Leaderboard

Life has an arc, a trajectory. Sometime that veers away from LS, sometimes it comes to an end, sometimes this sort of interaction declines among various priorities. All of that begs the question of why we are still here. Call it boundless curiosity about the world and the people around us. We had one of those "car conversations" that long-term couples have this morning---would we have grown the same way if we had met someone else, perhaps differently valued and differently engaged with the world? We concluded that our unique synergy--and every couple worthy of the name 'couple' (meaning they are clearly committed and committed to growing together) has their own unique synergy--shaped our arcs. Not everyone with this worldview has engaged with the LS, of course. But what keeps us engaged is the strength of our respect and affection for each other along with the aforementioned wonderment about our world and the creatures who inhabit it. With rare exception, given the opportunity, we think we would enjoy dinner and a conversation with those who have been part of this online community for years -- and more. Perhaps that's why, when we learn of the death of someone whose writings here were familiar and passionate--padoc comes to mind, we reflect on the opportunity missed.

Or they are reading the new imaginative posts and just passing.

A most interesting topic, and one worthy of continuing. The conversation spurred me to spend time reading though some NIH and CDC publications, and then some research on Google Scholar. Mind you I am not a health expert, but the data is out there in the public domain for all to see. I feel the need to be frank and direct on the topic at the risk that some will be offended. So I am sorry to those whom I may offend if it means that what I share helps someone to NOT contract an STD. Regarding studies and condom usage, I agree that condom usage is not likely to be 100% effective. The studies are imperfect and are based on probable statistical models that are as accurate or inaccurate as the mathematics used and how the data is interpreted/presented/accepted by the scientific community. After all, how can one predict human behavior in all cases in these studies? Regardless, I also agree with others here that using condoms makes sense with new encounters. To use an analogy, why walk the tight rope without a net? I would like to add that there are measures one should consider beyond condom use for HIV prevention: pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), which has been shown to be 99% effective in preventing HIV transmission and 100% effective (with a 95% confidence level in the data) if the partner is HIV+ and is viral suppressed. Don't take my word for it. Look for yourselves at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31184746/ and https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/risk/art/cdc-hiv-art-viral-suppression.pdf. I will caution that some research suggests shots (typically given quarterly) for PrEP have a lower efficacy versus a daily pill when adherence is 100%. I also caution PrEP may not offer protection against an HIV person who is not compliant with treatment and has developed HIV drug resistance. I personally consider HEP-C a bigger concern. There is no vaccine (although according to the Mayo Clinic the risk of HEP-C infection is reduced if one gets the HEP-A & HEP-B vaccine) and the treatments are expensive ($95K for a 12 week regiment), with significant side effects. The BIG take-away here is trust with those you share your bodies with. But I agree that trust + verify is important; especially if a new encounter. And as one writer stated, an STD composite test is a point-in-time when the test was administered, and is not a sure thing. For example, it takes around 2 weeks from exposure for a person to show a positive HIV test after post exposure. As for me, the HEP-C risk is a strong deterrent. I rarely swing.