The following is from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
-------------
An extensive review of existing research data confirms that behavior associated with drug abuse is the single largest factor in the spread of HIV/AIDS in this country. Half of all new infections with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, now occur among injecting drug users (IDUs), according to the data review, which was conducted at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta.
The study focused on three groups recognized as being at highest risk for transmission of HIV: IDUs, men who have sex with men, and heterosexual men and women who are at risk because they have sex with IDUs and/or bisexual or gay men. The review used data gathered from America's 96 largest cities, where HIV infection rates are the highest in the Nation. The trends in HIV infection rates found in these cities also apply to the Nation's population in general, says the CDC reviewer Dr. Scott D. Holmberg.
Most newly HIV-infected IDUs live in northeastern cities from Boston to Washington, D.C., as well as in Miami and San Juan, Puerto Rico, reports the CDC reviewer. In these cities, where injection drug use rates are also the highest among the 96 cities surveyed, an average of 27 percent of all IDUs are HIV-infected.
"These data confirm and underscore the connection between injection drug use and the continuing spread of HIV and AIDS," says NIDA Director Dr. Alan I. Leshner. "Drug abuse and HIV are truly interlinked epidemics."
-------------
The info is from 1997, but I don't believe the overall situation has changed much. For those who want to read more the link is http://www.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol12N2/CDCReports.html .
The Related Link contains somewhat more recent data. Although a few years old these numbers are as current as I have been able to find.
The most important numbers follow.
----------
Number of people living with HIV/AIDS Approx. 900,000
Number of new HIV infections per year Approx. 40,000
Percent of new HIV infections who are male 70%
Percent of new HIV infections who are female 30%
Mode of transmission among men Percent
Men who have sex with men (MSM) 47%
Injection drug use (IDU) 25%
Heterosexual sex 10%
Other 18%
Mode of transmission among women Percent
Heterosexual sex 75%
Injection drug use (IDU) 25%
----------
Thus, the expected number of new infections in men due to hetrosexual sex is 40,000 * 0.70 * 0.10 = 2,800.
The expected number of new infections in women due to hetrosexual sex is 40,000 * 0.30 * 0.75 = 9,000.
According to the NIDA there is a hetrosexual population of about 2.1 million that is at risk because they have sex with injecting drug users and/or bisexual or gay men. The expected infection rate for this group is 5 per year per thousand or 10,500. Since the expected yearly total of hetrosexual infections in the country is 2,800 + 9,000 = 11,800 it would appear that almost all new hetrosexual infections are coming from this high risk group.
In short if you aren't a gay or bisexual male and aren't an injecting drug user and aren't having sex with anyone who is a gay or bisexual male or injecting drugs, your chances of becoming HIV positive are pretty remote.
Condoms (male or female) are still your best protection if you are having sex with someone who is HIV positive. However, it has recently been shown that circumcism provides about 60% protection for males (condoms provide about 87% protection). There is also reason to belive that the diaphram may protect women against HIV. There is currently a multi-year study in progress to check this hypothesis http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/08/28/MN103534.DTL .
-- Modified on 12/14/2005 2:55:35 AM
Just wonder why circumcision provides about 60% protection for males.
It is beneficial in an evolutionary sense. I would not have it snipped unless I was infected; there are hundreds of feet of nerve endings there for extra pleasure.
-- Modified on 12/14/2005 5:50:29 AM
That works both ways. If having no foreskin makes a man less likely to catch HIV, a woman is clearly less likely to catch HIV from a man with no foreskin. Right? Good stuff all the way around. I've also met many men for whom the foreskin has a negative effect in general on their sexual experience... some men are so sensitive that it cannot be moved at all, which means putting a condom on is near impossible, plus then the actual sex act with a condom is painful and uncomfortable.
At least, in my experience!
Best,
Tamara
have super-sensitive foreskin. I've never heard of such sensivity that it cannot be moved. Do they ejaculate when they try to pee?
By removing the foreskin, you remove the easiest entry point for the virus on the penis.
"Circumcision can reduce the rate of HIV infections among heterosexual men by around 60%, a study suggests." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4371384.stm
An early report: http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/szabo1_press.htm
More details:
http://www.i-base.org.uk/pub/htb/v5/htb5-7/Lack.html
http://jcp.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/57/1/77
-- Modified on 12/14/2005 3:43:38 PM
I think there should be a board called "Concerns or stds "
Wtf... Why do people post this crap here.. Dont have sex if you are worried. That simple.
Not boring to me. And absolutely on topic. Not sure what your gripe is. "Don't have sex if you are worried," is ... well, silly. Good information is always appreciated by me, and this is good information.
It's not the usual the-condom-broke-am-I-gonna-die hysteria. This is stuff to help keep us informed.
please see below.
We could put it up on its own board, but how many people here would have ever looked at this thread then? This information is boring till you think you've been infected... by that time, there's a good chance you're screwed.
I think everyone in this hobby should stay up with this news, so it should be on this board.
that is infected doesn't mean you are having sex with them.
I hope that these comforting stats do not lull any of us into a false sense of security.
There is an old tale about a man who drives over a treacherous mountain road, nearly going off the road at one particularly dangerous curve. The man arrives at a gas station and mentions to the attendent that it would be a good idea to post a warning sign at that curve. "Oh, we used to have a sign up there, but we took it down" replied the attendent. "Why" asked the visitor. "Because nobody ever drove off the road anymore"
Moral of the story: "Keep it under wraps."
I think all of these types of posts belong in another category (as CiaraHasFun suggested). We have enough things to worry about. If we are smart, we keep abreast (pardon the pun) of the situation on our own and use protection.
Hugs,
Ciara
They need to go back to health 101 and stop having sex.
The end
Oh. and f/0 wmblake
simply because he (wmblake) says he regards STDs as an important issue does not logically seem to be very useful.
Of course, that may be your perogative, but it would be a contradiction to later feel emotionally hurt or degraded about other posters using similarly strong language toward yourself.
Perhaps I do not understand your style of communication that allows you to demand different treatment than you permit others; it does not seem logical to me. As a stranger on this planet, I may not be familiar with all the customs; are you a queen or something similar? Or perhaps it is a simple psychological requirement to boss everybody else around, regardless of your merit or ability; (I think we would have to scan your brain to be sure, but I do not detect measurable brain waves).
But your comments do help my understanding of how the general public could regard providers as intellectual "flakes", even despite the many bright ladies and obvious contradictions here in TER.
I might advise you to think more carefully, but, you have not asked my advice, and I have no duty to advise you.
Live long and prosper, madame.
fo meant..
fluff off
Mr. Spock's guess that we have a problem with dominance issues looks like a good one.
I am certain that I do.
Actually that expression is absolutely inspired. "Fluff off." Think of an inept fluffer who inadvertantly makes the guy pop and ruins the whole shoot!
This could be a term for somebody doing a job so well, they fuck it up completely, or where somebody's enthusiasm and motivation actually ruin something. It would be said like: "He fluffed it off!"
Different topic: I wonder, if the hobby is ever legal, if some trysters would have "assistants"? Not really a tandem, but someone to start the client going for the main event?
-- Modified on 12/14/2005 9:31:09 PM
because the F on the end has a soft sound that is inconsistent with the meaning. Note that even the popular euphemistic substitutes, "eff", "freak", "flip" are generally used only as adjectives, not in the verb form.
The sound of language is a form of communication itself, just as music is; and to work, it must be internally consistent. The most common use of the sound or rhythm of language is in poetry, but it also works in prose, or the spoken language. Any good bosun's mate understands this well, and chooses his terminology carefully.
No just joking. You are right. Not only that, I realized today that such a term would have such a rare application anyway.
However, perhaps the euphemistic adjective "overfluffed" has some hope. It would mean "reaching your peak too soon."
It uses up valuable space that could be put to better use, like posting funny Christmas poems, or verbally bashing each other while hiding behind aliases........
As well, If one doesnt have aid awareness or std awareness, I surely guess they shouldnt be indulging in the industry now should they..
I am not sure if you stay tucked away in twin cities being the mod and all.. But take a look at the idiotic stds, my condom broke, aids,Ive got a pimple on my dick, aids, post on this board. It gets a bit BORING...
May your sleigh bells jingle for you
and a ring ting tingle too
Not with stds of course
-- Modified on 12/14/2005 11:14:28 AM
And although I do mostly appear to stay tucked away in the land of 10,000 trailer-parks, I do read this board daily... and you are right, there's alot of boring verbal cudd that gets re-chewed on here.
My point was more that space is not limited, so let's not stiffle disscussion by suggesting not to post...
(only my humble suggestion since this is not my board)
What I mean to say is I don't think you can "mechanically" accommodate me. There is always the risk of dislocating your hips if you were to spread wide enough for me to "take you", but that is a risk I am willing for you to take......
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4746/393/400/fat-woman.jpg.w300h239.jpg
And how do you like my skin tone? I've been going to Michael Jackson's plastic surgeon?
Part II cums later!
Hugs,
Ciara
(1) nobody has to read posts that they are not interested in, do not like, etc.; and
(2) that this choice is the fundamental nature of an internet forum, including TER;
(3) so that comments to the effect that a post is useless seem to be somewhat more useless themselves;
(4) and besides, STDs do seem very relevant to the TER community. Logically, Mr. Mathesar seems to be engaged in very useful activity, for which the community should be grateful, and not in any way discourage Mr. Mathesar, or even hurt his unknowable feelings.
(5) Alternatively, you might make suggestions to the "suggestion and policy" forum, if you think TER should start a Medical forum. Personally, I doubt there is the traffic, and the importance of the subject requires that it should be FRONT AND CENTER, not in a corner.
And thanks anyway, but I'd rather you not hug me. Nothing personal, it's just that I'm saving myself for some whore.
So that wasnt nice to talk to the other Ciara like that
Nice alias.. I know who you are
Ben. I Love your pic ! haha
It is not acceptable to post snide, sarcastic, rude, insulting posts, as you are doing, under an alias. therefore since you seem to be into fiction may i suggest you go see the wizard, you know for some courage, like he gave to the lion ! !
But then again any courage those of your ilk may get would be fictitous.
Thank You
to not accept logic, and impugn the courage of anybody you like. Be my guest; but of course it does not change logic.
If you ask nicely, I might help you find some Paxil, so you may live long and prosper.
A need for Paxil it is because you and your kind depress me, therefore it is logical that the departure of you and your ilk from here would eliminate my need for that.
Better yet and hour or three with my lil burgundy beauty and or my lil flaxen cutie wood be much more better, actually it wooooood be grrrrreat ! !
Thank You
but logically, I just don't give the tiniest rabbit pellet.
That is vernacular or slang, also loosely translated into feminese as, "that's not my issue".
And speaking of slang or vernacular, are you aspiring or advertising (different concepts, compound question) to your status as "pussy-whipped"?
What are the social implications of being pussy-whipped by providers? Ah!! You must be into submission. How sociologically interesting. And you do it all the time, 24/7 as they say, online?
But I could be wrong. You may be lacking an independent personality altogether. Brain scans would be necessary, and I'm so tired and disinterested.
-- Modified on 12/14/2005 1:34:47 PM
the sorriest excuse for .....well you are just the sorriest thing i've see in a lomg time.
Thank you
oh frankie did you not at one time say that aliases damage the integrity of the board.
so logical that would make you a hypocrite
I like Spock. He's my friend. Leave him alone - get it?
Mathesar should be the nominee for medicine.
Thank you sir for your attempts, however futile they may be, to improve our knowledge.
Mathesar, are you an epidemiologist? I know numbers give you a hard-on, but what is your motive to promote such potentially dangerous motivation?
Studies that claim a positive correlation between circumcision and reduced HIV incidence are flawed for a variety of reasons: a small sample size, self-reporting, the fact that most of these studies were conducted in Africa, where the practice of "dry sex" vastly increases transmission.
The fact is that less than 2% of condoms break when they are used correctly, i.e. no oils with latex condoms, no double condoms, no outdated condoms. It is true that the majority of the risk is borne by the passive, insertive partner.
If you want accurate, up to date information on HIV/other STDs, I suggest you visit one of the following sites, and take what Mathesar has to say with a large dish of salt, unless you want to end up sick:
www.cdc.gov
hivinsite.ucsf.edu
Less than 2% of condoms break when they are used correctly: no oils with latex condoms, no double condoms, no outdated condoms.
Ciara, why should discussion of of STDs bother you so much? Why the denial of what is perfectly relevant to this hobby, and discussion of how to minimize our risk? Surely we can agree that wearing a seatbelt reduces your risk of serious injury in a car accident - would you say that if someone makes a point to buckle up out of concern for their safety, they shouldn't drive at all?
but it's also helpful to reply directly to the people you want to see your post - otherwise, you depend on them finding you.
One of the best reports on Safer Sex that I have seen comes from hivinsite.ucsf.edu. I cite it in the post in the Related Link.
I did not cite the source for the 87% protection (actually 85%) that condoms give for HIV, but the quote is, "Overall, Davis and Weller estimated that condoms provided an 85% reduction in HIV/AIDS transmission risk when infection rates were compared in always versus never users." The quote is from the second paragraph of page 14 of http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf .
Incidentally, both slippage and breakage are important with condom usage. A recent article in Sexually Transmitted Diseases ( http://www.stdjournal.com/pt/re/std/home.htm;jsessionid=DgPC3nDX9iX2duAqZhqqUkG6RKYNAtHTbgK9VYpGp2r11kTkJXA8!-85436088!-949856145!9001!-1 ) indicates that the female condom is much better than the male condom for breakage but not as good for slippage.
And, no, I am not an epidemiologist. That is one of the reasons I try to cite sources. I am not an authority and there is no reason that anyone should take my unsupported word for anything.
-- Modified on 12/14/2005 5:58:34 PM
Putting on a condom doesnt.. Unless you are allergic to latex of course
Use Supra. ( Polyurethane)
The end.
more likely to save you than it is to kill you. As Dirty Harry (Clint Eastwood) put it in different circumstances, "Are you feeling lucky today?"
No, putting on a condom won't kill you. However, and this is the important point, it may not save you either! I quote from the study cited in the related link, "The investigators observed a seroconversion rate of 1.0 per 100 person years for couples who always used a condom, and 6.8 per 100 person years for couples who used condoms irregularly or not at all."
What this means is that if you took a 1000 HIV Positive men and followed them for a year you would expect them to infect 68 women on average if they weren't using condoms and only infect 10 women if they were using condoms.
Condoms increase the mean time to infection from HIV by a factor of 6.8 (85% protection). This means you are safer wearing a condom. It does not mean you are safe.
If you were safe you wouldn't need to be concerned about how HIV is spread. However, my contention is that since condoms do not make you completely safe, the more you know the better.
-- Modified on 12/14/2005 9:30:47 PM
if you're stupid enough to wrap enough of them around your neck and somehow manage to choke yourself.
Give it up. Some of us have to figure the answers out; others are plain intuitive, and you're wasting your time talking to Republicans, I mean idiots who know the answers before they know the question. It's like the cliche about teaching pigs to sing - all it does is piss off the pig.
but it seems to me like I break more like 10% of condoms, though I never use them dry, and usually go with the provider's brand. Since I rarely supply, I don't pay that much attention to brands.
I'm sure that technique and brand have a lot to do with breakage, but at the same time, mfgrs surely build in reasonable tolerances. I've just found that vigorous schtupping (which is entirely subjective) often results in breakage - and no, I'm not unusually large, and I dislike dry pussies, and still find breakage fairly common.
Which is a PITA, and the reason I'm looking for my harem.
In my post (above) titled "Yes, in rare circumstances a seatbelt can kill you." I said (based on the Couples Study in Haiti cited in that post), "What this means is that if you took a 1000 HIV Positive men and followed them for a year you would expect them to infect 68 women on average if they weren't using condoms and only infect 10 women if they were using condoms."
Going back to the references cited in my original post we can calculate that there are currently 675,000 HIV positive males in this country and the expectation is that 9,000 women will become infected through hetrosexual sex. That is about 13.3 women for every 1,000 infected males.
It is gratifying when the numbers agree that well.
I suspect the number is closer to 10 than 68 because many of the infected males are gay rather than because everyone is using condoms.
-- Modified on 12/14/2005 9:44:22 PM
...Knowledge about sexually-transmitted diseases in the general public is appalling, and I'm afraid not all that much better on these boards.
What Mathesar is doing is providing the best information he can find, and then disseminating it to the broadest population (i.e., not a 'speciality' board that no one will ever read). It is the equivalent of 'reading you your rights', or in the lingo of my field 'informed consent'. At least, he's given you some fair warning of the risks engaged with certain behaviors.
-- Modified on 12/15/2005 1:54:47 PM