Like I have stated, this post is not about just HIV but all STD's. Don't you find it weird that in one photo you see a woman sucking a cock and taking his seed and in the next photo he is wearing a condom while fucking her? If both partners are not afraid of contracting STD then why the condom, 3 out of 5 women use birth control pills. http://www.ask.com/question/how-many-women-use-birth-control
Use Of Condoms
- Thread starter Topsgt
- Start date
N
NowADaze
Guest
Searching Google and picking a random website isn't a "source."
militantly on the side of condoms only? .... really? You obviously didn't read my post a few days ago where I stated that I can count the number of times I've worn condoms, in my life, on my fingers? Selective reading, maybe, as you said. Oh, and I'm a Capricorn if that makes any difference; in fact, born on Dec 25th of all days, and I hate that, too.
Look, your definition of "facts" is obviously something different from mine and others here. But, I did see that you referenced the CDC again; that's good, I'll go with whatever figures they provide as "FACTS". And, since you're agreeable to using the CDC, why not do a fact search on that website, on specified STDs by Ethnicity ... try chlamydia, herpes, HIV, and Syphilis to be specific, but any others you can think of ... if you come up with ANY race other than Afro-American as having a higher concentration of STDs, would you please let me know. You're here telling your "bruthas" that STDs are overstated ... do the fact search at the CDC website; let us know what you come up with, NowADaze ... please!
militantly ... I'll use YOUR expression addressed to BiwhitecpleNYC ... "well, that was a bit uncalled for".
Yes, I have had cold sores, and I won't even kiss my hubby on the lips if I have any indication of flareup. I am cautious by nature. That's just me. I'm not saying I'm perfect. I just ask for my decisions to be respected as MY decisions to make.
By the way, I'm a Sagittarius.
N
NowADaze
Guest
militantly on the side of condoms only? .... really? You obviously didn't read my post a few days ago where I stated that I can count the number of times I've worn condoms, in my life, on my fingers? Selective reading, maybe, as you said. Oh, and I'm a Capricorn if that makes any difference; in fact, born on Dec 25th of all days, and I hate that, too.
I skip many more threads than I read. If anything I should've added a "seemingly" qualifier. (And yes, Capricorns tend to be conservative, neat, and serious, so I'd lump them in too
.)This is worth clarifying:
First of all, there's no such thing as a "fact." I know that I know nothing. Anyone who thinks they are intelligent but won't admit they can't really know anything is merely a pseudo-intellectual.
I put "facts" in quotes for good reason. It's used in discussions/debates like these as passive-aggressiveness. "Oh, you're not listening to the facts!" Getting caught up in "facts" serves no point.
All "facts" really are is just a proxy of a good source. And that source should always be open to investigation, a questioning of its methodology and scientific rigor.
So then you accept the risk of HIV transmission is < a .07 percent chance?
That's the "fact" you seem to keep dodging. Every time I bring it up you immediately pull out a red herring. I have not once see you come to grip with that "fact" and say something like, "Okay, I admit that the risk of HIV is infinitesimal."
This strikes me as a typical red herring designated to appeal to emotions and fear rather than logic and rationale. Race doesn't mean anything.
What is "sort by race, become an expert" really getting at? Socioeconomic status? I'll lump this in with the "if you are even remotely selective in partners" talk in my previous post.
And this feels pretty racist. Maybe I just don't see the world in black and white
You're infectious before (or is it after? Or both? ) you have indication. It takes very little viral shedding to be infectious. In all probability you have infected others. -shrugs-
And they are. If you read my posts carefully, you'll note I never tell anyone what they "should" or "should not" do. Whatever works for you is fine. That's all we humans can do: find what works for us as individuals. It's when we cross the fine line of presuming to know what works for others is when we go wrong.
At the same time, though, when you go into (seemingly!) every thread and make a concrete deal out of how you're always wrapping it up, and if they can't get with that then they can buzz off, it just comes off (to me) as a bit insecure. The lady doth protest too much kind of a thing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just for giggles:
I am pro condom until the second round of clear tests have been completed after six months. I am a virgo.
Herpes can be transmitted even when there is no outbreak of sores.
Herpes Simplex I and Herpes Simplex II are not the same, however, having one increases the probability of contracting the other if engaging in unprotected sex with an infected partner. Additionally, outbreaks are NOT limited to the mouth and genitals, you can have a break out virtually anyplace on the body. They don't make whole body condoms. (Except on Saturday Night Live.)
The ratio regarding HIV contracted via oral vs vaginal vs anal sex is pure guess work as there is no way to know how many people contracted the disease via which avenue as it is extremely rare to find people who engage in ONLY one type of sexual activity. Additionally, cases of infection (for all STD/STI) are under reported.
I am pro condom until the second round of clear tests have been completed after six months. I am a virgo.
Herpes can be transmitted even when there is no outbreak of sores.
Herpes Simplex I and Herpes Simplex II are not the same, however, having one increases the probability of contracting the other if engaging in unprotected sex with an infected partner. Additionally, outbreaks are NOT limited to the mouth and genitals, you can have a break out virtually anyplace on the body. They don't make whole body condoms. (Except on Saturday Night Live.)
The ratio regarding HIV contracted via oral vs vaginal vs anal sex is pure guess work as there is no way to know how many people contracted the disease via which avenue as it is extremely rare to find people who engage in ONLY one type of sexual activity. Additionally, cases of infection (for all STD/STI) are under reported.
Last edited:
Then that is your fault as this is the first time you specified HIV. If you think your reference to the "uncurable one" is synonymous with HIV, you need to go research STD/STI as HIV is NOT the only one without a cure.
One reason the incidence of HIV contracted only by oral sex appears so low is because it is difficult to determine how many people contracted it via oral as most people engage in other forms of sex as well. Therefore, it will be ASSUMED by researchers that the more easily infected path was the one by which it was acquired. Logical, but not necessarily true.
All of the statistics are based on estimates as cases are under reported and there are often persons carrying multiple STD/STI which also skews the reporting.
N
NowADaze
Guest
Not quite. The mechanisms of HIV transmission are well-known. I'll quote:
And since the risk of transmission through vaginal or anal membranes is, if you lend the CDC's statistics on the matter significant credence, infinitesimal already, one can further extrapolate how much lower the oral probability is.
That's it, no more comment from me on this thread ... someone that applies equal or more credibility to astrology than the credibility of recorded "facts" ... doesn't deserve my further attention.
Class dismissed ... !
TL;DR: lololds
It's clear to me that you can identify when you're clearly outclassed and are choosing to quit while you're behind.
Guess I'm not your typical "brutha" on the street who can't produce cogent sentences and lucid arguments with a willingness to both cite and investigate sources.
And as far as astrology goes, don't worry, you have a lot of company in this secular Americana.
And I would bet hefty sums of money that your opinion of it isn't really "yours." Where did it come from? What do you know about it? Have you actually done any research into it? Because nothing screams "pseudo-intellectual" more than someone who writes something off without suspending judgement and looking into it themselves.
It always amazes me how hard most humans seem to find it to say: "You know what, I don't know enough about [X] to have an opinion on it."
Indeed, astrology has been around for thousands of years and led to the birth of astronomy. Many famous intellectuals, some of the most influential people in humanity, studied it extensively, including ancient Greece, which much of America's principles were founded on. Ever heard of Johannes Kepler? Plato? Einstein? Hippocrates?
Me personally? I have been casually studying the science for the past 10 months or so. What is immediately clear is that it is full of tremendous depth and breadth, and is therefore not possible to gain a decent fundamental understanding without much time invested into the manner.
So far in my research I am inclined to say it has offered me much insight into man's psyche, but that I still lack far too much understanding to say anything about the why or how (other than in an "As Above, So Below" sense).
That said, it is an occult science, and by nature any occult science is going to pose as a threat to any traditional-minded (which almost all old people in America are) person. It's not for everyone because very few people have the ability to subjugate their ego and possess an open, curious mind to even give two shits in the first place. So you writing it off is not in the least bit surprising or insightful.
But of course it's much easier for you to run from a challenge to your belief system than to man up and come to grips with the fact that you simply don't know what you're talking about.
Not that I take any extra source of satisfaction in it, but you did prove me right when I said the following:
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't be so vain, NowADaze ... actually I do notice you're not the typical "brutha" on the street. I was thinking of how you've helped their stock just go up, actually.
No, its not "running from a challenge" ... but if I'm gonna waste some of my work time playing on a website, I'd prefer applying it a bit more frugally.
In fact, we can just agree to "disagree" ... as you seem to do with practically everyone else ... lol
Now, back to pic posting ...
Last edited:
N
NowADaze
Guest
I can troll with the best of 'em, too, and I largely said that just to get you to respond when you said you wouldn't!
=P
=P
I wasn't arguing that oral wouldn't be lower, only that the ratio based on the numbers is an assumption, which is not necessarily true as the culling of the data is questionable. The incidence could be higher. OR lower. Although MY opinion is that it is probably higher.
It may not matter to many people if the incidence is attributed at 1% vs 2%. (Just throwing out a numbers for the sake of argument). However, for those who are hung up on the numbers and betting their lives on them, if they had just enjoyed sex with 98 people without catching something, the next 1 in 2 might be a bigger concern.
The problem with all of this is that people are getting too comfortable and thinking that "Hey, I can have all the unprotected sex that I want and I'll never catch anything because I only suck dick or get my dick sucked" or "The percentage of people that get STD/STI is so low, I don't need to worry about it."
OK, this was directed at Mac:
but as it is the figure you like to toss around, here is my take on it:
No, I don't accept that the risk of HIV transmission is .07% chance because, quite frankly, I don't believe any of the numbers nor in the way the research is being done.
So if you and others wish to believe it's only .07%- cool. If Mac and other's prefer to believe it's 20%, that's fine as well. If someone else has a set of numbers they're happier with- out'a sight!
No matter though, because until the numbers are 0.00000% (for all them little buggers), my Wife and I won't be taking the 50-50 chance that the guy she decides she's hot for isn't one of those who made up any of your sets of statistics for HIV or that he's free of any of the other bugs out there. So until all the testing is done (including the six month retest): no glove-no love.
OK, yes, we're paranoid, but that don't mean all that crap out there isn't trying to ******* us!
[/quote]
N
NowADaze
Guest
It has nothing to do with "the figure [ I ] like to toss around." You didn't understand the context and, because I wasn't addressing you, I don't feel compelled to explain it. This conversation is getting repetitive.
Not getting ddefensive. U posted a question, I answered it.. u say why take the chance of hiv orally? Well, if u atuall looked up the statistics you would know u have more of a chance of getting it from a condom breaking (about 3% of condoms break) than orally. I was just trying to answer ur question that u originally posted of why people suck barebakc. Also, yes u said all stds but obviously hiv is the nost cause for concern. Syphilis, clamdia, gonorehea are all curable.. herpes type 1 and hpv about
Got cut off...
Herpes type 1 about 75% of adults have and its even higher for the many types of hpv! Person who said 1 in 5 for herpes is completely wrong. Check wikipedia for herpes type 1 (cold sores). It is literally 75% of the popylation. The majority of people who say they are disease free are liars as they most likely have herpes type 1.
1. The OP never stipulated only HIV, you did and the OP even corrected you and you still insist that he addressed only HIV.
2. HIV is not the most cause for concern, they are all bad ******* and syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea are NOT all curable. There are new strains and mutations, especially of gonorrhea, which are not currently curable.
3. You might want to use something other than "wikipedia" for a reference. Oh, and maybe try using a dictionary or at least "spell check", as well.
1. Where did I say that he only addressed HIV? Never did I say that. I said which one I was addressing. Do not put words in my mouth.
2. There are very few cases of Gonorrhea becoming "incurable" and that is mostly due to the resistance of Anti-biotics which the FDA and Dr.'s are addressing by making new anti-biotics. They are in the works. Just cause you read of one case of Gonorrhea being incurable doesn't mean they all are. Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read in the paper.
3. You posted no references, don't be mad that I actually used one. Oh, and if you had half a brain you would be able to tell the misspellings came from typos. I typed the others posts on a mobile device. You attacking my "misspellings" is cliche to someone losing an argument.
4. Of course all STD's are bad. We actually use condoms and never play unsafe. All I did was answer the original posters questions of why some people are comfortable sucking without a condom but use condoms during regular intercourse. This is mainly due to HIV not being very contagious through oral sex. After I answered the question, I was attacked with all this bullcrap.
This statement of yours "HIV is not the most cause for concern" is possibly the most ignorant statement I have ever read. Please go tell that to the thousands upon thousands of people that die from HIV every year. Are you really comparing something like Oral Herpes, which causes nothing but a couple of weeks of embarrassment, to a horrible disease that causes lots of deaths? Seriously dude....
