More sex = safer sex

[canarlee]

apparantly! according to an ecconomist here >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/bo...=1&oref=slogin

[janno]

Nope, that just does not compute.

Seems a completely spurious argument camoflaged in a reasonable and learned tone.

I wonder what the people who work in AIDS research or any disease control field would think of that logic?

I'm certainly not willing to try out the theory anyway . . .

[Gareth123]

I read somewhere that condoms aren't 100% safe either. Apparently they only stop 25% of STIs. Now that the NZ health institutions have been pushing condoms alot more (you may remember the ads from a few years ago with the couple on the couch at the end) young people have been having even more "safe" sex and getting even more STIs than they were before!

[MotoGirl]

What a load of shit.

[MisterD]

What a load of shit.

Do you think so? What about an analogy: Consider a minefield that you step into every time you have sex and every infected person is a mine. If more people are having sex that makes the minefield bigger, but with the same number of mines in it, therefore less chance of getting blown up....

[MotoGirl]

Do you think so? What about an analogy: Consider a minefield that you step into every time you have sex and every infected person is a mine. If more people are having sex that makes the minefield bigger, but with the same number of mines in it, therefore less chance of getting blown up....

I see the logic in your statement and that of the writer but it's still pretty fruity! I wonder how many people will actually give this a go?

[canarlee]

I wonder how many people will actually give this a go?

i will with pleasure!!!

[carver]

more sex = more fun

[MotoGirl]

i will with pleasure!!!

Then thank you oh Lord and Saviour for your sluttiness is doing your community a great service.

[BuFfY]

The lengths people go to have more sex. Why do you need an excuse?!!

[janno]

Do you think so? What about an analogy: Consider a minefield that you step into every time you have sex and every infected person is a mine. If more people are having sex that makes the minefield bigger, but with the same number of mines in it, therefore less chance of getting blown up....

Your analogy doesn't make sense to me - I don't know enough maths to comment on the numbers, but where aids is unchecked in places like Africa, how come the disease is on the increase rather than staying static or declining?

I've got alarm bells ringing that the original idea is an economist's theory. So presumably he is number crunching rather than taking into account people behaviour and the way the virus spreads.

However unchecked aids spreading is probably going to be the quickest way to find a cure. As more and more cases of natural immunity are popping up about the place.

Like the Black Death. While it killed millions, quite a few of those who got it didn't die. Darwins theory or just pure dumb luck, I wonder?

[Edbear]

Wot a load of...

[MisterD]

Your analogy doesn't make sense to me - I don't know enough maths to comment on the numbers, but where aids is unchecked in places like Africa, how come the disease is on the increase rather than staying static or declining?

It could be because as the author of the article suggests in his example there are a small number of prostitutes which a large number of men visit...that would certainly be the case in places like India where a lot of truck drivers contract it and take it home to their wives.

Personally I think the theory probably falls over after that first "step", dependent on factors like how long it takes people to die after contracting the disease etc....

[Curious_AJ]

I agree with what BuFfy said.. why need an excuse??

[007XX]

Personally I think the theory probably falls over after that first "step", dependent on factors like how long it takes people to die after contracting the disease etc....

I tend to agree with this one. Although the "method" to contract the virus is a universal standard, there are too many criterias coming into play for people to have sex, based on culture (ie: tolerance to polygamy...), social rank for certain countries as well as pure and simple physical attractions...Making one generalisation on a worlwide scale is nothing short of stupid and uneducated.