The moral choice is to sleep around... safely.

[Broken Pope]

There have been a lot of public health advertisements in the UK recently aimed at getting people to stop having casual (frequently drunken) sexual encounters.

The logic behind this is all wrong.

This topic was touched on in the book 'Freakonomics' a couple of years ago.

There will always be a small pool of determinedly predatory men and women in a community (say, a Student Hall of Residence or Campus).

For the sake of argument, we can suppose these people will always 'pull' on a night out and end up with a new sexual partner or two every week. Lets say they account for 10% of the total pupulation but account for 70% of the total number of couplings.

The rate of STD infections among this group will be disproportionately high relative to the general population.

Imagine the prospects of a typical girl / boy on a night out in this community who is sexually available but not part of the more promiscuous sub-set.

He or she may only have a 10% chance of ending up in bed with someone. However, if they do, there is a high chance (70%) that it will be with one of the disease-prone sexaholics.

If more people entered the fray, the situation would change. If everybody in the room was sexually available, the chance of a non-infected person sleeping with a 'high-risk' individual would dip from 7% to 1%.

Now just help me explain all this to my wife...

[Amorphos]

good point! we could add that it is ethically incorrect to feel we own someone, people are not possessions. ...another one we couldn’t explain to our wives.

freedom though is relative, i feel free by being married, i don’t have to spend most nights alone and end up as a sad old bachelor.

when humanity conquers disease the ethical situation will change entirely.

[HannibalExMachina]

There have been a lot of public health advertisements in the UK recently aimed at getting people to stop having casual (frequently drunken) sexual encounters.

The logic behind this is all wrong.

This topic was touched on in the book 'Freakonomics' a couple of years ago.

There will always be a small pool of determinedly predatory men and women in a community (say, a Student Hall of Residence or Campus).

For the sake of argument, we can suppose these people will always 'pull' on a night out and end up with a new sexual partner or two every week. Lets say they account for 10% of the total pupulation but account for 70% of the total number of couplings.

The rate of STD infections among this group will be disproportionately high relative to the general population.

Imagine the prospects of a typical girl / boy on a night out in this community who is sexually available but not part of the more promiscuous sub-set.

He or she may only have a 10% chance of ending up in bed with someone. However, if they do, there is a high chance (70%) that it will be with one of the disease-prone sexaholics.

If more people entered the fray, the situation would change. If everybody in the room was sexually available, the chance of a non-infected person sleeping with a 'high-risk' individual would dip from 7% to 1%.

Now just help me explain all this to my wife...

just tell her:

honey, whoring around will make the world safer for our children.

[the_mango55]

This is a terrible point.

The reason people who sleep around a lot have STD's is BECAUSE they sleep around a lot.

If everyone were to sleep around a lot, they would all get STD's eventually.

Besides, there may be less of a % chance to get an STD each time you had sex, but the total number of people with STD's would be higher. That's the thing we are trying to avoid, right?

[Amorphos]

If everyone were to sleep around a lot, they would all get STD’s eventually.

an even better point. what if they all wear condoms, or if a test was brought out where you could test someone before doing it. hmm i can just imagine the conversation “hey mind if i test you before i dip my wick” *slap* ouch.

i hope cures will be found for all disease, just so the ethic is more naked - so to say.

[Broken Pope]

This is a terrible point.

The reason people who sleep around a lot have STD's is BECAUSE they sleep around a lot.

If everyone were to sleep around a lot, they would all get STD's eventually.

Besides, there may be less of a % chance to get an STD each time you had sex, but the total number of people with STD's would be higher. That's the thing we are trying to avoid, right?

Actually no.

More sexually explorative types will be greater risk takers.

>risk taking = lower precaution taking = less condom use.

So they pose a greater risk of harm than the norm. It is not a 1:1 ratio.

[the_mango55]

Actually no.

More sexually explorative types will be greater risk takers.

>risk taking = lower precaution taking = less condom use.

So they pose a greater risk of harm than the norm. It is not a 1:1 ratio.

I'm guessing this is just an assumption you are making?


Since you are doing that, I'm going to assume that people who go out expecting to have sex are more likely to be carrying condoms than people who go out just to have a good time and somehow end up having sex.

Besides, condoms don't protect against all STD's.

[Каие]

I don;t how you worked out your calculations....

[Broken Pope]

I don;t how you worked out your calculations....

Bless.

10% of 70% = 7%
10% of 10% = 1%

Clear?

[Каие]

Bless.

10% of 70% = 7%
10% of 10% = 1%

Clear?

No not clear, where did you get your calculations? Who the made them up? Its totally unclear, you;re using the Doctors tactic there trying to over simplify something which isn't simple, and making links between things that aren't there.

[Broken Pope]

I'm guessing this is just an assumption you are making?

Yes.

But remember we are positing a sexually driven 'hard-core' of shaggers. They are more likely to be infected as a consequence.

Since you are doing that, I'm going to assume that people who go out expecting to have sex are more likely to be carrying condoms than people who go out just to have a good time and somehow end up having sex.

A safe assumption (as was mine).

What my post tells people to do (as the title denotes) is to put themselves in the category of people expecting to have (safe) sex. The number of couplings may rise, but the number of couplings with the risky hardcore will fall as a percentage.

Besides, condoms don't protect against all STD's.

True. Even more reason to avoid a high-incidence of exposure to the hardcore shaggers. *thinks* ... That would be a great name for a band... I might get some T-shirts made up. :hmmm:

No not clear, where did you get your calculations? Who the made them up? Its totally unclear, you;re using the Doctors tactic there trying to over simplify something which isn't simple, and making links between things that aren't there.

Sorry. I thought it was explained in the text of the original post. 10% is the assumed chance of 'coupling' by the 'typical' partygoer. 70% is the percentage of couplings which involve the at-risk clique. So 'a priori', there is a 10% chance of sex, 70% of which will involve a risky partner. 70% of 10% = 7%

If the risky people were no more likely than anyone else to be involved in sexual encounters, that would fall to 1% using the same equation.

[the_mango55]

The number of couplings may rise, but the number of couplings with the risky hardcore will fall as a percentage.

As a percentage of total sexual encounters yes, But an individual's chance of an encounter with the so called "risky hardcore" will be the same or higher over the same period of time.

True. Even more reason to avoid a high-incidence of exposure to the hardcore shaggers. *thinks* ... That would be a great name for a band... I might get some T-shirts made up. :hmmm:

I still don't get how you hope to get people to avoid hardcore shaggers by turning EVERYONE into hardcore shaggers.

[Tankbuster]

There have been a lot of public health advertisements in the UK recently aimed at getting people to stop having casual (frequently drunken) sexual encounters.

The logic behind this is all wrong.

This topic was touched on in the book 'Freakonomics' a couple of years ago.

There will always be a small pool of determinedly predatory men and women in a community (say, a Student Hall of Residence or Campus).

For the sake of argument, we can suppose these people will always 'pull' on a night out and end up with a new sexual partner or two every week. Lets say they account for 10% of the total pupulation but account for 70% of the total number of couplings.

The rate of STD infections among this group will be disproportionately high relative to the general population.

Imagine the prospects of a typical girl / boy on a night out in this community who is sexually available but not part of the more promiscuous sub-set.

He or she may only have a 10% chance of ending up in bed with someone. However, if they do, there is a high chance (70%) that it will be with one of the disease-prone sexaholics.

If more people entered the fray, the situation would change. If everybody in the room was sexually available, the chance of a non-infected person sleeping with a 'high-risk' individual would dip from 7% to 1%.

Now just help me explain all this to my wife...

Bad math, my friend. Very bad math.

Let's suppose a room with 200 people in it. 100 men and 100 women. Now, to make this easier, let's assume that it is only the men who are 'predators' i.e. 'players'.
That means that theoretically, there are 20 'player' types (10% of the total population, who are all infected), who will account for 70% of the total amount of couplings. That means there will be about 26 (70% of 26 is about 20) couplings that night.
So 20 girls will be infected that night. 20 out of 26 girls who got a boyfriend, got infected. That's about 78% chance.

On the other hand, if you turn everybody into hardcore players, the situation changes. Or so you'd think.
200 people, 100 men and 100 women. 20 men are players.
Now, if everybody in the room is coupled, 20 girls will get infected. 20 out of 100. That means the chance of getting infected that night drops to 20%.

So, are we happy? NO WE ARE NOT.
First of all, the number of people that got infected remains the same.
Second of all, let's see what happens on the next night out.
If we stick to the normal situation. There's 100 men, 100 women of whom 20 players (all infected) and 20 girls infected. Since the players account for 70% of all the clone, we, again, only get 26 couplings. All of the players score but only 4, 5 or 6 women (since only 10% gets laid by itself + some of the players might take them).
So in the end, about 24 or 25 people will get infected that night.

However, if it's your "shag-free" society, then all of the players will score, as well as all of the girls. Result? About 38 infections.

And the next nights, it gets worse and worse.

So, in short, it's a cool idea, but it's hopelessly contraproductive.

[Tankbuster]

Mathematics win thread!!

[Broken Pope]

Mathematics win thread!!

I've just been busy at work.

I know I'm right. I just need to think it over. :hmmm:

Watch this space.

[Tankbuster]

I've just been busy at work.

I know I'm right. I just need to think it over. :hmmm:

Watch this space.

I just mathematically proved you're wrong.
I know what your idea is: you think that because you let everyone sleep around, the CHANCE of you getting infected is smaller. That is true. But that does not mean that the number of infections diminshes, and in fact it gets worse because the disease spreads faster and faster.

As I have mathematically proved.

[Broken Pope]

I just mathematically proved you're wrong.
I know what your idea is: you think that because you let everyone sleep around, the CHANCE of you getting infected is smaller. That is true. But that does not mean that the number of infections diminshes, and in fact it gets worse because the disease spreads faster and faster.

As I have mathematically proved.

Okay Okay. I'm thinking. I'll respond tomorrow alright... my poor brain.

Can nobody else help me out? I don't have my copy of Freakonomics with me at my new house. The argument seemed so beguiling in the book. Maybe I misremembered it. :hmmm:

[Kiljaden]

Bad math, my friend. Very bad math...I just mathematically proved you're wrong...As I have mathematically proved.

I could so make a remix techno song from that []

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

That means that theoretically, there are 20 'player' types (10% of the total population, who are all infected), who will account for 70% of the total amount of couplings. That means there will be about 26 (70% of 26 is about 20) couplings that night.
So 20 girls will be infected that night. 20 out of 26 girls who got a boyfriend, got infected. That's about 78% chance.

20 players (assumed 100% chance of scoring some poon)

If 70% of the couples included a player, that means there were 28.5714~ rounded up to 29 couplings, not 26....

70% of 26 is 18.2

20 [infected] girls out of 26 [possibly impregnated] girls is 77% chance (76.92307%)

20 infected girls out of 29 couplings is 69% (68.965%)

[Desperado †]

This is very...confusing. But I see what you mean. But you are forgeting the unwanted children and such that might follow...

[jankren]

Sex outside marriage without condom should bring jailtime.