Would you have sex with a complete stranger?

[King Alexander]

Correction: A condom is safer than no condom.

It feels a lot better without.

I agree 100%.
I wonder what in the world those scientists are doing: they're on the edge of creating blood from stem cells, and can't they invent an improved/better condom?
.......never mind, there're factors that're beyond Scientists' hands

But as long as there is a risk of disease spreading, using a condom is wiser. Get yourself tested regularly and you'll be fine.

I again agree

 

[stormbind]

Horsecrap!

Even if you have sex with a woman that has HIV, without a condom, chances of getting it yourself are pretty slim! I think it is under 1%....

This is the first time I heard anything like that, but I have heard a load of people claim that there is a cure for AIDS, or that less than 10% of the population carry HIV

People just make stuff up to defend their own mistakes. Catholics make stuff up, and slappers make stuff up. Reality is somewhere between the two.

I am not changing my stance. Even a 1% risk (which I suspect to be twoddle) is still a tad high when other people's lives are at stake.

 

[stormbind]

How does getting yourself tested protect you or your future loved ones?

You will have confirmation that you screwed up, but no consolation.

 

[classical_hero]

How does getting yourself tested protect you or your future loved ones?

You will have confirmation that you screwed up, but no consolation.

It doesn't. It just says that you have the disease or not. There is no cure for AIDS and it seems unlikely ATM.

As I have said many times before, the only safest option is to wiat to have sex with you loved in the bounds of marriage, where for both partners, it is there first sexual contact.

 

[King Alexander]

How does getting yourself tested protect you or your future loved ones?

You will have confirmation that you screwed up, but no consolation.

How does it protect you? Hmmm... how about that it 'protects' your sanity if you're suspecting the worst, and you're just fine? Anyway, better to know what you may have, because, in any case, many diseases can be well slowed down or even cured.
If you're scared to do it, just go and donate blood, because that way, you won't be thinking yourself much, and the doctors will test your blood for diseases anyway.

As for your 'loved ones', wouldn't it better if you knew that you had 'something'? You wouldn't transfered them 'something' on purpose(since you love them), would you?

 

[Narz]

As I have said many times before, the only safest option is to wiat to have sex with you loved in the bounds of marriage, where for both partners, it is there first sexual contact.

So, what if your wife is not good in bed? Then you'll be stuck for life (unless you break your vows and get a divorce as the slight-majority of Americans do or you cheat as many around the world do).

 

[Bartleby]

With nothing to compare against, how will he know?

 

[stormbind]

By future loved ones, I meant possible future children.

It seems to me that people could go one better than saying "Oh, and by the way... you have to take these pills because daddy screwed everyone's life up"

I am aware not every child born of an HIV+ mother will carry the disease but it still imposing unfair risk.

 

[Stapel]

This is the first time I heard anything like that, but I have heard a load of people claim that there is a cure for AIDS, or that less than 10% of the population carry HIV

Well, there is no cure for AIDS, though there are medicins that can slow it down tremendously.
About the less than 10% with HIV and the crazyeye....... Not sure what you mean....
The percentage of people carrying HIV in the Netherlands is 0.1% (link: http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/441100020.html and credits to the Royal Institue for healthcare for doing this in English. )

People just make stuff up to defend their own mistakes. Catholics make stuff up, and slappers make stuff up. Reality is somewhere between the two.

I am not changing my stance. A 1% risk is still a tad high when other people's lives are at stake.

We were discussing the chances of getting HIV when having sex with a woman with HIV and the condom fails.

My point is:
What is the chance I get HIV infected when I have sex with a woman (without any protection at all) with HIV. Cierdan assumed in his math it is 100%. Which is horsecrap.

Chances for a male to get HIV from a woman are small. They are absolutekl there, but abslutely small!

There appears to be massive political correct idiocy when trying to find the answer. A technical analysis teaches us you need a carrier and an acceptor. Blood is the only acceptor. Sperm and blood can be carriers
Hence the question is:
How are the chances the female HIV-carrier-cells get into the male blood system?

You don't really need a medical degree to understand that chances are not too big!

 

[Narz]

With nothing to compare against, how will he know?

Movies, pornography, the claimed exploits of friends and/or co-workers.

 

[stormbind]

With nothing to compare against, how will he know?

I am going to assume that even strict Catholics experience fantasies.

These discussions have reminded of a Jehova Witness couple who found themselves expecting within a year of getting married. They were scared that other Jehova Witnesses would think they had tried sex too soon

 

[classical_hero]

So, what if your wife is not good in bed? Then you'll be stuck for life (unless you break your vows and get a divorce as the slight-majority of Americans do or you cheat as many around the world do).

I would not really care. I fully believe in the sanctity of marriage and will be doing my utmost to keep my eventual marriage together. I'm sure the woman that I eventually marry will be doing the same.

@Bartllby. I really do not want to know.

 

[IglooDame]

It doesn't. It just says that you have the disease or not. There is no cure for AIDS and it seems unlikely ATM.

As I have said many times before, the only safest option is to wiat to have sex with you loved in the bounds of marriage, where for both partners, it is there first sexual contact.

Technically the safest option is to never have any sex at all. And safety has nothing to do with marital status per se (and certainly not with love), just numbers of partners and types of contact. I'm all for being safe and not taking unreasonable risk, but advocating abstinence for the first five or ten years after puberty is like advocating staying 5mph under the speed limit for safety reasons. Sure a few people will listen, but they weren't likely to speed anyway.

And I've had in total three sexual partners in my life, two of whom I've married, so this argument isn't coming only from pickup artists or male sluts, either.

 

[stormbind]

There appears to be massive political correct idiocy when trying to find the answer. A technical analysis teaches us you need a carrier and an acceptor. Blood is the only acceptor. Sperm and blood can be carriers
Hence the question is:
How are the chances the female HIV-carrier-cells get into the male blood system?

You don't really need a medical degree to understand that chances are not too big!

Burst capillaries, sonny

It is quite common for friction to rupture sensitive skin. The damage is minuscule and would go unnoticed even if you looked for it.

 

[IglooDame]

I am going to assume that even strict Catholics experience fantasies.

Never compare your sex life to your fantasy life, it won't measure up (and if it does, do what I did and marry her).

 

[stormbind]

Technically the safest option is to never have any sex at all.

Only if your objectives are to live alone and in misery. I think CH has other plans.

 

[Bartleby]

@classical_hero: I respect your fortitude.
What I meant to imply is that when you try something for the first time, you like it or you don't, but you won't know if it can be better or worse.

 

[IglooDame]

Only if your objectives are to live alone and in misery. I think CH has other plans.

Some could argue that waiting till you are married and then remaining monogamous could amount to the same thing.

 

[stormbind]

I fully believe in the sanctity of marriage and will be doing my utmost to keep my eventual marriage together. I'm sure the woman that I eventually marry will be doing the same.

That is the strongest argument I have ever heard for attending a traditional church

Of the many things I hope to avoid in life (such as death), divorce is the most important.

 

[Shaihulud]

Sex is one of my greatest pleasure in my life, and since I had sex with complete strangers before, I have to say yes. In my younger days I also abstain from casual sex, but nowadays ideals are no longer so important to me, it is like when we are younger the urge and idealism is stronger, but time wears both down and it doesn't seems so important anymore. I agree with Rambuchan in some ways, sex is something truely moving between a man and a woman, how can I not care for her after the act? It is like for a moment that you touched the divine, and I truely feel grateful for it, its a pity some of you have never felt this way.