M58 F59
Condom Etiquette
February 27 2014
Comments
-
MsSuperFoxy
11 years ago
Welcome... It's great to hear that the guys you play with wear condoms. I believe ones health comes first before anything else. For me, if I were part of a couple, I would wear condom during all play, with everyone! Also have regular testing done, to ensure all is OK. I would also ask the other party as well when they had last testing, before any play. One has to play safe these days. Just watch out for those sneeky buggers who will remove it quickly just before entering. ;) It's been know that some guys will do this, it's bad JU JU. Sorry to scare you, but it's true. I hope you enjoy yourselves and Happy playing. :) Foxy
-
gazpacho
11 years ago
Because of the diversity of STD around, there is no "safe" sex. However, sex with a condom is safer than sex without. I can see no reason that your regular partner should wear one unless he is fucking someone else. Nobody seems to use condoms for blowjobs, and I've never seen a dental dam being used. Sometimes I see people with rubber gloves, and requiring men to wear rubber gloves but that is a bit of a fetish thing.... (Or she has herpes and doesn't want to spread it around) lol. Hugs Gazpacho
-
JohnAnn2227
11 years ago
When we play all of the guys wear a condom, including John. We actualyy have a bowl of various condoms that we provide for the night.
-
DynamicCouple36
11 years ago
It's also important to put on a new condom when moving from one person to the next so as not to spread body fluids from one vagina to the next. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Oh yes new condom for each pussy. Don't forget to wash your hands between every cock and pussy you touch you don't want to spread dirty body fluids. Remember to rinse your mouth out and wash your face between every person you have oral sex with you would not want to spread filthy body fluids. Don't forget to change the sheets and wash every surface you have sex on between partners as you would not want to spread discussing body fluids. Don't forget to put on a mask as the vigors of sex will create aerosols of revolting body fluids. Do not forget to wear your level one bio haz suit because other humans are basically nasty disease vectors covered from head to toe in life threatening germs, viruses, and parasites. There is only one type of safe sex and that is no sex because the risk of meeting the less than 0.008% of people with an incurable STI is not worth the joy of sex.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Unless I know the lady really well, there's no bareback for this lil black duckie. A condom should be essential tool and should be apart of ladies bag or guys pocket or wallet. No fuck is worth a dose of something nasty.. Mind you ' I hate wearing condoms with a passion,and miss that natural feel of a pussy. But, those days are gone, unless you both get tested first.. Jay
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I'm glad you get more than one in a pack
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Gotta say, I've been shocked at the number of guys who try it without condom. Profile says "always for all activities" but they don't even own one at a meet!!! - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
11 years ago
If a friend becomes one of regular benefits I will stop using the condom. Personally I hate using condoms they reduce the sensation and when you include all the fluids transfer from hands, mouths, and everywhere what the point. So few people have dangerous STI that the odds of meeting one are very low and if someone does have a dangerous one then they would know about it. I am good enough to judge the character of someone that would lie about having an STI and still want sex, I don't fuck ugly minds. For me if you have not had a test in the last 6 months then there is no sex, even with a condom as they do not protect.
-
MsSuperFoxy
11 years ago
*nods head* YEP! YEP and YEP! I agree... 'always required" does NOT mean ALWAYS REQUIRED. They just choose not to take responsibility. Actually over time my mind has changed on that status, thanks to one horrible experience.:( I have to give credit to those who put "When required", at least they're being honest. Can't be f*cked anymore reminding someone about condoms, especially first meets. They know the health risks, they just choose to turn a blind eye. I'd sooner leave than put myself put my health at risk. Foxy
-
MsSuperFoxy
11 years ago
Watch out too for those who have been sitting in wallets and hand bags...How long have they been in there? I would suggest even tho it can get expensive, provide your own. I had one guy pull one out of his wallet, it was really perished, so it was a no go. Next time round was great...It was a party full of Balloons. ;) Foxy
-
RHP User
11 years ago
You can relax those rules if everyone is clean and straight no anal and with long term married partners
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Thanks for all the replies guys, pretty varied responses, and most of the men having the same thoughts.
-
DynamicCouple36
11 years ago
My husband and I share body fluids, all the time, when we make love . We just dont share with others as that's when one risks an infection.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Blindman67' If a friend becomes one of regular benefits I will stop using the condom. Personally I hate using condoms they reduce the sensation and when you include all the fluids transfer from hands, mouths, and everywhere what the point. So few people have dangerous STI that the odds of meeting one are very low and if someone does have a dangerous one then they would know about it. I am good enough to judge the character of someone that would lie about having an STI and still want sex, I don't fuck ugly minds. For me if you have not had a test in the last 6 months then there is no sex, even with a condom as they do not protect. What, pray tell, is a dangerous STI exactly?
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I dont fuck gay guys but some one I fucked once did ............ahhhh safe sex its like Russian roulette with two bullets in the shaft for straight people - . Its been about 6 years I have been on here and this topic never ever gets tired. . Root on good people root on .... . Brae
-
DynamicCouple36
11 years ago
Whether or not you, blindman, considers a STI to be dangerous may not be important to you, but it sure as hell is important to me. For you HPV may not be a dangerous STI as you dont have a cervix and as such are not in danger of getting cervical cancer. But for a sexually active woman, cervical cancer is a reality and it impacts on the lives and health of many women. To say that so few people have dangerous STI's and that the odds of you meeting one who has a dangerous STI are thus so small, is again irrelevant. AIDS is a STI and just look at how it has impacted on society ? What is not serious to you, may be serious for me and others. And to then say that only those who have serious STI's would know about it, is again nonsense. Most people who were eventually diagnosed with AIDS / HIV did, at one stage, not even know they had it. Many people have STI's but dont show any symptoms - they are carriers and infect many others during unprotected contact. All, if not MOST, body fluids are a good way to transmit viruses, bacteria, STI's / STD's and others. Thats a fact. If you have herpes, HPV, or even hepatitis and you exchange body fluids (deep wet kissing, oral intercourse, semen, mucous membranes) with another person, there is a risk that you will pass this to that person and vice versa. When you go to a doctor , does he /she not wash his/her hands before and after examining you ? And why is that ? Its about lowering the risk of spreading something infectious. The same applies when one walks into a hospital. There are special hand washes available that they encourage everyone to use. So why should the swinging scene be any different ? If some guy is going to touch me and poke his fingers into my vagina, surely I have every right to ensure that he has cleaned his hands properly before doing so ? And if he takes offence , well then he can simply keep his fingers away from me and go and finger someone else. Its standard swingers etiquette to bathe / wash / shower before meeting up and playing is it not ? And is it not also common courtesy to brush ones teeth beforehand too ? Or would you prefer being kissed by an "unfresh" morning breath of a complete stranger ? I always ensure that we are clean and fresh ....but yes there are those swingers who dont give a damn and arrive at parties with unwashed bums and bad BAD body odour . And they expect others to be happy playing with them? We have been to Saints twice and on both occasions we watched guys finger several women up the bum . Those same fingers then moved to the vagina, and then to the next womans bum and vagina and so on and so on. We watched this from a distance and took note that those fingers and hands were never washed in between all of that - why ? because the bathrooms were either too far away, or the males in question did not think it would be a problem. Now how would you like to have a finger shoved into your mouth, or vagina, that had been shoved in a dozen other mouths, anuses & vaginas before you, and not been washed before you get to be invaded ? There were 1300 + people at Saints and so consider the ramifications for cross contamination. And you have the audacity to become sarcastic and try to make out that I, Leslie, are over reacting ? Do you know how easy it is for a woman to get a UTI ? It just takes one tongue, that has been in the wrong place (contaminated with some ecoli from a rimming session) to the cross contaminate the vagina and urethra and then we sit with the pain and suffering and antibiotics and then thrush and so on and so on. You have also made it clear, in previous posts, that the anus & rectum can be cleaned sufficiently so as to pose no ecoli risk to a vagina with regards cross contamination . I beg to differ, but no worries mate, you carry on believing what you want to believe. We all have the right to say NO. Just as we all have the right to reduce our risks of contracting an infection, disease or infection. No love = no glove. And before you label me as a precious princess, my husband and I have a great sex life and when we are together we don't use any protection - as we don't need to . We don't sleep around and since we have started swinging in 2013, have had all the necessary tests done and will continue to have regular testing so long as we try different sexual partners. That said we have had only around 3 or 4 , 4 somes and have always ensured that protection was used and that we all were freshly showered and that any fingers inserted into me, were always freshly washed and had not been up someone elses bum or vagina. But back to the original topic and that is that its essential to practise safe sex when swinging and that means condoms to be worn at all times and a fresh condom when moving from one person/ from one vagina to the next, so as to prevent cross contamination and in essence the spread of STI's, viruses and bacteria. That said that does not mean that because my husband and I dont use a condom, when we make love to one another at home, we are therefore unsafe and dont practise safe sex. We have been together for 17 years and not slept with anyone else before starting to swing last year and so our chances of being "unsafe" prior to swinging were zero. Obviously if and when we do play with others and 'swap' we always ensure that condoms are used and we keep very struct control so as to minimise our risks of exposure to potentially infected body fluids. What we would not want, is for a few minutes of passion to impact on our health for the rest of our life. Its therefore better to err on the side of caution and to assume that everyone is potentially infected, until such time as they can prove that they are not. Washing hands, antibacterial mouth wash and wearing condoms is thus important as it minimizes the risks - not 100% guaranteed but its better than nothing.
-
gazpacho
11 years ago
Safe sex is monogamous sex... although I know a couple who keep getting thrush and candida every time they visit Queensland and sleep at a friend's house on an old mouldy mattress.... Plus, you have to wear rubber gloves is you are to try and avoid acquiring herpes by sticking your hand on or near infected genitalia with herpes' spores. I should be gloving up, wearing a dental dam on my face, a condom on my dick and a vaginal condom up my arse, then spraying with ddt to kill off the crabs. You're all dirty fuckers, let's face it. I'm one of a very few guys around here who really cares enough to get tested regularly, and that's because I know how risky all you filthy bitches (a term of endearment for my gentlemen friends?) are. HugsGazpacho
-
RHP User
11 years ago
The point I am trying to make is that condoms only reduce the risk. You can assess your own risk and take risk reduction measures to your hearts content but believing you are safe and thus not getting regular testing make that effort pointless. How many times do I have to say it. The only way to protect everyone, including your self is to test REGULARLY. No point in using protection to protect your self if you already have something and don't know you have, the only way to know you are clean and thus protecting those you have sex with, is by testing. If you don't know all you are doing is potentially spreading a STI, and risking death from total curable infection/s. Dangerous STI are incurable virus related infections that can cause cancer and can be fatal. They are HIV, HEP B and C. All the rest are ether totally curable or pose no serious threat to your health and life. The problem is this is ONLY TRUE for people that get regular testing. If you don't get regular testing then dangerous STI also include Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, HPV, HTLV-I, and Syphilis. Get tested people. If everyone gets tested there will be no risk anymore.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
LOL @ female condom up the arse. I will definitely tell the next medical professional who suggests those to me about that application. The mental imagery is hilarious Gazzie. :)
-
RHP User
11 years ago
You should use less capital letters (Ever heard of mount stupid? It implies you're at a certain spot. For the record, i'm not implying you're stupid, btw)Condoms reduce the risk. So does a negative lab.A negative lab does not equal "does not have infection", an example being I've seen someone lose a testicle from chlamydia who returned negative labs 5 days before the operation. Labs can be negative for a bunch of reasons, mostly relating to incubation periods. Takes 3 months for a HIV test to become positive, up to a couple for chlamydia (the others are faster growing so usually less problematic in that regard), so unless you're planning on only having sex once every 10 or so weeks, your negative labs don't mean as much as you think. And the concept of 'herd immunity' on a place like this is a bit laughable. Carry on. And get tested.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Blindman67' All the rest are ether totally curable or pose no serious threat to your health and life. The problem is this is ONLY TRUE for people that get regular testing. If you don't get regular testing then dangerous STI also include Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, HPV, HTLV-I, and Syphilis. You might want to do some research on HPV before lumping it in your 'non-dangerous' category. Whilst in most cases HPV does not have any lasting effects, some types can lead to serious illness and are responsible for: - almost all cases of genital warts and cervical cancer- 90% of anal cancers- 65% of vaginal cancers- 50% of vulva cancers- 35% of penile cancers- 60% of oropharyngeal cancers And your theory about testing is pretty much useless when it comes to HPV since there is no treatment for it even if you do find out that you have it.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I always do my research. HPV is the number one reason you should get tested as it is a lack of treatment that creates the cancers. With proper care and treatment your risk of developing cancer from HPV are less than 0.1% That is 0.1% of the 0.3% of infected people that are at risk if you are aware you have it. It is also important to note that there are over 120 known types of HPV and only a small minority of these are considered sexually transmitted, and of these 12 are considered high risk for cancer. Of these HPV-16 and HPV-18 (these are the one that the vaccination is available for) are responsible for 99.7% of HPV related lower body cancers and and 25% upper body cancers (due to the fact that we smoke, drink, and eat badly or it would be higher). I will focus on these two type 16 and 18. In Australia 25% of women show signs of or DNA of these high risk types (one in four) with rates going up to 44% for women that have had at least 4 sexual partners in there life. The more sexual partners you have the more likely you have one or both HPV 16/18. The figures are slightly lower for men. 50% of all sexually active people have HPV including 16/18 and the 12 or so other high risk types. If i would to estimate that the RHP members here have had many sexual partners last year more than half of you will have it. Clearance rates are 100% for men after 18 months and 97% for women over the same time period. Only a astonishingly small number of women will carry it for life. The problem is that it is so common that many people get re-infect time and time again. For women it is highly recommended that you get the vaccination as it significantly reduces the risk of infection, or re infection though it is less effective if you have already had contact with the virus. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that"(male) condom use may reduce the risk" "because HPV is also transmitted by exposure to areas (e.g., infected skin or mucosal surfaces) that are not covered or protected by the condom." Female condoms provide somewhat greater protection than male condoms, as the female condom allows for less skin contact. HPV 16-18 can be spread via the hands (the hands them selves are contagious, there does not need to be any genital contact first). 10% of adult females that have never had penetrative sex (virgins) have HPV 16 or 18 on their hands. HPV is a very hardy virus and can survive for extended periods away from the human host. So yes they are a major cause of cancer but you can not protect against it. Using a condoms can not protect you from HPV. It is paramount that you get regular testing so that you can treat the HPV infections. It is not curable but the vast majority does go away by its self (close to 100%) BUT it is treatable so get tested as it may save your life. Why to get tested. (Numbers for you.) 44% of RHP females have or had it. (going by assumption that you have had more that 4 partners in your life). So that's about 1 million female RHP members. Of that in 18 months only 3000 will still have it, it goes away naturally if you don't get re infected.. If all those women then are aware and get treatment for lesions and regulate examinations only 3 will be at risk of cancer. As cervical cancers represent only 1.5% of cancers and that 44% of people are HPV infected and that causes 90% of the cancers. 44% are 90% of 1.5% of cancers or 0.44*0.90*0.015 = 0.006 or 0.6% of those three will get cancer from HVP. Or 0.018 of those three. If you do not get tested then 0.6% of 3000 is 18 people untreated and undiagnosed will get HVP related cancer. You are 1000 times more likely to get cancer if you don't know you have HVP. OR Assuming you have HPV 16 or 18 You have 2 in 100,000 chance of getting cancer from HPV if you don't test.You have 2 in 100,000,000 chance if you do get tested.Odds of having HPV 1 in 2. LuckDragon why you say testing is "useless" I will never know. Just because something causes 90% of some cancer does not mean it is dangerous at all. There is more chance of being killed by a falling rock than HPV if you get regular testing.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
This is like listening to a drug rep sell their sales pitch about their wonder drug. Biased and bullshit. I'd suggest you check your own intrinsic conflict of interest (not wanting to use condoms) prior to doing your 'research'. Simply put: you're jaded by your desire to not wear a condom thus you are interpreting things accordingly. Firstly, your numbers are very wrong, to the tune that your entire argument is useless. Secondly, you cannot treat HPV, you can only cut out the pre-cancerous lesion it may turn into, presuming it is detectable - one of your misbeliefs seems to be that they're all detectable. They're not. We don't test for HPV (not sure if you realise this or not), we test for precancerous lesions, of which the pap smear will miss 20% of. And there's no screening test for head and neck cancers, unless it's somewhere you can visibly see (they're usually not), by the time one can feel that enlarged gland in your neck, the cancer has spread and you're in for a very large operation. My point here, you're not adequately comprehending what exactly a screening test is. Just FYI, the HPV associated head and neck cancers are more aggressive and occur in a younger population than what we used to see (the older smokers, heavy drinkers, people who received a large amount of UV exposure).I've worked in a tertiary women's hospital and a tertiary trauma centre. Your analogy about falling rocks is incorrect, sorry. Luckdragon did not say 'testing is useless', she said your theory on testing is useless. Huge difference.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Luckdragon23' And your theory about testing is pretty much useless when it comes to HPV since there is no treatment for it even if you do find out that you have it. Quoting 'Blindman67' LuckDragon why you say testing is "useless" I will never know. You do have a tendency to change and misquote to suit your own argument.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Ktulu beat me too it. Damn delayed posting.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
HPV is detected via the presence of virus DNA on a PAP or anal smear. If as you say you miss 20% and that is a statistic average 20% failure then regular testing (twice are year) will reduce the odds of failing to detect HPV. To play it out 0.2*0.2 = 0.04 thus after two tests its 4% failure, after 3 its 0.8% chance of not being detected and so on. Think of it like tossing a coin. Heads you win (detection) tails you loss (non detection), you only need one heads to win. Toss it once and there is a 1//2 chance of losing, toss it twice and then its 1/4. If you spend your life of never getting heads is very low. the odds of tossing a coin 20 times and never getting a heads is 0.0001% or (1 in 1,048,576) KTulu100 "Firstly, your numbers are very wrong, to the tune that your entire argument is useless." If my numbers are wrong then do point them out. Let me list the numbers. I have in the past tried to add references but RHP moderators do not allow them. 44% of Australian women that have had sex with 4 or more partners have HPV 16 and/or HPV 181.5% of Australian female cancers are cervical cancer.HPV 16 & 18 are responsible for 99.7% of HPV related cervical cancers.25% of upper body cancers are HPV related.There are 771 cases of cervical cancer a year in Australia and there is a 60% survival rate.100% of men are free of the virus in 18 months.99.3% of women are free of the virus in 18 months.There is a 1/200,000 chance of being killed by a meteorite impact. So please Ktulu100 do take the time to prove me wrong as you will find that the calculated odd fit nicely with the actual numbers of cervical cancers. I show the extremes at both ends. TESTING and TREATMENT can REDUCE THE CHANCE OF GETTING CERVICAL (or any) CANCER by up to 1000 times. Why do you think they promote PAP smears and Mammograms. TO REDUCE THE RATE OF CANCERS!!!!! Quote Ktulu "I've worked in a tertiary women's hospital and a tertiary trauma centre. Your analogy about falling rocks is incorrect, sorry." So if I worked in the LOTTO winners club would I go around thinking the odds of winning are very high. Please what you say is designed as an emotive counter argument with no bases on facts. Go spend some time in a road trauma unit and then tell the world not to drive. MY theory on testing is not MY theory. WHO (World Heath Organisation), The Center for Disease Control and Prevention recognize that the ONLY way to reduce the spread of STI's is via regular testing of all the sexually active population. That both organisation have done studies to show that if only 1/4 sexually active people get a test every 6 months that withing a few years there will be close to ZERO STI in the community. I am not bolstering my need to not wear condoms nor anyone else's. I am telling people that condoms do not keep you safe. 1/5 sexual acts with a condom on are unsafe. Sure it sound like you reduce your risk but only a fool would think that means you safe. Remember the coin toss you only need one heads to win and you can toss as many times as you like. Well it works the same way with sex. You only need it to fail once for you to get infected but you can have as much sex as you like. SO 4/5 for protection during sex once, then 4/5*4/5=16/25 protected odds for sex twice then 4/5*4/5*4/5=64/125 for the third time (that's close to half) for sex only three times. So if you have sex (n) times the odd that you will be protected by a condom are (4/5)^n. I have had sex at a party with 8 different women in one night (all with condoms on) the odds that their was no exchange of fluids were (4/5)^8 that's only a 16% chance that I was safe even though I wore a fresh condom for every penetration. Different STI have differing rates of infection RISK from very low for HIV (1/1000) for unprotected sex to very high for HPV less than (1/2) for protected sex. But less than 1/100,000 hetro men have HIV and 1/5 men have HPV Stop telling me condoms are safe and I will stop telling you that they are not. TESTING is the only way to protect your self and the community and people that do not get test I consider as socially morally corrupt. It is selfish not to get tested, it free and easy. Yes I know I am on about numbers for what many think is more about feelings and emotions, but that's not how the world works.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Meander' Quoting 'Luckdragon23' And your theory about testing is pretty much useless when it comes to HPV since there is no treatment for it even if you do find out that you have it. Quoting 'Blindman67' LuckDragon why you say testing is "useless" I will never know. You do have a tendency to change and misquote to suit your own argument. Its not my theory, its WHO's, so I can remove the "your theory about" and keep the "useless", or is she saying that the World Heath Organisation's theory on protection is useless. Grow up!
-
erotictouch4u
11 years ago
As not all males like other male's cum and if you want extended play from both males then not having the mess of hubby's cum will make it more enjoyable for the other male later. It's about respect for all. ET xox
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I am a doctor. I understand this stuff. Feel free to keep on arguing though... but it does not make you seem intelligent to those reading. Your first few sentences are wrong. Can you think why? I'll fill you in: Because the lesion must be accessible to smear for us to detect it. Read that again, does the penny drop? Adenocarcinomas of the cervix are not picked by pap smears and they represent about 20% of cervical cancers. Smear as much as you want, you won't reduce that number down from 20%. You have to physically smear the damn infected cell, that doesn't happen (often) with adenocarcinomas because they're inaccessible. Therefore, no way to test for adenocarcinoma. Just like there's no way to test for head and neck cancers which are out of sight.If 100% of males clear HPV, do explain why half the ENT clinic at any given hospital are followups of young men who have had treatment for an aggressive cancer? And we do not test for HPV, once again. Only in two settings do we do that, neither of which are applicable here therefore: we do not test for HPV. (1. Research settings when involved in a clinical trial, and 2. Once someone has undergone complete resection of the cervix+uterus for high grade cervical cancer, and we smear every year looking for HPV - lack of HPV is a sensitive marker for return of cancer to the vagina). HPV 16 and 18 are not responsible for 99.7% of cancers... If it were true, then the gardasil vaccine would prevent 99.7% of cervical cancers... but it doesn't. You keep bouncing back to regular testing to prop your argument up. That is true for other STIs, not HPV. I've spent plenty of time in a "road trauma unit" (oh yeah, there is no such thing). I wouldn't recommend not driving to people, because the benefits of driving clearly outweigh the risks for most, surely you understand this? No, it is your theory. You're extrapolating things you don't understand. Screening for cervical cancer is an entirely different kettle of fish to screening for conventional STIs* and you are adopting the stance (in the case of HPV) of secondary prevention in lieu of primary preventative strategies because it's not perfect. Guess what, nothing is. You might as well be saying "sunscreen is useless because it doesn't totally protect from cancers, especially melanoma, therefore just get regular skin checks and you'll be fine". That argument sucks just as much as the one you're presenting. * I don't disagree about regular testing for chlamydia and gonorrhoea. If everyone did, there'd be enormous reductions, as both bacteria require a human host to survive. But given the spot prevalence of them both, the false negatives and the incubation periods, a negative lab does not mean "does not have infection", so I can't support your condom-free stance in an effort to target these bacteria.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Blindman67' If my numbers are wrong then do point them out. Let me list the numbers. I have in the past tried to add references but RHP moderators do not allow them. For the record: Though the mods don't approve links, RHP certainly allows references. I've posted a fair few myself over time. But nice effort.
-
gazpacho
11 years ago
Quoting 'ktulu100' ........ so I can't support your condom-free stance in an effort to target these bacteria. Sounds to me that I need to invent a rather flexible, self lubricating, form fitting, latex undergarment. .. perhaps a spray on... you know.. something like a tanning booth, only for the perverted and promiscuous... HugsGazpacho
-
gazpacho
11 years ago
Quoting 'eagertongue4u' As not all males like other male's cum and if you want extended play from both males then not having the mess of hubby's cum will make it more enjoyable for the other male later. It's about respect for all. ET xox That assumption is unsupported by the facts. I love being sloppy... and I'm sure I am not alone. HugsGazpacho
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Ok not much time so. Quote you "Smear as much as you want, you won't reduce that number down from 20%. " I don't know where you get your 20% but the majority of CCA cases can be detected at an early stage by yearly clinical and cytological examinations, which must comprise cervical as well as vaginal sampling. All high risk women should insist on those tests. The link between adenocarcinomas and HPV is poorly understood. There are other tests that look for the proteins associated with CCA which can be found in non cancerous cells. Unfortunately there are high false positive rates and thus are not generally used. That is 99.7% of the cervical cancers caused by HPV are of strains 16 and 18, not 99.7% of cancers are caused by HPV 16 and 18. Since the introduction of the vaccine there has been a significant reduction in cervical cancers, and we are many years away from the knowing the full extent of its success. So what if there is no road trauma unit, gee wiz you got me there doc. You don't seem to understand what I am saying. If a woman has HPV, is unaware that she has, and does not bother with any testing because she always uses condoms believing that is safe, is at a very high risk compared to those that get testing. (including PAP yearly at minimum) One mistake. Clearance rates I quoted where for all and not just for HPV 16 and 18 but for those two its around 90%. It is highly dependent on your life style and reinfection has to be taken into account for that 90% figure. As I can not post reference look up "Determinants of Clearance of Human Papillomavirus Infections in Colombian Women with Normal Cytology:" I can't find the paper that I got the male results from at the moment but will present that later. This is not about what the doctor says is right, it is up to the individual to assess their risk and then demand testing. I have had many tests at many different places and some doctors are very slack and I have had to insist on tests that they where not going to give me. I am high risk and do not trust condoms. Again this is not about not using condoms, I don't give a rats if people do or do not. What i care about is people that are in the life style and don't get tested. They put me at risk. I will reply in detail when I get home.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Blindman67' I will reply in detail when I get home. Oh please don't - I am exquisitely uninterested in what you have to say, you're not saying anything new and I've lost interest big time. I can already imagine what you're going to say and I'm bored thinking about it. Just put your sunscreen on - skin checks looking for early cancer are no substitute (especially in a higher risk population) no matter how much you believe otherwise. This analogy works. I don't expect you to know where I got my 20% from. And HPV 16+18 comprise 66-75% of cervical cancers, geographic factors dependent, but please, once again say 99.7%, it really demonstrates your academic prowess here.
Boards
-
Hot Topics
Topics: 14361 Comments: 120840
-
Girls Ask
Topics: 1355 Comments: 14709
-
Guys Ask
Topics: 2425 Comments: 17234
-
Couples' Corner
Topics: 2405 Comments: 12737
-
Swingers Lifestyle
Topics: 794 Comments: 5154
-
Fetish & Fantasy
Topics: 1148 Comments: 6957
-
Hot Travel
Topics: 622 Comments: 2145
-
LGBT
Topics: 156 Comments: 1150
Forum help
-
Something related with that
-
Going somewhere & want to hook up?
-
Hasn't that topic been posted before?
RHP's popular dating tool
-
Where the heck did that topic go?
Discover what RHP is doing offline
-
RHP member's RL secrets
reply
like
Share