For the Married Guys (And the Guys Who Have Been Married)


By BayArea   Follow   Fri, 28 Dec 2012, 10:55am   23,980 views   675 comments
In Oakland CA 94618   Watch (4)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

Hi guys,

As the old adage states, "Can't live with them, can't live without them."

For the guys that are married now or have been married, I'm wondering what your experience has been and if you could give a newly engaged man (hypothetical to me since I am not engaged) any piece of advise or wisdom, what would it be?

I love my GF, but for a few minutes I'm going to zoom out and look at things from a more technical, statistical, and less emotional point of view.

To be honest, I am a bit discouraged at just how many people I know who don't seem to be too happy in their marriages. It always seems to be the same story. Things started off great. There was excitement, adventure, strong physical and emotional chemistry. Then 2-3yrs into it, those feels started to fade. Some couples moved on to the next phase of their lives and had some glue, er I mean kids which kept things fresh and exciting.

I saw a plot in the newspaper several years back that showed divorce statistics as a function of time. There is a spike early on in the marriage (first couple of years), then one at 7 years (7-year itch), and one at about year 18-20 (when the glue is all grown up). If you make it past that, you are fairly safe (not necessarily happy, but likelihood of divorce is low). Some of that is influenced by the fact that you don't have the same options at 45 or 50 as you do at 25 or 30. Sucks, but that's the truth.

I recall reading a book by psycologist Scott Peck that studied the term "Love." He argues that 100% of relationships fall out of love, usually pretty early on in the first few years. The feeling of love is not true love then. The conscious decision to love someone once you lose the "in love" feeling is what real love is all about.

Regarding statistics, 50% of couples who get married in this country wind up in divorce (To be fair, some of those aren't 1st marriages so that 50% number isn't quite as bad as it seems - The reason is that 2nd marriages have a higher divorce rate than 1st marriages and 3rd marriages have a higher divorce rate than 2nd marriages). Moving on, if 50% of couples get divorced, then 50% of couples don't get divorced. Surely those 50% that remain together aren't all happy marriages? So then let's say that half of the marriages that stay together are happy. That means that 25% of couples getting married in the first place remain happy, lol. I really don't like the odds here!

But anytime you get into this debate, you have to get into the alternative, being alone into older age. As much as I see my folks fight and bicker, I tend to think it's better than the alternative (at least for the level they fight and bicker).

A while back Patrick argued that the average person remains in their purchased home for no more than 6-7 years. He said, you might think you are different, but statistically you are not. Same thing goes for divorce. Nobody goes into marriage thinking they will get a divorce. But statistically, 1 in 2 people do in the USA.

What do you guys think?

As a side note, I am really curious about the following. What is the divorce rate assuming the following:

Both Members are devout Catholic ?
Both Members are devout Christian ?
Both Members are devout Muslim ?
Both Members are Atheist ?
Members don't share religious beliefs ?

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 436-475 of 675     Next »     Last »     See most liked comments

  1. Bap33


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    17 threads
    3,489 comments

    436   3:50pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    iwog says

    Sex isn't behind food, a clean house, and well behaved children in most
    relationships. It's item #1 on the agenda.

    dude!!! print up some T-shirts with that!! They may not sell on the coast or on the delta, but valley sales are certian!

  2. curious2


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    107 threads
    4,071 comments

    437   3:50pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)  

    Bap33 says

    any young male who may be pondering his first male/male incounter

    Bop69, you've been pondering so long, you've lost your youth. I keep telling you, instead of obsessing, just make sure he wears a condom.

    To the extent your comment mentions statistics and vectors at all, it is consistent with what I've already said. If you look at an unrepresentative sample, you get an unrepresentative picture. Obviously the numbers in San Francisco differ from those in Nebraska. Likewise the numbers in America differ from other countries. That's why it matters to look at the whole picture, to see what's really going on.

  3. Bap33


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    17 threads
    3,489 comments

    438   3:51pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    ahhh yes ... personal attacks beat idea exchange yet again ... color me surprised

    well ,since you added, so shall I.

    The numbers where you live, and have unprotected anal sex, are all that matters. Like housing markets, HIV spreading is local.

  4. curious2


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    107 threads
    4,071 comments

    439   4:22pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Bap33 says

    The numbers where you live...are all that matters.

    If you reject evolution entirely, and imagine that people were created as described in Genesis (and why didn't Genesis mention your giant ice dome in the sky?), then I can see how you might overlook the connection between (a) how disease is actually spread and (b) wives' attitudes regarding adultery and prostitution. If you recognize that humans evolved in Africa, and endured a long history of disease (in fact 10% of our genome is leftover from retroviruses caught by our ancestors), the relevance of biology becomes easier to understand. Women whose mates engaged in promiscuity probably had a higher risk of syphilis and whatever else, which caused those women to have fewer children that could survive into adulthood compared to women who did what they could to reduce that risk, resulting in a human population where a higher % of women object to adultery and prostitution.

    I respect Iwog including especially his use of data and comparative risk, and I'm not blind. I do recognize for example that American hospitals kill vastly more Americans than HIV does. Hospitals are relatively new though, so there isn't the same evolved fear of them as there is of the world's oldest profession.

  5. mell


    Follow
    Befriend (7)
    262 threads
    3,257 comments
    San Francisco, CA

    440   4:46pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    curious2 says

    I respect Iwog including especially his use of data and comparative risk, and I'm not blind. I do recognize for example that American hospitals kill vastly more Americans than HIV does. Hospitals are relatively new though, so there isn't the same evolved fear of them as there is of the world's oldest profession.

    But if you decriminalize and allow regular proper testing then the risk is close to zero (which has been demonstrated by the US porn industry where transmission is less than in the general population). Similar case can be made for drugs - it is much cheaper and healthier to provide clean needles and a sheltered environment than continuing the failed war on drugs.

  6. curious2


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    107 threads
    4,071 comments

    441   4:55pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    mell says

    it is much cheaper and healthier to provide clean needles

    Or just let people buy their own needles (illegal in some states), or provide chlorine bleach. The "exchange" programs are a lesser evil compared to the drug war, but as with much public policy it pits one lobby against another. The cheapest and simplest solution doesn't produce enough revenue to hire lobbyists, so we get a choice between more expensive solutions that can share out more revenue to political patronage networks. The epidemic among IV drug users results significantly from the prohibition against buying their own needles, which is why they shared.
    In the case of needles, the prohibition was probably well intentioned, but it illustrates the law of unintended consequences. Older syringes were made of glass and had to be disposed of very carefully. Now they're plastic and retractable. They still should be handled with care, but they're not nearly as dangerous as they were.

  7. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (47)
    364 threads
    18,942 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    442   4:57pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected  

    curious2 says

    I haven't seen comparative studies, but I don't see why HIV would be much more difficult to catch than all other STDs, for example syphilis. Syphilis can be cured by antibiotics, but it spreads anyway, because there is no vaccine.

    I'm sorry but this is total unmitigated bullshit.

    If you think HIV is as easy to catch as syphilis, you have no business having this conversation. None. There are extensive and well studied reasons why HIV is damn near impossible to pass on, and claiming that a simple bacterial infection is on par with HIV is crazy ignorant.

  8. curious2


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    107 threads
    4,071 comments

    443   5:08pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    iwog says

    you have no business having this conversation.

    Well, I learned something, which is why I thought people engaged in debate. Your original comment (before you added your customary hyperbole about "crazy ignorant") caused me to read further. Other STDs like syphilis do spread more easily than the 1/500 - 1/2000 numbers associated with HIV. (Risk varies based on circumcision and other factors.) That doesn't change the point about adultery and prostitution though; to the contrary, since syphilis used to cause death or sterility in women, it underscores the fact that people evolved in a time when women had even more to fear from STDs than they do now.

    It also isn't to disagree with mell's point either. We can observe from other countries and industries that criminalization of prostitution increases the associated risks, and the converse is that legalization reduces those risks. It doesn't eliminate them though, and long evolved fears take time to catch up to reality.

  9. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (47)
    364 threads
    18,942 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    444   5:25pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected  

    I think we need a rational debate about HIV with real numbers.

    A rational debate about HIV MUST include a frank conversation about why there is an epidemic. There is an epidemic because of unsafe homosexual sex practices (not just anal but dozens of random partners over short periods of time) and IV drug abuse.

    Yet there seems to be an effort in the United States and elsewhere to cause irrational fear. It doesn't matter if we're talking about drugs or guns or sex, exaggerating the risks will ALWAYS result in bad consequences. Don't cry wolf.

    Picking up a girl in a bar tonight and having sex with her will not give you HIV. You will die a hundred times over being hit by a drunk driver before you even run a remote risk of catching AIDS.

  10. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (47)
    364 threads
    18,942 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    445   5:28pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Protected  

    BTW regarding Magic Johnson. If I was an extremely promiscuous basketball star who experimented a few times with men and perhaps heroin, I would absolutely say I contracted HIV through heterosexual contact.

    Not saying any of that is true about Magic, but the truth wouldn't really matter would it. He was going to claim he caught it from a woman regardless.

  11. curious2


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    107 threads
    4,071 comments

    446   5:39pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    iwog says

    I think we need a rational debate about HIV with real numbers.

    I agree. 35 million is a real number. Nearly 20 million women is a real number. Nearly 5 million children is a real number. Those are all real numbers. Any understanding of how a disease spreads requires understanding how so many people got it.

    iwog says

    dozens of random partners

    Definitely a risk factor, for example among basketball stars etc. Didn't Wilt Chamberlain claim 2,000 in his aubiography?

    iwog says

    Picking up a girl in a bar tonight...

    in Nebraska confers a very low risk of HIV, and even in California you are probably more likely to get killed in a car wreck. In countries where more than 10% of women have HIV though, the risk would be correspongly higher. The behavior doesn't create the disease all by itself, the question is with whom. A woman who would have sex with you on a first date, for example a prostitute, is a woman whom wives are evolved and conditioned to worry about you spending time with.

  12. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (47)
    364 threads
    18,942 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    447   6:17pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected  

    Heterosexual intercourse is a low risk activity for acquiring HIV. A VERY low risk activity.

    “HIV infection in non-drug using prostitutes tends to be low or absent, implying that sexual activity does not place them at high risk, while prostitutes who use intravenous drugs are far more likely to be infected with HIV...The prevalence of HIV antibodies among prostitutes ranges between zero and 65 per cent, with the single most important risk factor in the US being intravenous drug use. For example, a large multicenter collaborative study found that of 62 women who were HIV-seropositive, 76 per cent had injected drugs. The highest rate of seropositivity for all centers occurred in New Jersey, which is an area of high drug use; here the rate of seropositivity among 56 women prostitutes was 57 per cent. Another cross-sectional study found that among 535 practicing prostitutes in Nevada, 7 per cent of whom admitted to intravenous drug use, none were positive. In contrast, 370 incarcerated prostitutes, all of whom had used drugs intravenously, had a seropositive rate of 6.2 per cent. Other prostitute studies tend to be small but similarly emphasize the central role of drug use as a major risk factor: in New York City, 50 per cent of 12 drug users were positive, compared with 7 per cent of 65 nonusers; in Italy, 59 per cent of 22 drug users were positive, whereas non of the nonusers were. None of the 50 prostitutes tested in London, 56 in Paris, or 399 in Nuremberg were seropositive.”

    Rosenberg MJ, Weiner JM. Prostitutes and AIDS: a health department priority?. Am J Public Health. 1988 Apr;78(4):418-23.

    “In order to determine whether prostitutes operating outside of areas of high drug abuse have equally elevated rates of infection, 354 prostitutes were surveyed in Tijuana, Mexico…None of the 354 [blood] samples…was positive for HIV-1 or HIV-2…Condoms were used…for less than half of their sexual contacts. Only 4 female prostitutes (1%) admitted to ever having abused intravenous drugs. Infection with HIV was not found in this prostitute population despite the close proximity to neighboring San Diego, CA, which has a high incidence of diagnosed cases of AIDS, and to Los Angeles, which has a reported 4% prevalence of HIV infection in prostitutes.”

    Hyams KC et al. HIV infection in a non-drug abusing prostitute population. Scand J Infect Dis. 1989;21(3):353-4.

    “Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence was studied in an unselected group of 216 female and transsexual prostitutes…All 128 females who did not admit to drug abuse were seronegative; 2 of the 52 females (3.8%) who admitted to intravenous drug abuse were seropositive.”

    Modan B et al. Prevalence of HIV antibodies in transsexual and female prostitutes. Am J Public Health. 1992 Apr;82(4):590-2.

  13. curious2


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    107 threads
    4,071 comments

    448   6:26pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Those statistics explain perhaps your perception, but you need to adjust for two things. You are using prevalance statistics based on how many women had HIV in the 1980s. The number of HIV+ women in North America has increased 10x since then. Guess how they got it? Outdated prevalence statistics don't tell you the risk per occurrence of specific behavior. Even current prevalence statistics result from a combination of behavior and population variables, which is why they vary between California and Nebraska and the rest of the world.

  14. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (47)
    364 threads
    18,942 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    449   6:36pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected  

    curious2 says

    Those statistics explain perhaps your perception, but you need to adjust for two things. You are using prevalance statistics based on how many women had HIV in the 1980s. The number of HIV+ women in North America has increased 10x since then. Guess how they got it? Outdated prevalence statistics don't tell you the risk per occurrence of specific behavior. Even current prevalence statistics result from a combination of behavior and population variables, which is why they vary between California and Nebraska and the rest of the world.

    1. You missed the fact that there were plenty of HIV positive results in every study. They came from IV drug use or homosexual activity.

    2. Yeah except total bullshit. HIV infection rates have dropped since 1988 and were MUCH higher previous to 1988. The rates of HIV transmission per capita are FALLING, not going higher. They are almost entirely due to IV drug use and homosexual sex.

    3. The same drugs that allow people to live with HIV also keep the virus levels too low for transmission. Although there are more people living with HIV than ever before, they are generally NOT CONTAGIOUS except through sharing blood. This explains why infection rates continue to drop while the number of people with HIV continues to climb. It doesn't support your point, it contradicts it.

  15. curious2


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    107 threads
    4,071 comments

    450   6:41pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Note that heterosexual contact overtook IV drug use around 1992, i.e. a few years after the above-cited studies published in the 1980s.

  16. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (47)
    364 threads
    18,942 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    451   6:51pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected  

    chanakya4773 says

    if thats the case , why is hiv such a big issue in africa

    Because this isn't Africa. White populations have more individuals with natural immunity. People in the Western world are generally circumcised. Anal sex is considered a contraceptive in Africa but not normally here. Co-factors that make transmission more likely such as other STDs are quickly cured/remedied here while ignored in Africa. There are probably other factors I haven't even thought of.

    Heterosexual transmission of HIV is EXTREMELY rare in the Western world, ESPECIALLY considering the fact that any one man who:

    1. has unprotected sex with women.
    2. injects illegal narcotics
    3. and meets men for anal sex in public restrooms

    .....is almost guaranteed to report that he acquired HIV from a woman regardless of the other risk factors. ALL studies are almost guaranteed to have positive bias towards heterosexual infection because of unsavory hidden risk factors not disclosed to the researchers.

  17. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (47)
    364 threads
    18,942 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    452   6:55pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected  

    curious2 says

    Note that heterosexual contact overtook IV drug use around 1992, i.e. a few years after the above-cited studies published in the 1980s.

    No, you're using horrible data for your conclusion. "Mother's exposure category" is almost certainly a study from pregnant moms being tested prior to delivery. This is a common source of HIV data. Therefore the ONLY information the researcher had to work with was:

    1. A blood test indicating HIV
    2. A verbal interview with the pregnant mom regarding risk factors

    How many pregnant women are going to claim they abuse drugs? How many pregnant women are going to know if their husband/boyfriend is bisexual?

  18. New Renter


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    34 threads
    5,857 comments
    San Jose, CA

    453   7:02pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    iwog says

    New Renter says

    Or wifey has to scramble between a demanding job, demanding kids, demanding in-laws and trying to please her husband outside the bedroom (keep the place clean, dinners, etc). Not a lot of energy left for hanky panky after all that.

    That is never a valid excuse.

    Sex isn't behind food, a clean house, and well behaved children in most relationships. It's item #1 on the agenda. If she isn't willing to adhere to her primary obligation, the husband has every right to outsource that position to someone who is more than willing.

    That's just your opinion, not fact.

    Of course this is a disingenuous point in most instances. Women who are invested in a relationship are very willing and even anxious to get between the sheets with their husbands and engineer time to do so. Women who have a headache for months at a time are at high risk to have an affair. It's not a matter of "I don't want sex", it's a matter of "I don't want sex with you!"

    Again this is your opinion, no doubt heavily influenced by your day job.

  19. curious2


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    107 threads
    4,071 comments

    454   7:03pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Among females in the United States diagnosed 2007-2010, CDC reports several times more heterosexual transmissions than IV drug transmissions.

    Diagnoses of HIV infection, by year of diagnosis and selected characteristics, 2007–2010

    Persons living with a diagnosis of HIV infection

    BTW, IV drug users tend to have needle marks, so it isn't so easy to lie. What surprises me though is you seem to ratchet up your insistence on a particular detail that is a mostly off topic distraction from the thread. Even your own descriptions regarding new cases seem to have shifted. You started out being right about the majority of new transmissions among the 3% subset in the USA (ignoring the 97% everywhere else in the world), but now you've exaggerated to "almost entirely," which isn't accurate. Anyway I reiterate that wives worry about adultery and prostitution, and you answer with - what exactly? - that they should have no fear because they're more likely to be killed in a car wreck? It doesn't change their concern, or the basis for it.

  20. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (47)
    364 threads
    18,942 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    455   7:07pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected  

    New Renter says

    That's just your opinion, not fact.

    New Renter says

    Again this is your opinion, no doubt heavily influenced by your day job

    Obviously.

  21. mell


    Follow
    Befriend (7)
    262 threads
    3,257 comments
    San Francisco, CA

    456   7:09pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    New Renter says

    Again this is your opinion, no doubt heavily influenced by your day job.

    Being a landlord?

  22. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (47)
    364 threads
    18,942 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    457   7:15pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Protected  

    curious2 says

    Among females in the United States diagnosed 2007-2010, CDC reports 5 cases of heterosexual transmission for every one case of IV drug use.

    You forgot the footnote:

    c Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.

    This is going to be women who were infected from bisexual partners or IV drug users or they are lying about the source of transmission. Also you linked the page with men and not women.

    You also missed the fact that heterosexual transmission, even among this high risk group, is declining AND is a mere 10,000 individuals in a female population of approximately 150 million.

    232,340 women are going to get breast cancer in 2013. Less than 10,000 women having very dangerous sex with known HIV carriers are going to seroconvert positive. Women generally ignore breast cancer and are TERRIFIED of catching HIV. Why do you think that is?

  23. curious2


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    107 threads
    4,071 comments

    458   7:21pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    iwog says

    Women generally ignore breast cancer and are TERRIFIED of catching HIV. Why do you think that is?

    Women don't generally ignore breast cancer, they go in for routine radiation (increasing their risk of getting it) to reassure themselves they don't already have it. It is quite likely that they may worry even more about STDs, including HIV, for the reasons I already explained: human evolution is conditioned by communicable disease. Breast cancer is a very rare cause of death among young women; the risk increases with smoking and obesity. Fear of breast cancer did not confer advantage in human evolution; fear of STDs did. We can both read the same numbers of women who actually got HIV; where we seem to differ is, I think if women didn't worry about it then those numbers would probably be a lot higher. That isn't an argument for exaggerating the numbers, but it is a pandemic and ignoring it would not result in eradicating it even if you could somehow magically remove the two vectors that account for a small fraction of cases globally but a majority locally.

  24. Buster


    Follow
    Befriend (7)
    24 threads
    371 comments

    459   7:32pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)  

    iwog says

    IV is an epidemic in the United States due to dangerous homosexual practices and IV drug use. PERIOD!

    Statistics tell quite a different story;

    In 2010, 46 states in the US reported 12,875 new heterosexual cases of HIV. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm

  25. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (47)
    364 threads
    18,942 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    460   7:36pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected  

    Buster says

    In 2010, 46 states in the US reported 12,875 new heterosexual cases of HIV.

    Almost every last one of those 12,875 cases were secondary to IV drug use and homosexual behavior. 4 out of 5 were women.

    What I said is absolutely true but believe what you want. I've already cited some extremely powerful studies that prove heterosexual transmission of HIV is simply not a big problem without the other two causes.

  26. New Renter


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    34 threads
    5,857 comments
    San Jose, CA

    461   8:09pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    iwog says

    New Renter says

    That's just your opinion, not fact.

    New Renter says

    Again this is your opinion, no doubt heavily influenced by your day job

    Obviously.

    Glad you admit it.

  27. Bap33


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    17 threads
    3,489 comments

    462   9:09pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)  

    why does nobody ask the obvious question? ... "why is there anyone trying to remove the black mark of HIV transmission from deviant sex?" Maybe it's just me that wonders ??? I guess I just find it curious.

  28. New Renter


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    34 threads
    5,857 comments
    San Jose, CA

    463   11:09pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike  

    Bap33 says

    why does nobody ask the obvious question? ... "why is there anyone trying to remove the black mark of HIV transmission from deviant sex?" Maybe it's just me that wonders ??? I guess I just find it curious.

    Yep, its just you...

  29. curious2


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    107 threads
    4,071 comments

    464   11:13pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    Bap33 says

    Maybe it's just me that wonders ?

    Bop69, I have literally never met anyone who spent as much time "wondering" about "male/male coupling" as you do. You can't stop "wondering," but your early religious programming inhibits you from going ahead and doing, so you become obsessed. It's sad to watch. Of all the users on PatNet, I've only ever seen one other who had your problem, and alas I worry about him because of his references to slitting his own throat.

    In other countries, you guys could be married already. Alas in this one you remain trapped by your early indoctrination.

  30. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    194 threads
    7,103 comments

    465   11:24pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    iwog says

    What I said is absolutely true but believe what you want. I've already cited some extremely powerful studies that prove heterosexual transmission of HIV is simply not a big problem without the other two causes.

    I don't understand why this argument is happening here. Aids has been around since the early 80s. How can any halfway intelligent adult, not have been curious enough to already be fully informed on this. Especially if they were sexually active at all during the decades since then.

    I mean wtf ?

    I'm trying to think of any subject that a person would naturally want to be more informed about.

    Time magazine has had 7 cover stories on the subject in the past 30 years.

    http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/06/02/aids-from-the-archives-for-30-years-time-covers-the-epidemic/

    (Pick any major periodical)

    Nothing Iwog is saying is new. It's pretty consistent with what everyone has known for 15 or 20 years.

  31. curious2


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    107 threads
    4,071 comments

    466   11:28pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    marcus says

    Nothing Iwog is saying is new.

    The suggestion that any pandemic could be eradicated anywhere without a vaccine is, to say the least, "new". As your link shows, more than 30 million people have died, and the other links above show more than 30 million remain infected. To put that in perspective, 30 million is more than the entire population of Canada. Possibly the only disease ever successfully eradicated is smallpox, and the task was accomplished by developing and distributing a vaccine that worked even in people who were already infected.

    Also, to Iwog's credit, he is right about the fact that drugs can reduce the risk of transmission. That is a quite recent finding, really only in the last few years.

    I like and respect Iwog, but I've noticed that he tends to have more confidence than most people. That has probably contributed to his success, but in his work he's probably seen plenty of people whose misplaced confidence resulted in their bankruptcy. Different people can look at the same set of facts, and some will feel cautious while others feel sanguine. Market bulls tend to have more confidence than bears, but that doesn't tell you which is more likely to be right.

    Returning to the original topic, I wonder if there may be a correlation between confidence and staying married. One commenter talked about his divorce and said "never trust," but he had already arranged his finances so as to shield them from possible creditors. I suspect that more confident people are more likely to get married, and may also be more likely to stay married.

  32. KILLERJANE


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    12 threads
    600 comments

    467   11:37pm Sun 27 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    I am not a guy but, marriage is a lot of putting up with each other and having fun with that. Joke laugh fight cry. The 5 things that spur a fight for us are stress, hunger, tired, confused, jealousy. Recognize those and get over it. Been married close to 18 years, known each other 22 years. The itches happen just like you said in your writing. Had kids after 8 years, that can be trying too. Until they go to school and get out of the house and give you a break. Having kids can be overwhelming, especially if they are very active ones. The kids get better with age, IMO. Once they speak your language it starts to get easier. 0-5 rough, 5-8 great! I don't know the rest yet.

  33. Bap33


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    17 threads
    3,489 comments

    468   8:59am Mon 28 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    New Renter says

    Bap33 says



    why does nobody ask the obvious question? ... "why is there anyone trying to remove the black mark of HIV transmission from deviant sex?" Maybe it's just me that wonders ??? I guess I just find it curious.


    Yep, its just you...

    lol .. atta boy

  34. CL


    Follow
    Befriend (12)
    180 threads
    1,803 comments
    Emeryville, CA

    469   9:53am Mon 28 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    KILLERJANE says

    Been married close to 18 years, known each other 22 years.

    We have been together for 16-17 years, married for ~9. I think waiting was good...why? Just because it felt right. I think that's the key, not to rush anything unless you want to.

  35. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (47)
    364 threads
    18,942 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    470   8:38pm Mon 28 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (5)   Dislike (1)   Protected  

    I can not in good conscious encourage my son to marry an American woman. I'm going to ship him down to South America after high school and let nature take its course.

  36. Peter P


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    117 threads
    17,937 comments

    471   9:11pm Mon 28 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Women from developing countries do not have a sense of humor.

  37. Mark D


    Follow
    Befriend
    240 threads
    872 comments
    Simi Valley, CA

    472   4:13pm Tue 29 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Peter P says

    Women from developing countries do not have a sense of humor.

    a man only needs 3 things from his woman:

    1) good food
    2) sex anytime
    3) silence

  38. MsBennet


    Follow
    Befriend
    5 threads
    298 comments

    473   5:34pm Tue 29 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)  

    A women only need TWO things from a man:

    1. Unlimited access to his wallet
    2. His understanding of her frequent headaches

    but..as a bonus he should adhere to these rules:

    3. Will watch rom-cons and chick flicks
    4. Loves to shop only in the fanciest malls.. and we are talking 5 hours at a time and will patiently wait as she tries on clothes and rush back to the racks to get her different sizes
    5. Will do dishes and dust (cleaning toilet bowl is a plus)
    6. Lets her have the remote (I know that's a tough one!)

  39. leo707


    Follow
    Befriend (12)
    11 threads
    4,088 comments
    Oakland, CA
    leo707's website

    474   5:35pm Tue 29 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    curious2 says

    Syphilis can be cured by antibiotics, but it spreads anyway, because there is no vaccine.

    For now, but don't worry drug resistant Syphilis is on its way.

  40. CL


    Follow
    Befriend (12)
    180 threads
    1,803 comments
    Emeryville, CA

    475   5:42pm Tue 29 Jan 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    iwog says

    I can not in good conscious encourage my son to marry an American woman.

    That's heteronormative talk! iwog says

    ship him down to South America after high school

    That's biased too! Aren't South Americans just as American as their friends to the North?

    J'accuse!

« First     « Previous comments     Next comments »     Last »

BayArea is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email
Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 197 milliseconds to create.