RE: With the rampant spread of disease .... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Health and Safety



Message

MistressDREAD -> RE: With the rampant spread of disease .... (2/15/2005 4:41:42 PM)

quote:

chosen to take a ticket in the lottery. We have as much chance of 'winning' this one as we have of winning the millions, if we stick to sensible vetting of partners and sensible precautions with hygiene.


Actually I would have to digress and disagree with this statement.

Winning a million in any lottery in the USA has odds in the millions of its self.
With Communicable disease One in every other ticket you bought could be a
winner of the carrier if you followed your same mindset of thought because
One in every 4 persons in the world has some type of disease. JMPO~[8|]



songbird26 -> RE: With the rampant spread of disease .... (2/15/2005 5:43:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandpaLash

I am simply interested, in this instance, in how many ordinary heterosexuals do you know who have contracted the disease from sexual contact.



Five. Four are managing the disease quite well with drug cocktails, and one died a year and a half ago from complications of AIDS. I know more gay people than straight people, overall, and yet know more straight people with HIV. Possibly because the gay community worked their fuckin' asses off to get the condom/prevention info out there. Bravo, gay boys and girls. Wish we hets could borrow some of your chuzpah.



GrandpaLash -> RE: With the rampant spread of disease .... (2/15/2005 5:56:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressDREAD

quote:

chosen to take a ticket in the lottery. We have as much chance of 'winning' this one as we have of winning the millions, if we stick to sensible vetting of partners and sensible precautions with hygiene.


Actually I would have to digress and disagree with this statement.

Winning a million in any lottery in the USA has odds in the millions of its self.
With Communicable disease One in every other ticket you bought could be a
winner of the carrier if you followed your same mindset of thought because
One in every 4 persons in the world has some type of disease. JMPO~[8|]


On random selection, yes, if we are willy nilly sleeping with anyone who will have us, but if we stick to sensible vetting of partners and sensible precautions with hygiene is what I actually said. But you are right to make the distinction, because I would hate my statements here to be taken literally and have some innocent wander around blithely sleeping around on the basis of my ideas here.

Grandpa Lash




GrandpaLash -> RE: With the rampant spread of disease .... (2/15/2005 6:08:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: songbird26

Five. Four are managing the disease quite well with drug cocktails, and one died a year and a half ago from complications of AIDS. I know more gay people than straight people, overall, and yet know more straight people with HIV. Possibly because the gay community worked their fuckin' asses off to get the condom/prevention info out there. Bravo, gay boys and girls. Wish we hets could borrow some of your chuzpah.


What circles do you mix in? Even when I was heavily involved in the HIV education area I never personally met any hets with the disease, and you know 5.

To return to my original question, I assume you have answered in the spirit it was asked, and that these people you know were not involved with IV drug users or involved in that scene? If they weren't, I am flabbergasted.

Grandpa Lash



songbird26 -> RE: With the rampant spread of disease .... (2/15/2005 7:11:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandpaLash

What circles do you mix in? Even when I was heavily involved in the HIV education area I never personally met any hets with the disease, and you know 5.

To return to my original question, I assume you have answered in the spirit it was asked, and that these people you know were not involved with IV drug users or involved in that scene? If they weren't, I am flabbergasted.

Grandpa Lash


Um. I am honestly not sure where you are coming from with this question, since, as I think has been mentioned before in this thread, the most rapidly growing sector of HIV positive people in the United States is heterosexual african-american females. Not gay men, not IV drug users. The people that I know were NOT involved with IV drug use, as far as I know...I was peripherally involved in the club-kid scene in NYC, and there was a lot of promiscuous sex happening, but most of the drugs were swallowed or snorted, not injected. I've kept my friends from that time. Three of the five I mentioned from before are from that group. The other two were entirely 'straight' friends, one from high school and one from college, who picked up the virus from unprotected sex with infected people. I myself feel that I dodged a bullet, in that I am entirely disease free. But then, I was militant about condoms. (to be entirely honest and forthcoming: two of these people are men who might have had unprotected homosexual experiences that I just didn't know about).

I honestly can't believe that you never met any hets with the disease, especially having worked in HIV ed! That's so unreal to me as to seem almost impossible. The HIV support groups in NYC these days are just about 50-50, gay and straight, at least the ones I've been to. Okay, maybe 60-40, but still, reasonably proportionate.



GrandpaLash -> RE: With the rampant spread of disease .... (2/15/2005 7:58:00 PM)

Well there you are, I'm astonished that you know so many, you're astonished that I don't. Mind you, I have not been involved for the past 10 years, and Australia has a very good record with HIV compared wiith many other countries. I suppose if I lived in Kings Cross in Sydney (a miniature in some ways of the alternative areas in NY) I probably would know some myself.

And as you point out, and we in the kinky world whose friends think we are straight (not mine LOL) should be well aware, you don't necessarily have a clue about some areas of your friends' lives, so my question is a little hard to answer within the caveats I set.

Thanks for your input.

Grandpa Lash



GentleLady -> RE: With the rampant spread of disease .... (2/16/2005 1:21:03 AM)


Grandpa Lash

One other difference is that in at least parts of Australia, prostitution is legal. That is not the case in America or Canada and increases the number of heterosexuals who contract HIV. The girls often have little real say over condum use. I say this because money does talk. The ones I have worked with stay away from injectible drugs to try and reduce the risk of catching HIV.

Gentle Lady (GL)



Darthbetta -> RE: With the rampant spread of disease .... (2/16/2005 1:46:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tangwystal

Darthbetta... you better keep getting tested. The tests are not all that accurate except on a full blown outbreak. Then, do you get cold sores?





100% clean.

no worries :)



MemphisDsCouple -> RE: With the rampant spread of disease .... (2/16/2005 2:52:02 PM)

Found the answer to my question in the thread.



lacyann -> RE: With the rampant spread of disease .... (2/16/2005 3:27:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandpaLash

Because I am trying to get an idea of how many non drug-using heteresexual people are contracting Hiv from sexual sources. Unfortunate as it may be, in Western countries Hiv is still very much a gay disease, with I/V drug users being the second most likely victims, and sexual partners of same are 3rd. I am interested in the risk to heterosexuals not involved in either scene.

When you say 'in the industry', what exactly do you mean?

Grandpa Lash

Expanded (edited) by GL


Don't you think heterosexual females or males also use drugs- The drug epidemic is amost as rampid as the HIV/ AIDS one.



GrandpaLash -> RE: With the rampant spread of disease .... (2/16/2005 3:46:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lacyann


Don't you think heterosexual females or males also use drugs- The drug epidemic is amost as rampid as the HIV/ AIDS one.



What's your point? It's clearly stated in several of my posts that I am trying to factor out drug-use to get an idea of how many normal, non-drug-taking, non-promiscuous, low risk-taking people contract HIV/Aids. Which I do because quite clearly I DO understand that heterosexual .... blah blah. Or didn't you bother reading them? The point is made quite clearly in the quote you attached for Chrissakes.

Stupid question.

Grandpa Lash



MzBerlin -> RE: With the rampant spread of disease .... (2/16/2005 4:49:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandpaLash

quote:

ORIGINAL: lacyann


Don't you think heterosexual females or males also use drugs- The drug epidemic is amost as rampid as the HIV/ AIDS one.



What's your point? It's clearly stated in several of my posts that I am trying to factor out drug-use to get an idea of how many normal, non-drug-taking, non-promiscuous, low risk-taking people contract HIV/Aids. Which I do because quite clearly I DO understand that heterosexual .... blah blah. Or didn't you bother reading them? The point is made quite clearly in the quote you attached for Chrissakes.

Stupid question.

Grandpa Lash


I am constantly and consistently amazed at how rude you are!! There is no need to talk to anyone this way.

Lacyann-
Please don't let this scare you away. Welcome to the boards!!
B



GrandpaLash -> RE: With the rampant spread of disease .... (2/16/2005 4:56:55 PM)

Stupidity, and failing to read and understand, when coupled with a penchant for running off at the mouth without engaging brain, will do it every time.

Grandpa Lash



onceburned -> RE: With the rampant spread of disease .... (2/16/2005 4:58:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandpaLash
I am trying to factor out drug-use to get an idea of how many normal, non-drug-taking, non-promiscuous, low risk-taking people contract HIV/Aids.


GrandpaLash, if you scroll down in this link you will see a table that has mode of transmission for HIV broken down into percentages and absolute numbers. Its for the U.S. in the years 2000-2003

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5347a3.htm



songbird26 -> RE: With the rampant spread of disease .... (2/16/2005 5:30:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandpaLash

And as you point out, and we in the kinky world whose friends think we are straight (not mine LOL) should be well aware, you don't necessarily have a clue about some areas of your friends' lives, so my question is a little hard to answer within the caveats I set.



Very true! I am properly reminded that I should disclaim just about everything with a nice little "as far as I know" in the precursor. :) Also, I'm well aware that my particular subset of friends might be a little unusal, relative to the general population, and that therefore my personal experience might not be the norm. Thanks for an interesting thread!



GrandpaLash -> RE: With the rampant spread of disease .... (2/16/2005 6:21:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandpaLash
I am trying to factor out drug-use to get an idea of how many normal, non-drug-taking, non-promiscuous, low risk-taking people contract HIV/Aids.


GrandpaLash, if you scroll down in this link you will see a table that has mode of transmission for HIV broken down into percentages and absolute numbers. Its for the U.S. in the years 2000-2003

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5347a3.htm


Many thanks for that link. And of course it shows that I am absolutely correct. I'll copy here the relevant figures.

On a base of 155,800 cases

Men who have sex with men 44.1%
I/V drug use 16.0%
Both of the above 4.1%
High Risk sexual contact (with those above) 34.3%
Other - the ones I am trying to isolate in this thread 1.6%

I rest my case. If we avoid high-risk category lovers, our chances of contracting Aids are minimal, even more minimal in Australia for the various reasons mentioned in this thread. The same would apply to the other STDs - that is, avoiding high risk types (which obviously means careful negotiation before jumping into the cot) will minimise your risks, and although the chances are much higher, no doubt, with these other diseases, it is still a risk I would prefer to take wherever possible, rather than using condoms.

I won't bother explaining why I won't use condoms unless necessary, they are many and most of you will be familiar with them. Pregnancy is not an issue with me. Tantric training is an issue with me, condoms are contrary to the principles I follow for exchange of fluids and energy in the tantric experience, but that's another thread altogether, and I refuse to hijack my own thread.

As for the actual main question I asked in this thread, about infection from toys, I think we have had enough highly experienced contributors to this thread agreeing with me that the risk is even more minimal than catching HIV under the parameters I have set.

That said, I am obliged to agree that it is not impossible, just so highly improbable as to be worth the risks as long as both (all) parties are informed and in agreement.

And please, I would hate to upset Mz Berlin any more than I have, don't come back with some reply that shows you haven't read the thread - like making some silly comment about how I am advocating that we don't clean toys or don't take care in choosing partners. If you do I shall have to be very rude and short with you.

And for mine, this is probably the end of the useful life of this thread, thank you all those who have contributed useful information and well thought out comments.

Grandpa Lash

Edited to correct a mistake in total sample size.



songbird26 -> RE: With the rampant spread of disease .... (2/16/2005 6:34:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandpaLash

Many thanks for that link. And of course it shows that I am absolutely correct. I'll copy here the relevant figures.

On a base of 90.558 cases

Men who have sex with men 44.1%
I/V drug use 16.0%


But, you'll also note that though the IV drug use category accounted for 14.6 % overall, for men, high-risk heterosexual contact came in with 17.3%, higher than the IV drug users.

And among women? 77.7% of women diagnosed with HIV contracted the virus through heterosexual contact, as opposed to a mere 19.4% who were infected through IV drug use.

For men and women combined? Men who have sex with men: 44.1%. High risk hetero contact: 34.4%. And IV drug use, way down the list with 16.0%.

So I'm afraid the table rather disproves your point, in fact.



GrandpaLash -> RE: With the rampant spread of disease .... (2/16/2005 6:41:14 PM)

No it doesn't. My point all along is that low-risk contact is extremely unlikey to result in infection - 1.6%. You're another one who doesn't read carefully enough, using high-risk figures to prove I'm wrong about high-risk figures? And what's this fascination you have with IV drug use? I never suggested it was the only possibility, just that it is a possibility I wished to exclude for the purposes of this exercise. And you will note, if you look carefully at that link again, that the figure of 34.3% that so fascinates you is made up of those who have sex with gay/bisexual men, IV drug users, or who are highly promiscuous.

Grandpa Lash

Edited because I had a momentary lapse in nastiness.



GrandpaLash -> RE: With the rampant spread of disease .... (2/16/2005 7:02:40 PM)

Just as a matter of interest, to show the difference in international figures, the following is from http://www.avert.org/ausstatg.htm

Transmission in Australia continues to occur primarily through sexual contact between men. A history of male homosexual contact was reported in more than 85% of newly acquired HIV infection diagnosed in the period 1999 to 2003. HIV prevalence remains below 1% among people attending needle and syringe programs, prison entrants, and among men and women seen at sexual health clinics reporting a history of heterosexual contact and women with a history of sex work.

I can't find any site that has figures broken down into risk categorties better than that at the moment. But again it supports my contention that heterosexuals with low-risk behaviour are at minimal risk.

Grandpa Lash



songbird26 -> RE: With the rampant spread of disease .... (2/16/2005 7:16:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandpaLash

No it doesn't. My point all along is that low-risk contact is extremely unlikey to result in infection - 1.6%. You're another one who doesn't read carefully enough, using high-risk figures to prove I'm wrong about high-risk figures? And what's this fascination you have with IV drug use? I never suggested it was the only possibility, just that it is a possibility I wished to exclude for the purposes of this exercise. And you will note, if you look carefully at that link again, that the figure of 34.3% that so fascinates you is made up of those who have sex with gay/bisexual men, IV drug users, or who are highly promiscuous.

Grandpa Lash

Edited because I had a momentary lapse in nastiness.


Hey, you're the one who emphasized the IV drug use, both in response to my original comment and in your more recent reaction to reading the tables. Me, I'm not actually all that fascinated with any of it. And, since I've really done nothing but discuss this topic reasonably with you so far, and have NOT gone out of my way to prove you wrong or gone on some kind of bashing spree, I must say that I don't appreciate your tone, and will most probably refrain from interacting with you again.

(to explain: I was under the impression that we were talking about transmission rates among heterosexuals, high-risk or not, as opposed to IV drug users or homosexuals. That was indeed my error).



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125