Even leaving aside the questions of trust and loyalty I say it's a moral imperative, because, minimally they put their wives at risk of acquiring STDs.
It is possible, but unlikely, to aquire an STD if a condom is used. A recent comprehensive survey found that two thirds of married couples are cheating on each other. Men and women have different libidos. Up to the 1960's, every medium or larger size city had a whorehouse. Everyone knew where it was and no one did anything about it. When the whorehouses closed, it threw American society into pathos.
Everyone needs affection, but a wife with kids often gets her daily needs of affection filled before husband gets home, so a little nookie on the side is actually healthy for the relationship. In these relationships, the wife suspects, but would prefer not to know. There are some wives who want to know everything, and I pity the fool in this marriage.
Overall, I'd say that it is not a good idea for the wife to know, unless hubby is having unprotected sex and actually cares for his atf.
Depends on the relationship. For example, if the man is an Alpha male, then the answer would generally be HELL NO. She married a seed spreader and thus there is implied knowledge.
A neighbor is a seed spreader and because he is so hyper sexually his wife always thinks he is cheating (he is) and he always denies it. Her IQ would have to be single digit not to know her husband is screwing everything in sight---he is a male, that's his mission.
Dudester: Condoms are very effective at preventing the spread of HIV. Also bacterial STDs like chlamydia and gonorrhea. However, they are only about 50% effective at preventing the spread of HSV and HPV.
While HSV is more of a nuisance disease for most, I say the wife still is ethically entitled to know she is being put at risk.
HPV, by contrast, is generally not that big deal for men, but for women can lead to very serious complications like cervical cancer.
Finally, I asked the question from an ethical, as opposed to legal standpoint. The legal situation with regards to spreading STDs or exposing them various from place to place, and frankly is a much less interesting question than the ethical one, IMO.
"In women reporting 100 percent condom use by their partners, no cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions were detected in 32 patient-years at risk," *** HPV link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16790… ***
"Some protection against other STIs. Since the 1970s studies of typical use have demonstrated that condoms provide some protection against gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia (39, 46, 85, 86, 131, 253, 346, 400, 492). For example, consistent condom use probably reduces the risk of chlamydia and gonorrhea infection by about 60% to 80% (471). One study found that condoms reduce the risk of trichomoniasis by about 30% (457). Condoms offer less protection against herpes, the genital wart virus HPV implicated in cervical cancer, and other STIs that can be transmitted through skin-to-skin contact between parts of the body not covered by condoms (86, 93, 146, 300)." *** http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/h9/h9cha… ***
"The most convincing evidence of condom effectiveness comes from studies of HIV-discordant couples—couples in which one partner is infected with HIV and the other is not (166, 557). Studies of such couples have found low risks of HIV infection among consistent condom users (22, 166, 167, 177, 311, 378, 416, 557). In three recent studies infection rates were less than 1% per year among consistent condom users (134, 141, 473)." *** http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/h9/h9cha… ***
Re: HSV-2, yes that study found significant protection for women. (About 90%). However it found no protection for men! (In fact it showed condom use was riskier than no condom use. Now that's absurd of course, and indeed the confidence interval was so small that protection or no protection could not be ruled out). I think the risk to men is of interest here, since we know that the married man I am alluding to claims to not have HSV, and, quite probably doesn't use protection when he has sex with wife. (Assuming he is getting any from her.)
There was a later bigger study (the one I meant to post) showing about a 50% risk reduction (which appears to be over men and women, so, possibly men get even less protection than 50%):
Re: HPV: That's a very interesting results. From Table 4 we see the risk of infection is cut (in women) when condoms are used resulting in a hazard ratio of 0.3-0.4.(60 to 70% reduction).
However, the result you quote suggests that condom use by the man will lessen the risk of a woman who already has cervical cancer progressing to lesions.
That suggests to me that if a man is having protected sex with strippers/escorts, but not with his (uninformed) wife, his chance of getting infected and passing it onto his wife is not only very likely, but if he is not using a condom with his wife (or even telling her so she can have a say in the matter) then he is raising her risk of cervical cancer.
Makes my belief that he has a moral obligation to tell her even firmer.
Here's a very good article on condoms and STD risk reduction:
BobbyL, you state that you have both protected and unprotected sex with strippers yet have not contracted and STD. Based on your own rates of prevelance of STD's doesn't that make you an incredible exception that you haven't contracted anything? What reasons do you have to explain this? Just curious.
Bobbyl...Sounds like a very noble and honorable approach you have come up with. I'm thinking maybe you ought to test it out at your casa and then report back here on how it worked out for you...
That would probably be one way to either seal the deal on an expensive divorce or guarantee that your wife will cease any sexual relationship with you. Just remember, it is not lying if you do not tell her every detail of everything you do.
One of the links that you provided lead to a paid article. I'm like Book Guy in that I try and avoid paying for stuff on the internet. :)
I noticed that in some of the studies they bundle over 75% condom usage with 100% condom usage---well, you don't use it then well you shouldn't be too surprised if you get a STD from a stripper. Sad thing is I've known people who "haphazzardly" use condoms and then complain the condom failed.
Doesn't seem like rocket science 101 that if you didn't put the condom on, you can't blame it for "failing." Pity the poor doctors who hear the condom failed as the patient relates that I used it religiously 50% of the time.
Only a 50% reduction seems low, but then the whole thing becomes extremely murky when you lump condom users together with sometime losers.
jablake: Yeah, it would have been easier if they had a 100% use group.
Anyway, the base rate of infectivity in the absence of condoms is known to be low: about 5-10 in 10,000 per act. So you can approximate the hazard ratio by comparing the low use versus high use group. Let a be actual rate of non-usage in the low use group (0.75 <= a <= 1) and let b be the rate of non-usage in the high use group (0 <= b <= .25). Let X be the risk for unprotected sex and Y the risk for protected sex. The risk for the low use group is
aX + (1-a)Y
while the risk for high use group is
bX + (1-b)Y
From the study
2/3(bX+(1-b)Y)=aX+(1-a)Y
Then with some algebra you can get Y/X onto one side and all the other stuff onto the side. Then you can minimize the ratio to get an upper bound on how effective condoms are, or you can use the approximation a=0.875 and b=0.125 which is probably more accurate, or you can put the formula in a spreadsheet and play around with various a and b's.
Anyhow, don't have access to a spreadsheet here, but using a=0.875 and b=0.125 I got Y/X=0.6 so about a 40% risk reduction for condom use.
Anyway, why does the 50% reduction seem to low you?
Unfortunately, I think people don't have up to date knowledge on STDs and people only vaguely recall what they learned in high school, or information relevant when a new STD became the latest hype.
I think it's kind of like "drug education" in this country. Risk versus reward is complicated to people, so the whole thing gets simplified, such that, as we see here, people end up with very polar thinking. e.g. "If you drop acid even once you'll go insane for life" in the case of drugs and "If you have unprotected sex with a stripper even once you are guarenteed to get AIDS".
In reality, like with drugs, it's more complicated in reality. But that complexity is hard to explain, so the official messages just become very simplistic.
DJ: "BobbyL, you state that you have both protected and unprotected sex with strippers yet have not contracted and STD. Based on your own rates of prevalence of STD's doesn't that make you an incredible exception that you haven't contracted anything? What reasons do you have to explain this? Just curious."
You are right: Rate of prevalence is a very important factor. However there are other important factors involved, like transmissibility, and number of exposures.
For bacterial STDs transmissibility rates are very high in the absence of condoms. Like 50% or so. But for viral STDs the transmissibility rates are rather low. For example, they studied couples where the female had HIV and the male did not, and the couple had unprotected sex. It took about 10 years on average until the male caught HIV. Hepatitis also has very low transmissibility rate for heterosexual. HSV is about as transmissible as HIV in the absence of outbreaks, but if outbreaks are present it becomes very transmissible.
Also my number of possible (likely?) exposures was low, so that is an important factor.
I estimate, that over my life, I had the equivalent of about 1/4 of a year of unprotected exposures with strippers. So even if they all had HSV, I would have about a 1% chance of having it. So there was no luck involved.
(You might say that there was luck, in that one of the girls might have had HSV and outbreaks, but did not expose me during that time. Perhaps. But even if I had used a condom them it would not have made much of a difference.)
Other factor, less important than the ones above, which reduces my risk is that I am a white, heterosexual male with no prior STDs.
The fifty percent reduction seems low because I think of it in terms of Russian Roulette. Stripper has good old fashioned six shooter loaded with 2 bullets. She spins the cylinder and points the gun at her hand. I say WAIT!!! That seems way dangerous. She says you're right. She then removes 1 of the bullets and happily proclaims she cut the risk by 50%. Yes, I guess the Russian Roulette is now safer. Hardly seems worth the effort if she is gonna keep playing that game. Similarly with the sky high rates of infection for Herpes it seems like having sex, protected or not, with many different partners almost guarantees you a "bullet" as in the stripper example.
The government non-stop lies about drugs including alcohol make me doubtful about its STD propaganda. *Seems* insane, but most of the people that I know either don't use condoms or use them occasionally.
BTW, it is possible a single toke of marijuana or snort of coke could kill just as eating a single peanut could kill so it is difficult to get at the truth. Unfortunately, imo, prohibition probably does have real health care benefits----just look at benefits of zero tolerance in much of the muslim world. :)
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstra… "Jablake: Did you find it interesting that the larger study I cited found no evidence of HSV-1 reduction due to condom use?"
Is that the link above? I saw that, but: 1) The full article required payment and 2) It included sex where condom usuage was only 75% or greater. A little more than 3 out of 4 times doesn't seem like it should offer much protection so yeah the lack of HSV-1 reduction shouldn't, imo, come as a surprise. It is like a couple that complains the condoms weren't any good and then go on to brag that they used 'em almost 80% of the time. Gee, imo, it hardly seems worthwhile using 'em especially if the couple is getting it on a fair amount of times per week.
jablake: There was another study I remember reading in which they showed that 80% of people with 60+ lifetime partners had HSV-2. So your Russian Roulette example is fitting.
The interesting thing, though, is that it seems to peak out. I believe (just a conjecture here) that some people are just plain genetically immune to STDs. I think this is especially true among Northern Europeans, for whatever reason. I remember reading a guy on one of the escort review boards who said he had sex with over 800+ prostitutes in Thailand, used protection maybe 20 times, and did not have so much as HSV-1.
"It took about 10 years on average until the male caught HIV. Hepatitis also has very low transmissibility rate for heterosexual. HSV is about as transmissible as HIV in the absence of outbreaks,"
I had read that it was very difficult for a man to get HIV from a woman----I didn't think it was extreme as you've cited: maybe they're only having sex once a year or less? ;)
I believe, and maybe 100% wrong, that genital herpes is more difficult to get via oral sex than regular intercourse. Heck, it seems safe to give a woman cunnilingus even in a high risk group----if true all the fun I've been missing. :(
"No statistically significant association between condom use and infection with HSV-1 was found (hazard ratio, 0.79 [CI, 0.48 to 1.31])."
You're right. Unlike HSV-2 it doesn't break it down for the three groups, so I can't tell which groups they are comparing from that statement. Otherwise I could do some math like I did above, but even then the large confidence interval is rather daunting.
Ooops, should have added that is also in the absence of outbreaks. Many people with Herpes are like MisterGay and don't know a thing about what Herpes is. So when they are having outbreaks they are mistaken for scratches.
If you assume sex 100 times per year for 20 years, and 1/4 of the time you are exposed, that is already a 25% chance of catching it. (And interestingly equal to the percentage of people with it. Equilibrium.) Compare this with heterosexual sex and HIV, where the infection rates are well under 0.5 percentage, and you see the equilibrium will be lower. This is why the the higher existing infection rate, the more widespread something will be.
Polarman says, "it is not lying if you do not tell her every detail of everything you do." I agree but I also think it's largely irrelevant. It's not what you tell someone that counts, it's what you do in the first place. All of us married men made promises and took vows of one sort or another - the question is do you honor them or not? Do you honor the trust that others place in you or do you betray that trust? When you look in the mirror, do you see someone of good character or not? IMO the most dangerous lies are those we tell ourselves.
"If you assume sex 100 times per year for 20 years"
"Anyway, the base rate of infectivity in the absence of condoms is known to be low: about 5-10 in 10,000 per act."
OK, 100 X 20 = 2,000 sex acts. Assume the higher figure of 1 in 1000 sex acts (10 in 10,000) that means every 10 years the (100 X 10 years) the person should expect to feel the hammer assuming NO condom use *AND* that your partner is infected??? Seems like something is very wrong.
"some people are just plain genetically immune to STDs. I think this is especially true among Northern Europeans, for whatever reason."
Could be; just like some people aren't susceptible in the least to becoming addicted to alcohol. Difficult to imagine that type of honesty out of government and it is disappointing how many even intelligent people parrot the official line.
Quite a lot of rationalization and pure crap here. As FONDL hinted, the question is silly. Married men should not be having paid sex, or to generalize further, any sex, other than with their spouse. Period. End of story. It is wrong, immoral, a violation of vows and promises to your god and spouse. The idea that you can mitigate that in any way is idiotic.
You might rationalize away a lap-dance, or groping some tit, or an after shift drink with an ATF, but come on, don't be stupid or insult my (or others) intelligence.
Oh, but to answer the question, yes, absolutely you should inform your spouse if you marriage becomes a fraud, and you should accept the wrath (both legal and personal) that follow as your due.
I agree with AN here, for the most part. I think exceptions are when it is understood beforehand that action on the side is allowed. Don't laugh! It happens. In the situations I know where this happen, the man is still expected to be open and honest about who with, and, of course, the woman will usually demand the same options for herself. Then there is the whole swing scene...
So it can happen in an ethical framework, IMO.
The problem is that njcsfan and anyone who cheats on their wife or any woman his is a monogamous relationshp with is a slimy POS. If you want that have the balls to say it beforehand. If it's not acceptable you have to move on to a woman it is acceptable to.
Glad that at least a couple of posters here can see the obvious.
Depends on the relationship. More than a few married wives cut their husbands off; for whatever reasons. Heaven forbid husband doesn't wish to be financially raped by the government's corrupt court system!
My grandmother was raised with the belief that you only put out for your husband as long as children are possible. No possibility of children equals NO sex for husband from wife. NO, he doesn't need to broadcast that which she wouldn't want to hear. NO, he doesn't need to meet the wrath of a corrupt court to make its lawyers rich.
The one size fits all rule foisted by government is unadulterated BS. I doubt all religions cut the husband's balls off just cause he gets married.
"if they want to continue cheating,then the answer is NO. but, if they are stopping, the answer is maybe"
Interesting answer. Sorta like if the wife has been cheating with the husband's best friend, but has decided that in the future she will only sleep with her husband. Yes, I can see how happy hubby will be at the good news. :)
"NHANES found that only 9% of the subjects with HSV-2 antibodies had knowledge of their disease. Many patients faced with a new infection assume that their partner has been unfaithful or dishonest, and it is important to inform the patient that it is quite common for a person with HSV-2 to be unaware of his infection, which could have occurred months or years before." *** http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa… ***
Moral of the story? Infected wifey screams bloody murder don't admit guilt, but clobber her over the head with facts. :) Something like: Look bitch, I probably got infected from my military days before I had the misfortune of marrying such a mistrusting wife. So I'm fighting for *your freedoms* risking my life and limb--- You're just nagging and accusing and unappreciative and need to as a start, wear those flag pins I bought you!!!
I could not agree more! You hit the nail right on the head! I would also add that they should tell their wife the cost of the stripper to raise THEIR self esteem.
jablake: Well if these guys are cheating on their wives in the first place and their morality is nothing more than "I'll do whatever the fuck I want. Who gives a fuck about honesty, and vows and all that crap to that bitch I married", I would not be surprised in the least to hear that they tried that one.
Think: shades of gray. Not every culture or person shares your ideas about marriage or especially male monogamy (even if the "contract" or "vows" say monogamy for both parties). This adorable older middle age latina was complaining to me about her "cheating" husband. I told her that in her *particular* culture it was my understanding the husband was supposed to be fucking everything in sight to prove is manlines and that the wife was supposed to be very pure: excellent thinking, btw, imo. :) So her husband was merely carrying out his manly duties with a vengeance! Damn, that middle age man could perform---poking the secretary on the boss's desk along with his friend and co-worker in the morning, then ravishing his young hot married co-worker for lunch, then hit the clubs in search of real VIP action, and finally home to wifey to take care of marital business. All this without viagra! I doubt every day was this good for him, btw.
So wifey is crying her eyes and out and says yes she knows the rules, but this America! Oh, geez. :( I explain America is actually a little more diverse than the media propaganda might lead her to believe. Then she goes on to explain how the American women she knows don't let their husbands "cheat." I said you wish to get divorced? She says NO, I just want him to stop having sex with everyone. I ask why? She says because it is "cheating." I say that isn't your culture and you knew he was extremely sexually active---looks and health irrelevant! She says YES, but this is America. Sheesh. Well, in America the American women run to the divorce court, do you wish to follow in their footsteps in that regard as well? Still crying, she says NO! But, why can't he be like her. She isn't having sex with everyone. I'm just shaking my head and say you really believe men and women have equal sexual desire? She shakes her head YES! I say so you want to screw every man in sight? She shakes her head NO! She just wants a single man----her husband. Well, I say, then you don't have equal sexual desire because I think even the family dog isn't safe from your husband. She looks at me like I'm crazy. I say that man is in heat!!! You aren't even a little in heat from what I can see. Next, you will be telling me some nonsense that you are as a physically powerful as your husband or some other idiocy in the name of equality. Finally, it gets down to she is afraid that he is going to leave her. That was extremely deranged---he strongly believes in NO DIVORCE and would probably back it up with extreme violence if necessary. So she starts yapping about her American women friends. Sigh. I told her to forget about her American friends unless she wants to follow in their footsteps!
I told her husband about this nonsense and he is like why would she want to be an American? Does she want a divorce? I told him that, that was what she was afraid of. He says then she needs to understand that I'm a man and men need to fuck as many women as possible. :)
39 comments
Latest
It is possible, but unlikely, to aquire an STD if a condom is used. A recent comprehensive survey found that two thirds of married couples are cheating on each other. Men and women have different libidos. Up to the 1960's, every medium or larger size city had a whorehouse. Everyone knew where it was and no one did anything about it. When the whorehouses closed, it threw American society into pathos.
Everyone needs affection, but a wife with kids often gets her daily needs of affection filled before husband gets home, so a little nookie on the side is actually healthy for the relationship. In these relationships, the wife suspects, but would prefer not to know. There are some wives who want to know everything, and I pity the fool in this marriage.
Overall, I'd say that it is not a good idea for the wife to know, unless hubby is having unprotected sex and actually cares for his atf.
A neighbor is a seed spreader and because he is so hyper sexually his wife always thinks he is cheating (he is) and he always denies it. Her IQ would have to be single digit not to know her husband is screwing everything in sight---he is a male, that's his mission.
HPV link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16790…
HSV link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11427…
While HSV is more of a nuisance disease for most, I say the wife still is ethically entitled to know she is being put at risk.
HPV, by contrast, is generally not that big deal for men, but for women can lead to very serious complications like cervical cancer.
Finally, I asked the question from an ethical, as opposed to legal standpoint. The legal situation with regards to spreading STDs or exposing them various from place to place, and frankly is a much less interesting question than the ethical one, IMO.
"CONCLUSIONS: Condom use offers significant protection against HSV-2 infection in susceptible women." *** HSV link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11427… ****
"Oh? Who with, Honey?"
"I'm going to have paid sex with a stripper. Sorry, I should have mentioned it earlier."
"Oh, no problem. At least you're informing me. Have fun, but be safe, OK? See you when you get back."
Yeah, I don't see a problem with that.
Re: HSV-2, yes that study found significant protection for women. (About 90%). However it found no protection for men! (In fact it showed condom use was riskier than no condom use. Now that's absurd of course, and indeed the confidence interval was so small that protection or no protection could not be ruled out). I think the risk to men is of interest here, since we know that the married man I am alluding to claims to not have HSV, and, quite probably doesn't use protection when he has sex with wife. (Assuming he is getting any from her.)
There was a later bigger study (the one I meant to post) showing about a 50% risk reduction (which appears to be over men and women, so, possibly men get even less protection than 50%):
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstra…
Re: HPV: That's a very interesting results. From Table 4 we see the risk of infection is cut (in women) when condoms are used resulting in a hazard ratio of 0.3-0.4.(60 to 70% reduction).
However, the result you quote suggests that condom use by the man will lessen the risk of a woman who already has cervical cancer progressing to lesions.
That suggests to me that if a man is having protected sex with strippers/escorts, but not with his (uninformed) wife, his chance of getting infected and passing it onto his wife is not only very likely, but if he is not using a condom with his wife (or even telling her so she can have a say in the matter) then he is raising her risk of cervical cancer.
Makes my belief that he has a moral obligation to tell her even firmer.
Here's a very good article on condoms and STD risk reduction:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full…
One of the links that you provided lead to a paid article. I'm like Book Guy in that I try and avoid paying for stuff on the internet. :)
I noticed that in some of the studies they bundle over 75% condom usage with 100% condom usage---well, you don't use it then well you shouldn't be too surprised if you get a STD from a stripper. Sad thing is I've known people who "haphazzardly" use condoms and then complain the condom failed.
Doesn't seem like rocket science 101 that if you didn't put the condom on, you can't blame it for "failing." Pity the poor doctors who hear the condom failed as the patient relates that I used it religiously 50% of the time.
Only a 50% reduction seems low, but then the whole thing becomes extremely murky when you lump condom users together with sometime losers.
Anyway, the base rate of infectivity in the absence of condoms is known to be low: about 5-10 in 10,000 per act. So you can approximate the hazard ratio by comparing the low use versus high use group. Let a be actual rate of non-usage in the low use group (0.75 <= a <= 1) and let b be the rate of non-usage in the high use group (0 <= b <= .25). Let X be the risk for unprotected sex and Y the risk for protected sex. The risk for the low use group is
aX + (1-a)Y
while the risk for high use group is
bX + (1-b)Y
From the study
2/3(bX+(1-b)Y)=aX+(1-a)Y
Then with some algebra you can get Y/X onto one side and all the other stuff onto the side. Then you can minimize the ratio to get an upper bound on how effective condoms are, or you can use the approximation a=0.875 and b=0.125 which is probably more accurate, or you can put the formula in a spreadsheet and play around with various a and b's.
Anyhow, don't have access to a spreadsheet here, but using a=0.875 and b=0.125 I got Y/X=0.6 so about a 40% risk reduction for condom use.
Anyway, why does the 50% reduction seem to low you?
Unfortunately, I think people don't have up to date knowledge on STDs and people only vaguely recall what they learned in high school, or information relevant when a new STD became the latest hype.
I think it's kind of like "drug education" in this country. Risk versus reward is complicated to people, so the whole thing gets simplified, such that, as we see here, people end up with very polar thinking. e.g. "If you drop acid even once you'll go insane for life" in the case of drugs and "If you have unprotected sex with a stripper even once you are guarenteed to get AIDS".
In reality, like with drugs, it's more complicated in reality. But that complexity is hard to explain, so the official messages just become very simplistic.
You are right: Rate of prevalence is a very important factor. However there are other important factors involved, like transmissibility, and number of exposures.
For bacterial STDs transmissibility rates are very high in the absence of condoms. Like 50% or so. But for viral STDs the transmissibility rates are rather low. For example, they studied couples where the female had HIV and the male did not, and the couple had unprotected sex. It took about 10 years on average until the male caught HIV. Hepatitis also has very low transmissibility rate for heterosexual. HSV is about as transmissible as HIV in the absence of outbreaks, but if outbreaks are present it becomes very transmissible.
Also my number of possible (likely?) exposures was low, so that is an important factor.
I estimate, that over my life, I had the equivalent of about 1/4 of a year of unprotected exposures with strippers. So even if they all had HSV, I would have about a 1% chance of having it. So there was no luck involved.
(You might say that there was luck, in that one of the girls might have had HSV and outbreaks, but did not expose me during that time. Perhaps. But even if I had used a condom them it would not have made much of a difference.)
Other factor, less important than the ones above, which reduces my risk is that I am a white, heterosexual male with no prior STDs.
The fifty percent reduction seems low because I think of it in terms of Russian Roulette. Stripper has good old fashioned six shooter loaded with 2 bullets. She spins the cylinder and points the gun at her hand. I say WAIT!!! That seems way dangerous. She says you're right. She then removes 1 of the bullets and happily proclaims she cut the risk by 50%. Yes, I guess the Russian Roulette is now safer. Hardly seems worth the effort if she is gonna keep playing that game. Similarly with the sky high rates of infection for Herpes it seems like having sex, protected or not, with many different partners almost guarantees you a "bullet" as in the stripper example.
The government non-stop lies about drugs including alcohol make me doubtful about its STD propaganda. *Seems* insane, but most of the people that I know either don't use condoms or use them occasionally.
BTW, it is possible a single toke of marijuana or snort of coke could kill just as eating a single peanut could kill so it is difficult to get at the truth. Unfortunately, imo, prohibition probably does have real health care benefits----just look at benefits of zero tolerance in much of the muslim world. :)
"Jablake: Did you find it interesting that the larger study I cited found no evidence of HSV-1 reduction due to condom use?"
Is that the link above? I saw that, but: 1) The full article required payment and 2) It included sex where condom usuage was only 75% or greater. A little more than 3 out of 4 times doesn't seem like it should offer much protection so yeah the lack of HSV-1 reduction shouldn't, imo, come as a surprise. It is like a couple that complains the condoms weren't any good and then go on to brag that they used 'em almost 80% of the time. Gee, imo, it hardly seems worthwhile using 'em especially if the couple is getting it on a fair amount of times per week.
The interesting thing, though, is that it seems to peak out. I believe (just a conjecture here) that some people are just plain genetically immune to STDs. I think this is especially true among Northern Europeans, for whatever reason. I remember reading a guy on one of the escort review boards who said he had sex with over 800+ prostitutes in Thailand, used protection maybe 20 times, and did not have so much as HSV-1.
I had read that it was very difficult for a man to get HIV from a woman----I didn't think it was extreme as you've cited: maybe they're only having sex once a year or less? ;)
I believe, and maybe 100% wrong, that genital herpes is more difficult to get via oral sex than regular intercourse. Heck, it seems safe to give a woman cunnilingus even in a high risk group----if true all the fun I've been missing. :(
"No statistically significant association between condom use and infection with HSV-1 was found (hazard ratio, 0.79 [CI, 0.48 to 1.31])."
You're right. Unlike HSV-2 it doesn't break it down for the three groups, so I can't tell which groups they are comparing from that statement. Otherwise I could do some math like I did above, but even then the large confidence interval is rather daunting.
Seems like practically nobody should be infected given those numbers. Perhaps my friends who don't believe in condoms know what they're doing.
If you assume sex 100 times per year for 20 years, and 1/4 of the time you are exposed, that is already a 25% chance of catching it. (And interestingly equal to the percentage of people with it. Equilibrium.) Compare this with heterosexual sex and HIV, where the infection rates are well under 0.5 percentage, and you see the equilibrium will be lower. This is why the the higher existing infection rate, the more widespread something will be.
"Anyway, the base rate of infectivity in the absence of condoms is known to be low: about 5-10 in 10,000 per act."
OK, 100 X 20 = 2,000 sex acts. Assume the higher figure of 1 in 1000 sex acts (10 in 10,000) that means every 10 years the (100 X 10 years) the person should expect to feel the hammer assuming NO condom use *AND* that your partner is infected??? Seems like something is very wrong.
"some people are just plain genetically immune to STDs. I think this is especially true among Northern Europeans, for whatever reason."
Could be; just like some people aren't susceptible in the least to becoming addicted to alcohol. Difficult to imagine that type of honesty out of government and it is disappointing how many even intelligent people parrot the official line.
After 10 years:
for women 1-(999/1000)^1000=63%
for men 1-(1999/2000)^1000=40%
You might rationalize away a lap-dance, or groping some tit, or an after shift drink with an ATF, but come on, don't be stupid or insult my (or others) intelligence.
Oh, but to answer the question, yes, absolutely you should inform your spouse if you marriage becomes a fraud, and you should accept the wrath (both legal and personal) that follow as your due.
So it can happen in an ethical framework, IMO.
The problem is that njcsfan and anyone who cheats on their wife or any woman his is a monogamous relationshp with is a slimy POS. If you want that have the balls to say it beforehand. If it's not acceptable you have to move on to a woman it is acceptable to.
Glad that at least a couple of posters here can see the obvious.
My grandmother was raised with the belief that you only put out for your husband as long as children are possible. No possibility of children equals NO sex for husband from wife. NO, he doesn't need to broadcast that which she wouldn't want to hear. NO, he doesn't need to meet the wrath of a corrupt court to make its lawyers rich.
The one size fits all rule foisted by government is unadulterated BS. I doubt all religions cut the husband's balls off just cause he gets married.
Oops, I guess I misread it: I was reading 5 - 10 cases per 10,000.
Interesting answer. Sorta like if the wife has been cheating with the husband's best friend, but has decided that in the future she will only sleep with her husband. Yes, I can see how happy hubby will be at the good news. :)
Moral of the story? Infected wifey screams bloody murder don't admit guilt, but clobber her over the head with facts. :) Something like: Look bitch, I probably got infected from my military days before I had the misfortune of marrying such a mistrusting wife. So I'm fighting for *your freedoms* risking my life and limb--- You're just nagging and accusing and unappreciative and need to as a start, wear those flag pins I bought you!!!
Also, there is no greater expression of marital loyalty than fucking a drunk stripper on a vinyl couch in a VIP room.
O.
*always making sure to match the logic of my answers to the logic of the questions posed!*
I could not agree more! You hit the nail right on the head! I would also add that they should tell their wife the cost of the stripper to raise THEIR self esteem.
Think: shades of gray. Not every culture or person shares your ideas about marriage or especially male monogamy (even if the "contract" or "vows" say monogamy for both parties). This adorable older middle age latina was complaining to me about her "cheating" husband. I told her that in her *particular* culture it was my understanding the husband was supposed to be fucking everything in sight to prove is manlines and that the wife was supposed to be very pure: excellent thinking, btw, imo. :) So her husband was merely carrying out his manly duties with a vengeance! Damn, that middle age man could perform---poking the secretary on the boss's desk along with his friend and co-worker in the morning, then ravishing his young hot married co-worker for lunch, then hit the clubs in search of real VIP action, and finally home to wifey to take care of marital business. All this without viagra! I doubt every day was this good for him, btw.
So wifey is crying her eyes and out and says yes she knows the rules, but this America! Oh, geez. :( I explain America is actually a little more diverse than the media propaganda might lead her to believe. Then she goes on to explain how the American women she knows don't let their husbands "cheat." I said you wish to get divorced? She says NO, I just want him to stop having sex with everyone. I ask why? She says because it is "cheating." I say that isn't your culture and you knew he was extremely sexually active---looks and health irrelevant! She says YES, but this is America. Sheesh. Well, in America the American women run to the divorce court, do you wish to follow in their footsteps in that regard as well? Still crying, she says NO! But, why can't he be like her. She isn't having sex with everyone. I'm just shaking my head and say you really believe men and women have equal sexual desire? She shakes her head YES! I say so you want to screw every man in sight? She shakes her head NO! She just wants a single man----her husband. Well, I say, then you don't have equal sexual desire because I think even the family dog isn't safe from your husband. She looks at me like I'm crazy. I say that man is in heat!!! You aren't even a little in heat from what I can see. Next, you will be telling me some nonsense that you are as a physically powerful as your husband or some other idiocy in the name of equality. Finally, it gets down to she is afraid that he is going to leave her. That was extremely deranged---he strongly believes in NO DIVORCE and would probably back it up with extreme violence if necessary. So she starts yapping about her American women friends. Sigh. I told her to forget about her American friends unless she wants to follow in their footsteps!
I told her husband about this nonsense and he is like why would she want to be an American? Does she want a divorce? I told him that, that was what she was afraid of. He says then she needs to understand that I'm a man and men need to fuck as many women as possible. :)