|
|
|
|
|
| What's the number that would scare you off for GOOD?
Posted: 7/7/2006 12:54:26 AM | Funny thing, i have always thought relationships are about honesty and not keeping things about each other. Unfortunately folks when ur dating someone ur dating their past, present and future. Plus heck yes it matters because look at all the std's out there. Are u people nuts? Or maybe you like playing russian roulette with ur life.
Thank god im staying a virgin till marriage(catholic women apply here lol) | |
|
| What's the number that would scare you off for GOOD?
Posted: 7/7/2006 12:57:05 AM | Sorry Fleurtee but the past is a part of who we are . If its no big deal its always best to let the truth out and not pretend like we are innocent. If you cannot truely and fully know a person you cannot truely and fully love them. Its called keeping things from your soulmate unless of course its just the screw of the moment | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| What's the number that would scare you off for GOOD?
Posted: 7/7/2006 8:42:06 AM | Numbers and safety where sex is concerned is a good think, actually.
Dr. Peter Duesberg, who discovered retroviruses, has proved that people with the highest number of partners is a higher risk group than those who have tested HIV positive for AIDS.
We DO get "germs" from every new person we swap spit (or cum, or "juices") with. Of these "germs" (microorganisms) everyone has at least ONE which is totally unique to that person and the immune system in the body of the new person it's introduced to must respond to it.
more:
from: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/bginterview.htm
How feasible is the argument that HIV triggers autoimmunity?
It is very implausible indeed. There are a million Americans with HIV who are totally healthy. There are six million Africans according to the World Health Organization who have HIV; 129,000 had AIDS by the end of last year, that means five million eight hundred and so many thousand had no AIDS. Half a million Europeans have HIV and 60,000 have AIDS. So there are millions and millions of people on this planet who have [HIV but] no AIDS-why don't seven-and-a-half million get autoimmune disease if HIV is the cause of an autoimmune disease?
Well, the establishment says that everybody with HIV will develop AIDS and it's just a matter of time.
In the last ten years this has happened in America to about 20 percent of all people with HIV, 250,000[including deaths to date] out of a million. But the people who are dying from AIDS are hardly ever your all-American friends of 20 to 40 years of age: Virtually all heterosexual Americans and Europeans who had AIDS are intravenous drug users. And the homosexuals who get AIDS had hundreds if not thousands of sexual contacts. That is not achieved with your conventional testosterone. It is achieved with chemicals. Those are the risk groups, they inhale poppers, they use amphetamines, they take Quaaludes, they take amyl nitrite, they take cocaine as aphrodisiacs.
What is it about intravenous drug use as opposed to ordinary drug use, like snorting cocaine, that would mean theses people would go on to develop AIDS?
It's a matter of degree. With drugs, the dose is the poison. You take one aspirin, you lose your headache, you take 200, you drop dead. You smoke one pack of cigarettes, you're fine, but if you smoke two packs of cigarettes for 10 or 20 years, you may get emphysema. It is the same with drugs. If you snort a line of cocaine on a weekend, you probably won't notice the difference. But if you inject it intravenously two or three times a day, that's when the toxicity shows up. We're designed to take some shit. But we're not designed to inject cocaine three times a day. People have been having a little cocaine in their tea in South America, yes, but not injecting it three times a day, and nobody was inhaling nitrites-nitrites are toxic as hell. Nobody was taking amphetamines at those doses; they were not available. That's what's new.
But back to this argument about HIV. Viruses can only work one way. They can only be toxic if they affect a cell. They cannot work at a distance. There's no exception. Viruses are what you call an intracellular parasite. They don't have an autonomous life. They are just a little piece of information that is stuck into a cell and acts like a parasite. But outside of the cell it's like a disc outside a computer.
So is there any precedent of a virus creating an autoimmune disease?
There are a few hypotheses, but no. When a doctor doesn't know how to explain a disease, he has two classical crutches: it's a slow virus or it's an autoimmune disease. I've heard that for the last 20 years. When they didn't know what diabetes was, it was a slow virus or an autoimmune disease. Alzheimer's: slow virus or an autoimmune disease. And with AIDS, slow virus, causing an autoimmune disease. You have both!
An autoimmune disease is a misdirected immune response. It cannot tell a harmful virus from a harmless one, it overreacts. If the virus were the trigger, that should follow as soon as the virus gets in you. Not, as they say about AIDS, you get infected now, ten years later you get diarrhea. It's totally absurd.
Is it possible that AIDS could be an autoimmune created disease, but HIV isn't the trigger?
Some of the AIDS diseases could possibly be autoimmune diseases. Certainly not all. 38 percent of American AIDS cases have nothing to do with immune deficiency. 38 percent. 10 percent are Kaposi sarcomas, 19 percent are this so-called wasting disease.
That's seen in Africa a lot, the slim disease?
Yeah, there it's somewhat different, it's usually coupled with infections. But the American or European wasting disease is actually specifically defined as a nonparasitic disease.
Anyway, 6 percent is dementia, 3 percent is lymphoma cancer. If you add those up, that's 38 percent of all American AIDS cases. Out of 250,000, that's about 100,000-their diseases cannot be explained by any form of immunodeficiency whatsoever.
Why is it considered AIDS, then?
That's one of the questions I would love to know the answer to. I have asked several experts; they always get mad. AIDS is always presented as if it's all immune deficiency. It is not at all. Cancer has nothing to do with immune deficiency.
So what is the common denominator between all of the 25 AIDS diseases?
None! They name it AIDS, that's all. None of these 38 percent have anything whatsoever to do with immunodeficiency, but they're called AIDS.
There's not one AIDS disease that's new. What is new is only the incidence of these diseases in 20-to 45-year-old men, mostly, and a few women, has gone up.
I've always thought the 25 diseases that form the AIDS syndrome had the common denominator that they were the results of the Immune system's inability to stave them off.
That's how they try to sell it without looking at the evidence. But cancer is not a consequence of immune deficiency. Dementia has nothing to do with the immune system. Your brain is independent of the immune system. Of course, if there's no immune system, and your brain gets infected, you can get meningitis. But it doesn't affect your IQ. Sure, in the end, if everything fails you can get all sorts of diseases.
Even if you accommodate the virus with all sorts of absurd and paradoxical hypotheses-indirect mechanisms, and cofactors, autoimmunity, a ten-year latency period-even that doesn't get you around the solid number of 4,621 HIV-free AIDS cases [worldwide, a third of these in the U.S.]. How do you explain those? You couldn't have a better alibi than being there! And that is suppressed. Here we have a real cover-up. Last year the numbers of these cases was going up like crazy, and Anthony Fauci [director of National Institutes of Health [NIH], and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] called a meeting. And you know what they did? They gave it a new name. They call it "Idiopathic CD-4 lymphocytopenia." Or ICL. When you're HIV-free now, it's no longer called AIDS.
There's 4,000 cases that don't have HIV, but the 250,000-plus cases that remain do have HIV.
That's what you think. How do you know that?
Because they've been tested.
By whom?
By their physicians
So who tells us that they have been tested?
A guy goes to his doctor, clearly very ill, he has AIDS. He's tested or was tested earlier on and is found to be HIV-positive.
Even now, there is no record, anywhere, that says in how many American AIDS cases HIV was actually found.
But in every AIDS case, the CDC would know whether or not the patients were HIV-positive, because the physicians reported it.
You're led to believe this by the CDC, but the evidence that HIV is there, they never disclose. Nowhere in the HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, as they call the national statistics kept by the CDC, do you ever find HIV data. No survey on HIV at all. All they talk about is AIDS. And then you read a little more of the fine print, how AIDS is defined. They accept what you call "presumptive diagnosis"- AIDS cases without HIV tests. You know what that means? The guy wears a leather jacket, has an earring, and is coughing. And he's from San Francisco. That's an AIDS case. I don't even have to check it, his physician thinks.
I recently wrote a letter to Harold Jaffe [acting director of the Division of HIV/AIDS at the CDC]. He acknowledged 43,606 presumptive diagnoses up to 1988. I checked the literature and came up with 62,272 until 1992.
Let me get this straight, you're saying between 43,000 and 62,000 of the cases of AIDS up until 1992 were not tested, which means we have no idea whether or not they were HIV-positive.
Absolutely.
They may or may not have been HIV-positive.
Yeah. Even in the latest AIDS definition, in January 1993, they allowed presumptive diagnosis. In other words, a good number of them even now will be reported without and HIV test.
The public perception is that all cases of AIDS have HIV, that a case is not defined as AIDS without the presence of HIV, which would mean, by definition, that somebody tested them.
Most people assume, like you do, that everyone [with AIDS] is positive. That's not the end yet. We have what is called false-positive antibody tests. They call them HIV tests, but you know what you're testing. The antibody can be there and the virus could be long gone.
Additionally, there are crossreactions, where the antibody might react to, say, malaria or arthritis and that's mistaken for engaging HIV?
Exactly. Or people vaccinated for the flu. Blood donors, ten recentlyseven out of ten were positive for HIV.
Did they have the virus?
No!
How do we know they didn't have the virus?
They were checked a half a year later, and the test was negative. There was no virus. | |
|
| What's the number that would scare you off for GOOD?
Posted: 7/7/2006 8:45:58 AM | At my age, 0 or 1 would freak me out. Give me a woman who knows her body and what she likes and can EXPRESS it. Who has tried different things with different people and is open and secure enough to share it with me. Heaven!
I could care less the number as.....she is with ME now. Thats really all that matters isn't it?
EDIT: ^^^^^ Thanks for that waste of space. Ya couldn't have just provided a link? *rolling eyes* | |
|
| What's the number that would scare you off for GOOD?
Posted: 7/7/2006 9:18:50 AM | If you'd seen the page it came from, you'd understand.
What I was trying to do was to show the argument Duesberg has, which seems pretty solid to me. If you consider it a waste of space, I apologize, but hope that others can make more use of it. | |
|
| What's the number that would scare you off for GOOD?
Posted: 7/7/2006 10:42:02 AM | For me, the past is the past. I don't ask how many men she has been with. However, if she volunteers information, it should better be true because I hate lies.
Other than that, the only thing that I care is that I'm the only one that she has sex with during I'm in a relationship with her.
As I said... past is past!
P.S. Of course I'd like to know if she has any STD's but I don't really care about the amount of sexual partners.. | |
|
| What's the number that would scare you off for GOOD?
Posted: 7/7/2006 12:21:17 PM | Really it depends on his age....just to try to come up with a formula...for argument's sake...
At my age, 27...I am mostly into dating guys who are between the age of 25 and 33....
So let's say he had one partner in high school
Then he had 6 partners in college (one a year plus two more thrown in there at some point)
Then lets say one more per year until his is 28...then just one or two until he is 33...
So a 25 year old...10
26....11
27....12
28....13
29....15
30....15
31....15
32....15
33....15
So by my calculations (and I am not saying that I would follow strictly to these) no more than 15 total partners....
Of course, I would actually prefer that he has less than that...but not too many less...so that he has some experience...
And then he also has to be comfortable with the fact that I have had 0 partners...
Just my .02 | |
|
| What's the number that would scare you off for GOOD?
Posted: 7/7/2006 12:29:26 PM | Sorry Fleurtee but the past is a part of who we are . If its no big deal its always best to let the truth out and not pretend like we are innocent. If you cannot truely and fully know a person you cannot truely and fully love them. Its called keeping things from your soulmate unless of course its just the screw of the moment
How does knowing a person's 'number' make you love them more or less?
The only question you should be asking regarding this is whether or not they would be willing to get tested...
If you answer the question of numbers... more questions are likely to follow, such as:
...What's the biggest you've been with?
...Who was the best?
...etc.... these questions are due to insecurities.
I don't have a problem with the numbers questions because of my number. It is not high, but I still refuse to answer it.
Anyway, most girls will give you a much lower number and most guys will give you a much higher number. Regardless of the answer that is given, it is not a good idea to open that door.
F.Y.I. someone who has only slept with one person could give you an STD.... so tell me again why the number matters... | |
|
| |
| What's the number that would scare you off for GOOD?
Posted: 7/7/2006 2:38:31 PM | if my g/f doesn't marry me, maybe I'll go to Sweden and rack up some huge numbers -- they
say it's easy there... you have to wonder what it's like to have, say, 200 partners in
one summer of love... but I assume my g/f will marry me first! saaaaave meeeeee ! | |
|
| What's the number that would scare you off for GOOD?
Posted: 7/8/2006 12:10:23 AM | If a girl has averaged more than 6 partners a year since she first had sex, I'd be concerned that I wouldn't be with her for more than 2 months, so why would I bother. I'm not into fnckfriends, and I'm not into somebody who is into fnckfriends, or would think of me as one. That's my personal preference though.  | |
|
| What's the number that would scare you off for GOOD?
Posted: 7/8/2006 3:01:06 PM | | I totally agree with Leanne, as long as you both are on the same page, healthy and disease free, how many partners you had in the past doesn't matter. However, if you plan on marrying this partner, you may want to know if you have what it takes to make yourself the last person they sleep with. | |
|
| |
| What's the number that would scare you off for GOOD?
Posted: 7/8/2006 5:36:01 PM | | me too :P the numbers game is silly...but then again...i may be in the minority of men when i say this, but i would rather not be with a virgin...just for the psychological aspect...i mean it may have been fine when i was young...but i dont know if i could handle the whole responsibility of taking that from someone..especially if you end up breaking up with them...or they with you...so yeah...i PREFER women with some experience...just as long as they dont look for other experiences while they are WITH me lmfao...but yeah as long as they are free of disease and take care of themselves both emotionally and physically...they are all good to me :D | |
|
| |
| What's the number that would scare you off for GOOD?
Posted: 7/8/2006 7:22:08 PM | | I really don't know what a lot is or not. I wouldn't ask her or want to discuss it. If I did find out that she's been with a lot, then I'd be leery because I'd be wondering about her moving on to someone else soon. | |
|
| What's the number that would scare you off for GOOD?
Posted: 7/8/2006 7:44:09 PM | The ignorance around this place slays me sometimes....the theory that someone who has more partners is more likely to have stds doesnt sit right with me. Perhaps I believe in more than statistics. Sleeping with people is a game of odds - you are just as likely to contract something with any one partner you choose as you are if you chose 3 or 30 or 300.
Thats like saying Im not going to walk across a busy street with someone because they take risks with their life and it could effect me. You may cross that street once per month and they could cross that street everyday - guess what, when your number is up, your number is up - that bus will find you. How often you choose to take that risk is up to you but you cannot judge others for what you cannot control. All you *can* do is look both ways and proceed with caution.
I would rather be with someone who has more partners than less for exactly that reason. I don't want some rookie that doesnt undertand the consequences or severity of unprotected sex or looking both ways when you cross a busy street. I would rather have someone with experience and that understands the danger just as much as the pleasure.
I am not interested in specific numbers but I would never sleep with a virgin again in my life and I am more interested in learning the depth of my partners past, taking the wisdom and experience and putting it to good and proper use. | |
|
| What's the number that would scare you off for GOOD?
Posted: 7/8/2006 8:23:26 PM | | For those people that says it doesn't matter. I hope you fall in love with a prostitute. Hey it doesn't matter right? The answer to how many is too many is subjective. I would say best answer is the same amount of partners that you have had or at least close. You don't want a virgin dating a pornstar. People usually ask this question because they want an idea of the values of the person they are dating. Nothing like finding out your going out with a whore(man or woman) after its too late. | |
|
| What's the number that would scare you off for GOOD?
Posted: 7/8/2006 8:25:44 PM | Oh dear. The usual POF disease posse. Get over it. It's 2006. We learned the importance of safe sex back in the mid 80s. If someone doesn't get it today ~ they must be from a third world country or they live in serious denial. There is NO need to clutter threads with statistics that are probably Googled, and most likely NOT as accurate as they should be. I just don't get it...stop with the disease arguments. The number of partners is not relative to diseases, safe sex is the only thing relative to STDs. Blood tests people ~ safe sex. End of story.
~OT~ His number is none of my business. Likewise, mine is none of his. And who counts? That is so juvenile. Write down your conquests people, John or Jane Doe may ask five years from now. He'll ask me once and he'll get "Why do you ask??" in return. That will most likely be the end of that conversation or the end of a potential relationship. I don't kiss and tell and I certainly DON'T respect those who do.
cuddleslut: Nice. First, you very well may have been with a slut or whore because you certainly aren't open to accept someone for who they are, rather than who they once were (meaning you were probably lied to.) Too bad for you. You very well may be missing some wonderful women who have a past. I must wonder, what type of a past you have ~ stellar I'm certain. It's those who have a past that usually exhibit such intolerance of others. | |
|
| |
| What's the number that would scare you off for GOOD?
Posted: 7/8/2006 9:33:42 PM | Man, its getting Judgemental in here! How did everyone get so far off from the actual question?
With condoms these days, and really knowing someone before you do it, thats about as much as you can do.........
BECAUSE, NEWS FLASH----- EVEN IF YOU GET TESTED----------------------
AIDS CAN LIE DORMANT IN YOUR SYSTEM FOR UP TO 6 YEARS!!!!!!
AND YOU'LL NEVER KNOW!!!
SO THAT LITTLE PIECE OF PAPER SAYING YOUR CLEAN DOESNT MEAN ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SO, WOULDNT YOU RATHER SOMEONE BE HONEST THAN LIE, BC THEN YOU CAN LEAVE THEM IF ITS TOO HIGH OF A NUMBER FOR YOU....... | |
|
| What's the number that would scare you off for GOOD?
Posted: 7/8/2006 9:41:15 PM |
People usually ask this question because they want an idea of the values of the person they are dating. Nothing like finding out your going out with a whore(man or woman) after its too late.
are you fukking kidding me?!?
now a persons numbers relates to their VALUES?!?!
my gawd. Ok, news flash ::: some ppl can go through a dark period in their lives where they confuse sex with love... does NOT mean they don't have values!...also does not mean that later on in life they didnt learn a lesson...some ppl also just like sex! and as long as they are safe, what does it matter their numbers? Who are you or I to judge ppl who like to have sex and are safe about it? You have no right.
Finding out you are with a whore after you are already dating her? I can tell you are going to have LOTS of luck finding love with that narrow of a mind frame! Get a grip bud, its 2006!
OT -- does not matter to me, as long as they were safe about it and I am the only one they are with now. | |
|
|
| Page 2 of 7
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
Home
login 
