What is SAFE SEX?

[JustAskJulie 2,595]

We've had other topics in other areas that have led to this question, so now I put it out here for everyone.

 

Do you practice safe sex in swinging? AND if so, What is safe sex to you?

 

For some it is simply using condoms for vaginal sex. For others it is using condoms for vaginal and oral sex, and for yet others it may even include dental dams for oral performed on ladies. So what does it mean to you? How far do you go to keep yourself and your spouse safe from the possible spread of STD's.

[lycioos 16]

I would have to say that we feel that any type of oral sex is far to personal for us to engage in outside of marriage. We feel that is the most personal of areas so it is clearly off limits to anyone besides our spouses. With that said, Condoms are the tools of choice.

 

Hats off to the couple who uses the dental dams and condoms. I think it is great. Nothing is worth your life. If you can get UTI's from a persons mouth due to bacteria, it has to make you wonder.

[lycioos 16]

I guess no one wants to touch this subject. Sometimes the reality of it all is a bit scare.

 

Just curious Julie, how about you? What do you consider to be "safe sex," and do you practice it? How often do you get tested? We always have to request it during routine blood work. A lot of doctors feel that because we are married we are not at risk. Not necessarily true.

[JustAskJulie 2,595]

I think a lot of the regulars figure we've already covered this area in other posts (the posts that led to this post), so I don't think it's a matter of not wanting to touch the subject but more likely feeling that they already have.

 

For us, we use condoms for sex, but we don't choose to use them for oral sex, nor do we use dental dams for oral sex. Those are areas where the pleasure outweighs the risks for us. We realize the risk is there, but we know that 1) it's not as high as with vaginal intercourse and 2) it's just a risk we choose to take.

 

We get tested at least annually. I usually request a full std testing and AIDs testing when I go in for my annual pap smear. Hubby gets tested during his annual physical as well.

[CanadianCouple 18]

For Janette and I, safe sex means condom use for intercourse only. Aside from that, we don't feel the need to take further precautions. True, there are risks, but you take them in many other walks of life as well. You take a risk each time you get in your car, but you use your seatbelt (hopefully) to minimize the risk, you drive defensively, you refrain from driving impaired, etc...

 

The point is, you do what is reasonable to protect yourself, while enjoying what life has to offer. And each swinging single and couple must find what their ideal balance between caution and pleasure is.

[lycioos 16]

I'm just curious. How many people have you met in the lifestyle that were forthcoming about std's ect. We met one person that let us know ahead of time that he had herpes. That was definetly somthing we weren't comfortable being involved with though we really apprehiated the honesty. Is that kind of honesty the majority or the minority? Or is it rare that people with std's are "out in the open?" Just curious.

[JustAskJulie 2,595]

The funny thing about honesty is the only way to know if they were lying is to find out the bad way. So unless you come down with something.. there's no way to know whether they were being honest (by not saying they had something) or lying by omission.

 

Personally, I have had one couple tell me they had had an std in the past (HPV), they didn't currently have any problems with it and had had any warts removed several years before... but they still felt that I should know before we played. Now THAT is HONESTY.

[gem 15]

I woud hope that they are all honest.. but one thing I have noticed in people who have been promiscuous since having sex at a young age (which for nc, is quite common), by the late teens they are afraid they have possibly contracted something already and are too afraid to go find out. so they keep themselves in the dark.. a common thing I have heard from guys is 'I was tested a couple months ago (ie: 9months ago or a year+ ago). that, with me.. just leaves me feeling very 'ehh..'. I have contracted an std, hpv. I tell the person I have this, keeping it at a friendship level, before things start to get heated. however, like the news says, 1 in every 4 people have it.. but I've known women who have only been with 4 people in three years, max, tell me they caught it.. all I can say is I hope those of us that do have stds are open about it.. it's not like it's the end of the world. people and toys are out there for women And men. hehe..

 

p.s. I was not aware that hpv could be removed? *makes mental note to kick her doctor next visit around*

[Lorrelei 15]

Safe sex for me is using condoms for vaginal and anal sex.

[Tanman aka Mike and Marie 16]

Safe sex to us is using condoms, we have never used oral dams and probably wouldn't.

 

To us its important to know who you are having "fun" with, we try to get to know someone first before we proceed.

[Regularguy 17]

I have never seen anyone using condoms or plastic Saran wrap in swing clubs for oral sex. On the other hand, since most good lovers engage in an equal amount of oral compared to vginal sex, kinda makes you wonder why people use it for intercourse but not oral sex...makes no sense whatsoever.

 

Safe sex to me is heterosexual sex with a person who is healthy like me.

[mksNmd 15]

Reality is: There is no safe sex when you engage in sexual activity with multiple partners. When you're in the lifestyle you are at a greater risk than someone that sits at home on the weekends and plays only with his or her spouse.

 

The most obnixious people in the lifestyle: Those who engage in unprotected oral sex and expect the male to don a condom for vaginal intercourse (we don't do anal - ever). As a matter of fact how can you really enjoy oral with a dental dam or saran wrap?

 

Safe sex: You're both virgins when you first meet and you never engage in any kind of sexual activity with anyone other than your partner for the rest of your life.

[R&C 15]

"The most obnixious people in the lifestyle: Those who engage in unprotected oral sex and expect the male to don a condom for vaginal intercourse."

 

Well I guess we are among the most obnoxious in the lifestyle then. However, our experience is that the people that feel this way (see quote) we won't swing with any way because they always seem to be more interested in "notching a bedpost" than engaging in a relationship. We swing with friends, and only friends. What we have found is that just jumping in bed with someone we don't know isn't very satisfying or much fun.

 

Everyone sets their own level of risk acceptance, and if you can't respect ours then you don't respect us.

[bimrdcpl 15]

Our version of safe sex is condoms for anal and vaginal......but I have a question for the question. LOL I know people dont normally use condoms or dental dams for oral sex which I can understand no one really wants to eat plastic, but how come it is ok to swallow someone when it is not safe to have there bare parts rubbing together? Isn't that kinda defeating the purpose? I dont know if I worded that correctly but I think you get the point.

[JustAskJulie 2,595]

Quote

Originally posted by bimrdcpl

Our version of safe sex is condoms for anal and vaginal...but I have a question for the question. LOL I know people dont normally use condoms or dental dams for oral sex which I can understand no one really wants to eat palstic, but how come it is ok to swallow someone when its not safe to have there bare parts rubbing together? Isn't that kinda defeating the purpose? I don't know if I worded that correctly but I think you get the point.

 

While there is still a definite risk for a woman giving oral sex to a man, the risk for him is much lower (whether he is receiving or giving to a woman). Her risk increases even more if she swallows.

 

It's like someone else mentioned, swinging is risk and we each determine what level of risk we are willing to take.

[Alura 2,775]

We believe there is no such thing as "safe" sex, only "somewhat safer" sex. We prefer to think of it as "sensible sex." We would never knowingly play with someone if we knew they had an STD and guess that few would. Even if there was only a hint of a problem we'd opt out, even if our bodies were encased in rubber. A condom is certainly not enough protection for the risks involved. We have kids who are counting on us to raise them.

 

So far we've restricted our play to other married couples who have not been promiscuous. If a couple has been married for twenty years and sexually exclusive for that time, it's highly unlikely they have a problem. Of course, they could lie but we try to be good judges of character in making our decision.

 

We understand that this restricts our access to playmates and certainly reduces our opportunities for play. Without counting the days, it's been over two years since we've played and will be even more time before we find a couple we feel comfortable with. We don't mind. We are each other's favorite sex partner. Playing only with each other is no sacrifice!

[AlanCatherine 18]

It's like someone else mentioned, swinging is risk and we each determine what level of risk we are willing to take.

What level of risk... Having raised that point, what precautions can you take if the exchange of fluids, ie cumming in her vagina or mouth, is the turn-on?

 

I have read posts in other forums by women who want to take up to 30 guys with all of them cumming in every orifice, with the only proviso that they be clean.

 

I know that kind of desire has gotta be on the fringes of sanity but if that's what you get your kicks from, how can you make it safe?

[Paramour2_99 0]

Safe sex is sex with someone who you know for a fact is health and clean. And this person you should be exclusively committed to.

[AlanCatherine 18]

Safe sex is sex with someone who you know for a fact is health and clean. And this person you should be exclusively committed to.

Paramour2_99, if you want to live by that, you may as well just say "dont have sex" and you know how that advice will go down on this forum. You don't know anyone who is clean and healthy "for a fact". We are all infected with SOMETHING and most of us don't even know it. Sometimes I wonder how bad a disease it can be if you don't know you have it...

[wetmouth 15]

Simple. Tell them you will take them to a doctor for blood test to see, then they and you will know the truth.

[good times 991]

Safe sex to me is;

 

No sex while operating moving vehicles or heavy equipment.

 

If at the rifle range, no sex in front of the firing line, only behind.

 

Never have sex in the middle of the street, always off to the side.

 

While skydiving, confine all sexual activities to altitudes over 1000 feet above the ground.

 

Allright, I couldn't resist, but I really don't have a good answer for this for a couple of reasons.

 

First, I think the risk that a lot of people perceive of std's in the swinging community is highly exagerated. I have never met anyone in the swinging community with any std that condoms would have prevented. So our policy is to use condoms if requested and use our best judgement when picking play partners.

 

second, the most common std's like, herpes and genital warts are not effectively prevented by condoms. So our policy to stay sober and be very observant is the best protection we can expect, in my opinion.

[AlanCatherine 18]

I agree with Good Times. Good judgement can go a long way toward a reasonable probability for safety. Probability is the best we can hope for since certainty is unattainable.

[lovedoctor 15]

This is a great thread and a must read for everyone!

 

I agree that the first precaution is in the selection of sexual partners. Getting tested regularly is also important, and if you are playing with lots of people without use of condoms, then probably full STD testing (cultures and blood work) every 4 months would be my recommendation. Condoms go a long way in protecting one, however they do have their failures and there is still risk (however lower, it is still a risk) with oral interactions and if the male ejaculates in the mouth, then that increases the risk too.

 

So, the only truly safe sex is mental sex - no physical contact. (IMHO, that's fun - but not fun enough! )

[tncinmd 55]

As usual with this topic, we find much to agree with on both sides of the issue. But, we've always wondered why there is so much paranoia about STD's when the majority of deadly diseases are not sexually transmitted ones.

 

Airborne diseases, such as SARS, certain flu strains, etc are by far more common and as dangerous as AIDS. Misuse of antibiotics and overuse of antibacterial agents have produced increasingly resistant strains. Even when treatable with antibiotics, you really don't want to go through IV administration. The wife is prone to certain kinds of infections due to her diabetes, so we speak from more than a few unpleasant experiences.

 

So, our question is, why aren't those of you who are concerned about STDs eqully as concerned about other deadly transmitted diseases. If you're using condoms as a must, do you wear face masks such a those we saw in Asia during the SARS epidemic ? We are not being flippant here. Arguably you know more about potential sexual partners than a stranger passing by in the street or sitting next to you at a restaurant. In either case you're sharing the same air.

 

We're just curious as to whether the tabu of sexual intercouse with someone other than your S.O. is the real heightening factor. We seem to be much less casual in sexual encounters in sharing tongues, for instance. Bodily fluids exchanged with much thought to caution.

 

We repsect all opinions, as we hope you respect ours. We are just curious about this disperate behavior.

[two4youinswva 3,068]

I was going to say masturbation is the only safe sex......

Then I remembered the time I was doing just that, and my grip slipped and I bloodied my nose...

 

So, believe me, masturbation isn't as safe as they make it out to be!

[tncinmd 55]

I was going to say masturbation is the only safe sex......

Then I remembered the time I was doing just that, and my grip slipped and I bloodied my nose...

 

So, believe me, masturbation isn't as safe as they make it out to be!

 

Sounds like you need some non-slip gloves

[EricSacto2 19]

For us, safe sex means pulling the car to the side of the road first.

[dave1234 16]

My wife and I require condoms for vaginal but not for oral. Neither of us, however, will let guys cum in our mouths. I always double check for a condom when she is having intercourse. We also don't allow swing partners to penetrate her anally. I personally hate condoms so I engage in intercourse with my wife and just engage in oral with our partners.

 

The oral sex thread here seems to be a bit paranoid. These are some of the facts and anecdotes I have picked up over the years:

 

There is only one case of documented oral transmission of HIV.

 

Saliva and stomach acid are pretty effective at killing germs that don't belong there. HIV is very fragile - it dies almost immediately outside the body.

 

A Nevada brothel worker I played with a few years back (I was in divorce recovery mode) told me she always let men cum in her mouth (and she swallowed for nice guys like me). She was in her 40's and had been working legally and illegally since she was 14. She was tested for HIV and other STD's monthly and never came up positive.

 

Most people already have herpes - their bodies are just good at keeping it under control. Most of us had a few cold sores as kids and then they stopped. Susceptibility to frequent active herpes is probably a funtion of an individual's immune system.

 

I worry about the attitude that swingers are relatively safe. I have watched gang bangs at our club where a particular woman gathers up every single guy at the pool and has unprotected intercourse with them. That is insane!

[lovedoctor 15]

 

Airborne diseases, such as SARS, certain flu strains, etc are by far more common and as dangerous as AIDS .

 

So you are saying that ONE airborne disease OR ALL aiborne diseases are more common than HIV OR ALL STDs?

 

Just asking so that I can get a handle on this...I'm not clear what you are saying.

 

And if ONE Airborne disease over a given period of time (very important)(say SARs) is more common worldwide than....mmmm let's say HIV infection (since not everyone that has HIV actually has AIDs), then please, for the sake of education, tell me specifically where you got your data - where can I prove to myself that this is true. It just seems counterintuitive; but that's just me.

[lovedoctor 15]

 

 

Most people already have herpes - their bodies are just good at keeping it under control. Most of us had a few cold sores as kids and then they stopped. Susceptibility to frequent active herpes is probably a funtion of an individual's immune system.

 

OK, do you mean Herpes as the viral group or Herpes as Herpes Simplex II?(what is commonly thought of as "genital herpes")

 

The herpes viruses include EBV (Epstien Barr), CMV (cytomegalovirus), VZV (varicella virus - aka chicken pox and shingles), HSVI (common cold sores) and HSVII (as noted above) and I thnk, HHV VI (human herpes virus 6). There may be a few more - it has been a long time since Virology for me. However, these are the most common as far as the illnesses in humans go.

 

Now, for point of education -

 

HSV I lives above the belt about 80% of the time, and below the belt about 20%.

HSVII lives below the belt about 80% of the time, and above the belt about 20%.

 

The clinical end result of these two types of herpes viruses are essentially the same - painful vesicular lesions that contain active virus until scabbed over (which explains why genital herpes can live anywhere on the body and cold sores can live on the genitals or anywhere we can scratch, poke or rub.)

 

So, while almost 90% of the population are + for a type of herpes virus by the time they are 18, it is, in fact, largely comprised of VZV and CMV, those common childhood illnesses. MOST of the population is not + for HSVII. Just a clarification...

 

 

OK, I didn't mean to hijack the thread here, but this was a teaching moment and I loves me a teaching moment!! Thanks for bearing with me...

[tncinmd 55]

So you are saying that ONE airborne disease OR ALL aiborne diseases are more common than HIV OR ALL STDs?

 

Just asking so that I can get a handle on this...I'm not clear what you are saying.

 

And if ONE Airborne disease over a given period of time (very important)(say SARs) is more common worldwide than....mmmm let's say HIV infection (since not everyone that has HIV actually has AIDs), then please, for the sake of education, tell me specifically where you got your data - where can I prove to myself that this is true. It just seems counterintuitive; but that's just me.

 

Basically, all we're interested in is the different levels of reaction and precautions taken to contagious diseases. HIV seems to have created a very strong reaction in that people are strictly adhereing to precautions where something like SARS, as an example, provokes a kind of "well, what can you do about it ? You've gotta go out and breathe everyday" attitude.

 

It just raises the question as to whether it is due to the circumstances, a socially acceptable intercourse, rather than a generally tabu one. That's all, just curious to see if this has occured to anyone else.

[lovedoctor 15]

Basically, all we're interested in is the different levels of reaction and precautions taken to contagious diseases. HIV seems to have created a very strong reaction in that people are strictly adhereing to precautions where something like SARS, as an example, provokes a kind of "well, what can you do about it ? You've gotta go out and breathe everyday" attitude.

 

It just raises the question as to whether it is due to the circumstances, a socially acceptable intercourse, rather than a generally tabu one. That's all, just curious to see if this has occured to anyone else.

 

That doesn't answer my question. You said that "Airborne diseases, such as SARS, certain flu strains, etc are by far more common and as dangerous as AIDS."

 

I don't mean to be unduly aggressive in my questioning, while it may be true given absolute numbers - not all respiratory illnesses, let alone one certain subtype, have the realistic potential to be as deadly as the HIV virus. If we are going to state something as a fact, there is a certain underlying responsiblity to actually have some data to back up the fact. I think it is important enough of an issue that we get it straight. So where is your data?

 

Also, I have a question about your statement on the misuse of antibiotics. You stated that " Misuse of antibiotics and overuse of antibacterial agents have produced increasingly resistant strains." OF VIRUSES? No, sorry. Antibiotics treat bacterial infections and not viruses. Overuse of antibiotic agents can create bacterial resistance, not viral resistance. Viruses replicate by a whole different mechanism than bacteria, with (as far as I know) the exception of micoplasma which is a viral illness with some bacterial traits. This may be a miniscule point, and I am glad to hear someone who believes in appropriate antibiotic use, but it is an important distinction for people to understand.

[dave1234 16]

lovedoctor said:

OK, do you mean Herpes as the viral group or Herpes as Herpes Simplex II?(what is commonly thought of as "genital herpes")

 

The herpes viruses include EBV (Epstien Barr), CMV (cytomegalovirus), VZV (varicella virus - aka chicken pox and shingles), HSVI (common cold sores) and HSVII (as noted above) and I thnk, HHV VI (human herpes virus 6). There may be a few more - it has been a long time since Virology for me. However, these are the most common as far as the illnesses in humans go.

Yikes, I was trying to reduce the fear. Now I am more scared than before - HHV VI!?!? Is there a III, IV, and V I should worry about?

 

Seriously, I think people should be careful. Take a decent look and feel of what is going in your mouth before it does. Always use a condom for intercourse. Avoid any anal with swing partners. But since body condoms and celibacy are not on the agenda we take a calculated risk.

 

I just wish someone would post some good statistical problems here then I could have a teaching moment.....

[tncinmd 55]

That doesn't answer my question. You said that "Airborne diseases, such as SARS, certain flu strains, etc are by far more common and as dangerous as AIDS."

 

I don't mean to be unduly aggressive in my questioning, while it may be true given absolute numbers - not all respiratory illnesses, let alone one certain subtype, have the realistic potential to be as deadly as the HIV virus. If we are going to state something as a fact, there is a certain underlying responsiblity to actually have some data to back up the fact. I think it is important enough of an issue that we get it straight. So where is your data?

 

Also, I have a question about your statement on the misuse of antibiotics. You stated that " Misuse of antibiotics and overuse of antibacterial agents have produced increasingly resistant strains." OF VIRUSES? No, sorry. Antibiotics treat bacterial infections and not viruses. Overuse of antibiotic agents can create bacterial resistance, not viral resistance. Viruses replicate by a whole different mechanism than bacteria, with (as far as I know) the exception of micoplasma which is a viral illness with some bacterial traits. This may be a miniscule point, and I am glad to hear someone who believes in appropriate antibiotic use, but it is an important distinction for people to understand.

 

Well, yes, it does seem you are being picky. Hopefully you'll answer the question at some point.

 

The latest statistics (CDC 1999) I could find showed that across all ages, genders and races, influenza/pnuemonia (CDC lumps them together) came in at number 8 of the top ten causes of death. HIV doesn't make the top ten overall.

 

Now, admittedly, flu/pneumonia is a less significant factor in age groups 20-44 and doesn't make a really significant impact until 55+. HIV, however, plays a significant role starting about 25 and peaks in the 35-44 age group. Figures are somewhat different when broken down by race and gender.

 

Now, if the impact is far more significant than HIV for our age group (55+), it would seem we should be walking around wearing face masks and avoiding kissing, n'est-ce pas ? Obviously we don't. Again, the question is, is it the activity that results in exposure to the perceived risk rather than the risk itself ?

[lovedoctor 15]

tncinmd said:

Well, yes, it does seem you are being picky. Hopefully you'll answer the question at some point.

 

The latest statistics (CDC 1999) I could find showed that across all ages, genders and races, influenza/pnuemonia (CDC lumps them together) came in at number 8 of the top ten causes of death. HIV doesn't make the top ten overall.

 

Now, admittedly, flu/pneumonia is a less significant factor in age groups 20-44 and doesn't make a really significant impact until 55+. HIV, however, plays a significant role starting about 25 and peaks in the 35-44 age group. Figures are somewhat different when broken down by race and gender.

 

Now, if the impact is far more significant than HIV for our age group (55+), it would seem we should be walking around wearing face masks and avoiding kissing, n'est-ce pas ? Obviously we don't. Again, the question is, is it the activity that results in exposure to the perceived risk rather than the risk itself ?

CDC Data from 1999 to 2003 shows about an even distribution of 18,000 deaths per year in the USA from AIDs.

 

CDC Data from 2003 March - July, shows a total number of probable SARS cases at 398 for that time period in the USA. ---I didn't see the deaths posted but if it was a percentile of that 398 even if we extrapolated out for the remainder of the calendar year, it still would not come close to the 18,000 for AIDS deaths.

[dave1234 16]

OK, I got this from another BB:

 

HIV Infection From Receiving Oral Sex is Rare, Study Says

 

August 14, 2001 News Office: Jeff Sheehy (415) 597-8165

 

A study by researchers from UCSF's Center for AIDS Prevention Studies (CAPS) found the probability of HIV infection through unprotected receptive oral sex with a man to be statistically estimated as zero.

 

"Our study looked at exclusive receptive oral intercourse with a male partner, and we found that the probability of acquiring HIV through that specific sexual activity is very, very low. Given that the results are based on a relatively small sample, we can not rule out the possibility that the probability of infection is indeed greater than zero," said study lead author Kimberly Page Shafer, assistant professor of medicine at UCSF's CAPS. The study is ongoing and the findings will be amended by the researchers with greater numbers.

 

"While our study is the first to attempt to systematically define the risk, case reports exist of infections acquired through oral contact. I want to emphasize that, while rare, acquiring HIV infection orally is possible and that many other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) such as gonorrhea, chlamydia, and syphilis are transmitted orally," added Shafer.

 

The study, presented today (August 14) at the Second National Prevention Conference in Atlanta, enrolled 198 participants from anonymous testing and counseling sites in San Francisco. The participants, 98 percent male and 100 percent identified as gay or bisexual, reported no anal or vaginal sex and no injection drug use in the six months prior to entering the study. The participants reported a median of two receptive oral intercourse partners and 98 percent reported unprotected receptive oral intercourse. Twenty percent of the participants reported receptive oral intercourse with an HIV positive partner. Of that group, 89 percent did not use a condom and 40 percent swallowed ejaculate.

 

The participants were screened for HIV infection and also for recent HIV infection using both the standard test for HIV and a test for HIV that is "detuned" to detect only those HIV infections that have occurred within the six months prior to taking the test. Out of the 198 participants, only one HIV infection was reported, and that infection had not been recently acquired and could not be attributed to the period of exclusive oral receptive intercourse. No recently acquired HIV infections were reported by any of the other participants in the study. Statistically, the study yielded a zero probability of acquiring HIV orally.

 

The study is funded by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research.

[tncinmd 55]

CDC Data from 1999 to 2003 shows about an even distribution of 18,000 deaths per year in the USA from AIDs.

 

CDC Data from 2003 March - July, shows a total number of probable SARS cases at 398 for that time period in the USA. ---I didn't see the deaths posted but if it was a percentile of that 398 even if we extrapolated out for the remainder of the calendar year, it still would not come close to the 18,000 for AIDS deaths.

 

You asked about not only SARS but other airborne diseases, if you remember. And the figures for 1999 alone on flu/pnuemonia deaths are in excess of 66,000.

 

Since you don't appear to want to answer the original question, further interchange on this point would be useless. Let's just leave it at that.

[lovedoctor 15]

...HIV seems to have created a very strong reaction in that people are strictly adhereing to precautions where something like SARS.....

 

You said it (SARs), I just looked up the stats...

 

Deaths due to respiratory illness can be due to myriad processes - hundreds of viruses, bacteria, chemicals, fungi, autoimmune, asthma, heart disease.... etc, etc -

 

- so it is really apples and oranges to compare them to deaths caused by one virus (HIV) to all respiratory deaths, even if you exclude causes other than infectious.

[lovedoctor 15]

Now, if the impact is far more significant than HIV for our age group (55+), it would seem we should be walking around wearing face masks and avoiding kissing, n'est-ce pas ? Obviously we don't. Again, the question is, is it the activity that results in exposure to the perceived risk rather than the risk itself ?

 

Sorry I didn't mean to put you off, I was still waiting for you to clarify your original question. But I will answer your question to me, which I felt was actually rhetorical.

 

--No, it would be silly to walk around with masks on everywhere. Respiratory/droplet spread would not be stopped in that manner. But it would reduce the risk in specific instances. For example, if I go into a hospital room where the patient has TB, I am going to wear a mask, clean my equipment upon leaving, and wash my hands, which is the best way to avoid transmitting something that is spread in this manner.

 

--No one is going to get HIV because someone coughs on them. So, when having sex, the best precaution is to apply a condom immediately prior to intercourse and to remove the penis from the vagina immediately upon ejaculation and dispose of the condom appropriately. For oral sex, the risk is low (although it cannot be said to be nonexistent), so less precaution is needed. Anal can be carried out in the same manner as vaginal, but is potentially more risky even with a condom, due to microscopic tears in the rectal mucosa. Oh, and for blood transfusions, we reduce the risk by set testing criteria with donated samples.

 

So, if your question was do more people get concerned over transmission of HIV b/c it is, mostly, sexually transmitted, then I can only answer for myself: it doesn't matter what virus we are dealing with. We should take appropriate and reasonable precautions to prevent it's spread.

[lovedoctor 15]

I'm sorry I didn't have time to search for anymore specific data to Influenza (A & B), my other search was specifically for SARs.

 

But this is from the CDC's MMWR (the world, not just the US, when we start adding in 3rd world populations, we cannot even extrapolate to our population, there are so many other confounding variables) April, 2003: Prevention and Control of Influenza

Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)

 

 

"Influenza-related deaths can result from pneumonia as well as from exacerbations of cardiopulmonary conditions and other chronic diseases. Older adults account for >90% of deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza (1,50). In a recent study of influenza epidemics, approximately 19,000 influenza-associated pulmonary and circulatory deaths per influenza season occurred during 1976--1990, compared with approximately 36,000 deaths during 1990--1999 (1). Estimated rates of influenza-associated pulmonary and circulatory deaths/100,000 persons were 0.4--0.6 among persons aged 0--49 years, 7.5 among persons aged 50--64 years, and 98.3 among persons aged >65 years. In the United States, the number of influenza-associated deaths might be increasing in part because the number of older persons is increasing (56). In addition, influenza seasons in which influenza A (H3N2) viruses predominate are associated with higher mortality (57); influenza A (H3N2) viruses predominated in 90% of influenza seasons from 1990--1999, compared with 57% of seasons from 1976--1990 (1). "

 

With Influenza, it is more common to trend data than to report specific years, just because of the viral shift from season to season, yet another variable.

 

-So, it comes down to apples and oranges again... OK, I'm done with all my research for now...thanks!

[tncinmd 55]

lovedoctor said:

-So, it comes down to apples and oranges again... OK, I'm done with all my research for now...thanks!

Once again, you didn't read my responses fully nor answer the question. I outlined the facts you've already stated. I answered your questions fully. The question remains, does the emphasis on AIDS prevention versus other diseases have more to do with the act that is involved in transmission than with the threat ? In other words, is there a moral component involved ? It's just an interesting slant that I wished to draw comments on. Obviously I was wasting my time.

[Four Aces 15]

My understanding is that swingers are generally in the low-risk category when compared to the normal singles bar-hopping crowd, and especially when compared to the male gay community. This is not just with regards to AIDS, but also for all other STD's.

 

I think the key here is judgment and in being selective.

[lovedoctor 15]

Four Aces said:

My understanding is that swingers are generally in the low-risk category when compared to the normal singles bar-hopping crowd, and especially when compared to the male gay community. This is not just with regards to AIDS, but also for all other STD's.

That is interesting about swingers being low-risk. I certainly hope it is true, and I do agree that it is key to be selective. That has nothing to do with moral judgement (for me anyway) - it just has to do with thinking smart about how to go about taking a calculated risk. At least until that fool proof HIV vax comes out! (Thank God, Penicillin is still working great for syph and trich/GC/Chlam are treatable. I wouldn't like getting HSVII or HPV, but I could live with them!)

 

[Carol_Danny 17]

Sorry, but I think we need to get back on track with the original intent of this thread. It's all well and good to discuss other diseases and viruses, but that has as much to do with all this as does the chances of dying in an automobile accident! Basically nothing. It's like saying that my chances of dying in a car accident are much greater than dying from unprotected sex, so I had better stop driving! Well, that is silly, but to reduce those chances, we wear seat belts and take other precautions when we drive. The same goes for sex, take the precautions you are personally comfortable with.

 

We all have our preferred practices, and our own thoughts on what "Safer-Sex" means to us. We have been "Swingers" for well over 20 years, and in that time, have had hundreds of partners. We aren't couple exclusive, and also play with both single men and women. In 1997, we made the conscious decision to only do any penetration with condoms, and we have stuck with that since that day. We do enjoy unprotected oral sex, and are willing to take our chances for that enjoyment. I would say that the only difference these days is Carol goes for the "Facial" instead of the swallowing (with others). That is her choice and meets her comfort level, and we really don't need to defend that choice as you aren't required to defend yours.

 

As someone mentioned earlier in this topic, he doesn't like to wear condoms, so doesn't engage in much penetration with others. I'm really the same way. Since penetration is such a small and unimportant part of being with others, there is many times that the only person I "penetrate" is my own wife.

 

These days we also ensure condom use for another reason. When Carol hit 40, she decided to stop using birth control pills, and I went and had a vasectomy. So our worry these days is just not disease related, it's also pregnancy related

[JustAskJulie 2,595]

Thanks for bringing this back around to the intended topic, there are plenty of threads here to discuss the various risks and the multitude of potential stds, but this thread had a simple question, so let's stick to it.

[tncinmd 55]

JustAskJulie said:

Thanks for bringing this back around to the intended topic, there are plenty of threads here to discuss the various risks and the multitude of potential stds, but this thread had a simple question, so let's stick to it.

 

We apologize, Julie. You're right, it should have been a separate thread. We didn't mean for it to be a discussion of statistics, nor an attempt to change anyone's mind about what precautions to take or not to take. It just seemed like an interesting question to us.

 

Anyway, sorry for inadvertently hijacking the thread....