OK, Before I launch into this let me state for the record that this thread is meant to prompt debate and that I am in no way shape or form pro unsafe sex - I would not consider playing without using a condom etc etc etc.....
During some research for a project I have been working on I came across some rather starting statistics....
Each year in the UK over 350,000 people are admitted to hospital for smoking related diseases, of those 106,000 will die.
Deaths caused by smoking are five times higher than the 22,833 deaths arising from: traffic accidents (3,439); poisoning and overdose (881); alcoholic liver disease (5,121); other accidental deaths (8,579); murder and manslaughter (513); suicide (4,066); and HIV infection (234) in the UK during 2004. World-wide, almost 5 million die prematurely each year as a result of smoking. Based on current trends, this will rise to 10 million within 20 years.
The point I guess I am making is... If we are all so concerned about our health by being almost evangelical about the use of condoms, why are we far more blase about the other risks we are far more likely to face in our everday lives whether it be smoking, drinking, driving, crossing the road or popping out to get a pint of milk...?
I realise that the lifestyle we chose to lead will place us in a higher risk group than many, and that we are unable to avoid the risks incurred by everday life. But, when you look a the figures do you think we pay undue attention to some risks and ignore others?
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Unsafe sex Vs Other risks
last reply
26 replies
1.8k views
6 watchers
0 likes
Good question!
Smoking, drinking and contrating HIV are entirely avoidable and are not accidental. We look before we cross a busy road (mostly) and do lots of other things related to keeping our bodies and health safe.
Choose life! (god, I can hear Ewan McGregor saying it!).
:P
PS in edit: had to go find the words!
Smoking, drinking and contrating HIV are entirely avoidable and are not accidental. We look before we cross a busy road (mostly) and do lots of other things related to keeping our bodies and health safe.
Choose life! (god, I can hear Ewan McGregor saying it!).
:P
PS in edit: had to go find the words!
Choose life.
Choose a job.
Choose a career.
Choose a family,
Choose a fucking big television
Choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players, and electrical tin openers.
Choose good health, low cholesterol and dental insurance.
Choose fixed-interest mortgage repayments.
Choose a starter home.
Choose your friends.
Choose leisure wear and matching luggage.
Choose a three piece suite on hire purchase
in a range of fucking fabrics.
Choose DIY and wondering who you are on a Sunday morning.
Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbingspirit-crushing ga me shows
Stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth.
Choose rotting away at the end of it all,pishing you last in a miserable home
Nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish,fucked-up brats You have spawned to replace yourself.
Choose your future. Choose life.
Orgasminator
Fair enough that the death rate is relatively low in the UK, but if I were you I'd go and look up recorded and estimated infection rates.
It is perfectly possible to live a long and relatively healthy life with HIV, but it requires you to be constantly aware of your own health and to take various combinations of some pretty powerful medication for the rest of your life. It also requires you to take precautions to prevent you from infecting anyone else for the rest of your life.
Personally I'm not paranoid that I'd get HIV from having unprotected sex, I'd be much more worried about the 1 in 9 chance that the person you're playing with has Chlamydia (used to be called NSU before scientists knew what was causing it).
It is perfectly possible to live a long and relatively healthy life with HIV, but it requires you to be constantly aware of your own health and to take various combinations of some pretty powerful medication for the rest of your life. It also requires you to take precautions to prevent you from infecting anyone else for the rest of your life.
Personally I'm not paranoid that I'd get HIV from having unprotected sex, I'd be much more worried about the 1 in 9 chance that the person you're playing with has Chlamydia (used to be called NSU before scientists knew what was causing it).
I believe we will find out soon that smoking althought not good for you as by far not as dangerous as we are made to believe.
First I read another stats some month ago where the related more than 200,000 death per annum to alcohol (death through violence under the influence of alchol, negligence, hit and run, homicide, houshold accidents etc all related to alcohol).
My sister works in one of the world leading research centres and they found out that breathing the air in places like Frankfurt, Lodon, NY etc. gives you an intake of poison of the equivalent of 100 cigarettes per day.
The diabetes foundation claims that the present generation is the first one which will die before their parents because of wrong eating habbits and obesity.
First I read another stats some month ago where the related more than 200,000 death per annum to alcohol (death through violence under the influence of alchol, negligence, hit and run, homicide, houshold accidents etc all related to alcohol).
My sister works in one of the world leading research centres and they found out that breathing the air in places like Frankfurt, Lodon, NY etc. gives you an intake of poison of the equivalent of 100 cigarettes per day.
The diabetes foundation claims that the present generation is the first one which will die before their parents because of wrong eating habbits and obesity.
Quote by G and H
I believe we will find out soon that smoking althought not good for you as by far not as dangerous as we are made to believe.
First I read another stats some month ago where the related more than 200,000 death per annum to alcohol (death through violence under the influence of alchol, negligence, hit and run, homicide, houshold accidents etc all related to alcohol).
My sister works in one of the world leading research centres and they found out that breathing the air in places like Frankfurt, Lodon, NY etc. gives you an intake of poison of the equivalent of 100 cigarettes per day.
The diabetes foundation claims that the present generation is the first one which will die before their parents because of wrong eating habbits and obesity.
So to paraphrase it's "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics!"???
However, the point is; if we are in posession of all the facts, do you think we react disproportionately to some risks?
Orgasminator
Quote by G and H
I believe we will find out soon that smoking althought not good for you as by far not as dangerous as we are made to believe.
I'm with you on that. I was amazed at how much fitter I felt after moving from Birmingham to the coast (South Shields). I used to think I was really unfit, now I know that most of the time I was being poisoned by traffic fumes. Getting away from that made far more difference in a fortnight than giving up smoking did, which is the main reason why I cracked and went back to my 10-15 roll up a day habit.
Sex God
The moral of this story is, never smoke without a condom :shock: 
:lol: :lol: :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: Quote by Jags
Good question!
Smoking, drinking and contrating HIV are entirely avoidable and are not accidental. We look before we cross a busy road (mostly) and do lots of other things related to keeping our bodies and health safe.
Choose life! (god, I can hear Ewan McGregor saying it!).
:P
PS in edit: had to go find the words!
Choose life.
Choose a job.
Choose a career.
Choose a family,
Choose a fucking big television
Choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players, and electrical tin openers.
Choose good health, low cholesterol and dental insurance.
Choose fixed-interest mortgage repayments.
Choose a starter home.
Choose your friends.
Choose leisure wear and matching luggage.
Choose a three piece suite on hire purchase
in a range of fucking fabrics.
Choose DIY and wondering who you are on a Sunday morning.
Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbingspirit-crushing ga me shows
Stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth.
Choose rotting away at the end of it all,pishing you last in a miserable home
Nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish,fucked-up brats You have spawned to replace yourself.
Choose your future. Choose life.
That's brilliant!!! Love th'Ewan McGregor thing you got goin on there............
BUT to quote you on "Smoking, drinking and contrating HIV are entirely avoidable and are not accidental" ........it isnt' always th'case
Please read...
Sometimes it's not the case so you can never be too complacent with what's out there...
...peace
Without getting into the passive smoking thing - If I smoke and get cancer, I have cancer. People I have sexual contact with have no risk of catching my cancer - it is mine and stays mine. It will not be passed on to others and their children and children's children (unborn that is).
HIV on the other hand could be spread across 100 people in a week, 1000's in a month.
It is about containment.
And it is not just HIV - you don't need me to list the other STD's do you!
HIV on the other hand could be spread across 100 people in a week, 1000's in a month.
It is about containment.
And it is not just HIV - you don't need me to list the other STD's do you!
Thing is.. regardless of the widely-held view on SH that unprotected sex between strangers is a no-no, it is going on. We all know this. Many of us have started out with good intentions and then thought - 'Well, hey, he/she seems OK. I'm sure they can't be HIV positive. And really, this condom business is seriously getting in the way.' And we also know that even if penetrative sex is being protected there are many, many instances of unprotected oral sex which also carries risk. I have only been to three clubs and not many more parties (so invite me!!!) but have NEVER seen a condom used for oral sex.
But as the original post shows AIDS is not rampaging. So does this mean the risk is being exaggerated for some reason?
Jezzay.
But as the original post shows AIDS is not rampaging. So does this mean the risk is being exaggerated for some reason?
Jezzay.
Sex God
Well it's not strictly true that aids is not rampaging, although AIDS itself is often kept at bay and under control by modern drug treatments, HIV is spreading quickly and more so in the heterosexual community now than in Gay community.
Anway, it's simple really, I don't see anyone of the risks as being more of a risk than the others personally. Its about taking precautions while still living your life fully.
I don't smoke as I know it can kill you, I drink in moderation, well most of the time, I eat a varied diet, sometimes junk and somethimes healthy but i get what I need, I look when I cross the road to avoid being hit by a car and I practice safe sex. As I said, simple really.
Anway, it's simple really, I don't see anyone of the risks as being more of a risk than the others personally. Its about taking precautions while still living your life fully.
I don't smoke as I know it can kill you, I drink in moderation, well most of the time, I eat a varied diet, sometimes junk and somethimes healthy but i get what I need, I look when I cross the road to avoid being hit by a car and I practice safe sex. As I said, simple really.
Quote by SarfLondoner
So to paraphrase it's "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics!"???
However, the point is; if we are in posession of all the facts, do you think we react disproportionately to some risks?
Definitely yes.
What are the odds, statistically speaking, to die of terrorism a compared of dying of an everyday activity like driving or drinking alcohol (that is, alcohol related accidents and illnesses, I'm not suggesting people drop dead after drinking alcohol)?
And despite the low risk how many people in England are more afraid of terrorists than of bad drivers?
I am not saying that they shouldn't be but I am saying that it is not a logical response, it is an emotional one based on the spectacular effect of bombs exploding, the rarity of it (whereas there are car accidents often enough for us to be blase unless it is quite spectacular) and the feeling that you cannot do anything if you are caught in a terrorist act whereas you feel more in control on the road.
Its all about choice tho isn't it, going back to what polo lady was saying about her cancer being hers and not spreading it about u can only spread HIV to those who are willing to catch it, if someone is willing to have unprotected sex with you they know the risks they take and all those who have unprotected sex with them know the risks they take, and if people are willing to take them risks then thats their choice not ours, if people where condoms to protect themselves then the chances are they will be safe, if someone decided to stop smoking to protect themselves then they still have to breath in other peoples fag smoke so are still not totally safe, its swings and roundabouts really you could go on forever, but in short more people die from smoking and drinking each year than not wearing condoms yet drinking and smoking is seen as ok but u mention bearback and theres a uproar on the site :!: you go figure 
Sex God
Quote by SarfLondoner
Deaths caused by smoking are five times higher than the 22,833 deaths arising from: traffic accidents (3,439); poisoning and overdose (881); alcoholic liver disease (5,121); other accidental deaths (8,579); murder and manslaughter (513); suicide (4,066); and HIV infection (234) in the UK during 2004. World-wide, almost 5 million die prematurely each year as a result of smoking. Based on current trends, this will rise to 10 million within 20 years.
The point I guess I am making is... If we are all so concerned about our health by being almost evangelical about the use of condoms, why are we far more blase about the other risks we are far more likely to face in our everday lives whether it be smoking, drinking, driving, crossing the road or popping out to get a pint of milk...?
That's the trouble with statistics, they never say what you think they're saying, and unscrupulous politicians can make you think they mean whatever they want them to mean by presenting them out of context. The above is a classic example of how statistics can mislead. The implication is that unsafe sex is not as unsafe as crossing the road. But it's misleading because it doesn't tell you how many people practice unsafe sex compared to the number of people who cross the road. What you need to know is something like "What is the probability that a given practitioner of unsafe sex will die of crossing the road compared to the probability that the same individual will die of a sexually transmitted disease?"
Looked at in the proper context, i.e. a probability based risk assessment, it takes no brains to figure out that unsafe sex is far more dangerous. It is possible to cross the road a million times in your life and not be killed. It is barely feasible to have sex a million times in your life, yet people do manage to die as a result of having sex, so obviously the sex is more of a risk than the road.
Much as I applaud the sentiment, these statistics are unfortunately fairly meaningless. Dying 'prematurely' is simply not a very good way of comparing these factors.
A large number of smoking-related deaths are in very old people, and we don't know if these statistics are including people who are (for example) weakened by lung cancer but actually die of something else, and we don't know how they compilers of these numbers are counting people who die through things that smoking gives you a greatly increased risk of - are they all included even if smoking is not necessarily the prime cause of death, or are the figures reduced by the number of people who would have died from these things anyway without smoking? Taking the current thoughts on the damage done by smoking and passive smoking to the logial conclusion, surely everyone who dies of old age does so slightly 'prematurely' because they have been exposed to it?
While the death of an elderly relative is certainly sad, I don't feel it's statistically valid to equate someone who had their natural lifespan reduced by a few months (or perhaps even days) with someone cut down in their prime by one of the other causes.
A large number of smoking-related deaths are in very old people, and we don't know if these statistics are including people who are (for example) weakened by lung cancer but actually die of something else, and we don't know how they compilers of these numbers are counting people who die through things that smoking gives you a greatly increased risk of - are they all included even if smoking is not necessarily the prime cause of death, or are the figures reduced by the number of people who would have died from these things anyway without smoking? Taking the current thoughts on the damage done by smoking and passive smoking to the logial conclusion, surely everyone who dies of old age does so slightly 'prematurely' because they have been exposed to it?
While the death of an elderly relative is certainly sad, I don't feel it's statistically valid to equate someone who had their natural lifespan reduced by a few months (or perhaps even days) with someone cut down in their prime by one of the other causes.
Quote by Ice Pie
Looked at in the proper context, i.e. a probability based risk assessment, it takes no brains to figure out that unsafe sex is far more dangerous. It is possible to cross the road a million times in your life and not be killed. It is barely feasible to have sex a million times in your life, yet people do manage to die as a result of having sex, so obviously the sex is more of a risk than the road.
Whilst I agree with you in part I am not sure in this case you are comparing like with like....
It might be argued that when we cross the road we take precautions ("stop, look and listen" to quote Darth Vader) if we didn't take these precautions the rates of deaths would be much higher - and maybe the high(ish) rate of road deaths already exhibited in the statistics is caused by people being carelss....
Just another point to prove the inaccuracy of statistics I guess.
Sex God
Quote by SarfLondoner
Looked at in the proper context, i.e. a probability based risk assessment, it takes no brains to figure out that unsafe sex is far more dangerous. It is possible to cross the road a million times in your life and not be killed. It is barely feasible to have sex a million times in your life, yet people do manage to die as a result of having sex, so obviously the sex is more of a risk than the road.
Whilst I agree with you in part I am not sure in this case you are comparing like with like....
It might be argued that when we cross the road we take precautions ("stop, look and listen" to quote Darth Vader higher - and maybe the high(ish) rate of road deaths already exhibited in the statistics is caused by people being carelss....
Just another point to prove the inaccuracy of statistics I guess.
Darth Vader didn't say that - the man whose voice it was, said it (Dave Prowse) in a commercial, whilst in the guise of the Green Cross Code Man.
Quote by freckledbird
Looked at in the proper context, i.e. a probability based risk assessment, it takes no brains to figure out that unsafe sex is far more dangerous. It is possible to cross the road a million times in your life and not be killed. It is barely feasible to have sex a million times in your life, yet people do manage to die as a result of having sex, so obviously the sex is more of a risk than the road.
Whilst I agree with you in part I am not sure in this case you are comparing like with like....
It might be argued that when we cross the road we take precautions ("stop, look and listen" to quote Darth Vader higher - and maybe the high(ish) rate of road deaths already exhibited in the statistics is caused by people being carelss....
Just another point to prove the inaccuracy of statistics I guess.
Darth Vader didn't say that - the man whose voice it was, said it (Dave Prowse) in a commercial, whilst in the guise of the Green Cross Code Man.
Dave Prowse was the body of DV (voiced by James Earl Jones) and also the GCCM... I guess I was just being flippant at the time.... Oh well....
Sex God
His voice was overdubbed. How did "22,833 deaths arising from: traffic accidents" turn into how safely we cross the road?!!!
It's to do with you having no chance when some mad speed freak is hurtling down a motorway in a powerful car and answering his mobile at the same time. As a nation we have quietly accepted this huge level of slaughter as acceptable so that we can get to A from B at our own convenience. Unprotected driving - far more dangerous than a blow-job in a club.
Jezzay.
It's to do with you having no chance when some mad speed freak is hurtling down a motorway in a powerful car and answering his mobile at the same time. As a nation we have quietly accepted this huge level of slaughter as acceptable so that we can get to A from B at our own convenience. Unprotected driving - far more dangerous than a blow-job in a club.
Jezzay.
There is inherrant risk in almost everything we do. However, the overall risk we take also depends on frequency.
If you smoke one cigarette once a month, it is unlikely that this level of use will cause you to fall foul of a smoking related disease.
If you have unprotected sex with an unknown partner, 20 times a day, 365 days a year for 20 years, it is highly likely that you will fall foul of a sexually related disease.
Comparing death rates is meaningless unless you level the playing field by removing the impact of frequency.
lhk
Kat
If you smoke one cigarette once a month, it is unlikely that this level of use will cause you to fall foul of a smoking related disease.
If you have unprotected sex with an unknown partner, 20 times a day, 365 days a year for 20 years, it is highly likely that you will fall foul of a sexually related disease.
Comparing death rates is meaningless unless you level the playing field by removing the impact of frequency.
lhk
Kat
Sex God
Quote by PoloLady
Without getting into the passive smoking thing - If I smoke and get cancer, I have cancer. People I have sexual contact with have no risk of catching my cancer - it is mine and stays mine. It will not be passed on to others and their children and children's children (unborn that is).
HIV on the other hand could be spread across 100 people in a week, 1000's in a month.
It is about containment.
And it is not just HIV - you don't need me to list the other STD's do you!
I was wondering how to phrase my opinion and here it is above - spooky innit!!
