| STD'S and you!
Posted: 1/10/2007 11:13:04 AM | If you take the time to know the person well enough to talk with them about sex and what you want and do not, then you can also take the time to get tested for that person and yourself.....
There are many of us that are disease free and want to stay that way, and will do what is needed for that to happen........ Enjoying sex should be open and honest, carefree of those worries and a willingness to share with just that one special person.
Just my opinion.......   | |
|
| STD'S and you!
Posted: 1/10/2007 11:28:23 AM | | wow scary........wrap it up folks and get tested regularly :) | |
|
| STD'S and you!
Posted: 1/10/2007 1:44:30 PM |
If you take the time to know the person well enough to talk with them about sex and what you want and do not, then you can also take the time to get tested for that person and yourself.....
Any person who has a problem with getting tested is a person you should be having a problem with.  | |
|
| STD'S and you!
Posted: 1/10/2007 2:00:56 PM | I agree......
For all those who feel, or get insulted when asked to be tested if wanting a sexual relationship, you are living in a different era and not being realistic about life, sex and relationships in 2007.
Just my opinion...... | |
|
| STD'S and you!
Posted: 1/10/2007 4:27:15 PM | Yep, get tested, do not  ... Go straight from being tested to the bedroom.. Otherwise, you may have to be tested again! 
Seriously, I agree, anyone shouldn't feel insulted if asked to have a test done  | |
|
| STD'S and you!
Posted: 1/10/2007 4:44:54 PM | | Problem is, you then have to chain them up, never let them out of your site, in order to make sure they don't pick something up between dates. The first "real" date has to be the last one..... | |
|
| STD'S and you!
Posted: 1/10/2007 5:54:02 PM | Disease, from a sexuality point of view, is all about risk management. You can never eliminate risk, even with abstenance, but at some point the risk is so low that other ways of dying are more of an issue.
According to the CDC, typical STD rates (for 2005) are much lower in the 45-54 age group than the population in general, with men being a higher risk than women. (~1.4 million cases total in US in 2005) I think about 24% of the 40,000+ of the first time new cases of HIV reported (in 2004) were in the same age group.
Of course, if you do get infected, no amount of statistics will be of solice.
Most of the time, you can use protection, and nothing "bad" happens. But in most cases your partner is not infected. So I think the question of what are the chances of contracting a STD by someone who is infected is a valid one. I'll go out on a limb here :) and state most heterosexual people having sex have more contact points than strictly genital.
While it's believed oral sex carries less risk, there is actually no data, for or against, on that ... it's simply not collected. It's an educated guess by those in the field. (When I say "data" I mean data that's presented in a peer reviewed journal.) And I haven't seen any data on contraction risk having protected sex with someone with a disease.
In some sense, I see this as similar to seat belt use in cars. Imagine an arguement that being a good driver without seatbelts is "safer" than being a poor driver with seatbelts. (If I never have an accident, I don't need protection!) Plus, if I crash into a pole at highway speed seatbelt usage may not stop my demise. However, there are many cases that are not extreme and wearing seatbelts will prevent or lessen the damage, so I wear them for those potential cases.
Safer sex is not about eliminating risk, but managing risk to an acceptable level. Even no sex is not "safe sex", but significantly reduce the chances of contracting something.
--Bob | |
|
| STD'S and you!
Posted: 1/11/2007 1:19:02 AM | So you're saying if I wear a condom & a seatbelt I might get lucky? or that safe sex is not an acceptable risk management for contracting no sex? Why would I have a contract for no sex
if I could still contract an STD without sexual activity? And why isn't oral sex a safer alternative if all I do is.....Bob?
Good Grief!
Skunk
PS What's an acceptable level of no sex? | |
|
| STD'S and you!
Posted: 1/11/2007 3:53:28 AM | | ^^^Even if you are a good driver and don't wear a seat belt, you got to watch out for the other drivers!! So wear the seat belt and a condom at all times! If you do get in an accident you may get some weird looks at the ER. | |
|
| STD'S and you!
Posted: 1/11/2007 5:39:51 AM | | Yipes! How can you get an STD from No sex? Guess I'd better get checked out for rabies too, though I've never been bitten | |
|
| STD'S and you!
Posted: 1/11/2007 6:04:33 AM | You can get a STD with No sex???? How can that be???? It this the old caught it from the toilet seat story???? Lord, I guess that lets out ever peeing at WalMart again!!!
tb | |
|
| STD'S and you!
Posted: 1/11/2007 8:10:55 AM | 30% OF OUR SOCIETY HAS STD'Ss, that # does not differentiate between age, gender, race, or type of STD. The indiscrete behavior of my youth does'nt carry into my life today. I'm not only far more discriminating about who I engage with, I also take much longer to get to know them before we progress to sexual intamacy, and yes even then I still use condom's, for a while as a matter of fact, ( please don't be shocked by this, but LOVERS LIE ).
The big ( and very real ) benefit of this is that I have learned to be a connoisseur, rather than a glutton. With maturity there are other reasons for discretion ( morality, desire for LTR vs ONS, personal safety ), but in the end I have become a man of Quality vs Quantity. | |
|
| STD'S and you!
Posted: 1/11/2007 8:15:40 AM | Thank you bikpedlr, I am educated daily! Having not had a "lover" for many years I now realize how discriminating I must be. Note to self: buy condoms in case he doesn't have any!
lucidmoments | |
|
| STD'S and you!
Posted: 1/11/2007 7:57:57 PM | I believe people who say "No Sex" are not including kissing, manual stimulation, or activities that may expose you to body fluids of others. Obviously, if you avoid all contact with people, your chances of contracting anything are approaching zero.
I think I'm being misunderstood as to the difference between low risk and zero risk. I have no reason to get checked for something remote, e.g. rabies, but that doesn't mean I have zero chance of having it. I have plenty of friends with dogs, and sometimes I get slobbered on, and sometimes I have little cuts on my hands that I don't notice. That is a potential route of entry without getting bit. My contention is the risk is extremely low, but I would not say the probability is zero.
As far as the seat belt analogy goes, if I never have an accident, then I never needed seatbelts. The problem is, you don't know you will never be in an accident till you die. I wasn't trying to say I shun seatbelts, or condoms.
As bikpedlr indicated, taking steps to avoid people with high risk, AND wearing protection will give him a lower chance of getting something ... but it's not zero. However, statistics provided by the CDC on STD's (www.cdc.gov/std/stats/toc2005.htm) shows a definite age/gender/race bias in reported cases.
What is an acceptable level of risk is a matter of individual choice. Some people feel having protected sex with someone infected has such a high chance of transmission anyway that wearing protection has no real effect. They would argue you are clean because of better choices in partners, not because someone wore protection.
Although immoral and unethical, it would be interesting to see a test where groups were created among the various protection products plus an unprotected group, and one person had an STD and the other did not. After a weekend of sex, how many would transmit the disease? As a discussion point, assume transmission numbers turned out like this (Unprotected 99.5%, Latex condom n%). How low would that last number need to be for you to feel "protected"? If n = 90%, then I would re-examine the cost/benefit of condoms, even assuming latex condoms prevent 100% of organisms transmitted through the material.
STD's are spread by exchange of or contact with body fluids, particularly mucus & blood. A common way of exchanging fluids is having vaginal intercourse, but it's not the only way.
I guess what prompted me to write is an overall sense that wearing a condom is safe, and not wearing one is unsafe. Wearing one reduces the risk compared to not wearing one, but how much it reduces risk is really unknown.
Hey, if we didn't care about having sex, then it wouldn't be an issue at all! Some people have high sex drives and need it on a regular basis, others are fine with not having any sex till they are married. I believe most are somewhere in the middle, and have different levels of what constitues acceptable risk.
Bob | |
|
| STD'S and you!
Posted: 1/11/2007 9:19:28 PM | "RIG" I digress...you make an acceptable argument for the use of protection during sex.
What constitutes acceptable risk can only be based on a case by case individual preference.
The variables of contracting an STD are outweighed by our sexual desire and animalistic need for procreation. Which would be a good topic for another thread...." STD an Acceptable Risk for Procreation or an Enjoyable Extinction...
Good Grief!
Skunk
PS. I'm still concerned about an Acceptable level of "No SEX". | |
|
| STD'S and you!
Posted: 1/11/2007 10:47:13 PM | What? Sex, you say? Who, where are all these people over 50 having sex?
On these I suspect most of us mature guys might agree -
1 - Not using condoms with someone whose sexual history and latest STD testing you don't know very well puts you at risk for some really unpleasant health concerns.
2 - Using condoms puts a physical, even mental, barrier or curtain between you and the person your making love to, and anyone who insists that there is no loss of sensitivity when your covered in latex is...well, just being plain silly to put it mildly.
So what do we do with these two large and conflicting facts of rubber?
Yup, you know the answer - just be with someone. Get tested together; get to know one another; build trust and you won't have to have that sensitivity-reducing, spontaneity-killing, physical barrier between you and the person you're actually trying to be so close to that your molecules almost merge and you both become one.
...but you already knew that, didn't you.
  | |
|
| STD'S and you!
Posted: 1/11/2007 11:24:32 PM | | How about the person who "Thought they were in a monagamous relationship" they were TOTALLY faithful and ended up with an STD! Even if you are faithful does NOT mean the other person is!! You may think you are in an exclusive relationship...be 100% faithful..trust your man or woman 1000% and still they cheat without your knowledge and you end up infected with something you hope to GOD you can take antibiotics or a shot of whatever to get rid of.. IF YOU ARE LUCKY!!! And even if you get tested it is only good until the other person decides they are going to be with someone else. That could be within an hour after the test.. who knows what people do when they know,you may never know?? | |
|
| STD'S and you!
Posted: 1/11/2007 11:56:22 PM |
How about the person who "Thought they were in a monagamous relationship" they were TOTALLY faithful and ended up with an STD! Even if you are faithful does NOT mean the other person is!! You may think you are in an exclusive relationship...be 100% faithful..trust your man or woman 1000% and still they cheat without your knowledge and you end up infected with something you hope to GOD you can take antibiotics or a shot of whatever to get rid of.. IF YOU ARE LUCKY!!! And even if you get tested it is only good until the other person decides they are going to be with someone else. That could be within an hour after the test.. who knows what people do when they know,you may never know??
Well that certainly could happen.
You could also be killed by a car while watching TV on your couch at home. That happens too.
Some people have been hit by meteorites in their homes or cars and many have been hit by lightning.
You could be shot from above by a stray bullet someone shot up into the air to celebrate a holiday.
You could choke to death while eating dinner.
Of course you wouldn’t want to give up being in your living room, walking outside, or eating food in order to avoid these risks.
If you’re really so afraid that the person you’re with is dangerous even a half hour after getting tested, that leaves only one option – give up any and all sexual contact with any other human being immediately and forever.
I don’t think very many reasonable people really want to do that. I wouldn’t. I think we should choose someone we trust, be reasonable responsibility for our selves, and then go on to live our lives to the fullest rather than pine away in isolation for fear of maybe someday having a slight chance of something unfortunate maybe happening to us.
In other words, balance and happiness are a good combination, I think.
 | |
|
| STD'S and you!
Posted: 1/12/2007 12:06:16 AM | | some older people have had herpes in their systems since a young age and did not know it. I used to work in a nursing home and i have seen women and men in their 70's or better break out in what we thought was just a rash. A culture was taken and it came back positive for herpes and they can tell what kind of strain and how long it could have been in your system. | |
|
| STD'S and you!
Posted: 1/12/2007 12:24:00 AM | some older people have had herpes in their systems since a young age and did not know it. I used to work in a nursing home and i have seen women and men in their 70's or better break out in what we thought was just a rash. A culture was taken and it came back positive for herpes and they can tell what kind of strain and how long it could have been in your system.
OK, you've convinced me - nursing homes cause herpes.
| |
|
| STD'S and you!
Posted: 1/13/2007 12:10:05 PM | Quoting myself from Msg32:
Safer sex is not about eliminating risk, but managing risk to an acceptable level. Even no sex is not "safe sex", but significantly reduce the chances of contracting something.
and again from Msg39:
I believe people who say "No Sex" are not including kissing, manual stimulation, or activities that may expose you to body fluids of others. Obviously, if you avoid all contact with people, your chances of contracting anything are approaching zero.
If my sole fear was catching something sexually transmitted, then an acceptable level of no sex would include no contact whatsoever.
However, that is not my sole fear, and being aware of the risks, I would like sexuality to be a part of my life.
When I was in high school, there was a concept of "technical virgin", meaning do everything but intercourse. As long as there was never a penis in a vagina, one saved themself for marriage. Someone like that could make a statement "I never had sex and I contracted a STD".
My belief is be aware of risks and manage what I can. I'm not perfect, and I don't expext women I meet to be perfect, so risks are there. But I also need to have a life where I'm not paranoid about about everything I do.
--Bob | |
|
Zena52
|
Joined: 3/26/2005
Msg: 47 | |
| STD'S and you!
Posted: 1/13/2007 12:22:48 PM | Joking aside, a piece of paper won't protect anyone from disease. If anything, it might provide a false sense of security. If your potential partner presents a form stating they were "clean" as of a week ago, but visited a hooker 3 days earlier, well, maybe they aren't so "clean" anymore (but they still have the paper to prove it!)
***be forewarned....it can also take up to 6 months for a disease to show up in a blood test. That is why they recommend the same test 6 months apart. So yes, I agree, a piece of paper means nothing. | |
|
| STD'S and you!
Posted: 1/13/2007 4:50:05 PM | | Listen, I live in Florida, and the rumors about everyone being tanned-n-beautiful, sexually active, etc., are just that, rumors. The reality is that most older women in this State live in fear, are afraid to answer the phone or return an email, carry pepper spray in the handbag, run between their parked car and front door, and if you ever asked them out, they would hire a private investigator to follow you for a week, want 3 photo ID's, a drug test, and formal legal proof or your marital status before you even met. I think they really meant the YOUNGER women in Florida and all the activity, not the older ones. | |
|
ya472
|
Joined: 4/29/2006
Msg: 49 | |
| STD'S and you!
Posted: 1/13/2007 5:58:57 PM |
The reality is that most older women in this State live in fear, are afraid to answer the phone or return an email, carry pepper spray in the handbag, run between their parked car and front door,
That is REALLY SAD, especially when this area is supposed to be the most affluential, intoxicating and wonderful places in the USA.
Maybe the Bush Administration needs to priortize resources, closer to HOME ?
STD's are only one problem.
 | |
|
| STD'S and you!
Posted: 1/13/2007 6:19:08 PM | | .. and what's even more confusing, the most interesting women and the ones I consistently find most attractive on POF, are north of the border !! Go figure .. | |
|
Home
login 
