FabSwingers.com forum: bareback

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

I alway play safe. But why do so many girls/ women always ask for bareback. It does my head in!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Well at least they're upfront and you can say no

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Very true but why risk it with a stranger?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *obbytupperMan
over a year ago

Menston near Ilkley

"Well at least they're upfront and you can say no"

You've taken the wind out of his sails now, just when he was venting his spleen.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't think many will turn down such a meet tbh.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You're not that safe yourself

OP.......you're barebacking that plastic tube thingy

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I alway play safe. But why do so many girls/ women always ask for bareback. It does my head in!"

I always wear my contact lenses

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't think many will turn down such a meet tbh."

Not sure about that, shag. It's a risk to everyone's health....but hey! Each to their own as they say.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *bfoxxxMan
over a year ago

Crete or LANCASTER

N E V E R.

Might as well opt for euthanasia.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Lol thats my cock pump thats broke

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't think many will turn down such a meet tbh.

Not sure about that, shag. It's a risk to everyone's health....but hey! Each to their own as they say."
Yes your right there nobby about that one, each to their own.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Well at least they're upfront and you can say no"

Exactly this. Why does it bother you so much, they're upfront, you can walk away no harm done.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Just cant see why they want to bareback with someone they know nothing about. It really gets to me

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Just cant see why they want to bareback with someone they know nothing about. It really gets to me"

Well don't let it get to you. What others do is not your concern if it doesn't affect you. Look after your own sexual health and leave others to theirs.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Just cant see why they want to bareback with someone they know nothing about. It really gets to me

Well don't let it get to you. What others do is not your concern if it doesn't affect you. Look after your own sexual health and leave others to theirs."

My thoughts exactly, there all grown ups let them look after them selfs , and you just worry about what your doing.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Ok guys

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *uited staffs guyMan
over a year ago

staffordshire

"I alway play safe. But why do so many girls/ women always ask for bareback. It does my head in!"

It's the major question in all the horse riding forums as well

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *L RogueMan
over a year ago

London

"Just cant see why they want to bareback with someone they know nothing about. It really gets to me

Well don't let it get to you. What others do is not your concern if it doesn't affect you. Look after your own sexual health and leave others to theirs.

My thoughts exactly, there all grown ups let them look after them selfs , and you just worry about what your doing."

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *orthyorkypairCouple
over a year ago

North Yorkshire

"Just cant see why they want to bareback with someone they know nothing about. It really gets to me"

its called choice (not ours incidently) you can always decline

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *verysmileMan
over a year ago

Canterbury

Surely isn't it a case of leaving this to the parties involved. We all know the pro's and cons.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 21/01/15 17:16:19]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

By the way, many women do bareback even tho stated safe play on their profile.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"By the way, many women do bareback even tho stated safe play on their profile."

Like lots of people are smokers and claim not to be or are bi and claim to be straight or are really a little older than their profile states etc etc. Don't rely on what their profile says.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *reedy_for_funCouple
over a year ago

My House

Lets be honest, if there was no such thing as sti's we'd all bareback on a regular basis. But there are sti's so we all have a responsibility to take care of our OWN health. Don't spend your time worrying about theirs, that's really non of your business. If you don't like them barebacking, don't meet them.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *win PeaksCouple
over a year ago

Northamptonshire

Scenerio: You're in ans orgy where safe sex is practiced, you change partners and you would (rightly so) change condoms. Now be honest, how many would either remember to wash your hands before playing with another lady?

Dave

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I alway play safe. But why do so many girls/ women always ask for bareback. It does my head in!"

Maybe they have a better understanding of probability, risk management, and consequences than most. Bareback sex isn't going to kill you. Three people die every day in the UK in a car. Now which activity are you going to avoid?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ikki ShooterTV/TS
over a year ago

Epsom

"N E V E R.

Might as well opt for euthanasia.

Euthanasia is a choice

Bareback is Russian roulette x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We have a winner! I'm surprised it took that long for someone to erroneously equate unprotected sex with Russian Roulette.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

White Knight syndrome.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Just cant see why they want to bareback with someone they know nothing about. It really gets to me"

I agree - risk of pregnancy seems to not bother so many too

S x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I alway play safe. But why do so many girls/ women always ask for bareback. It does my head in!

Wrong!

My friends brother died of aids! ... Bareback DOES kill! ........

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Your friends brother either died a long time ago or was stupid enough to never get an STI check. There is absolutely no reason why someone should die of complications due to AIDS in the UK any more. Treatment for HIV is excellent and anyone with it (myself included) has no worse a life expectancy than anyone without it. In fact, as many people with HIV actually lead very healthy lives we tend to have better life expectancies than most a lot of the time.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

He died around 15 years ago. He caught it from his wife who was having an affair. That is all i know.... Still died a horrid death and i was just stating he did die of aids...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So in totally different circumstances to someone hooking up with people online now then.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ipsTeaserCouple
over a year ago

here and there, thereabouts

"I alway play safe. But why do so many girls/ women always ask for bareback. It does my head in!

Perhaps.

However many many things that are considered recreational come with risks that are carefully managed... Why are people that manage the risk associated with recreational swinging somehow less 'risk management' aware than those who don't?!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *othingButCocoChanelWoman
over a year ago

Glasgow

"By the way, many women do bareback even tho stated safe play on their profile."

I have on manyyyy occasions, so dont state that i play safe coz i have been known to take a risk and can admit it

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ikki ShooterTV/TS
over a year ago

Epsom

"We have a winner! I'm surprised it took that long for someone to erroneously equate unprotected sex with Russian Roulette.

Ever played roulette in Russia? The vodka makes it very entertaining x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I alway play safe. But why do so many girls/ women always ask for bareback. It does my head in!

Perhaps.

My point is they aren't very good at actually understanding what the risk is. Shouts of "Russian Roulette" and "Its basically euthanasia!" show that people think it's far more risky than it is and that the consequences are far worse. If people actually knew what they were talking about there wouldn't be such ridiculously sensationalist and bombastic statements that just betray the complete ignorance of the poster.

I have no problem with people having safe sex. I have safe sex too from time to time though my preference is for bareback. Just make a choice from a position of knowledge, no a Daily Mail-like warped sense of reality.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"We have a winner! I'm surprised it took that long for someone to erroneously equate unprotected sex with Russian Roulette.

Ever played roulette in Russia? The vodka makes it very entertaining x"

Being Tea Total and having a care for freedom of expression means Russia holds very little appeal for me so I've no expectations of visiting any time soon :P

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ipsTeaserCouple
over a year ago

here and there, thereabouts

"I alway play safe. But why do so many girls/ women always ask for bareback. It does my head in!

Perhaps.

It's simply their opinion, as yours is yours.

Some people are risk adverse; others less so-That will influence how they view bareback and does not necessarily make them ignorant.

With regard to sensationalist/bombastic statements there aremany different personalities on fab so it's natural that may come across in their posts or perhaps they just hold a particularly strong opinion.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Well done for completely missing the point.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ikki ShooterTV/TS
over a year ago

Epsom

You live in a wonderful world, I wish reality could sometimes be as nice. When you sleep with someone bareback you increase risk...(forget Russian roulette it's an apology) but you will still be having sex with all their partners. STI's are on the increase and mostly in hetosexal people. Life's short enough without shaving a bit off. But you are entitled to your opinion x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't think many will turn down such a meet tbh."

Your right man cos I probly wouldnt some people just post whats expected of them

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ipsTeaserCouple
over a year ago

here and there, thereabouts

"Well done for completely missing the point.

In the interest of debate, how have I missed the point?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You live in a wonderful world, I wish reality could sometimes be as nice. When you sleep with someone bareback you increase risk...(forget Russian roulette it's an apology) but you will still be having sex with all their partners. STI's are on the increase and mostly in hetosexal people. Life's short enough without shaving a bit off. But you are entitled to your opinion x"

S x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

yawn yawn

Some people choose to play bareback, some choose to use a condom (we use a condom)

The rights & wrongs, the risks have been discussed a thousand times over, but bareback threads seem to be always started by guys thinking they will impress the ladies by saying " can understand why anyone barebacks I always use a condom"

"Yawn yawn yawn"

Impressed by the guy who admitted he was HIV+ on this post and lists it on his profile too, good on you fella xx

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Well done for completely missing the point.

In the interest of debate, how have I missed the point? "

It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. People get caught up in the emotional response and social conditioning towards unprotected sex compared to say driving a car but they totally ignore the factual basis on which they claim to be making their decision. If they really did care about the risk then they would never step into a car again or understand that bareback sex is not that risky at all and stop being so against it. People just don't like acknowledging when their beliefs are not in line with reality.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"yawn yawn

Some people choose to play bareback, some choose to use a condom (we use a condom)

"Yawn yawn yawn"

Impressed by the guy who admitted he was HIV+ on this post and lists it on his profile too, good on you fella xx"

Thanks.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't think many will turn down such a meet tbh.

Your right man cos I probly wouldnt some people just post whats expected of them "
thats right and to come across respectful too lol.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *othingButCocoChanelWoman
over a year ago

Glasgow

"Well done for completely missing the point.

In the interest of debate, how have I missed the point?

Do agree with this

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ipsTeaserCouple
over a year ago

here and there, thereabouts

"Well done for completely missing the point.

In the interest of debate, how have I missed the point?

But bareback sex DOES carry risk. You've just stated its not that risky at all when actually there is still a risk there!

How risky you perceive it to be depends on several factors, not least being a risk taker or being risk adverse. It's a calculated decision making process for people, one that will have different outcomes dependant upon contributing factors.

You might love sky diving, or free climbing... Others might think you're completely irresponsible given the risk.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"...bareback sex is not that risky at all"

You need to take this up with every sexual health professional in the world. They're clearly misguided.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"...bareback sex is not that risky at all

You need to take this up with every sexual health professional in the world. They're clearly misguided."

More often than not they're just toeing the line. No health service wants to come under attack for looking like they are promoting unprotected sex. I'm not saying bareback is without risks, clearly there are plenty of things you can get, but they aren't as life threatening as people believe or make out and anything sex related seems to get blown hugely out of proportion.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago

Limavady

"...bareback sex is not that risky at all

You need to take this up with every sexual health professional in the world. They're clearly misguided.

I'm sure you agree that people are more likely to believe a large number of health professionals when they say bareback sex is life threatening.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"...bareback sex is not that risky at all

You need to take this up with every sexual health professional in the world. They're clearly misguided.

Just to play devils advocate, are you as a HIV positive bisexual person with a boyfriend (whom I'm assuming you have unprotected sex with) advocating 'bareback' with random strangers?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *uited staffs guyMan
over a year ago

staffordshire

"...bareback sex is not that risky at all

You need to take this up with every sexual health professional in the world. They're clearly misguided.

I'm sure you agree that people are more likely to believe a large number of health professionals when they say bareback sex is life threatening. "

Crossing the road is life threatening, going out in a car is life threatening

Virtually everything you will ever do in your life is life threatening and will have killed someone at some point

It's the understanding of probability and how risky a particular activity is is where the knowledge gap seems to be

I use condoms because I still enjoy sex with them and have decided the risk from unprotected sex is generally avoidable

But I also understand that my choice to be a car driver and a red meat eater is way more risky in terms of risk of death than someone not doing those but barebacking

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Barebacking is a risk you take with anyone. I'm sure the holier than thou brigade abstained before getting tested in all previous relationships. To each their own.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"...bareback sex is not that risky at all

You need to take this up with every sexual health professional in the world. They're clearly misguided.

I'm sure you agree that people are more likely to believe a large number of health professionals when they say bareback sex is life threatening.

Crossing the road is life threatening, going out in a car is life threatening

Virtually everything you will ever do in your life is life threatening and will have killed someone at some point

It's the understanding of probability and how risky a particular activity is is where the knowledge gap seems to be

I use condoms because I still enjoy sex with them and have decided the risk from unprotected sex is generally avoidable

But I also understand that my choice to be a car driver and a red meat eater is way more risky in terms of risk of death than someone not doing those but barebacking"

Exactly, its about managing the risks in your life and what is deemed an acceptable risk against what pleasure or fun you want to have. For some the risk is the pleasure

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"...bareback sex is not that risky at all

You need to take this up with every sexual health professional in the world. They're clearly misguided.

Also “undetectable” and “HIV-negative” are not the same thing. Having an undetectable viral count does lower the odds of transmitting the virus, but it doesn’t mean it's 0 risk. You shouldn't suggest otherwise.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I alway play safe. But why do so many girls/ women always ask for bareback. It does my head in!"

For the same reason a lot of guys do I guess, cause they prefer it, their body their choice you don't have to meet

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"...bareback sex is not that risky at all

You need to take this up with every sexual health professional in the world. They're clearly misguided.

Op I do respect you for your honesty and openness but there is no way I'd run even the small risk of contracting something for just a moment of fun. For me safe sex is a must

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Each to their own. Live and let live and all that...

I wouldn't want to play with someone who wanted to wear a nappy and call me "mama".

Choice is one the great things this country affords us

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"...bareback sex is not that risky at all

You need to take this up with every sexual health professional in the world. They're clearly misguided.

Just to play devils advocate, are you as a HIV positive bisexual person with a boyfriend (whom I'm assuming you have unprotected sex with) advocating 'bareback' with random strangers? "

If both people are happy to do so, then yes, totally.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"...bareback sex is not that risky at all

You need to take this up with every sexual health professional in the world. They're clearly misguided.

Op I do respect you for your honesty and openness but there is no way I'd run even the small risk of contracting something for just a moment of fun. For me safe sex is a must"
Define what you think "safe sex" is? Do you have unprotected oral sex? Do you swab your partners fingers for the HPV virus? If you do then well done but there is no such thing as safe sex; however there is "safer sex" in which responsible adults take reasonable precautions in not passing or receiving an infection. This subject is one that constantly crops up and is so misinterpreted!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"...bareback sex is not that risky at all

You need to take this up with every sexual health professional in the world. They're clearly misguided.

I never said HIV Negative and HIV Undetectable were the same thing. However, if you are undetectable and take your meds properly (which I and most sane people do) then there is ZERO risk of transmission. There has been a lot of research out in the last year that suggests this. You have a higher risk of contracting HIV from your supposedly HIV negative partner who you use condoms with than if you had unprotected sex with me.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"...bareback sex is not that risky at all

You need to take this up with every sexual health professional in the world. They're clearly misguided.

Op I do respect you for your honesty and openness but there is no way I'd run even the small risk of contracting something for just a moment of fun. For me safe sex is a must Define what you think "safe sex" is? Do you have unprotected oral sex? Do you swab your partners fingers for the HPV virus? If you do then well done but there is no such thing as safe sex; however there is "safer sex" in which responsible adults take reasonable precautions in not passing or receiving an infection. This subject is one that constantly crops up and is so misinterpreted!"

I knew someone was going to throw out the "no such thing as safe sex" argument which is always the final line in the bareback sex thread. No I don't use oral protection nor do I swab test my meets. I do protect myself and get checked regularly. I as you put it employ safer sex

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"...bareback sex is not that risky at all

You need to take this up with every sexual health professional in the world. They're clearly misguided.

This just isn't true. It's only 0 risk when the virus is absent. You shouldn't spread misinformation just because it's in your interest.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

In the interest of a single female's point of view I feel the need to say that pregnancy isn't necessarily the biggest problem with playing bareback (which I only do when committed to someone), the problem is that most of the STI's such as Chlamydia affect a woman in far worse ways. I personally know of women who've had to use IVF after contracting it. Genital warts is another one that's harder to treat in a woman and less obvious.

Personally I think fab in general is hypocritical. Almost all of us preach safe sex but how many of us actually use dental dams and condoms every single time we have oral sex?!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So, have I got this right? that using condoms for sex isn't that important according to the majority of people on fab swingers and that if you don't use condoms for oral sex then you might as well not bother to use them at all.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Have you read these links?

"When asked what the study tells us about the chance of someone with an undetectable viral load transmitting HIV, presenter Alison Rodger said: "Our best estimate is it's zero." "

This is not 0 and does not mean the risk is removed, it means it is close to 0. You are still putting people at risk and you have a responsibility to take care of others, just like everyone else. You need to stop saying the risk is nil. "

No, it means that in all likelihood the risk is zero, just like they said. There is no way to prove it is zero in the same way there's no way to prove that Santa and the Easter Bunny aren't gangbanging the Tooth Fairy right now. But all the evidence points towards it being zero.

I am not putting anyone at risk. I have a very good understanding of statistical and mathematical rigour; something you clearly do not. So please stop implying that I'm lying just to get a fuck. I have no expectations that anyone on here does want to meet me as I soon realised people are far too ignorant of HIV for that to happen any time soon.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Have you read these links?

"When asked what the study tells us about the chance of someone with an undetectable viral load transmitting HIV, presenter Alison Rodger said: "Our best estimate is it's zero." "

You don't know my educational background but I've shown I can clearly comprehend articles better than you, so no need to get shirty.

The risk will never be nil. Close to it, possibly, but never removed as you cannot possibly ever be sure of the transmission of something you can't see. I'm not saying you're lying, I'm saying you've hugely misunderstood the information in a MASSIVELY dangerous way as it's in your interest for it to be 0 risk.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Have you read these links?

"When asked what the study tells us about the chance of someone with an undetectable viral load transmitting HIV, presenter Alison Rodger said: "Our best estimate is it's zero." "

You don't know my educational background but I've shown I can clearly comprehend articles better than you, so no need to get shirty.

I'm getting shirty because you're saying I'd be willing to infect someone with a chronic disease if it meant I got to have sex, which is extremely offensive.

I have not misunderstood the articles. I've linked to the articles because they're what's publicly available and they clearly state that NO TRANSMISSIONS OCCURRED. What then could possibly convince you that a transmission risk is zero? If the answer is nothing then you shouldn't even be in the debate because you refuse to accept even the possibility that you're wrong.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Have you read these links?

"When asked what the study tells us about the chance of someone with an undetectable viral load transmitting HIV, presenter Alison Rodger said: "Our best estimate is it's zero." "

You don't know my educational background but I've shown I can clearly comprehend articles better than you, so no need to get shirty.

I'm getting shirty because you're saying I'd be willing to infect someone with a chronic disease if it meant I got to have sex, which is extremely offensive.

You're referencing an incomplete study that isn't accepted by half of the medical community. You have safe sex fatigue and it's terrifying to me.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Have you read these links?

"When asked what the study tells us about the chance of someone with an undetectable viral load transmitting HIV, presenter Alison Rodger said: "Our best estimate is it's zero." "

You don't know my educational background but I've shown I can clearly comprehend articles better than you, so no need to get shirty.

I'm getting shirty because you're saying I'd be willing to infect someone with a chronic disease if it meant I got to have sex, which is extremely offensive.

You're referencing an incomplete study that isn't accepted by half of the medical community. You have safe sex fatigue and it's terrifying to me. "

What half of the medical community would that be? No one has given any evidence that I'm aware of to counter the PARTNER study. And it's only incomplete because they want even more evidence. They only published early because the evidence was so overwhelming.

What's so terrifying to you about me wanting to be truthful about unprotected sex? I'm not going to try and convince you to sleep with me, or anyone else for that matter. You're at liberty to do whatever/whoever you want.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

I wish I never started this

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Have you read these links?

"When asked what the study tells us about the chance of someone with an undetectable viral load transmitting HIV, presenter Alison Rodger said: "Our best estimate is it's zero." "

You don't know my educational background but I've shown I can clearly comprehend articles better than you, so no need to get shirty.

I'm getting shirty because you're saying I'd be willing to infect someone with a chronic disease if it meant I got to have sex, which is extremely offensive.

You're referencing an incomplete study that isn't accepted by half of the medical community. You have safe sex fatigue and it's terrifying to me.

The Australasian groups that don't agree, Dr Berger the HIV specialist who recommends protected sex even in light of this study, the discussions at several conferences. It's controversial and not proven. If you understand statistics so well, you ought to know this. Your point isn't new, it's been around since the late 2000s, however it's still not accepted by the entire medical community for good reason - it hasn't been proven.

It's terrifying to me that you'd put people at risk, instead of taking reasonable care. Just because someone else is okay with bareback, doesn't mean you should be.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Have you read these links?

"When asked what the study tells us about the chance of someone with an undetectable viral load transmitting HIV, presenter Alison Rodger said: "Our best estimate is it's zero." "

You don't know my educational background but I've shown I can clearly comprehend articles better than you, so no need to get shirty.

I'm getting shirty because you're saying I'd be willing to infect someone with a chronic disease if it meant I got to have sex, which is extremely offensive.

You're referencing an incomplete study that isn't accepted by half of the medical community. You have safe sex fatigue and it's terrifying to me.

Wasn't there an article of a study last year where they claimed to cure HIV only for it to turn out that no they hadn't? The study is incomplete and until its legitimised verified and agreed then its not fact its a case study with positive results. It doesn't prove anything and it certainly doesn't mean you can run around barebacking people! Would 1 in 40000 still be good? I find your lack of responsibility frightening

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ipsTeaserCouple
over a year ago

here and there, thereabouts

Have you read these links?

"When asked what the study tells us about the chance of someone with an undetectable viral load transmitting HIV, presenter Alison Rodger said: "Our best estimate is it's zero." "

You don't know my educational background but I've shown I can clearly comprehend articles better than you, so no need to get shirty.

I'm getting shirty because you're saying I'd be willing to infect someone with a chronic disease if it meant I got to have sex, which is extremely offensive.

But you yourself admitted earlier that there are in fact some risks to bareback... So are you now saying that there's no risk in your case but may well be with others that bareback... In which case you are once again touting something as fact when in actual fact most studies, and statistics, can be either presented in such a way as to give a particular result or interpreted in a particular way!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *itSamCouple
over a year ago

Birmingham

I prefer profile that are open about bareback. It is a straight forward easy way to decide not to meet rather then it being awkward on a meet and then finding out wasting a meet. We play soft anyway but should we ever go full it would only be safe and no exceptions. So do not get grumpy about someone asking for bareback, just block and move on.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"But you yourself admitted earlier that there are in fact some risks to bareback... So are you now saying that there's no risk in your case but may well be with others that bareback... In which case you are once again touting something as fact when in actual fact most studies, and statistics, can be either presented in such a way as to give a particular result or interpreted in a particular way!"

Plus HIV is far too big of a risk to take when it's just a hunch. There needs to be definitive proof with substantial evidence before you can promote unprotected sex with HIV+ partners.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I prefer profile that are open about bareback. It is a straight forward easy way to decide not to meet rather then it being awkward on a meet and then finding out wasting a meet. We play soft anyway but should we ever go full it would only be safe and no exceptions. So do not get grumpy about someone asking for bareback, just block and move on."

Its not about being 'grumpy' because someone barebacks, its because this person is HIV positive and is actively barebacking and is therefore a risk, or have you simply not been reading the thread and wanted to throw your tuppence in?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's terrifying to me that you'd put people at risk, instead of taking reasonable care. Just because someone else is okay with bareback, doesn't mean you should be. "

You mean the Dr Berger who falsified patient data and research? Who the FDA were looking to ban from being allowed to do research, and whom various Pharma companies dropped from their research? Oh okay, yeah, trust him.

Of course it's controversial, just as The Swiss Statement was. Doesn't make it any less scientifically valid. It terrifies me that so many people are so bigoted and irrational no matter what logical and objective information is put in front of them.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ipsTeaserCouple
over a year ago

here and there, thereabouts

Plus HIV is far too big of a risk to take when it's just a hunch. There needs to be definitive proof with substantial evidence before you can promote unprotected sex with HIV+ partners. "

Yes I Agree with you in his case, though I do applaud him for having the strength and honesty to declare he is positive. I was also referring to his earlier argument that bareback in general carries no risk and his argument people confused fact with opinion... Something he himself appears to have done!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Have you read these links?

"When asked what the study tells us about the chance of someone with an undetectable viral load transmitting HIV, presenter Alison Rodger said: "Our best estimate is it's zero." "

You don't know my educational background but I've shown I can clearly comprehend articles better than you, so no need to get shirty.

I'm getting shirty because you're saying I'd be willing to infect someone with a chronic disease if it meant I got to have sex, which is extremely offensive.

There are risks to bareback - none of those risks include the transmission of HIV from an undetectable person. People can of course get other STIs, and if they think there partner is HIV negative there's a chance they aren't. What the last few posts have been about are the transmission risk of HIV from an undetectable person on meds - which is zero.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Plus HIV is far too big of a risk to take when it's just a hunch. There needs to be definitive proof with substantial evidence before you can promote unprotected sex with HIV+ partners. "

How many studies do you know of that have 40,000 data points are are rejected as invalid?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's terrifying to me that you'd put people at risk, instead of taking reasonable care. Just because someone else is okay with bareback, doesn't mean you should be.

Weird, as Dr Berger also validated your study but said it's best to continue using protection. Maybe that's discrediting to you too.

Trust me, I'm not bigoted against HIV+ people at all.

I do think you're massively ill educated and that you're putting people at risk needlessly. However, I guess it's good you're open and honest and about taking no interest in the welfare of others when it comes to your own pleasure.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I am not "a risk" - in fact the probability of someone catching HIV from barebacking with me is less than the chance they have of catching HIV from you if you use condoms. So don't insult me.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Plus HIV is far too big of a risk to take when it's just a hunch. There needs to be definitive proof with substantial evidence before you can promote unprotected sex with HIV+ partners.

How many studies do you know of that have 40,000 data points are are rejected as invalid?"

The MMR-Autism link studies is one example.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Plus HIV is far too big of a risk to take when it's just a hunch. There needs to be definitive proof with substantial evidence before you can promote unprotected sex with HIV+ partners.

How many studies do you know of that have 40,000 data points are are rejected as invalid?

The MMR-Autism link studies is one example. "

Stop reading the Daily Mail. Showing your true stupidity there.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ipsTeaserCouple
over a year ago

here and there, thereabouts

It's terrifying to me that you'd put people at risk, instead of taking reasonable care. Just because someone else is okay with bareback, doesn't mean you should be.

I can see that the research suggests that in cases such as yourself the risk is lower than most may believe and that know of education can only be a good thing if it means HIV awareness and education is raised... But it's not a definitive enough argument to convince me there is no risk involved at all. That doesn't make me a bigot. It might means I am more risk adverse and my view is different to yours. I believe in informed choices,and making the best for me. Each one of us may do different but it's dangerous to suggest you speak absolute truth.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I am not "a risk" - in fact the probability of someone catching HIV from barebacking with me is less than the chance they have of catching HIV from you if you use condoms. So don't insult me."

Having bareback sex with you is a risk. You should know that. I don't think you'd disclose it on your profile if you truly believed people didn't need to know. Anyway, I'm not saying you're a bad person because you're positive, I'm saying it's scary that you don't always practice safe sex knowing that you're positive. There's a difference.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Plus HIV is far too big of a risk to take when it's just a hunch. There needs to be definitive proof with substantial evidence before you can promote unprotected sex with HIV+ partners.

How many studies do you know of that have 40,000 data points are are rejected as invalid?

The MMR-Autism link studies is one example.

Stop reading the Daily Mail. Showing your true stupidity there. "

What are you even on about? The studies were declared invalid.

Perhaps you should try and make your point without swearing or throwing insults, and I'd take you more seriously.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Plus HIV is far too big of a risk to take when it's just a hunch. There needs to be definitive proof with substantial evidence before you can promote unprotected sex with HIV+ partners.

How many studies do you know of that have 40,000 data points are are rejected as invalid?

The MMR-Autism link studies is one example.

Stop reading the Daily Mail. Showing your true stupidity there. "

There's no need to get abusive, the MMR autism link still affects millions of people through misinformation and blind belief. The study was discredited, eventually, to the detriment of many, can you be so blind in your certainty that you would potentially put people at risk?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Its like religion, the debate can go on for ages lol

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Plus HIV is far too big of a risk to take when it's just a hunch. There needs to be definitive proof with substantial evidence before you can promote unprotected sex with HIV+ partners.

How many studies do you know of that have 40,000 data points are are rejected as invalid?

The MMR-Autism link studies is one example.

Stop reading the Daily Mail. Showing your true stupidity there.

I wasn't supporting the MMR-autism link, however the study was thrown out. Even Merck dismissed it, despite their level of involvement.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Its like religion, the debate can go on for ages lol

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ezebelWoman
over a year ago

North of The Wall - youll need your vest

Unfortunately Ive had to remove posts, so if you have quoted them then they have gone too sorry.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Plus HIV is far too big of a risk to take when it's just a hunch. There needs to be definitive proof with substantial evidence before you can promote unprotected sex with HIV+ partners.

How many studies do you know of that have 40,000 data points are are rejected as invalid?

The MMR-Autism link studies is one example.

Stop reading the Daily Mail. Showing your true stupidity there.

I wasn't supporting the MMR-autism link, however the study was thrown out. Even Merck dismissed it, despite their level of involvement. "

No neither was I, I was merely saying that this is the kind of damage that a study can do if proved invalid or flawed

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *arky90Couple
over a year ago

Killarney

"I wish I never started this

Lol well im enjoying the debate....it's quiet educational

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *uited staffs guyMan
over a year ago

staffordshire

The key here, as someone with a statistics qualification and a self confessed geek in this regard is the understanding of risk

Knowing you are taking a risk is fine if you understand both you are taking a risk and the real level of that risk rather than the perception

Some people perceive risks as way bigger than they are, for example some of the posters in this thread perceive hiv as being far more prevalent and contagious than all the medical evidence suggests, a example of exaggerated risk

Some people believe an activity, for example taking drug x or y, is safe, even when the data suggests a risk of a certain magnitude, an example of underplaying risk

The correct thing is realise is that being alive is risky, even staying in bed all day under the bedclothes isn't risk free (immobility raises risks of DVT!), just understand the level of risk you're happy with and don't believe others who may over or underplay a risk for their own moral or political or social views etc

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ikki ShooterTV/TS
over a year ago

Epsom

"The key here, as someone with a statistics qualification and a self confessed geek in this regard is the understanding of risk

Knowing you are taking a risk is fine if you understand both you are taking a risk and the real level of that risk rather than the perception

Some people believe an activity, for example taking drug x or y, is safe, even when the data suggests a risk of a certain magnitude, an example of underplaying risk

Nicely put.... Believe we all got a little blinkered along the way x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The key here, as someone with a statistics qualification and a self confessed geek in this regard is the understanding of risk

Knowing you are taking a risk is fine if you understand both you are taking a risk and the real level of that risk rather than the perception

Some people believe an activity, for example taking drug x or y, is safe, even when the data suggests a risk of a certain magnitude, an example of underplaying risk

The difference here is accepting the risk and denying there's a risk at all. It's dangerous to tell people there's 0 risk as some people will believe it, and consider the behaviour risk free.

Things like HIV are life changing in a terrible way, and it's irresponsible to promote unprotected sex just down to personal beliefs.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ipsTeaserCouple
over a year ago

here and there, thereabouts

"The key here, as someone with a statistics qualification and a self confessed geek in this regard is the understanding of risk

Knowing you are taking a risk is fine if you understand both you are taking a risk and the real level of that risk rather than the perception

Some people believe an activity, for example taking drug x or y, is safe, even when the data suggests a risk of a certain magnitude, an example of underplaying risk

You discuss risk so much better than I'd been trying to!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The key here, as someone with a statistics qualification and a self confessed geek in this regard is the understanding of risk

Knowing you are taking a risk is fine if you understand both you are taking a risk and the real level of that risk rather than the perception

Some people believe an activity, for example taking drug x or y, is safe, even when the data suggests a risk of a certain magnitude, an example of underplaying risk

The difference here is accepting the risk and denying there's a risk at all. It's dangerous to tell people there's 0 risk as some people will believe it, and consider the behaviour risk free.

Things like HIV are life changing in a terrible way, and it's irresponsible to promote unprotected sex just down to personal beliefs. "

really fed up of this garbage now if we listened to you we wouldn't fly in case the plane crashes we wouldn't cross the road in case we get knocked down, as has been said we know the risks, were all adults we can make our own minds up, and for the record pack up smoking it's bad for you and yes it can kill you !

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The key here, as someone with a statistics qualification and a self confessed geek in this regard is the understanding of risk

Knowing you are taking a risk is fine if you understand both you are taking a risk and the real level of that risk rather than the perception

Some people believe an activity, for example taking drug x or y, is safe, even when the data suggests a risk of a certain magnitude, an example of underplaying risk

The difference here is accepting the risk and denying there's a risk at all. It's dangerous to tell people there's 0 risk as some people will believe it, and consider the behaviour risk free.

Things like HIV are life changing in a terrible way, and it's irresponsible to promote unprotected sex just down to personal beliefs.

I never said you can't make your own minds up, but for someone on here to say bareback sex with a positive person is risk free is careless and dangerous. You will obviously make your own choices, but people shouldn't spread misinformation.

You've possibly misinterpreted my post as just condemning bareback sex in its entirety. Perhaps you should have read my previous posts before jumping the gun and having a go.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By * Busty HotwifeCouple
over a year ago

Bradford

[Removed by poster at 22/01/15 16:45:47]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By * Busty HotwifeCouple
over a year ago

Bradford

"The key here, as someone with a statistics qualification and a self confessed geek in this regard is the understanding of risk

Knowing you are taking a risk is fine if you understand both you are taking a risk and the real level of that risk rather than the perception

Some people believe an activity, for example taking drug x or y, is safe, even when the data suggests a risk of a certain magnitude, an example of underplaying risk

The difference here is accepting the risk and denying there's a risk at all. It's dangerous to tell people there's 0 risk as some people will believe it, and consider the behaviour risk free.

Things like HIV are life changing in a terrible way, and it's irresponsible to promote unprotected sex just down to personal beliefs. "

And the risk of meeting an HIV infected person is really extremely low and the chance of contracting HIV from a one off sexual with an infected person is also very low and only increases with the exchange of body fluids, blood, semen.

That's always assuming that the guy also cums in the lady and there is the possibility of cross-contamination.

As a smoker you have a much higher chance of cancer but that doesn't appear to be on your agenda, only moralising at others. And you promote your risk of cancer due to your personal beliefs.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The key here, as someone with a statistics qualification and a self confessed geek in this regard is the understanding of risk

Knowing you are taking a risk is fine if you understand both you are taking a risk and the real level of that risk rather than the perception

Some people believe an activity, for example taking drug x or y, is safe, even when the data suggests a risk of a certain magnitude, an example of underplaying risk

The difference here is accepting the risk and denying there's a risk at all. It's dangerous to tell people there's 0 risk as some people will believe it, and consider the behaviour risk free.

Things like HIV are life changing in a terrible way, and it's irresponsible to promote unprotected sex just down to personal beliefs.

That's always assuming that the guy also cums in the lady and there is the possibility of cross-contamination.

As a smoker you have a much higher chance of cancer but that doesn't appear to be on your agenda, only moralising at others. "

You must've missed the HIV+ person saying bareback sex was entirely risk free.

The difference with my smoking is I don't go round saying "It's risk free, there's definitely no chance you'll get cancer", plus it's something that only affects my health. It's not really comparable.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ezebelWoman
over a year ago

North of The Wall - youll need your vest

Ok final time. Ive removed posts. Can you please debate the issue without resorting to insults? Thanks.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *arry247Couple
over a year ago

Wakefield

It estimated the risk of HIV transmission through receptive vaginal sex (receiving the penis in the vagina) to be 0.08% (equivalent to 1 transmission per 1,250 exposures).

However look at the odds of dying when engaged in the following pastimes.

Hang Gliding 1 in 560

Boxing 1 in 2,200

Grand prix Racing 1 in 100

Motor Bike Racing 1 in 1000

Base Jumping 1 in 60

Mountain Climbing 1 in 1,750

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"It estimated the risk of HIV transmission through receptive vaginal sex (receiving the penis in the vagina) to be 0.08% (equivalent to 1 transmission per 1,250 exposures).

However look at the odds of dying when engaged in the following pastimes.

Hang Gliding 1 in 560

Boxing 1 in 2,200

Grand prix Racing 1 in 100

Motor Bike Racing 1 in 1000

Base Jumping 1 in 60

Mountain Climbing 1 in 1,750

Damn, we were planning on doing all of these this weekend!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I had to do a google search on this topic and funny old thing, I found information which supports both arguments about HIV.

Every single article that is out there will quote case studies etc with differing results. Some you might agree with, some you won't.

I'm no medical expert, but I will venture forth my opinion...

Unprotected sex with a virtual stranger carries risks. Unprotected sex with multiple partners carries risk.

To me it appears that the studies that are being referred to in the Zero risk category for HIV transmission are stating the risk is effectively Zero. Not actually guaranteed Zero. If you are in a monogamous relationship with a HIV partner, then an informed decision can be made to go bareback, safe in the knowledge there are no other STI's in play.

With swinging, there is no such guarantee.

Foreplay, oral etc carries risks, that has already been discussed.

I admire your honesty about your HIV status, but unless you are tested for other sti's regularly, bareback would seem a risky activity to anyone. If the research declaring effectively no risk is right, then no issue apart from all the other STI's out there.

But if the research is wrong after all?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 23/01/15 00:10:39]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"By the way, many women do bareback even tho stated safe play on their profile."

Lol, call it a safe bareback play

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago

Limavady

"It estimated the risk of HIV transmission through receptive vaginal sex (receiving the penis in the vagina) to be 0.08% (equivalent to 1 transmission per 1,250 exposures).

However look at the odds of dying when engaged in the following pastimes.

Hang Gliding 1 in 560

Boxing 1 in 2,200

Grand prix Racing 1 in 100

Motor Bike Racing 1 in 1000

Base Jumping 1 in 60

Mountain Climbing 1 in 1,750

Figures look a bit surprising.

They would suggest roughly one death every four F1 Grand prix. There aren't.

They would suggest about 8 people die climbing UK mountains every weekend. There aren't.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I love it

I had it with a guy last night I met on fab guys

I'm seeing him tomo too and doing it again

He is clean and I am too

Most women Iv met wanted it too

I prefere it but only do it with men if I know they are clean

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By * Busty HotwifeCouple
over a year ago

Bradford

"The key here, as someone with a statistics qualification and a self confessed geek in this regard is the understanding of risk

Knowing you are taking a risk is fine if you understand both you are taking a risk and the real level of that risk rather than the perception

Some people believe an activity, for example taking drug x or y, is safe, even when the data suggests a risk of a certain magnitude, an example of underplaying risk

The difference here is accepting the risk and denying there's a risk at all. It's dangerous to tell people there's 0 risk as some people will believe it, and consider the behaviour risk free.

Things like HIV are life changing in a terrible way, and it's irresponsible to promote unprotected sex just down to personal beliefs.

That's always assuming that the guy also cums in the lady and there is the possibility of cross-contamination.

As a smoker you have a much higher chance of cancer but that doesn't appear to be on your agenda, only moralising at others.

You must've missed the HIV+ person saying bareback sex was entirely risk free.

It is really comparable or perhaps you have never heard of passive smoking. so it isn't just your health it affects and the impact of you smoking and contracting cancer affects your family and friends too, unless you are entirely alone?

Added to that, chances of contracting cancer, emphysemia, heart disease or some other honking illness, from being a regular smoker, are very high so your disregard as to how it only affects you is pretty tame and selfish. Added to that, your ignorance is gonna cost me indirectly as my taxes have to go to waste medicine on what I perceive as a stupid reason to be ill. That money should be better spent on people who are ill through no fault of their own-perhaps a child who has contracted a cancer through passive smoking from a smoke-filled household.

Yes there are risks in unprotected sex, I don't say there aren't, but I'm neither advocating or condemning it.

UK population, 63 million, 110,000 living with HIV so 0.17% of the population, death rate of less than 10%, whereas in 2011 alone, over 331,000 people, or 0.52% of the UK, were diagnosed with cancer (Figures from UK cancer research) of whom over 49,650 was Lung Cancer. In the same year, over 161,000 deaths from cancer of which over 35,420 were caused by Lung Cancer.

So fair to say that more deaths caused by smoking than unprotected sex.

Added to that, statistically, 1 in 17 men who have sex with men, or about 5.88%, and black Africans, who make up 1.8% of the population but 36% of the HIV numbers, are the two high risk categories so statistically, if you can avoid these two groups, unprotected sex becomes infinitely safer.

That's your statistics, you carry out a much more dangerous past time yet moralise at others when the figures speak for themselves.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *arry247Couple
over a year ago

Wakefield

"It estimated the risk of HIV transmission through receptive vaginal sex (receiving the penis in the vagina) to be 0.08% (equivalent to 1 transmission per 1,250 exposures).

However look at the odds of dying when engaged in the following pastimes.

Hang Gliding 1 in 560

Boxing 1 in 2,200

Grand prix Racing 1 in 100

Motor Bike Racing 1 in 1000

Base Jumping 1 in 60

Mountain Climbing 1 in 1,750

Figures look a bit surprising.

They would suggest roughly one death every four F1 Grand prix. There aren't.

They would suggest about 8 people die climbing UK mountains every weekend. There aren't.

No because odds don't work like that they are not cumulative each time someone takes part in such an event they are facing the same chance of dying.

It does not mean if for instance you go base jumping and do 59 jumps you will die or your 60th you could do 10,000 jumps safely or you could do 1 and die.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago

Limavady

"It estimated the risk of HIV transmission through receptive vaginal sex (receiving the penis in the vagina) to be 0.08% (equivalent to 1 transmission per 1,250 exposures).

However look at the odds of dying when engaged in the following pastimes.

Hang Gliding 1 in 560

Boxing 1 in 2,200

Grand prix Racing 1 in 100

Motor Bike Racing 1 in 1000

Base Jumping 1 in 60

Mountain Climbing 1 in 1,750

Figures look a bit surprising.

They would suggest roughly one death every four F1 Grand prix. There aren't.

They would suggest about 8 people die climbing UK mountains every weekend. There aren't.

No because odds don't work like that they are not cumulative each time someone takes part in such an event they are facing the same chance of dying.

It does not mean if for instance you go base jumping and do 59 jumps you will die or your 60th you could do 10,000 jumps safely or you could do 1 and die.

Probabities work exactly the way I used them. If the odds of dying from climbing are 1000 to 1, it's likely that if 1000 people go climbing, then I person is likely to die. It's possible all 1000 will die, it's possible none will die but 1 is most likely.

Basically the probabities quoted are a crock of shit.