Are these STD numbers correct?

[foozballnow 31]

Hi everyone. I have been reading the posts on here for some time. Lately I have seen a few people post about being "second man in" and "creampie" and such and I know that there are people with very strong views on STD's. I was curious about the numbers when I read an article about syphilis on Yahoo. These are the numbers I came up with. I must say it makes me think they do make it seem worse than it is. These statistics are from the CDC's website under the facts section if you wish to disagree with me. We use condoms but I was just amazed at the numbers here.

 

PID 1,000,000

Trichomoniasis 7,500,000

Syphilis 36,935

Chlamydia 1,100,000

Gonorrhea 358,366

Herpes 50,000,000

HIV/AIDS 1,300,000

 

Now the CDC does not differentiate between the types of Herpes virus so it is unclear if it is necessarily genital or not, as it can manifest in either form.

 

total infections 61,295,301

 

US population 304,000,000

 

This makes the infection rate of some form of STD in the US to 20%. Though if you really look at it, since all herpes infections are not necessarily genital herpes, if you take that out of the equation that brings total infections to 3.7%.

 

3% really does not seem like that much when you think about it. At least to me it doesn't. I'm not advocating anyone stop wearing condoms, I just thought numbers were a lot higher.

[sexcupid 809]

According to the Herpes information page, 45-50 million is a correct number for genital herpes.

 

The thing is...while most STD's can be cured with a quick bout of antibiotics, the 2 biggies on the list are HIV/AIDS and Herpes. I guess my thinking is...I'm more likely to have a partner that has herpes than HIV...why on earth would I want to take the chance of getting something that I can never get rid of or die from?

 

Sure the chances are small...but so is the chance of being hit by a semi. That chance is greater if I walk down the center lane of the interstate...why take it?

 

Nothing is fool proof and many folks just consider condoms false security...but most of us still insist on using them because of some semblance of piece of mind.

[VegasLee 1,486]

The week on the NBC news and on the Today Show they talked about a current report that 25% of all teenage girls in the United States have some sort of STD.

 

I am betting that is a wake up call to many of the younger generation. I am thinking that the younger group is also skewing the over all numbers because of high percentages like that.

 

This is a lifestyle/hobby that you have to understand and weigh the risks. Only you can decide if it is worth the risk in your life.

 

I am wondering what the death rate is of people that jump out of perfectly good planes for fun.

[knb2004 364]

I read somewhere that the version of Herpes that causes mouth sores (probably Herpes Simplex 3.5.1024) is nearly universal by the age of 40 or 50. Speaking for myself, I've had periodic mouth cold sores (which is, I think, this version of herpes being symptomatic) since before the first time I had sex of any kind.

 

I think worse than cold sores, the fact that I call it a "version" says way too much about my geekiness.

 

Mr. Knb2004

 

PS... Lee, if you listened carefully to their story, it was 25% of SEXUALLY ACTIVE teens. They were kind of downplaying that, and I'm not sure what ratio of the general population that translates to, but was a bit disingenuous if you ask me. Though even with that stipulation it's a big number.

[VegasLee 1,486]

At least one in four teenage American girls has a sexually transmitted disease, suggests a first-of-its-kind federal study that startled some adolescent-health experts.

 

Among those who admitted having sex, the rate was even more disturbing — 40 percent had an STD.

[foozballnow 31]

Hi Vegaslee,

 

This was one of the articles that I was reading that had me start looking at the numbers. But like I said, I am not advocating for anyone to change their ways.

 

Like sexcupid said, a lot of people seem to wear condoms for a false sense of security. I mean herpes can be transfered if wearing a condom and the outbreak is somewhere other than the condom protects. Which is probably where most of the outbreaks are anyways. False sense of security? probably

[good times 991]

Like sexcupid said, a lot of people seem to wear condoms for a false sense of security. I mean herpes can be transfered if wearing a condom and the outbreak is somewhere other than the condom protects. Which is probably where most of the outbreaks are anyways. False sense of security? probably

It is actually even more complicated than that. Herpes and HPV, the two most common incurable STD's, are transfered by contact. So, for example, if a man has active herpes on his penis shaft, and he touches that area when putting on his condom, then either touches the woman or the outside of the condom, he just transfered it as if no condom was used. That is why most respected researchers consider condoms ineffective at preventing the transfer of Herpes or HPV.

[Wildthingplus 47]

I have been in the lifestyle for 10 years. I enjoy unprotected sex with multiple men every time I attend a club. I encourage men to cum inside me. I enjoy the feeling. I check the men out to make sure the look clean and healthy. Maybe I am very fortunate but I have never contracted anything in my 10 years. I get tested every year. I personally do not see condoms as STD protection since they still allow contact.

[celtic239 297]

Are there numbers for the US or the entire North American continent? On a side note, prior to the discovery of penicillin, the VD infection rate in most industrialized countries was astronomical. I sometimes ponder if Victorian morality was aimed more at stopping syphilis (Winston Churchill's father died from the disease) than protection the virginity of rich maidens.

[foozballnow 31]

These are the numbers for the United States. At least that's what the CDC website says

[ross_sally 9]

Are those STD numbers correct? Fooz, I'm sure they are, but applying them is the difficult part.

 

Using the US population of 304,000,000 to get to 20% is not very accurate for the context of this forum / community.

 

Doesn't that number include millions of people under 14 and over 70, people in monogamous marriages, and so on?

 

Should you include a person with a total of 10 sexual partners in a category with

a person who has had 200 sexual partners?

 

That would be like looking at the risk of cancer and putting a smoker in the same bucket as a non smoker, (just dividing the # of cancer deaths by total population) OR ...

 

Like saying your odds of losing money at a casino are 1 to 1 (50%) because you include millions of people that NEVER actually gamble.

 

The odds of losing money for many people is 0 because they don't gamble and for others it's maybe 1.5 to 1 because they do.

 

Also, we talked about HPV here earlier and I thought the percent of woman having it at this point in their lives, (over 30 yo) was over 50%?

 

Is HPV on that CDC list? Under another name? And if it is, I thought it was more common to get than Herpes? Which is at 50,000,000.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

And Condoms, false sense of protection? STD's can be transmitted by other skin contact?

 

If a condom covers 70% (use whatever figure you want) of the contact area, then it will reduce the risk of an STD by roughly 70%. (less than 70%, they sometimes break/come off)

 

Simply put, it's not 100% protection, but it's much better than 0% protection.

 

Insurance companies are experts at evaluating risk. How do you think they would rate the risk of this lifestyle and not using condoms?

 

My guess is, that you could multiply your CDC figure of 20% by a factor of 3 or 4!

 

So Wildthingplus, if you have gone 10 years and are D free? Amazing, you are very lucky, that's like winning the lottery kind of lucky!

 

Having said all that, I'm still interested::P:

[Wildthingplus 47]

Perhaps I am lucky; however, I don’t think it’s just luck. Although I probably have more partners than the average person in the lifestyle, I happen to be in the category of “more than 200” sexual partners. I have observed at least 60% of swingers having unprotected sex. Perhaps those who attend swing clubs are lower risk than the general public. I have also read articles that have expressed that heterosexual intercourse is a lot less likely to spread STD’s. If someone sneezes on me a little or a lot I am still likely to catch their cold. I don’t think a little contact or complete contact makes much of a difference. Trying to observe if the person is clean and healthy is probably a good start. I think it’s helped in my case.

[ross_sally 9]

Well your method is apparently working, which is great.

 

Is the detraction and feeling loss of wearing a condom worth the perceived risk reduction of an STD? That's obviously a personal choice.

 

And don't get me wrong, I HATE condoms, but I don't want a 'never gone' STD, and you have to believe that 'Ladies of the night' require the use of condoms for some reason.

[Wildthingplus 47]

I am allergic to latex. The polyurethane condoms are too small for a lot of men. The point of sex for me is the enjoyment and condoms don’t feel good. I really don’t think a condom gives much protection so I don’t think that my risk is necessarily greater. I believe the risk is greater when you think you are protected and don’t screen the men you are with. I turn down probably 1/3 of the men that approach me when I am not comfortable with what I see.

 

As far as ‘Ladies of the night’ I don’t think we are talking about the same people that attend swing clubs. I also don’t think they can pick and choose the men.

[austxmark 41]

Interesting thread. I worked in immunology for 15 years and was in the field back when (HTLVIII) HIV came out. The stats that are given are general stats and have nearly no relevance to a specific person or situation. If you really want to evaluate your risk you have to consider your own situation.

 

I will use mine to demonstrate the point. I am male and the risk of contracting HIV from a single act of intercourse with an HIV positive female is less than 1%.

 

The number of Americans with HIV is about 1 million (known positive around 500k) which is about 1/3 of a percent out of total population. The percent out of that total between 35 and 55 (my target age group) that have HIV is 25%. This equals 25% of 1/3 of a percent which is about 1/12 of a percent. This means that 1/12 of 1% of the total population is positive that I can possibly sexually interact with. Now even if I do run into the HIV positive person I only have a 1% risk as stated above. So for an act of sex, generally, it's 1% of 1/12 of 1% risk out of your population group.

 

Now Austin has 5000 HIV positive out of 1.3 million people. So my starting number is around the same as the national average of 1/3 of a percent. If you city has less or more you can recalculate. Denver has about a 1/6 of a percent starting point, which is better than Austin. Hope this helps everyone.

[Malachista 170]

Ok, ignorant (?) European speaking here

 

We pretty much only hear about danger to get infected with HIV/AIDS or hepatitis. Here it is said that changes to get Gonorrhea or Syphilis less then 0.01% and everything else (including any form of Herpes) is not even mentioned

 

So how big is the chance that this numbers are sponsored by the abstinence/married monogamy preachers of the US?

[austxmark 41]

How big a chance you ask? How does 100% sound. The CDC is engaging in scare tactics to support the current administrations abstinence policy. The CD is supposed to be independent but when you budget is controlled you listen to the controllers. I mean, come on, is oral sex and anal sex really equal risky??

[personal416 71]

I'm not surprised to see the "trick" numbers that high, and have wondered how many swingers that like to "enjoy as many others as possible" are spreading it around without their knowledge.

[ross_sally 9]

"and everything else (including any form of Herpes) is not even mentioned"

 

Why would they not mention Herpes and HPV, which are the highest risks? Does that mean they are acceptable consequences in Europe?

 

Mark, I agree that the CDC is motivated to skew the numbers, but your application of percentages and methodology in getting to less than 1% for your situation is not correct.

 

And as far as being selectively careful. It seems that that relies on swingers being 100% honest or going in with a magnifying glass with a light, neither being very practical. And what about the fact that the STD can be contagious without being visible, as mentioned above?

 

When the other party is fine NOT wearing a condom, I feel I need to wear a condom, even though I don't like condoms, and when they insist on wearing a condom, I feel better that they are DF. Maybe it's flawed, but I believe someone that already has Herpes or HPV, obviously isn't worried about contracting it.

[Malachista 170]

"

Why would they not mention Herpes and HPV, which are the highest risks? Does that mean they are acceptable consequences in Europe?

 

No, not acceptable consequences, but not considered risks

[rachan 53]

We belong to a small swinger group and we all are tested for STD's at least every 3 months. I know this lifestyle is risky but I love having unprotected sex. BTW, I've never had an STD and I've been sexually active since I was 14.

[austxmark 41]

Well Ross Sally, if my way of getting to less than 1% is incorrect than what would you suggest be done to fix it. When you consider that the estimates for HIV positive people in the US is about 1 million and we have over 300 million in this country it is impossible NOT to come up with a percent less than 1. So please show me where I went wrong so I can understand better.

[good times 991]

austxmark,

 

I think your calculations are incorrect because they are overly pessimistic. Your actual risk using an average of the risk numbers put out by experts is considerably lower than "1% of 1/12 of 1% risk out of your population group", based on my calculations.

 

I totally agree with the point of your post though. I also agree with your math, if one uses the most pessimistic (incorrect) risk numbers available.

[austxmark 41]

Well I have to admit I intentionally used the more pessimistic numbers. I did so because I figured someone would get on here and attack my numbers as being to optimistic and therefore attempting to slant the outcome to the way I wanted. It is kinda funny how I over compensated to avoid being called out.

[ross_sally 9]

The question is ... "Are these STD numbers correct?"

 

HIV is one small subset of STD's. Why ignore all the other STD's?

 

And secondly, as I mentioned, it's inaccurate to increase your base with irrelevant populations. Namely, the fear of contracting an STD comes only from the sexually active population, not the whole population, which includes the non-sexually active.

So your very first figure,(1/3 of a percent) is not correct.

[HerpesCpl 44]

I would imagine that those rates are probably quite correct. I think it's a false idea to differentiate between the two types of HSV when you consider that one can easily lead to the other. A girl with a cold sore goes down on a guy and next thing he knows he has genital herpes. Cold sores seem innocent enough but not so much when you think about it.

 

It's much safer for everyone to assume that anyone they come into contact with may be infected with something, whether they lie about it or just don't even know they have it or they are honest.

[austxmark 41]

Well HerpesCpl, if you assume everyone has something then swinging is not a good idea. Condoms really are not very effective at stopping herpes or genital warts. They do a decent job at other stuff if there is no penis-vaginal contact whatsoever without a condom on.

[Thron&Thor 117]

The percentage of genital herpes infections per racial groupings portrays a very interesting picture of the cultural lifestyles superimposed by race in the swinging lifestyle. The numbers, which are startling to some, give pause to consider and these numbers are available through recently published medical studies to which training is conducted for medical staff at all major medical facilities. Herpes Simplex I (core sores) is so similar to Herpes Simplex II (genital herpes) that having by Simplex I your body has developed a ceratin immune response to Simplex II providing a healthy person with some protection from Simplex II. By researching the percentage numbers yourself you will receive an additional education to consider risk vs. benefit...but then what is life but the risk of living each day for its own sake.

[JustAskJulie 2,595]

Well HerpesCpl, if you assume everyone has something then swinging is not a good idea. Condoms really are not very effective at stopping herpes or genital warts. They do a decent job at other stuff if there is no penis-vaginal contact whatsoever without a condom on.

 

I have to agree with HerpesCpl on this one. If you don't at least assume at some level that everyone has something or is hiding something all you are doing is lulling yourself into a false sense of security. The point of what several people (myself included) have been trying to say in this thread and others is that there are so many people who have something and don't even KNOW they have it that you can't a) take them at face value assuming you even ask the question, b) attempt to assume that a person's honest answer is really the truth (because again they may not know). Your best bet in the end is to assume that everyone probably has something and realize it is YOUR responsibility to do what you can to protect yourself. And the first step there is deciding how much risk you are willing to take. Some come to the conclusion they aren't willing to take the risk... so they don't swing at all. Others feel that they can minimize their risk by choosing playmates wisely, or by requiring testing, or requiring condoms. In the end, everyone has to make a choice somewhere, but regardless of the choice you make, if you choose to have sex (period. swinging or not) you are taking a risk.

 

As someone else pointed out elsewhere, there is no such thing as safe sex.

[tittietwister 126]

Statistics on the general population are fine but they don't apply to specialized groups that self-select out of the general population. The Center for Disease Control has only documented one case of HIV among swingers and that was transmitted by a gay man - fairly rare in swinging and also fairly easy to identify and avoid.

 

STD's also tend to be more common in certain age groups - younger.

 

While we certainly acknowledge the risk in everything we do, as a motorcyclist I have a fairly high risk tolerance - something we seem to be breeding out of all aspects of our society. My attitude, which I realize is not the norm, is to manage risks as best I can vs. trying to avoid all of them. We pick our partners very carefully and the characteristics of the group we play with is one of extremely low risk based on the best analysis of statistics that is possible. Is the risk zero? No! Is it low enough for us to proceed without being overly concerned and with recognition that we are ultimately accountable for any adverse outcomes? Yes!

[Lascivious L&L 866]

On the CDC website the last general population study found that 58% of adults have herpes simplex 1, oral herpes, and 20% of adults have herpes simplex 2, genital herpes. Either one can infect orally or genitally, so the difference is minor. That means the most adults have herpes. You and me and most swingers. Herpes is the norm, being free from herpes is the exception. Condoms do not protect from herpes well.

 

HPV is similar. Most researchers feel the majority of sexual active adults have at least one variety of HPV. Both these viruses, herpes and HPV, can infect without any symptoms and that is likely the case for most infected people since most people don't realize they have herpes or HPV.

 

Once again, herpes and HPV are the norm for sexually active adults. Assume all swingers are infected. Assume you are infected and have been for a long time.