NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/bi/19271

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-27 | 1.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!spool.mu.edu!olivea!hal.com!bang.hal.COM!not-for-mail
From: [e-mail] (Howard Landman)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Why I read a.s.a.r. (was: For Non-Abused Skeptics)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:49:20 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 28
NNTP-Posting-Host: bang.hal.com

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Graham Toal) writes:
>And one thing that scares me somewhat is just
>how promiscuous many soc.bi members are, to the extent of continually
>boasting about how many people they sleep with on the net.  I'm sure
>we're all sensible people and know about safer sex, but you can't
>help but have nagging doubts, especially given the scale of the
>incestuous relationships across the group.  A relationship graph
>would be a wonder to behold I'm sure.

If you analyze the statistics at all, you will quickly realize that the
incestuousness of relationships actually decreases the risk, not increases
it.

CONSIDER:  A sleeps with B, B sleeps with C, D sleeps with E, and C has the
choice of either sleeping with A or D.  Assuming equal a priori probability
that each person is infected, then it is safer for C to sleep with A than D,
because if A had something then C might already have gotten it via B (in which
case C has nothing to lose).  This is true even though the chances that A and
D are infected are exactly the same.

The ultimate example of this would be a large polyfidelitous family.  If they
only have sex with each other, they are MUCH safer than if some of them are
sleeping with outsiders.

Not to say there aren't risks, Graham, but at least get the math right.

    Howard A. Landman
    [e-mail]