|
Chaingang -> RE: Fluid Bonding and misconceptions. (2/20/2006 4:22:45 AM)
|
Great topic. I also agree it should not be moved elsewhere.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Wildfleurs
To me fluid bonding means no kissing, no unprotected oral sex (flavored condoms for blow jobs and saran wrap or dental dams for cunninglinguis). It literally means to me that there is a barrier for any fluids.
Barrier protection is great every time it works and meaningless every time it fails. I have a "Pro" friend that has become pregnant twice in the last year from protected sex with client/strangers. She reports no unusual situations like condom slippage or breakage. She just got pregnant even though she used condoms with spermicide. And if one can get pregnant even while being "careful" imagine what else one can get: AIDS, HPV, Herpes, etc. Conclusion: barrier sex is no protection at all really.
quote:
ORIGINAL: amayos
I myself am extremely paranoid about STDs, and a full blood screening is mandatory before I'll even care to beat you.
Same here. You make other excellent points also.
quote:
ORIGINAL: proudsub
...it is transmitted by genital skin contact and although condoms may help they won't prevent it.
Close, but not quite right. It is transmitted by skin to skin contact in the main, and it is even possible to transmit it via soiled clothing (although there are essentially no such reported cases). There are 65+ varieties of HPV and few are specific to the genitals. You can get them all over. So that may put a new spin on those sexless grope sessions. It might also add to your reasons for wanting to limit the number of partners that share the same play toys.
There are also at least several other skin ailments which are not fully understood in terms of their causes and for which there is no cure. Dandruff is poorly understood and not curable. It is thought not to be contagious, but what does that really mean? It's not high on my list of possible worries, but it's worth noting in terms of the things modern science and medicine can do nothing about.
---
Digression:
quote:
ORIGINAL: yourMissTress
Remeber the woman that sued McDonald's for hot coffee that she spilled on herself, and at least in the initial court proceeding, WON.
Please do not mindlessly pass on misinformation if you can avoid it.
...
McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.
McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.
Source: http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
...
Applying the principles of comparative liability, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to US$160,000. In addition, they awarded her US$2.7 million in punitive damages.
However, the judge reduced punitive damages to US$480,000; thus Liebeck was awarded US$640,000 in total. Both McDonald's and Liebeck appealed, and in December 1994, the two came to a confidential settlement, the amount of which is secret, but is believed to be approximately equal to the amount of the final judgment.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case
|
|
|
|
