And This Is Why The Cover Goes On...

https://www.rentapplication.com/thes...es-in-the-usa/

And that's why I'm happy to use a cover with the ladies. Because frankly, I'm not interested in taking away anything but a happy memory.

804 cases total per 100K population?

Better chances of getting hit by a car.

804 cases total per 100K population?

Better chances of getting hit by a car. Originally Posted by Fort Worth Punk

Hey man, that's a whole 8/10ths of one percent. That means you have a 99.2% percent chance of NOT catching something. That'll get people shaking in their boots.

https://www.rentapplication.com/thes...es-in-the-usa/

And that's why I'm happy to use a cover with the ladies. Because frankly, I'm not interested in taking away anything but a happy memory.
Originally Posted by jdkees

Funny when people that don't understand statistics start posting them. You tell most people they have a 99.2% chance to walking away without consequences, they'll probably take those odds. If you told me I have a 99.2% chance of robbing a bank for $100k and getting away with it, I'm there.

By the way, it's going to be sunny and 100 degrees tomorrow. There's probably going to be a .8% chance of rain. Better wear a raincoat all day (pun intended).

The intent of this post does no good to people that can do math. If fact, it has the opposite effect.

That's what she said.

Is that statistic for males having unprotected sex with prostitutes on a regular basis???

Hey man, that's a whole 8/10ths of one percent. That means you have a 99.2% percent chance of NOT catching something. That'll get people shaking in their boots.




Funny when people that don't understand statistics start posting them. You tell most people they have a 99.2% chance to walking away without consequences, they'll probably take those odds. If you told me I have a 99.2% chance of robbing a bank for $100k and getting away with it, I'm there.

By the way, it's going to be sunny and 100 degrees tomorrow. There's probably going to be a .8% chance of rain. Better wear a raincoat all day (pun intended).

The intent of this post does no good to people that can do math. If fact, it has the opposite effect. Originally Posted by Roger.Smith

They pay me very well to do this shit.

Trojan Ecstasy Stimulations for the win! With a dab of lube inside so it can slip slide, it feels just like bareback.

Hey man, that's a whole 8/10ths of one percent. That means you have a 99.2% percent chance of NOT catching something. That'll get people shaking in their boots.

Funny when people that don't understand statistics start posting them. You tell most people they have a 99.2% chance to walking away without consequences, they'll probably take those odds. If you told me I have a 99.2% chance of robbing a bank for $100k and getting away with it, I'm there.

By the way, it's going to be sunny and 100 degrees tomorrow. There's probably going to be a .8% chance of rain. Better wear a raincoat all day (pun intended).

The intent of this post does no good to people that can do math. If fact, it has the opposite effect. Originally Posted by Roger.Smith

Maybe you should learn about probabilities, too, before criticizing others.

The rate per 100,000 is based on the WHOLE population of the city in question, not just the sexually active ones.

Subtract from the 100,000 all of the children below about age 15. Then subtract from the 100,000 all of the married and committed couples who are monogamous. Subtract those who are functionally celibate as a result of age or unattractiveness. Subtract the LARGE number of women in their 40s and above who are functionally celibate because her husband isn't attracted to her (except maybe once a month) and she doesn't have the outlet of prostitutes.

What's left? Maybe 30,000?

The STDs are overwhelmingly concentrated in the sexually active 30,000 group. If you are in that group, the odds might be more like 3-4%.

In other words, you don't have sex with any randomly selected person in the 100,000 person pool. You are having sex in the sexually active pool and that is a self-selected group that is much smaller than the whole group.

It's like hearing that prostate cancer only affects 2% of the population. Doesn't sound to0 bad to a man in his 60s until he realizes that half the population (women) cannot get it at all and men below their 50s rarely get it. But, if you are guy over the age of 60, your chances may be more like 15-20%. Suddenly you are scheduling a doctor appointment for a checkup.

Now, take into account the fact that the sexually active don't have sex JUST ONCE. They have sex repeatedly, so they take that 3% risk repeatedly - NOT ONCE.

Let's say the REAL pool of potential sex partners has a 3% STD rate.

Assuming you have a 100% chance of getting an STD if you have unprotected sex with a person who has an STD, then you have a 97% chance of NOT getting an STD. Sounds good, right?

But, if you have sex with 5 different people in a year, you have to win on that 97% chance every time. You must run the table.

So, the odds of not getting an STD are 0.97 to the 5th power or:

0.97 x 0.97 x 0.97 x 0.97 x 0.97 = 86%.

That means you have a 14 percent chance of getting an STD if you have 5 partners in a year. That is less than once every two months.

If you had unprotected sex once a month with a different person each time, you have a 30% chance of getting an STD in a year. How does it sound now?

Now, 12 may sound like a lot of partners in a year, but if you stretched those partners out over, say, 4 years, does that 30% chance look any better? Probably not.

So, people who CAN do the math might still be concerned.

Except your example still relies on a coup,e of issues. First, all your partners are infected, which isn't the case. Second, it is based on a constant probability of infection, when, even without a condom, certain conditions and activities increase or reduce your odds of infection. Finally, each individual instance still has the same odds. Just as the cards have no memory, neither do the bugs. They don't know that you got through the first 4 times clean, so your next encounter is still 3% in your scenario.

The fact is, porn stars have very low instances of STDs. In almost every case where there has been an issue in the last decade it has been because of very risky behavior, and almost always involved anal sex, usually of a risky variety, with either homosexual civilians or foreign performers where safety standards are not followed. And the same could be said of hobbyists if they followed the same protocols. Unfortunately they won't.

The fact is, porn stars have very low instances of STDs. Originally Posted by Fort Worth Punk

You think way too highly of yourself. Also, you're wrong. So wrong in fact that several porn performers over the past decade have quit over either refusal to capitulate to unsafe practices or because they actually contracted an STD they couldn't get rid of.

But please, keep applying high school level math while those of us who are looking at real probabilities and risks apply the appropriate statistical analysis.

Is the risk high? Not necessarily unless relative to other locations (in which case it's definitely high). But the risk is high enough that it's stupid to risk catching someone else's herp (or pass on your own... STDs are heavily unreported) because you can't be bothered to slap a sleeve on.


[edit to add]

Oh, and the link in my OP doesn't include both HPV (colloquially, warts) and HBV (hepatitis B), both of which are the two most common STDs. So common in fact that incidence rates are somewhere between 25-50% (depending on what source data you're using) by about age 45.

Maybe you should learn about probabilities, too, before criticizing others.

The rate per 100,000 is based on the WHOLE population of the city in question, not just the sexually active ones.

Subtract from the 100,000 all of the children below about age 15. Then subtract from the 100,000 all of the married and committed couples who are monogamous. Subtract those who are functionally celibate as a result of age or unattractiveness. Subtract the LARGE number of women in their 40s and above who are functionally celibate because her husband isn't attracted to her (except maybe once a month) and she doesn't have the outlet of prostitutes.

What's left? Maybe 30,000?

The STDs are overwhelmingly concentrated in the sexually active 30,000 group. If you are in that group, the odds might be more like 3-4%.

In other words, you don't have sex with any randomly selected person in the 100,000 person pool. You are having sex in the sexually active pool and that is a self-selected group that is much smaller than the whole group.

It's like hearing that prostate cancer only affects 2% of the population. Doesn't sound to0 bad to a man in his 60s until he realizes that half the population (women) cannot get it at all and men below their 50s rarely get it. But, if you are guy over the age of 60, your chances may be more like 15-20%. Suddenly you are scheduling a doctor appointment for a checkup.

Now, take into account the fact that the sexually active don't have sex JUST ONCE. They have sex repeatedly, so they take that 3% risk repeatedly - NOT ONCE.

Let's say the REAL pool of potential sex partners has a 3% STD rate.

Assuming you have a 100% chance of getting an STD if you have unprotected sex with a person who has an STD, then you have a 97% chance of NOT getting an STD. Sounds good, right?

But, if you have sex with 5 different people in a year, you have to win on that 97% chance every time. You must run the table.

So, the odds of not getting an STD are 0.97 to the 5th power or:

0.97 x 0.97 x 0.97 x 0.97 x 0.97 = 86%.

That means you have a 14 percent chance of getting an STD if you have 5 partners in a year. That is less than once every two months.

If you had unprotected sex once a month with a different person each time, you have a 30% chance of getting an STD in a year. How does it sound now?

Now, 12 may sound like a lot of partners in a year, but if you stretched those partners out over, say, 4 years, does that 30% chance look any better? Probably not.

So, people who CAN do the math might still be concerned. Originally Posted by ExNYer

804 cases per 100,000 rounded up is 0.8%. 100% - 0.8% = 99.2. If you don't think so, YOU sir, can't do math. Numbers and scenarios you pulled out of your behind don't count as a valid source. Neither are random articles you cut out, taped your wall and connected together with string.

The OP posted a SPECIFIC link to chart with SPECIFIC numbers while nearly dislocating his arm patting himself on the back. He was doing his best to fear monger and posted a link showing a 0.8% of the population with STDs. I'm fairly sure that's not what he was going for. What you posted are just rambling assumptions with made up numbers.

From the posted article:

"How We Collected and Created This Data
The data used here comes from the CDC for 2013, and reflects reports of syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia. (Herpes data is not collected). To normalize the data, we measured rates per 100,000 people. We chose only to show cities with a significant amount of population, so rural counties are not show on this map.

Specifically, we only rankied cities with a population of at least 50,000 or more. We ignored absolute STDs and only used the rate per 100k to establish rankings. We opted to treat Washington, DC. as a city and not a state. We also chose to represent each borough of NYC separately. They represent very different populations and should be treated as such.

The CDC makes available a wide range of statistical, anonymous data about STDs in America."

There is a lot of unspecified info in the article and CDC data. It's notoriously easy to skew statistics by omitting specifics. Do the 100,000 "people" actually include people who aren't sexually active or is it mainly referring to sexually active 15-24 year olds and gay men as some of the CDC reports indicate? The report also doesn't include herpes. So, how does anyone know for sure what is being said other than some cities have higher STDs than others?

This is a good example of a a whole lot of data being used to make a list that's good for people to argue abouton the internet. You know, like the ten best, worst, cleanest, fattest, most dangerous cities to live in.

Condoms are good for STD prevention though.

Tally-ho!

He was doing his best to fear monger and posted a link showing a 0.8% of the population with STDs. I'm fairly sure that's not what he was going for. Originally Posted by Roger.Smith

I see we have a mind reader here.

No, I said pretty clear what my reason for posting was: this is why the cover goes on. Unfortunately there's too much high school level percentage calculation going on here and not enough statistical analysis. But hey, since we're playing the game of putting words in other people's mouths the impression I get from you is that you believe you can apply high school algebra to base statistical numbers and assume that the result you get is completely valid. I guess I may as well be asking a 4th grader to perform high school calculus considering some of the responses.

----------

ithyphallicus: you're right, of course. It's absolutely limited data. That's because of a few factors, not least of which is that most doctors don't regularly test their patients for STDs (I believe the going rate is around 30% test and the rest don't ask).

The biggest reason STDs spread is when people don't actively get tested. What do you honestly think the rate is that hobbyists here get tested for STDs on a monthly basis? I'm going to say that rate is near zero.

You think way too highly of yourself. Also, you're wrong. So wrong in fact that several porn performers over the past decade have quit over either refusal to capitulate to unsafe practices or because they actually contracted an STD they couldn't get rid of.

But please, keep applying high school level math while those of us who are looking at real probabilities and risks apply the appropriate statistical analysis.

Is the risk high? Not necessarily unless relative to other locations (in which case it's definitely high). But the risk is high enough that it's stupid to risk catching someone else's herp (or pass on your own... STDs are heavily unreported) because you can't be bothered to slap a sleeve on.


[edit to add]

Oh, and the link in my OP doesn't include both HPV (colloquially, warts) and HBV (hepatitis B), both of which are the two most common STDs. So common in fact that incidence rates are somewhere between 25-50% (depending on what source data you're using) by about age 45. Originally Posted by jdkees

Odd, the people paying me a ton of money to do this kind of work think highly of it as well.

And clearly you do not know the most basic rule of statistics: the plural of anecdotes is not data.

Enough anecdotes on a given subject do indeed constitute data. The amount of anecdotes will determine how representative the data is. Self-reported data (anecdotes) are used in statistical analysis of large populations quite often, including by the CDC¹.

Just saying.



¹ It should be noted that the CDC is not the end all, be all for conclusive data. They are, however, a good standard bearer for process and defined diligence. But they will be up front about their limitations in data, as ithyphallicus rightly pointed out.

Maybe you should learn about probabilities, too, before criticizing others.

The rate per 100,000 is based on the WHOLE population of the city in question, not just the sexually active ones.

Subtract from the 100,000 all of the children below about age 15. Then subtract from the 100,000 all of the married and committed couples who are monogamous. Subtract those who are functionally celibate as a result of age or unattractiveness. Subtract the LARGE number of women in their 40s and above who are functionally celibate because her husband isn't attracted to her (except maybe once a month) and she doesn't have the outlet of prostitutes.

What's left? Maybe 30,000?

The STDs are overwhelmingly concentrated in the sexually active 30,000 group. If you are in that group, the odds might be more like 3-4%.

In other words, you don't have sex with any randomly selected person in the 100,000 person pool. You are having sex in the sexually active pool and that is a self-selected group that is much smaller than the whole group.

It's like hearing that prostate cancer only affects 2% of the population. Doesn't sound to0 bad to a man in his 60s until he realizes that half the population (women) cannot get it at all and men below their 50s rarely get it. But, if you are guy over the age of 60, your chances may be more like 15-20%. Suddenly you are scheduling a doctor appointment for a checkup.

Now, take into account the fact that the sexually active don't have sex JUST ONCE. They have sex repeatedly, so they take that 3% risk repeatedly - NOT ONCE.

Let's say the REAL pool of potential sex partners has a 3% STD rate.

Assuming you have a 100% chance of getting an STD if you have unprotected sex with a person who has an STD, then you have a 97% chance of NOT getting an STD. Sounds good, right?

But, if you have sex with 5 different people in a year, you have to win on that 97% chance every time. You must run the table.

So, the odds of not getting an STD are 0.97 to the 5th power or:

0.97 x 0.97 x 0.97 x 0.97 x 0.97 = 86%.

That means you have a 14 percent chance of getting an STD if you have 5 partners in a year. That is less than once every two months.

If you had unprotected sex once a month with a different person each time, you have a 30% chance of getting an STD in a year. How does it sound now?

Now, 12 may sound like a lot of partners in a year, but if you stretched those partners out over, say, 4 years, does that 30% chance look any better? Probably not.

So, people who CAN do the math might still be concerned. Originally Posted by ExNYer

I cannot believe you'd spend this much time trying to be a statistician on a hooker board. You have free time I envy but are bored to the point I feel sorry for you.