07-08-2012, 02:27 AM
|
#76 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Core Member [190%]
 |
That must have been you I made sure to sit behind and over one seat to the side so I could double-check my results during the test. Thanks for that.
Rather like cancer therapy for about 3 or 4 days, and then more like memory therapy to make sure I take the completely-benign-pill on time. Now that Im suped up with antiretrovirals, part of me wants to go hit the town and find out what all this excitement is about for barebacking.
(But lets cross our fingers and hope they don't start messing with patent protections.)
The data is already starting to reflect my in-person observations on the ground.
Science has made it this far with the disease, pretty darn relatively quick. It's a big problem but it is scientifically solvable, we wouod just need to crack the code on this.
Omg. That would be fun. Hey, Uriel how about it?
Definitely not, hence taking the nPEP. I'm actually allergic to semen, it gives me a skin reaction.
Go back a few decades. In retrospect, it turns out that the irrational people were the ones saying we wouldn't advance as far as we have. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 INTroJect is offline
 post a comment
|
|
|
|
|
07-08-2012, 11:31 AM
|
#77 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Core Member [139%]
|
Question to eagleseven: Would you have sex with a male who exhibits lipodystrophy such as that I described?
Why are you comparing the sexual behavior of heterosexual males in Africa to homosexual males in the US?
Blowjob #1 yields a 0.01% probability of transmission if the individual is HIV+.
Let me reiterate what INTroJect said:
No. Where did I state this?
Since you seem to have missed it by miles, I'm going to point it out to you again. You say there is no strawman argument to make against the mystical virus vision, yet that's exactly what you did. You compared HIV to Chicken Pox, HSV-2, and HPV, then state these diseases do not affect physical appearance, thus physical appearance is not a viable determinant of the presence of the disease, thus HIV must be the same.
Quantifier.
Strawman.
That is what I stated externally for the sake of discussion in this thread, and that is shaming.
Just because there is a 1 in 10,000 chance of contracting HIV through unsafe receptive oral does not mean there was 1 guy in 10,000 who contracted HIV through unsafe receptive oral sex. That is not how statistics works.
Quantifier.
False. Where did I state that low probability will "save" me?
This is marvelous.
Please don't give it away so soon. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Uriel is offline
|
|
|
07-08-2012, 11:52 AM
|
#78 |
|
Veteran Member [77%]
 |
The odds of being struck by lightning are 0.0002%. Do you also walk around in thunderstorms carrying a copper rod?
Please, don't mistake my trying to inform you of what is and is not safe sexual practice as telling you how to live your life. I don't care what you do or who you do. Clearly you have made up your mind about where your comfort with risk lies, and that's commendable. But why you are comfortable with that risk is a fantasy of your mind and understanding and not based on safe sexual practices. You are mistaken about your real risk to exposure. What I do care about is your trying to pass off incorrect information about safe sex practice. What I do care about is your parading snake oil mystical virus vision as an appropriate method of risk reduction by rationalizing as being some way "reasonable". Do whatever you like, but don't expect others to allow bullshit to be paraded as fact or even best practices. |
|
paleoeco is offline
|
|
|
07-08-2012, 12:13 PM
|
#79 | ||||||||||||
|
Core Member [139%]
|
Moronic analogy is moronic strawman.
Elaborate.
Specify which of the information I am stating is incorrect.
Which of my statements do you consider as "bullshit to be paraded as fact"? |
||||||||||||
|
Uriel is offline
|
|
|
07-08-2012, 05:31 PM
|
#80 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Core Member [155%]
|
No, but I can't recognize it.
I brought it up because unprotected vaginal sex has a much lower transmission rate than unprotected anal sex, yet HIV has infected over 15% of South Africans.
You familiar with the law of large numbers? Look it up. If you want to force a one-in-a-million bacterial mutation, you need only grow a few million bacteria.
Which is why I used a binomial distribution. If you use the binomial distribution for a fair coin toss, the odds of not getting a heads, or not getting a tails, gets closer to zero as tosses increase.
Perhaps your math friend should explain why a binomial distribution doesn't work with this dataset.
Even if you assume that only 1/2 of the males you bang in bathhouses are HIV+, the long-term odds of catching HIV remain in the 90 percentile. And I think Introject already established the amount of barebacking going on in these establishments. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
eagleseven is offline
|
|
|
07-08-2012, 07:28 PM
|
#81 | |||||||||
|
Veteran Member [63%]
 |
I'm sorry, I hope it's nothing.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Is this stuff legit? Or is it legit but just cheapo because it's generic?
Google "back room" (with extra keywords "nightclub + bar + sex"), my dear. Where the floors are sticky... OP makes it sound like a place where old people and hipsters develop retro photos.
Right. Like I always say: If someone asks which among anal sex, vaginal sex, oral sex, or kinky S&M bloodbath have the highest risk of infection; there's no "correct" answer, but the most accurate answer would be "whichever one of those you found on craigslist". Because |
|||||||||
|
peppersasen is offline
|
|
|
07-08-2012, 09:03 PM
|
#82 | ||||||||||||
|
Core Member [139%]
|
Does not compute.
You are under the false assumption that the low rate of infection regarding the sex acts is supposed to stop the spread.
The dramatic increase in probability of encountering an HIV+ male is irrelevant, because that will have no bearing on the probability of infection regarding individual instances.
He doesn't have to because I can do that myself. |
||||||||||||
|
Uriel is offline
|
|
|
07-09-2012, 12:20 AM
|
#83 | |||||||||
|
Core Member [190%]
|
Thanks
It's the real deal.
Oh yes, those floors are indeed a bit sticky in certain areas. It's kinda fun to just be in there all nasty as it is, hock luggies on the walls and whatnot. If I were to snap a pic, it might look like a shaded mysterious collage of random body parts molded together in a very unascertainable manner. |
|||||||||
|
INTroJect is offline
|
|
|
07-09-2012, 09:43 AM
|
#84 |
|
Administrator
|
Uriel, I think you're confusing the chances of something happening on one shot, and the chances of something not happening on many tries. Let's use a dice this time. The chances of rolling a "6" are 1 in 6. That's for a single instance. However, the chances of not rolling a 6 if you roll the dice 12 times can not be 1 in 6. Think about it, you've rolled it 12 times, so on average 2 of those times should have been sixes. Of course, it is possible that you rolled a all 6's, or that you rolled four 6's or that you rolled none at all.
There are two ways to figure out the probability that you rolled no sixes. First you could figure out all combinations of dice rolls (X), and then count up how many of those combinations have no 6's in them(Y), and then say your chance is Y in X. Of course, that's a lot of work, so there is a formula to make it easier. Take the chance of not rolling a 6 in one roll is 5 in 6 or .83. So, in order not to get a 6 twelve times in a row, you have to be in that 83% every time, or .83 ^ 12 = .11 or 11% You see distributions like this all the time. Take pregnancy, a woman is only fertile for a couple of days (if that) out of a month. The chances of her getting pregnant in one month is 12%, or a 88% of not getting pregnant. (It's even lower chance of getting pregnant on any single day - statistically kind of similar to having sex with someone with HIV, huh?). So, we take the chances of not getting pregnant (.88) and multiple that by the number of months (12) - chances of not getting pregnant in a single year of unprotected sex? 20%. So, with time we've gone from a 12% chance of something happening, to an 80% chance. Go one step further, and make it 2 years. Percentage of sexually active women who won't get pregnant drops to 4% (.2^2). This is why statisticians consider anything with a 1 in 500 or lower chance of happening as being extremely risky behavior. Because you don't actually have to do something 500 times for there to be a huge chance of landing on that 1 in 500 chance. |
|
Storm is offline
|
|
|
07-09-2012, 02:24 PM
|
#85 | |||
|
Core Member [139%]
|
Coin Toss = P is constant = Binomial Distribution is applicable. |
|||
|
Uriel is offline
|
|
|
07-09-2012, 07:13 PM
|
#86 |
|
Administrator
|
Yes, Uriel, you're right in that a .065 chance is probably a bit higher than your real chance of contracting HIV+ if the status of your partner is unknown. However, again, that's the chance of contracting HIV+ in a single encounter.. The point is that even very very small chances become bigger chances when you're engaging in that behavior over and over again. Let's assume that HIV+ is extremely rare - so that you only have a .001% chance of catching it in any single sexual encounter. Let's say you go to a sex club once a month have are exposed to 20 different people's bodily fluids - within 10 years, you have a 28% chance of catching HIV+. You might counter that because each encounter will have slightly different odds, that this math doesn't work. That's why I used the pregnancy example before. The chance of a woman getting pregnant when she's not fertile or near it i 0%. Much higher chances when she's ovulating. However, we don't need to use those exact numbers in our calculations. It's like if I had two dice (red and blue) and I'm going to randomly pick one and roll it, what are the odds I will roll a red 6? You should say 1 in 12, even though there's a 1 in 6 chance it's a red 6 if I'm using the red die, and no chance I'll get a red 6 if I use the blue die.
So, yes, it is possible to come up with odds of catching HIV+ assuming we don't know your partner's status. This says nothing about the various other STIs you can contract, which are much more common. |
|
Storm is offline
|
|
|
07-09-2012, 08:41 PM
|
#87 | |||
|
Core Member [155%]
|
Whether P is variable does not matter for the baseline calculation...if we take the least-dangerous unprotected activity, oral sex, as our baseline P, then any unprotected topping or bottoming you do only makes the long-term risk of contracting HIV higher. Which means k is the number of unprotected sexual acts, period. I think Storm is explaining it better than me. |
|||
|
eagleseven is offline
|
|
|
07-09-2012, 10:21 PM
|
#88 | ||||||||||||
|
Core Member [139%]
|
Correct, if P is constant, which is what you did in your example.
We are not talking about "various other STIs."
That is true if and only if ALL of my sex partners are HIV+. |
||||||||||||
|
Uriel is offline
|
|
|
07-10-2012, 12:19 AM
|
#89 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Core Member [155%]
|
It doesn't need to. If you flip 2000 coins, the coin never changes. But your odds of forever avoid tails (infection) plummets as you keep flipping.
Why? Because your mysterious math friend told you? Even if we used a different formula, your probabilities become startlingly high when you repeat unsafe behaviors for decades.
---
No, nor would I have sex with a male whose genitals were covered in open sores. Or had a yeasty-smelling mouth.
Yes and yes. I recommend the flavored condoms, and/or the use of kitchen aids (honey/chocolate/cream/etc).
The Binomial Distribution with a baseline still holds, just reducing the number of exposures to those partners who are HIV+. Given that you're in three high-risk groups... |
||||||||||||||||||
|
eagleseven is offline
|
|
|
07-10-2012, 10:11 AM
|
#90 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Core Member [139%]
|
False. As usual, you are wrong.
False. Again, you are wrong.
What does this have to do with me as you do not know where I am geographically located?
Burden of Proof please. Where did I state this?
Burden of Proof please. Where did I state this?
Burden of Proof please. Where did I "brag about doing three men in a day" ?
Fascinating, notice how it's missing a single, colossal decimal place when compared to the percentages regarding HIV. There is a 99.99% chance of contraction out of 10,000 blowjobs.You read that right; there is still a 0.01% chance of non-contraction even after having given 10,000 blowjobs to HIV+ people.
Fascinating.
Congratulations.
Were all your classmates retarded? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Uriel is offline
|
|
|
07-10-2012, 11:18 AM
|
#91 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Core Member [155%]
|
Any intro-level statistics TA would mock your inability to grasp this simple concept. Notice that Storm doesn't have any interest in this thread...yet gets it.
Again, you fail at math. Your risks are still in the double-digits.
Or you just reduced your number of exposures by half.
You forget things this easily?.
The Gift documentary, the OP of this thread, and talking with men who frequent such establishments.
Perhaps you should be careful about what you share online?
*yawn*
And you're gunning for it! Let it ride, Uriel's feeling lucky!
Oral thrush has a specific smell.
Someone who doesn't give a shit about spreading STIs. Rather like Introject's mexibear in the OP (disease-spreading machine was the phrase he used, I believe).
So far, it hasn't been a problem. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
eagleseven is offline
|
|
|
07-10-2012, 02:26 PM
|
#92 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Core Member [139%]
|
If Storm was not interested in the thread, then why would she post in it and actually suggest a viable formula?
Yet you say:
Does not compute. Dilemma.
Interesting, since an A more accurate headline would be: "20% of Bar and Dance Club frequenting Males who have sex with Males in the 21 American Cities with the Highest Infection Rates are HIV Positive." Why are you intentionally spreading misinterpreted statistics?
And what would those digits be? "...3,500 tests administered. The alarmingly high HIV positive rate among these men, about 3.5%, triple that of the general New York City population." To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. "The study’s results – which found that some men who reported recent high-risk behaviour in other settings actually had safer sex at the sauna"
Why are you now starting to use smileys and exclamation points?
False.
And HIV Meds based Lipodystrophy has a specific look too.
Ah, there they are.
Last edited by Uriel; 07-10-2012 at 03:10 PM.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Uriel is offline
|
|
|
07-10-2012, 05:35 PM
|
#93 | ||||||
|
Administrator
|
Dude, this is getting kind of ridiculous. I mean, when you figure out what I'm trying to tell you, you might find yourself kind of embarrassed you used size 7 font to tell me I'm wrong. Of course the chance of an infection doesn't change in a single instance. Just like coin tossing, your odds of getting heads in a single flip is always 50%. But we're not talking about a single flip. We're talking about not getting heads when you flip the coin 100 times in a row. If you flip a coin 100 times in a row, usually about 50% of the time about half of them will be heads. So did you avoid heads? No, you didn't. You only need to flip heads once to lose.
I love statistics, and I find gross misunderstanding of them frustrating, and it's kind of a fun time to see if I can get you to understand it. I regularly like to figure out the odds of various things happening in my own life for funsies. Also, I think it's unfair to yourself to so grossly misunderstand the risks you are engaging in.
Last edited by Storm; 07-10-2012 at 05:58 PM.
|
||||||
|
Storm is offline
|
|
|
07-10-2012, 06:43 PM
|
#94 |
|
Veteran Member [87%]
 |
Why would adding HIV - men to the pool of sex partners affect in any way the chances of contraction from a single encounter with an HIV + person? The addition of HIV - to the pool decreases your overall chance of contraction, but with a particular HIV + person it remains the same every time. At least I think that's the disconnect here.
Aye, just be safe folks. |
|
INTJRyan is offline
|
|
|
07-10-2012, 09:04 PM
|
#95 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Core Member [155%]
|
Because I'm becoming increasingly amused at the impressive amount of mental gymnastics you're pulling to justify your risky sexual behavior in this thread.
You want five significant digits in a forum post?
Do you really like to top bareback? You like that feeling of bloody shit on your dick?
Search function. Type in a name and a keyword, takes a few seconds.
I'm using them to shake you of your invulnerability complex, so you'd at least avoid anal barebacking. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
eagleseven is offline
|
|
|
07-10-2012, 10:56 PM
|
#96 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Core Member [139%]
|
I am not disputing the increased likelihood of an event happening within a given number of events and a constant P. B. The increased likelihood of an event happening C. given a large set number of events D. And a P that is constant E. (B+C+D) You: E is true, because C causes A. Me: C does not cause A, but E is true. You just need to find the correct P You: Dude, E is true. Me: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Yes, I used a 7-size font on a quibble.
I already understand it, I am just telling everyone to find the correct P that is constant.
It does not.
Correct and Correct.
How did you know where to search?
What is the probability of my topping someone?
Where did I state I did not "like using a normal binomial distribution"?
And now you're piggy-backing on Storm's more sensible explanation.
Where did I state that I am "set on swallowing sperm" and ejaculating inside anuses until I die?
No.
I have no "invulnerability complex."
Last edited by Uriel; 07-11-2012 at 01:51 PM.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Uriel is offline
|
|
|
07-10-2012, 11:46 PM
|
#97 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Core Member [155%]
|
I searched the entire forum for any posts made by you that contained "prostitution" or "bathhouse". As I said, it took me all of 30 seconds. Computers are amazing!
Your first two questions can't be answered, your third question was already answered, and your forth question depends upon how big you are and your use of lube.
I mentioned the law of truly large numbers in my first post, and used the quick binomial distribution to demonstrate its function.
Guess what, Uriel? The probability of infection from unprotected anal sex is not constant. It's variable, depending upon lube, anal toughness, penis size, viral loads, and type of penetration (gentle loving vs. S&M pounding).
If you had any clue what a probability distribution is, you'd realize that Storm was backing my argument from the start. And would know how silly you sound right now.
I think it was a page ago in this thread, where you defended your love of sucking raw cock and topping people bareback. Do you really want me to quote this very thread?
You get two significant digits because the original P only has two significant digits. I shouldn't have to explain this to you, assuming you stayed awake in highschool physics.
"Risk reduction" doesn't involve barebacking. Ever. Barebacking is "risk magnification".
God forbid somebody using your personal history to protect you from disease. Does being in multiple high-risk categories hurt your feelings, Uriel? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
eagleseven is offline
|
|
|
07-11-2012, 09:24 PM
|
#98 | ||||||
|
Administrator
|
Oh, then you do get it.
I think was just a mistake on my use of language. I wasn't saying that engaging in something multiple times changes the chance of catching HIV+ per incident, I was saying what you just said - that there is an increased likelihood of an event happening the more you engage in an activity that has a risk of of causing that event. |
||||||
|
Storm is offline
|
|
|
07-12-2012, 02:48 AM
|
#99 |
|
Core Member [190%]
|
The debate in this thread is cracking me up. BTW, in case anyone needs to take an nPEP in the future DO NOT MIX ALCOHOL WITH COMBIVIR!! It brought that chemo therapy feeling back with a vengeance that I thought I was going to drop dead all over again. This lasted for about a day, but then it goes back to being benign as a vitamin.
---------- Post added 07-12-2012 at 05:01 AM ---------- Uriel, why not just use condoms for all sex? This drops risk down to meaningless. Then, should there ever be an oopsie moment, there is a treatment for it. Personally, I hate using condoms, they are like insta-erection-weakeners, but it would change the dichotomy if I were to adopt any policy otherwise. For example, we can be sure that sooner or later, over the course of time, the probability is very high that there will be (or has been) an exposure event, but how will you know to take the nPEP? The exposure event will pass right on by as if nothing had happened. |
|
INTroJect is offline
|
|
|
07-12-2012, 01:29 PM
|
#100 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Core Member [139%]
|
*chloroform*
Correct.
**Let's use the misinterpreted numbers in
You're talking about an Inconvenient Truth vs. A Convenient Lie, and which one is more effective in convincing people to practice safer sex. I doubt that people necessarily calculate their odds and find the more accurate risk percentages. I suspect they just eat whatever the media shoves down their throat. While I suspect the convenient lie has been effective in convincing John Q. Public for decades, when the convenient lie becomes so glaring that even stupid John Q. Public starts to suspect it then finds out it was an exaggeration, what then? Rhetoric fear mongering can only go so far.
Fascinating.
How will it protect me from disease?
First question I answered in this thread.
A) Correct, but there are ways to get reasonable estimates based on the existing data set.
You are wrong.
I took her aside, because I don't want her to make the same shoddy math you did and are still doing.
See bolded.
It doesn't matter if it's in my favor or not.
1. Barebacking as both Top and Bottom entails risk.
Perhaps. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Uriel is offline
|
|
 |
| Tags |
| drugs, medicine, sex |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
post a comment
