have bareback anal with X because he presents as low risk' then run a mile; they don't understand risk and they don't understand people. Filtering out openly bi men (or queer men) is no more effective a tactic than no filtering at all, because it's no protection against men who lie. The only risk reduction tactic you can own, and deploy, is safe sex. Anything else is simply a misunderstanding of how risk works.
Well I'm afraid you seem to be misonformed about what probability is. There's no such thing as a "shallow generalisation about statistics", that doesn't even make sense as a concept. Statistics express the risk of a group, the fact that individuals in the group vary from the aveage is incorporated into the concept. It's ridiculous when people put 'phobia' on the end of everything, a phobia is an irrational fear. There's nothing more rational than using statistics to inform your decision making. The rest of your comments are just gross ignorance of what probability is. Do you have any training in risk management or have you ever read a book on risk management? It's all about statistics and probability no, risk management is about either reducing the risk of something ocurring or about mitigating the consequences or both.it's a tradeoff and usually you have a choice. When it comes to sex and STIs the likelihood of having reliable info to avoid all risks is low; risk mitigation via barrier methods is, however, easily available and backed up by good testing and treatment regimes. So which do you choose?
No one is perfect at risk management and strategies adopted are often a reflection of the style of individuals; I'm a cynical control freak so rely on strategies I control.
Risk management is a huge area of study but it's a human activity and the dunning kruger effect is often evident as individuals over rely on either imperfectly understood stats or an over estimation of their own ability to spot risks. Just about every large cohort study on STIs and HIV has come down on the side of risk mitigation via barrier methods.
Have a lovely day...
The dunning kruger effect is about people overestimating their abilities at tasks (e.g. test scores) it has nothing to do with risk. Your misunderstanding of risk management is evident to anyone with even a basic understanding of the subject so we'll leave it there. "
risk management is a task. Some people get it wrong, some get it right. Some risk management is purely statistical - financial risk for instance. Some is much more complicated because it has to tackle known unknowns and unknown unknowns. The risk of getting an STI from a stranger is in the area of known unknowns and unknown unknowns - which is why mitigation is the best choice for me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
As others have said STI tests are not viable as a safety net albeit useful for those sensible enough to get tested regularly. The only way to guarantee not getting an STI is to abstain from all contact not just sexual. As that is neither feasible realistic or likely the next best is to use condoms and oral barriers for all sexual contact...To be even safer I suppose you should wear barrier gloves as well... but whilst I personally always practice safe sex the wearing of gloves as well is one step beyond.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"To what end?
A clean result is only valid on the day it's taken, and if the testee abstains from sexual activity for the next 3 months to achieve another clean test. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Knowing your status at the time of regular testing is better than having no idea whatsoever. It also limits the number of people you need to contact if you get a positive result. There are no downsides to regular compulsory STI testing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Arguing about risk and statistics is pointless. If the person you fuck has an sti you may catch it.That's actually my point; the fact that someone was low risk is no comfort.
High 5
Yup, why have facts when you've got feelings "
You're far better than me because you use statistics and risk management protocols when shagging. I'm ok with that.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It is not true that guys like to fuck without condoms, I get the condoms on before you blink, infact I have refused so many ladies because the ladies insisted on bareback so I think that line of thought is wrong |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Arguing about risk and statistics is pointless. If the person you fuck has an sti you may catch it.That's actually my point; the fact that someone was low risk is no comfort.
High 5
Yup, why have facts when you've got feelings
You're far better than me because you use statistics and risk management protocols when shagging. I'm ok with that. "
Have you ever fucked anyone you didn't know well, anally, and had the condom break? If not, try and imagine how much you'd care about the facts whilst you wait 3 months to see if you have HIV... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yup. It's pretty scary considering that all the councils have had their funding slashed, and there's fear in schools for mandatory education (let alone the free school / faith school nonsense).
We're sleep walking in to an STI bomb *again*.
Like the gay community loving PrEP and PeP... Forgetting that HIV / AIDS isn't the only STI out there...
Heck - You, like us, probably suffer the same Biphobia from people that think that Bi men are the "disease carriers", when we should be the ones most likely to actually have been tested - and regularly!
I don't see it as biphobia. As a group bisexual men are a higher risk of STDs than straight men, that's statistical fact. If someone has hundreds of potential meets then it's perfectly rational to filter out my group. If they got the chance to know me as an individual then they'd realise that my habits are actually lower risk than the group they prefer but that's their problem not mine. Putting the word fact on the end of a shallow generalization about statistics doesn't actually bolster the argument.
We could argue all day about the difference in risk and health between bi men, queer men and MSWM's, not least because, as CDCP in the USA have suggested, biphobia or risk averse partner selection by people badly inormed about risk can lead to more men going under the radar as MSWM's rather than being out, but there are some basics that need to be said.
Statistics are no comfort when it comes to risk management; they tell you how likely something is to happen, but the risk resets each time you test it. If anyone ever says to you 'I'll have bareback anal with X because he presents as low risk' then run a mile; they don't understand risk and they don't understand people. Filtering out openly bi men (or queer men) is no more effective a tactic than no filtering at all, because it's no protection against men who lie. The only risk reduction tactic you can own, and deploy, is safe sex. Anything else is simply a misunderstanding of how risk works.
Well I'm afraid you seem to be misonformed about what probability is. There's no such thing as a "shallow generalisation about statistics", that doesn't even make sense as a concept. Statistics express the risk of a group, the fact that individuals in the group vary from the aveage is incorporated into the concept. It's ridiculous when people put 'phobia' on the end of everything, a phobia is an irrational fear. There's nothing more rational than using statistics to inform your decision making. The rest of your comments are just gross ignorance of what probability is. Do you have any training in risk management or have you ever read a book on risk management? It's all about statistics and probability no, risk management is about either reducing the risk of something ocurring or about mitigating the consequences or both.it's a tradeoff and usually you have a choice. When it comes to sex and STIs the likelihood of having reliable info to avoid all risks is low; risk mitigation via barrier methods is, however, easily available and backed up by good testing and treatment regimes. So which do you choose?
No one is perfect at risk management and strategies adopted are often a reflection of the style of individuals; I'm a cynical control freak so rely on strategies I control.
Risk management is a huge area of study but it's a human activity and the dunning kruger effect is often evident as individuals over rely on either imperfectly understood stats or an over estimation of their own ability to spot risks. Just about every large cohort study on STIs and HIV has come down on the side of risk mitigation via barrier methods.
Have a lovely day...
The dunning kruger effect is about people overestimating their abilities at tasks (e.g. test scores) it has nothing to do with risk. Your misunderstanding of risk management is evident to anyone with even a basic understanding of the subject so we'll leave it there. risk management is a task. Some people get it wrong, some get it right. Some risk management is purely statistical - financial risk for instance. Some is much more complicated because it has to tackle known unknowns and unknown unknowns. The risk of getting an STI from a stranger is in the area of known unknowns and unknown unknowns - which is why mitigation is the best choice for me. "
Unknown unknowns emerge from heisenbergs uncertainty principle. Understanding the probability that a random person has a given STD is very easy. Adding on background data (e.g. location) makes the probability more specific to what you care about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It is not true that guys like to fuck without condoms, I get the condoms on before you blink, infact I have refused so many ladies because the ladies insisted on bareback so I think that line of thought is wrong"
This is what the article kinda said, but it was more that there are plenty of guys who'd lie about not having condoms to see if the lady would just go for it. Amazingly many women would just go for it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'm halfway down the thread so this may be mentioned later on, but I can't help myself. There was a female recently on here travelling the UK in a van aiming for 1000 bareback meets. Judging by the dip sampling of some of the 900 odd verifications most of the males played bare one after the other, yet professed safe sex on their profiles ? As sti's can also be transmitted orally, and even those of us using condoms for intercourse , it's not a given for bjs !? She was on a few months earlier and had over 600 verification so that's easily 1500 males potentially adding to the risk factor on here. As we're talking about testing how on earth would you begin to unravel an average of 10 chaps several times a week ? Just an observation not a criticism |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
No doubt it is a problem, but I still believe that number is low compared to the total number of guys on the scene plus I believe the attention should be more on the ladies than the guys, the ladies encourage it and insist on bareback or nothing, I have personally run into a lot of these ladies.
They will usually wait until am rock hard and I can see their wet dripping pussy and am about to wear a condom , then they will say babe if you want to fuck this sweet pussy it has to be bareback. It takes serious discipline to say no and start putting my clothes on at that point . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No doubt it is a problem, but I still believe that number is low compared to the total number of guys on the scene plus I believe the attention should be more on the ladies than the guys, the ladies encourage it and insist on bareback or nothing, I have personally run into a lot of these ladies.
They will usually wait until am rock hard and I can see their wet dripping pussy and am about to wear a condom , then they will say babe if you want to fuck this sweet pussy it has to be bareback. It takes serious discipline to say no and start putting my clothes on at that point ."
How many men compared to women have you had sex with? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ocbigMan
over a year ago
Birmingham |
"No doubt it is a problem, but I still believe that number is low compared to the total number of guys on the scene plus I believe the attention should be more on the ladies than the guys, the ladies encourage it and insist on bareback or nothing, I have personally run into a lot of these ladies.
They will usually wait until am rock hard and I can see their wet dripping pussy and am about to wear a condom , then they will say babe if you want to fuck this sweet pussy it has to be bareback. It takes serious discipline to say no and start putting my clothes on at that point ."
I was trying to frame a reply featuring the last sentence in this reply, but it was done elegantly whilst I pondered, I am willing to bet (probability/risk/etc all considered) that most non condom using sex occurs in the heat of the moment..& much repentance ensues until that negative test comes back. Also..you only get results on what you are tested for, I am not sure I have ever been tested for herpes.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Arguing about risk and statistics is pointless. If the person you fuck has an sti you may catch it.That's actually my point; the fact that someone was low risk is no comfort.
High 5
Yup, why have facts when you've got feelings
You're far better than me because you use statistics and risk management protocols when shagging. I'm ok with that.
Have you ever fucked anyone you didn't know well, anally, and had the condom break? If not, try and imagine how much you'd care about the facts whilst you wait 3 months to see if you have HIV..."
It would bever hapoen but I still wouldn't care about the facts. I'd still be at risk the same.
Your statistics say Mr X is low risk. Yesterday he had sex for the first time in a year. He fucked someone with multiple virulent sti's. Today he fucked you/ your Mrs. But hey the stats say he's low risk. Stay happy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Arguing about risk and statistics is pointless. If the person you fuck has an sti you may catch it.That's actually my point; the fact that someone was low risk is no comfort.
High 5
Yup, why have facts when you've got feelings
You're far better than me because you use statistics and risk management protocols when shagging. I'm ok with that.
Have you ever fucked anyone you didn't know well, anally, and had the condom break? If not, try and imagine how much you'd care about the facts whilst you wait 3 months to see if you have HIV...
It would bever hapoen but I still wouldn't care about the facts. I'd still be at risk the same.
Your statistics say Mr X is low risk. Yesterday he had sex for the first time in a year. He fucked someone with multiple virulent sti's. Today he fucked you/ your Mrs. But hey the stats say he's low risk. Stay happy. "
But wouldn't it be great if someone invented a way for you to measure that risk so you could tell whether you were at more or less risk than the other people who found out they get HIV that year, because you know, you can do a lot of thinking in 3 months.... oh wait, hold the press - they already invented it. Hooray for probability. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Arguing about risk and statistics is pointless. If the person you fuck has an sti you may catch it.That's actually my point; the fact that someone was low risk is no comfort.
High 5
Yup, why have facts when you've got feelings
You're far better than me because you use statistics and risk management protocols when shagging. I'm ok with that.
Have you ever fucked anyone you didn't know well, anally, and had the condom break? If not, try and imagine how much you'd care about the facts whilst you wait 3 months to see if you have HIV...
It would bever hapoen but I still wouldn't care about the facts. I'd still be at risk the same.
Your statistics say Mr X is low risk. Yesterday he had sex for the first time in a year. He fucked someone with multiple virulent sti's. Today he fucked you/ your Mrs. But hey the stats say he's low risk. Stay happy.
But wouldn't it be great if someone invented a way for you to measure that risk so you could tell whether you were at more or less risk than the other people who found out they get HIV that year, because you know, you can do a lot of thinking in 3 months.... oh wait, hold the press - they already invented it. Hooray for probability. "
Do you understand that probability is all very well but where there's even a 1% 'risk', you still could be that 1%? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Arguing about risk and statistics is pointless. If the person you fuck has an sti you may catch it.That's actually my point; the fact that someone was low risk is no comfort.
High 5
Yup, why have facts when you've got feelings
You're far better than me because you use statistics and risk management protocols when shagging. I'm ok with that.
Have you ever fucked anyone you didn't know well, anally, and had the condom break? If not, try and imagine how much you'd care about the facts whilst you wait 3 months to see if you have HIV...
It would bever hapoen but I still wouldn't care about the facts. I'd still be at risk the same.
Your statistics say Mr X is low risk. Yesterday he had sex for the first time in a year. He fucked someone with multiple virulent sti's. Today he fucked you/ your Mrs. But hey the stats say he's low risk. Stay happy.
But wouldn't it be great if someone invented a way for you to measure that risk so you could tell whether you were at more or less risk than the other people who found out they get HIV that year, because you know, you can do a lot of thinking in 3 months.... oh wait, hold the press - they already invented it. Hooray for probability.
Do you understand that probability is all very well but where there's even a 1% 'risk', you still could be that 1%?"
Indeed i do, now would you prefer a 3 month wait knowing you are in a 1% category or a 60% category? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Arguing about risk and statistics is pointless. If the person you fuck has an sti you may catch it.That's actually my point; the fact that someone was low risk is no comfort.
High 5
Yup, why have facts when you've got feelings
You're far better than me because you use statistics and risk management protocols when shagging. I'm ok with that.
Have you ever fucked anyone you didn't know well, anally, and had the condom break? If not, try and imagine how much you'd care about the facts whilst you wait 3 months to see if you have HIV...
It would bever hapoen but I still wouldn't care about the facts. I'd still be at risk the same.
Your statistics say Mr X is low risk. Yesterday he had sex for the first time in a year. He fucked someone with multiple virulent sti's. Today he fucked you/ your Mrs. But hey the stats say he's low risk. Stay happy.
But wouldn't it be great if someone invented a way for you to measure that risk so you could tell whether you were at more or less risk than the other people who found out they get HIV that year, because you know, you can do a lot of thinking in 3 months.... oh wait, hold the press - they already invented it. Hooray for probability.
Do you understand that probability is all very well but where there's even a 1% 'risk', you still could be that 1%?
Indeed i do, now would you prefer a 3 month wait knowing you are in a 1% category or a 60% category? "
You have no way of knowing for sure what the % risk is. That's my point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Arguing about risk and statistics is pointless. If the person you fuck has an sti you may catch it.That's actually my point; the fact that someone was low risk is no comfort.
High 5
Yup, why have facts when you've got feelings
You're far better than me because you use statistics and risk management protocols when shagging. I'm ok with that.
Have you ever fucked anyone you didn't know well, anally, and had the condom break? If not, try and imagine how much you'd care about the facts whilst you wait 3 months to see if you have HIV...
It would bever hapoen but I still wouldn't care about the facts. I'd still be at risk the same.
Your statistics say Mr X is low risk. Yesterday he had sex for the first time in a year. He fucked someone with multiple virulent sti's. Today he fucked you/ your Mrs. But hey the stats say he's low risk. Stay happy.
But wouldn't it be great if someone invented a way for you to measure that risk so you could tell whether you were at more or less risk than the other people who found out they get HIV that year, because you know, you can do a lot of thinking in 3 months.... oh wait, hold the press - they already invented it. Hooray for probability.
Do you understand that probability is all very well but where there's even a 1% 'risk', you still could be that 1%?
Indeed i do, now would you prefer a 3 month wait knowing you are in a 1% category or a 60% category?
You have no way of knowing for sure what the % risk is. That's my point. "
I tried. There's that saying that the lawyer who has to explain probability to the jury will lose the case. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well here goes , here is our ten pence worth , we get told down the clinic that they get hell of a lot of swingers who go to the clinic who are open about what they do and also aware of the risk.....its the Guys and Girls who are shagging behind their partners back are the ones who dont get checked .....so we were at a club a few years ago and played with condoms on etc...but hubby managed to get Chlamydia in the eye(yes the eye)so not sure how a condom would have prevented that and the number of women who like cum over the face etc and then say wear a condom to fuck them ...its a token gesture .....as a previous post said the test is valid for the day you have it done unless you are monogamous....i think we are know what the risk are all we can do is manage it ..we would be more concerned about intravenous drug users in the swinging scene.....well thats our take.
"
I also know someone who got it in their eye also. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Just be careful. Make sure you put condoms on toys. Dont let men stick their fingers up a woman then you. That is how gonorrhea is spread. Really we should all be using dams while having oral. And everyone should be tested every 3 months. I sound like a right party pooper. And when you are in the heat of the moment.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This got me thinking should there be some sort of compulsory sti test carried out on all sexually active people?"
How intrusive and utterly pointless 
We are grown ups, we can look after ourselves, and if we can't then tough luck.
And define sexually active? Monogamous married couples who only have sex with each other? Or the ones that don't only sleep together, but only one of them knows that?
The government, and big digital already have enough info on us. To then have to prove one is or is not sexually active is a personal information violation step too far for me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just be careful. Make sure you put condoms on toys. Dont let men stick their fingers up a woman then you. That is how gonorrhea is spread. Really we should all be using dams while having oral. And everyone should be tested every 3 months. I sound like a right party pooper. And when you are in the heat of the moment...."
You have got it bang on the money...... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just be careful. Make sure you put condoms on toys. Dont let men stick their fingers up a woman then you. That is how gonorrhea is spread. Really we should all be using dams while having oral. And everyone should be tested every 3 months. I sound like a right party pooper. And when you are in the heat of the moment....
You have got it bang on the money......"
I'd rather get gonorrhea than lick a piece of plastic and have sex in a cleanroom suit |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Wel put ourselves out there in the hope that it changes peoples thinking. We have been a couple 11 years and swinging just over a year and in the moment took a few risks and ended up with clamidia which was luckily treated easy and the two people informed and were cool with it. Yes it 'feels better' without a condom but the panic and embarrassment of actually catching somthing isn't worth it. We don't do it now and regularly get checked |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"This got me thinking should there be some sort of compulsory sti test carried out on all sexually active people?
How intrusive and utterly pointless
We are grown ups, we can look after ourselves, and if we can't then tough luck.
And define sexually active? Monogamous married couples who only have sex with each other? Or the ones that don't only sleep together, but only one of them knows that?
The government, and big digital already have enough info on us. To then have to prove one is or is not sexually active is a personal information violation step too far for me."
If we're all so grown up then why is there such a problem with STI's? I'm guessing by your comment that you wouldn't go for a test as you'd be too worried the government might find out? Sounds more like paranoia. The e thought process is to try and stop the spread of STI's. I'm not for one second saying this is a realistic solution or would actually happen. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Wel put ourselves out there in the hope that it changes peoples thinking. We have been a couple 11 years and swinging just over a year and in the moment took a few risks and ended up with clamidia which was luckily treated easy and the two people informed and were cool with it. Yes it 'feels better' without a condom but the panic and embarrassment of actually catching somthing isn't worth it. We don't do it now and regularly get checked "
Exactly. Now think of this you found out that it was caught and dealt with it. How about then thousands of people who don't find out and just shag around passing it on, without a care in the world. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Wel put ourselves out there in the hope that it changes peoples thinking. We have been a couple 11 years and swinging just over a year and in the moment took a few risks and ended up with clamidia which was luckily treated easy and the two people informed and were cool with it. Yes it 'feels better' without a condom but the panic and embarrassment of actually catching somthing isn't worth it. We don't do it now and regularly get checked
Exactly. Now think of this you found out that it was caught and dealt with it. How about then thousands of people who don't find out and just shag around passing it on, without a care in the world. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Apparently it's a really common sti which can show no symptoms and like I said we have been a couple for 11 years so never needed to use condoms but when we did start to swing /cuckold I happened to get tested as a friend was going anyway so thought why not. First time all was good but 3 months later (and two meets off here) I caught a sti. No real blame pointed anywhere like I said nobody really knows what they have till checked so yes it's embarrassing but please do make it routine. Condoms don't solve everything especially if you're giving oral too its easy passed about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
