FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Swingers Chat

The "safe sex" conundrum

Jump to newest
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter

People as we know are crap at estimating odds and probabilities and danger.

Chances are BY FAR the most likely "bad" thing to happen to you will happen to you on the roads on the way to or from a meet, the combined risks of getting a minor treatable STD, getting a major untreatable STD, getting axe murdered etc all put together still vanish to almost nothing, probabilistically speaking, compared to the drive there and back.

the safe sex argument can in some ways be compared to russian roulette, the other 5 people who didn't eat the bullet do nothing for you personally, and if you personally eat the bullet you have everything to lose.

typically russian roulette uses a six shot revolver with one loaded chamber, the cylinder is also spun after EVERY trigger pull, so the odds are always 1 in 6 of eating a bullet.

In 2009 there were 482,000 new STD diagnoses in the UK, call the sexually active population 48 million, so approximately 1% of the fucking population gets an STD OF SOME SORT every year.

So instead of a revolver with 6 chambers in the cylinder, we have a revolver with 100 chambers.

safe sex means condoms for all vaginal and anal sex, dental dams for all cunnilingus and fellatio, and no french kissing... forget all that crap about oral is safer or you can't get the nasty STD's from oral, it is all a load of crap.

unsafe sex, WHOEVER IT IS WITH, is russian roulette, fuck one person for one year and you are playing russian roulette with the 100 shot revolver.

This argument so far assumed that everyone in the UK is forced to play russian roulette, so all have an equal chance, the facts are that you can load the odds in your favour, by electing not to play russian roulette, safe sex with everyone, no exceptions, not even your husband / wife, or you can still play and load the odds, by selecting WHO you play with.

General observations of a person's presentation, cleanliness, odour of genital areas and breath, dental hygeine etc, all help, a LOT, to load the odds in your favour.

So you end up with some people who play russian roulette a LOT, and never catch anything from year to year because they have managed to load the odds to the point where they are playing with a 10,000 shot revolver...

... and others who end up with the other side of that swing, who play with the 100 shot revolver, the stereotypical intravenous drug using street whore.

So your odds, the number of chamber in the revolver, depend not so much on what you do, once you leave the absolute safety of the "not playing" safe sex at all times with everyone no exceptions zone, but WHO YOU DO IT WITH, and by extension, WHO THEY DID IT WITH BEFORE YOU.

So broadly speaking you have a high STd risk group, and a low risk STD group, and a no risk safe sex at all times with everyone group... see above accurate definition of safe sex.

Condoms used for vaginal and anal sex do not put someone from the high risk group into the low risk group, THEY ARE STILL HIGH RISK.

Condoms used for vaginal and anal sex with someone in the low risk group DOES improve your odds of dodging a bullet.

number of times you play with the same person of course skews the odds, say you fuck the same person 100 times, but this is NOT the same as fucking 100 different people once each.

=======================

So to sum up, "safe sex" as the term is used on sites like this by 99.9% of people, is a sop to the conscience, in the same way that refusing to buy a family car that does not have airbags and ABS and ESC, is a sop to car safety, real car safety is driving slowly and carefully... the group of safe careful drivers vs the top gear drivers.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iewMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Angus & Findhorn

no one is responsible for my sexual health apart from me, everytime I lick a fanny, suck a cock or stick it in an orifice... there is a risk, sometimes minimised but never eradicated.

I often do it...

and on a very rare occasion think, 'no way am I going in there'.......

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *issHottieBottieWoman
over a year ago

Kent

482,000 new diagnosis. What about those who are shagging left, right be centre but have never been tested and are spreading alsorts. Some people can spread an std round loads before they even know they've got it and so on and so forth.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter


"482,000 new diagnosis. What about those who are shagging left, right be centre but have never been tested and are spreading alsorts. Some people can spread an std round loads before they even know they've got it and so on and so forth. "

Indeed, I made a point of presenting that correctly, and saying NEW diagnoses.

By definition the unknown extra infected but not diagnosed is an unknown number... it can not be known, so guesses are futile, beyond observing that those who were diagnosed had a reason to go for a test, either because of symptoms, or news from a recent sexual partner

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *xodussxMan
over a year ago

sheffield

Second Conundrum of the day

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackCherryCouple
over a year ago

Bristol

I dont really understand the point of this thread its all a bit preachy and soap boxy.

If you're angry that people say "safe sex" but arent practising it fully then some reduction in risk is better than none.

We choose to exist in a community with a higher risk of STI (all of us) so we have to accept were in a higher risk category and act accordingly, im not sure though why this needed a war and peace esq novel to get that message across ;p

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *issHottieBottieWoman
over a year ago

Kent


"482,000 new diagnosis. What about those who are shagging left, right be centre but have never been tested and are spreading alsorts. Some people can spread an std round loads before they even know they've got it and so on and so forth.

Indeed, I made a point of presenting that correctly, and saying NEW diagnoses.

By definition the unknown extra infected but not diagnosed is an unknown number... it can not be known, so guesses are futile, beyond observing that those who were diagnosed had a reason to go for a test, either because of symptoms, or news from a recent sexual partner"

Sorry yeah I know you said new, but I bet lots of people would skim over that and think oh only 1% that's fuck all, lets chuck the condoms away and go crazy! Lol.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uttyMan
over a year ago

Local to you maybe

I'm pretty sure most people are very capable of looking after no1. You are your own person whatever you decide, safe or not

My eyes are killing me reading all that

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter


"

Sorry yeah I know you said new, but I bet lots of people would skim over that and think oh only 1% that's fuck all, lets chuck the condoms away and go crazy! Lol. "

Playing devils advocate, that number is also for ALL infections, it doesn't mean 482,000 people were diagnosed with super-bird-flu-aids and their penises exploded... the bulk of them are probably things like chlamydia.

*LOTS* of people will take the attitude that chlamydia is nothing to worry about, I have heard mature men my own age dismiss it with the argument that so what if they can never get pregnant.

So again, you age has a lot to do with the risks.

The other 900lb gorilla in the room is the link between high numbers of sexual partners and cervical cancer... it's not an STD, but it will fuck your life up.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inge 1985Man
over a year ago

London


"I dont really understand the point of this thread its all a bit preachy and soap boxy.

If you're angry that people say "safe sex" but arent practising it fully then some reduction in risk is better than none.

We choose to exist in a community with a higher risk of STI (all of us) so we have to accept were in a higher risk category and act accordingly, im not sure though why this needed a war and peace esq novel to get that message across ;p

"

Something is better than nothing and it is about fun and doing what you are comfortable with, there are enough places to get regular checks and it is as you our choice, vaginal and anal sex is also a comfort thing as well as a form of protection when it comes to contraception i believe

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Sorry but don't really see the point in the thread.

on your profile u state must be in to bare back and anal. So does that mean your off the scale when it comes to the risks you take and what you could be potentially passing on?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"People as we know are crap at estimating odds and probabilities and danger.

Chances are BY FAR the most likely "bad" thing to happen to you will happen to you on the roads on the way to or from a meet, the combined risks of getting a minor treatable STD, getting a major untreatable STD, getting axe murdered etc all put together still vanish to almost nothing, probabilistically speaking, compared to the drive there and back.

the safe sex argument can in some ways be compared to russian roulette, the other 5 people who didn't eat the bullet do nothing for you personally, and if you personally eat the bullet you have everything to lose.

typically russian roulette uses a six shot revolver with one loaded chamber, the cylinder is also spun after EVERY trigger pull, so the odds are always 1 in 6 of eating a bullet.

In 2009 there were 482,000 new STD diagnoses in the UK, call the sexually active population 48 million, so approximately 1% of the fucking population gets an STD OF SOME SORT every year.

So instead of a revolver with 6 chambers in the cylinder, we have a revolver with 100 chambers.

safe sex means condoms for all vaginal and anal sex, dental dams for all cunnilingus and fellatio, and no french kissing... forget all that crap about oral is safer or you can't get the nasty STD's from oral, it is all a load of crap.

unsafe sex, WHOEVER IT IS WITH, is russian roulette, fuck one person for one year and you are playing russian roulette with the 100 shot revolver.

This argument so far assumed that everyone in the UK is forced to play russian roulette, so all have an equal chance, the facts are that you can load the odds in your favour, by electing not to play russian roulette, safe sex with everyone, no exceptions, not even your husband / wife, or you can still play and load the odds, by selecting WHO you play with.

General observations of a person's presentation, cleanliness, odour of genital areas and breath, dental hygeine etc, all help, a LOT, to load the odds in your favour.

So you end up with some people who play russian roulette a LOT, and never catch anything from year to year because they have managed to load the odds to the point where they are playing with a 10,000 shot revolver...

... and others who end up with the other side of that swing, who play with the 100 shot revolver, the stereotypical intravenous drug using street whore.

So your odds, the number of chamber in the revolver, depend not so much on what you do, once you leave the absolute safety of the "not playing" safe sex at all times with everyone no exceptions zone, but WHO YOU DO IT WITH, and by extension, WHO THEY DID IT WITH BEFORE YOU.

So broadly speaking you have a high STd risk group, and a low risk STD group, and a no risk safe sex at all times with everyone group... see above accurate definition of safe sex.

Condoms used for vaginal and anal sex do not put someone from the high risk group into the low risk group, THEY ARE STILL HIGH RISK.

Condoms used for vaginal and anal sex with someone in the low risk group DOES improve your odds of dodging a bullet.

number of times you play with the same person of course skews the odds, say you fuck the same person 100 times, but this is NOT the same as fucking 100 different people once each.

=======================

So to sum up, "safe sex" as the term is used on sites like this by 99.9% of people, is a sop to the conscience, in the same way that refusing to buy a family car that does not have airbags and ABS and ESC, is a sop to car safety, real car safety is driving slowly and carefully... the group of safe careful drivers vs the top gear drivers.

"

Are you trying to justify your own lack of use of condoms I wonder?? I doubt you get checked between each fuck, or don't fuck until you have the all clear again?....which could be a while if being tested for HIV etc in some cases?

Not having a 'pop' hun as each to their own and those who meet you are grown adults too. I just don't really understand why you have posted this?? What was your reasoning?

xx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Jeez the op has a lot of spare time on his hands !

However , there are some very valid points made , and here on the forums there will always be 99.9 % going on about how any bareback is risking your life etc......... And we all know that in reality so many say one thing and do another so it's up to us to assess the risks and to look after ourselves

I would like to thank the op for the post - it's a well reasoned and detailed post and is relevant to swinging which us more than most of late !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackCherryCouple
over a year ago

Bristol

Oh that makes a lot of sense now there is context to it, guy who exclusive into bareback trying to justify it.

Shame he took us on such a little journey that most people will miss that critical point.

I'm happy you enjoy bareback, using the everything you do in life carries a risk argument isnt going to stop all using protection just make you happy though

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Oh that makes a lot of sense now there is context to it, guy who exclusive into bareback trying to justify it.

Shame he took us on such a little journey that most people will miss that critical point.

I'm happy you enjoy bareback, using the everything you do in life carries a risk argument isnt going to stop all using protection just make you happy though "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You sure do love your conundrums today lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"You sure do love your conundrums today lol

"

he's been watching to much countdown

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Thank you, OP for this very informative thread. I don't know what you do for a living but you've managed to do an excellent job of explaining stats and probability for the lay man... And woman.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Put a condom on, it's not hard people !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

its a case of each to there own people will take whatever risks they want to.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If you have a bigger gun with bigger bullets then is the risk higher?

Tony

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum

I don't drive to meets

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Safe sex is NOT safe..

And even NO sex can still land you with an infection...

Is it not just easier to take responsability for yourself and let others do the same...

Don't see the point in preaching bullshit stats!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Gawd! So we all have an X% chance of dying in an accident on the way to a meet. And we all have an X+Y% chance of dying as a result of a meet, if we go bareback.

And the majority of accidents happen in the home

FFS! If you really want to be safe from accidents, then don't get a life!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atcoupleCouple
over a year ago

Suffolk - East Anglia


"Gawd! So we all have an X% chance of dying in an accident on the way to a meet. And we all have an X+Y% chance of dying as a result of a meet, if we go bareback.

And the majority of accidents happen in the home

FFS! If you really want to be safe from accidents, then don't get a life!"

Yes I agree with (above). We all take risks in everyday life, just think about them.

However, just use the info' that comes from good sources, use common sense and be careful. Then have fun. Life is too short to keep weighing up the odds. You're a long time dead as they say.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rightonsteveMan
over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!


"Put a condom on, it's not hard people !"

It ought to be, if you're putting a condom on.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *preadeagleCouple
over a year ago

hull


"Put a condom on, it's not hard people !"

completley agree sorry but if more people took all the above information seriously maybe all diseases would be nil !!!

each to there own my own is safe happy roulette

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Rare to see such a fine example of how stats can be twisted to suit any point of _iew

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Anybody who doesn't follow the safe sex rule is playing russion roulette and is incredibly stupid and irresponsible.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter


"Oh that makes a lot of sense now there is context to it, guy who exclusive into bareback trying to justify it.

"

Well I suppose it is possible to be more wrong than you are, or to miss the point by a wider margin than you have, but I am not sure how... however, for the cerebrally challenged...

1/ my profile is very open and very blunt about my attitude to bareback.

2/ the post was quite clear, bareback only, all by itself, does not a safe fucker make, and fab standard "safe sex", all by itself, does not a safe fucker make.

3/ the real risk factors are the type of people you fuck, and the people they fuck, not whether you practice the fab version of "safe sex"

4/ someone who is AWARE of the ACTUAL relative risk factors is able to be and play a lot safer than someone who is not, and who assumed the fab version of "safe sex" was actually keeping them safe.

5/ being selective in WHO you fuck is more effective at risk reduction than the fab version of "safe sex"

------------------

two final points;

1/ puerile comments about HIV tests / symptoms / timescales are just that, puerile... if you have had any sexual contact with anyone else, even your husband / wife, then you are no more knowledgeable about your actual HIV status AT THIS MOMENT than I am.

2/ puerile comments about me not getting any are just that, in the last 10 fab sourced meets I have had, NOT ONE SINGLE ONE DID NOT HAVE SAFE SEX CHECKED on their interests, 6 of them have SAFE SEX ONLY in the text of the profile.... none of them even DISCUSSED condoms, dental dams, etc with me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter


"Anybody who doesn't follow the safe sex rule is playing russion roulette and is incredibly stupid and irresponsible."

the whole point of russian roulette, and why I used it as an analogy, is that the person playing is the person "paying" if they eat a bullet.

stupid and irresponsible implies that they have a duty of care to you, and so you don't need to be as careful of your own safety... an attitude I disagree with.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum

But if I shoot myself playing Russian Roulette I can't then go out and shoot someone else, whereas if I choose to go bareback and catch something, I can then go bareback again and give it to someone else.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Oh that makes a lot of sense now there is context to it, guy who exclusive into bareback trying to justify it.

Well I suppose it is possible to be more wrong than you are, or to miss the point by a wider margin than you have, but I am not sure how... however, for the cerebrally challenged...

1/ my profile is very open and very blunt about my attitude to bareback.

2/ the post was quite clear, bareback only, all by itself, does not a safe fucker make, and fab standard "safe sex", all by itself, does not a safe fucker make.

3/ the real risk factors are the type of people you fuck, and the people they fuck, not whether you practice the fab version of "safe sex"

4/ someone who is AWARE of the ACTUAL relative risk factors is able to be and play a lot safer than someone who is not, and who assumed the fab version of "safe sex" was actually keeping them safe.

5/ being selective in WHO you fuck is more effective at risk reduction than the fab version of "safe sex"

------------------

two final points;

1/ puerile comments about HIV tests / symptoms / timescales are just that, puerile... if you have had any sexual contact with anyone else, even your husband / wife, then you are no more knowledgeable about your actual HIV status AT THIS MOMENT than I am.

2/ puerile comments about me not getting any are just that, in the last 10 fab sourced meets I have had, NOT ONE SINGLE ONE DID NOT HAVE SAFE SEX CHECKED on their interests, 6 of them have SAFE SEX ONLY in the text of the profile.... none of them even DISCUSSED condoms, dental dams, etc with me.

"

What a load of rubbish. Sti don't discriminate on who you are. By following the fab way of safe sex as you put it will reduce your chance of catching something over bare back!!

This whole thread seems to be that you want to justify going bare back to yourself and the whole of fab

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Put a condom on, it's not hard people !

completley agree sorry but if more people took all the above information seriously maybe all diseases would be nil !!!

each to there own my own is safe happy roulette "

Or is it....???

Condoms are not 100% safe...

Why do you feel the need to judge others when you yourself are STILL taking the same risk..maybe in your eyes a lesser risk but still a risk!

I think you take a bigger risk by blindly believing every piece of bullshit info without much if ANY personal research!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But if I shoot myself playing Russian Roulette I can't then go out and shoot someone else, whereas if I choose to go bareback and catch something, I can then go bareback again and give it to someone else."

Not if you live by your own morals...protect yourself and DO NOT shag thoes who DON'T!!

It would only be a problem if those folk who protect themselves wanna play with those who don't and are tryin to guilt trip them into wearing a comdom so they can have their wicked way!! Or am i just TOO suspicious??

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

what a load of bollocks, anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise the pure undilute stupidity of bareback.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum


"But if I shoot myself playing Russian Roulette I can't then go out and shoot someone else, whereas if I choose to go bareback and catch something, I can then go bareback again and give it to someone else.

Not if you live by your own morals...protect yourself and DO NOT shag thoes who DON'T!!

It would only be a problem if those folk who protect themselves wanna play with those who don't and are tryin to guilt trip them into wearing a comdom so they can have their wicked way!! Or am i just TOO suspicious?? "

I agree with you. Just pointing out that the OPs analogy is not perfect.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

we always play safe wen meeting new peeps n that includes oral sex the amount of people who make fun of this n dont repect this had.one couple laugh.at us saying do we ave to wear marigolds.to touch u both .. there is just as much risk with unprotected oral as.there.is with intercourse

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Put a condom on, it's not hard people !"

It won't stay on if it's not hard

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackCherryCouple
over a year ago

Bristol


"

This whole thread seems to be that you want to justify going bare back to yourself and the whole of fab "

Yeah yet more bullshit hiding behind the masquerade of opinions on Fab.

As I said earlier I'm glad he enjoys bareback and makes it so plain on his forum I am also glad he has superman like powers to tell if someone has a STI or not by talking to them and looking at them, if only we could employ him in every GUM clinic in the land we could save millions in unneeded testing.

I think to preach about stats and risk relative to the stats you probably need to understand them first, not just spout a load of cobblers. Thats just me though.

At least its an original take on this weeks bareback thread.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackCherryCouple
over a year ago

Bristol


"Numbers are power. Apparently freed of all the squishiness and ambiguity of words, numbers and statistics are powerful pieces of evidence that can effectively strengthen any argument. But statistics are not a panacea. As simple and straightforward as these little numbers promise to be, statistics, if not used carefully, can create more problems than they solve."

Would all do well to read this.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter


"But if I shoot myself playing Russian Roulette I can't then go out and shoot someone else, whereas if I choose to go bareback and catch something, I can then go bareback again and give it to someone else."

later on, you say my analogy is not perfect, clearly not, else it would not be an analogy

however

you miss the point

YOU do not play russian roulette, THEN force someone else to play and risk their lives.

You take your risks with your life

Then they take risks with their life

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum


"But if I shoot myself playing Russian Roulette I can't then go out and shoot someone else, whereas if I choose to go bareback and catch something, I can then go bareback again and give it to someone else.

later on, you say my analogy is not perfect, clearly not, else it would not be an analogy

however

you miss the point

YOU do not play russian roulette, THEN force someone else to play and risk their lives.

You take your risks with your life

Then they take risks with their life"

To be honest then I am not sure what you are getting at. If you read calis thread from yesterday nearly everyone was saying what you've just said - we are all responsible for our own sexual health, whether its getting to the meet, or when we are at the meet. But you are saying that Fab members pay lip service to it and are more at risk than someone who is honest about their non-use of condoms? I am getting confused.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"5/ being selective in WHO you fuck is more effective at risk reduction than the fab version of "safe sex""

Really?? Are you that ignorant to think that?! So, fucking a member of the royal family means you have effective risk reduction??? With every person on this earth, no matter what their background, sexual history, race etc, has the same risk as the next person.... I think you are flying on being "clean" to date and we may well see your profile disappear sometime soon when you don't get the result you expect!

Again, each to their own hun, but don't slate the "fab safe sex" way as it is far healthier than yours at present!

xx

Soap box gone now!!

x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The figures quoted relate to the general UK population. Most of the general UK population arent swingers. (well we can live in hope!)

The OP is talking about indulging in a high risk activity with no safety net whatsoever, other than judging his partner based on his own subjective perception.

The average swinger indulges in activity of slight to moderate risk by performin oral practices without protection and vaginal and anal sex with protection.

Some swingers, the minority, use condoms for all activity where there is a possibility of GU infection.

For his arguement to hold up, we would have to have research in his favour, suggesting that the ability to select a partner yields favourable disease ratios to the other two control groups.

I have never seen any such research.

Anyone?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter


"

For his arguement to hold up, we would have to have research in his favour, suggesting that the ability to select a partner yields favourable disease ratios to the other two control groups.

I have never seen any such research.

Anyone?

"

well, your research is every single piece of medical science ever done in the field of immunology and infection...

not everyone is the same, some people can catch anything very easily, at the other end of the scale you have people who can't catch it, or who if they do catch it show no symptoms whatsoever.

if all people were equal, any woman would find any man equally attractive at estrus.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum

I was told last time I was at the GUM clinic that women are much more likely to get STIs than men because of the way sex works. So it doesn't surprise me that men tend to be the ones who are happy to risk it. Shame it then does get passed easily to the woman who then has to lie with their legs up getting their bits scraped.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uncpl2015Couple
over a year ago

Bridgend Area


""5/ being selective in WHO you fuck is more effective at risk reduction than the fab version of "safe sex""

Really?? Are you that ignorant to think that?! So, fucking a member of the royal family means you have effective risk reduction??? With every person on this earth, no matter what their background, sexual history, race etc, has the same risk as the next person.... I think you are flying on being "clean" to date and we may well see your profile disappear sometime soon when you don't get the result you expect!

Again, each to their own hun, but don't slate the "fab safe sex" way as it is far healthier than yours at present!

xx

Soap box gone now!!

x"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter


"I was told last time I was at the GUM clinic that women are much more likely to get STIs than men because of the way sex works. So it doesn't surprise me that men tend to be the ones who are happy to risk it. Shame it then does get passed easily to the woman who then has to lie with their legs up getting their bits scraped. "

that is only true for penis / vagina sex, one is mainly a dry exterior organ with exterior skin, one is mainly a moist interior cavity with quite different skin

why do you think std's hit the gay male community so hard

women = mouth + anus + vagina = 3 main avenues

men = mouth + anus = 2 main avenues

men who do not give oral sex or take it up the ass are much better off than any other group

this is one of the very points I was making, that people have been so deliberately avoiding acknowledging

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum


"this is one of the very points I was making, that people have been so deliberately avoiding acknowledging"

I think most people on here are very aware that anal and oral are just as risky as vaginal, but where do you draw the line? At least using protection cuts down the risk.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter


"this is one of the very points I was making, that people have been so deliberately avoiding acknowledging

I think most people on here are very aware that anal and oral are just as risky as vaginal, but where do you draw the line? At least using protection cuts down the risk."

ok, let me put it this way and get back to the car analogy

which would you rather be a passenger in, purely from the safety perspective

1/ a car with airbags and ABS and ESC driven by petrolhead

2/ a car without the above but driven by a cheerful and observant driver

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I dont really understand the point of this thread its all a bit preachy and soap boxy.

Really? I'm really surprised by that. I just found it really tedious. Hands up anyone who learnt anything.Everytime I roll a condom on now I'm gonna have a mental image of Chris Walken with a head band on

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andACouple
over a year ago

glasgow


"this is one of the very points I was making, that people have been so deliberately avoiding acknowledging

I think most people on here are very aware that anal and oral are just as risky as vaginal, but where do you draw the line? At least using protection cuts down the risk.

ok, let me put it this way and get back to the car analogy

which would you rather be a passenger in, purely from the safety perspective

1/ a car with airbags and ABS and ESC driven by petrolhead

2/ a car without the above but driven by a cheerful and observant driver"

As an analogy that ones doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Could go into the reasons why but just about to head out for dinner so it'll have to wait.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"this is one of the very points I was making, that people have been so deliberately avoiding acknowledging

I think most people on here are very aware that anal and oral are just as risky as vaginal, but where do you draw the line? At least using protection cuts down the risk.

ok, let me put it this way and get back to the car analogy

which would you rather be a passenger in, purely from the safety perspective

1/ a car with airbags and ABS and ESC driven by petrolhead

2/ a car without the above but driven by a cheerful and observant driver"

Neither would be any good if you didn't put your own seatbelt on

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum


"this is one of the very points I was making, that people have been so deliberately avoiding acknowledging

I think most people on here are very aware that anal and oral are just as risky as vaginal, but where do you draw the line? At least using protection cuts down the risk.

ok, let me put it this way and get back to the car analogy

which would you rather be a passenger in, purely from the safety perspective

1/ a car with airbags and ABS and ESC driven by petrolhead

2/ a car without the above but driven by a cheerful and observant driver"

No 1, definitely. I might have more chance of being in an accident but I am more likely to come out of the accident alive.

However, its still a flawed analogy. You can be as careful as you possibly can be, but saying you will only sleep with carefully chosen playmates does not prevent them being infected. STI tests are only true for the day the person is tested, and unless they have had no sex since the test they could be at risk by the time you meet them. You are trusting their say so. Thats fine - you are an adult. And I wouldn't not meet someone who has barebacked in the past as I would use a condom. But saying that someone who uses a condom but might have (protected) sex with someone slightly undesirable is more unsafe than someone who never uses a condom but picks 'nice' people seems a bit, well, niaive. Sorry.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *issHottieBottieWoman
over a year ago

Kent


"this is one of the very points I was making, that people have been so deliberately avoiding acknowledging

I think most people on here are very aware that anal and oral are just as risky as vaginal, but where do you draw the line? At least using protection cuts down the risk.

ok, let me put it this way and get back to the car analogy

which would you rather be a passenger in, purely from the safety perspective

1/ a car with airbags and ABS and ESC driven by petrolhead

2/ a car without the above but driven by a cheerful and observant driver"

Number one for me, as if there is an accident at least you'd have some protection. Number 2 is all well and good but accidents aren't always the fault of the driver so surely you should always have safety measures in place

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

For his arguement to hold up, we would have to have research in his favour, suggesting that the ability to select a partner yields favourable disease ratios to the other two control groups.

I have never seen any such research.

Anyone?

well, your research is every single piece of medical science ever done in the field of immunology and infection...

not everyone is the same, some people can catch anything very easily, at the other end of the scale you have people who can't catch it, or who if they do catch it show no symptoms whatsoever.

if all people were equal, any woman would find any man equally attractive at estrus."

Such a broadbased comment isn't a clear reposte.

What I was looking for was some form of observational research that backs up your theory. To me, what you are saying is postulation without unequivocal research evidence to bring it to practice.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter

and so you all make my point

airbags / abs / esr etc are all marketed as safety features, and they all work, IF YOU ARE IN A CRASH

NONE of them do ANYTHING to reduce the probability you will be in a crash

a defensive driving course will reduce the probability you will be in a crash. and to a lesser extent than airbags etc also mitigate the severity of a crash

-------------------

motoring anecdote

many years ago at an expo Citroen unveiled what they called the world's safest car

The body was made entirely of glass, and in the centre of the steering wheel was a 12" long sharpened steel spike pointing straight at the driver's heart

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *Ryan-Man
over a year ago

In Your Bush


"

2/ puerile comments about me not getting any are just that, in the last 10 fab sourced meets I have had, NOT ONE SINGLE ONE DID NOT HAVE SAFE SEX CHECKED on their interests, 6 of them have SAFE SEX ONLY in the text of the profile.... none of them even DISCUSSED condoms, dental dams, etc with me.

"

Unfortunately, as you only display two of your veris. That's the only ones I can add to my 'Keep the fuck away from list'

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You see... most swingers basically follow the rules of evidence based practice. The evidence from their previous practice is, that they are aptly able to minimise their infection status by using a condom for particular forms of contact.

What I would like to see is a similar size group of bareback swingers who were able to remain at the same or less percentile of infection as the condom wearing group.

Or research of a similar ilk, that shows no difference in infection rates between condom users and non condom users.

You are telling me that subjective perception is better than a condom.

Just prove it and I will agree.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The car analogy doesn't really work, it doesn't matter how good a driver you are or how safe when a d*unk driver hits you. But that is the risk you chose to take. Many of us chose to go down the route that is taught in schools and collages all over the country. It's all about improved safety for us.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *estless in batterseaCouple
over a year ago

Wandsworth

The OP's hypothesis is quite specific in operational terms and so therefore i'm inclined to agree.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter


"estrus.

Such a broadbased comment isn't a clear reposte.

What I was looking for was some form of observational research that backs up your theory. To me, what you are saying is postulation without unequivocal research evidence to bring it to practice. "

Your health, your responsibility, do your own research and trust no one else

My "theory" is based on the work of Holmes, Levine, Weaver et al, which is pretty damn good if you are looking for authoritative.

They concluded that for penis / vaginal sexual contact ONLY (not oral, not anal) when dealing with HIV, condom vs bareback represented a overall 87% rediction in risk of infection, with best and worst case scenarios being between 98% to 60%.

Davis and Weller later revised that to 80% overall reduction, and vest and worst being 94% and 35%

can you say russian roulette?

In addition they found that condoms vs bareback reduced the risk of infection for gonorrhea by 62% and chlamydia by 26%

Can you say russian roulette?

A 50% reduction means two condom fucks with someone with an infection = 1 bareback fuck with that same person.

A 75% reduction means four condom fucks with the infected person = 1 bareback fuck.

Can you say russian roulette?

At odds of 12 BILLION to one people are happy to pay money for a lottery ticket and hope for a jackpot.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter


"

Unfortunately, as you only display two of your veris. That's the only ones I can add to my 'Keep the fuck away from list'"

Unfortunately, as you do not display any sign of logic, you take my statement "last ten meets via fab" and just ***assume*** that the two displayed veris fall within that last ten.

Your assumptions are incorrect.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter


"The OP's hypothesis is quite specific in operational terms and so therefore i'm inclined to agree."

there is after all intelligent life on earth...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The OP's hypothesis is quite specific in operational terms and so therefore i'm inclined to agree.

there is after all intelligent life on earth... "

Because people don't agree with what you say they're not intelligent. Ok then!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *estless in batterseaCouple
over a year ago

Wandsworth


"The OP's hypothesis is quite specific in operational terms and so therefore i'm inclined to agree.

there is after all intelligent life on earth... "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The OP's hypothesis is quite specific in operational terms and so therefore i'm inclined to agree.

there is after all intelligent life on earth... "

or you've got two profiles. one is a lot mote patronising tho

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter


"The OP's hypothesis is quite specific in operational terms and so therefore i'm inclined to agree.

there is after all intelligent life on earth...

Because people don't agree with what you say they're not intelligent. Ok then!"

No, because, in shades of rants about why oh why don't people read my fucking profile before messaging me, I class those who clearly have NOT read what I wrote, or who read it but somehow ended up thinking it said something completely different, as unintelligent.

of course it could be a simple case of bigotry and shooting the messenger for me daring to question the religion of "safe sex"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The OP's hypothesis is quite specific in operational terms and so therefore i'm inclined to agree.

there is after all intelligent life on earth...

Because people don't agree with what you say they're not intelligent. Ok then!"

The OP has obviously really thought this through. I firmly disagree with him on a personal level, but on a scientific one am happy to consider whatever data is stuck in front of me.

Intelligence obviously plays a part in the choices we make concerning contraception, but so does culture, class, gender, age....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ombshellWoman
over a year ago

islington

blimey im confused.com now so gonna go to my next meet armed with a bottle of bleach, marigolds, sterile wipes, antiseptic mouthwash, scrubbing brush, body armour and a crash helmet, gonna look cool with me stockings and steel toe capped doc martens( incase summat runs over me toes whilst crossing the road)....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The OP's hypothesis is quite specific in operational terms and so therefore i'm inclined to agree.

there is after all intelligent life on earth...

Because people don't agree with what you say they're not intelligent. Ok then!

No, because, in shades of rants about why oh why don't people read my fucking profile before messaging me, I class those who clearly have NOT read what I wrote, or who read it but somehow ended up thinking it said something completely different, as unintelligent.

of course it could be a simple case of bigotry and shooting the messenger for me daring to question the religion of "safe sex"

"

Fuck me!! Did someone order a big can of WHOOP ASS?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hole Lotta RosieWoman
over a year ago

Deviant City


"

2/ puerile comments about me not getting any are just that, in the last 10 fab sourced meets I have had, NOT ONE SINGLE ONE DID NOT HAVE SAFE SEX CHECKED on their interests, 6 of them have SAFE SEX ONLY in the text of the profile.... none of them even DISCUSSED condoms, dental dams, etc with me.

Unfortunately, as you only display two of your veris. That's the only ones I can add to my 'Keep the fuck away from list'"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *Ryan-Man
over a year ago

In Your Bush


"

Unfortunately, as you only display two of your veris. That's the only ones I can add to my 'Keep the fuck away from list'

Unfortunately, as you do not display any sign of logic, you take my statement "last ten meets via fab" and just ***assume*** that the two displayed veris fall within that last ten.

Your assumptions are incorrect.

"

Like wise if you put 12 biscuits down and said two are made of shit. I wouldn't attempt to try any. When you aren't given all the facts but know there is a risk, you have to make assumptions. I would rather select the safer option.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter


"

The OP has obviously really thought this through. I firmly disagree with him on a personal level, but on a scientific one am happy to consider whatever data is stuck in front of me.

Intelligence obviously plays a part in the choices we make concerning contraception, but so does culture, class, gender, age.... "

If you were sat here I could put peer re_iewed scientific data in front of you for you to read and verify

do you know what condoms are absolutely EXCELLENT at reducing the risk of?

MEN contracting hiv through the penis of the condom wearer, gonorrhea, hpv, and urethral infections

do you know what condoms INCREASE the risk of?

male herpes simplex 2, male papular lesions, male multiple STD's, yup, condoms DOUBLE the risk of all those for the wearer

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Oh I have just sussed out where you are coming from.....the Pope has resigned and you are gunning for his job!!!!

x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter


"Oh I have just sussed out where you are coming from.....the Pope has resigned and you are gunning for his job!!!!

x "

Never mind, there is sure to be a village with a vacancy for an idiot.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

The OP has obviously really thought this through. I firmly disagree with him on a personal level, but on a scientific one am happy to consider whatever data is stuck in front of me.

Intelligence obviously plays a part in the choices we make concerning contraception, but so does culture, class, gender, age....

If you were sat here I could put peer re_iewed scientific data in front of you for you to read and verify

do you know what condoms are absolutely EXCELLENT at reducing the risk of?

MEN contracting hiv through the penis of the condom wearer, gonorrhea, hpv, and urethral infections

do you know what condoms INCREASE the risk of?

male herpes simplex 2, male papular lesions, male multiple STD's, yup, condoms DOUBLE the risk of all those for the wearer

"

Cant you publish the links to the journals and the studies so that we can all look them up and read them?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Oh I have just sussed out where you are coming from.....the Pope has resigned and you are gunning for his job!!!!

x

Never mind, there is sure to be a village with a vacancy for an idiot."

Insults are hardly a very good sign of intelligence hun!! Neither is googling loads of stuff and copy and pasting it on here!

An intelligent retort may show you in a better light, rather than just petty slagging off when someone says something you don't agree with?!

Once again, just what are you trying to justify....that you can fuck lots of skanky women without condoms...round of applause for that!! You must be so proud!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter


"Oh I have just sussed out where you are coming from.....the Pope has resigned and you are gunning for his job!!!!

x

Never mind, there is sure to be a village with a vacancy for an idiot.

Insults are hardly a very good sign of intelligence hun!! Neither is googling loads of stuff and copy and pasting it on here!

An intelligent retort may show you in a better light, rather than just petty slagging off when someone says something you don't agree with?!

Once again, just what are you trying to justify....that you can fuck lots of skanky women without condoms...round of applause for that!! You must be so proud!

"

Yeah, that would be why you made a snarky comment about me running for pope eh... hypocricy much?

Full marks however for utterly failing to comprehend anything I was saying.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter


"

Cant you publish the links to the journals and the studies so that we can all look them up and read them?"

you have mail

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Oh I have just sussed out where you are coming from.....the Pope has resigned and you are gunning for his job!!!!

x

Never mind, there is sure to be a village with a vacancy for an idiot.

Insults are hardly a very good sign of intelligence hun!! Neither is googling loads of stuff and copy and pasting it on here!

An intelligent retort may show you in a better light, rather than just petty slagging off when someone says something you don't agree with?!

Once again, just what are you trying to justify....that you can fuck lots of skanky women without condoms...round of applause for that!! You must be so proud!

Yeah, that would be why you made a snarky comment about me running for pope eh... hypocricy much?

Full marks however for utterly failing to comprehend anything I was saying."

Spelling?!!

My retort was at least witty!

Oh I comprehend it all, but you have still failed to justify why you have posted it in the first place??

If you are happy not using condoms, why not just get on with it without posting this??

Please do explain.... in your own words if possible!

Mwah!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter


"My retort was at least witty"

Then perhaps our tastes in humour and wit are also different.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Sex Transm Infect. 2008 Oct;84 Suppl 2:ii4-11. doi: 10.1136/sti.2008.029850.

Fewer partners or more condoms? Modelling the effectiveness of STI prevention interventions.

Garnett GP, White PJ, Ward H.

There's one for a start.

Basically it says limit your partners, use more condoms.

Or the risk of infection, bacterial and viral, is increased.

I've spent two minutes on medline.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Oh I have just sussed out where you are coming from.....the Pope has resigned and you are gunning for his job!!!!

x

Never mind, there is sure to be a village with a vacancy for an idiot.

Insults are hardly a very good sign of intelligence hun!! Neither is googling loads of stuff and copy and pasting it on here!

An intelligent retort may show you in a better light, rather than just petty slagging off when someone says something you don't agree with?!

Once again, just what are you trying to justify....that you can fuck lots of skanky women without condoms...round of applause for that!! You must be so proud!

Yeah, that would be why you made a snarky comment about me running for pope eh... hypocricy much?

Full marks however for utterly failing to comprehend anything I was saying.

Spelling?!!

My retort was at least witty!

Oh I comprehend it all, but you have still failed to justify why you have posted it in the first place??

If you are happy not using condoms, why not just get on with it without posting this??

Please do explain.... in your own words if possible!

Mwah!

"

Evangelism ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Oh I have just sussed out where you are coming from.....the Pope has resigned and you are gunning for his job!!!!

x

Never mind, there is sure to be a village with a vacancy for an idiot.

Insults are hardly a very good sign of intelligence hun!! Neither is googling loads of stuff and copy and pasting it on here!

An intelligent retort may show you in a better light, rather than just petty slagging off when someone says something you don't agree with?!

Once again, just what are you trying to justify....that you can fuck lots of skanky women without condoms...round of applause for that!! You must be so proud!

Yeah, that would be why you made a snarky comment about me running for pope eh... hypocricy much?

Full marks however for utterly failing to comprehend anything I was saying.

Spelling?!!

My retort was at least witty!

Oh I comprehend it all, but you have still failed to justify why you have posted it in the first place??

If you are happy not using condoms, why not just get on with it without posting this??

Please do explain.... in your own words if possible!

Mwah!

Evangelism ?"

lol x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter


"

Evangelism ?"

tele ^H^H^H netevangelism... praise the lawd and send me your munnay... lol

BTW the link blocking is a pain, try to google WHO documents for 2004

Public Heath Re_iews

Effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted infections

King Holmes, Ruth Levine, Marcia Weaver et al

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *issHottieBottieWoman
over a year ago

Kent


"and so you all make my point

airbags / abs / esr etc are all marketed as safety features, and they all work, IF YOU ARE IN A CRASH

NONE of them do ANYTHING to reduce the probability you will be in a crash

"

Condoms/dental dams etc are all marketed as safety features if you use them during various sexual practices.

NONE of them will do ANYTHING if you don't bother using them In the first place.

This thread is getting weirder by the minute. If you wanna go bare etc then that's up to you and you've stated it on your profile but I don't think your gonna convince anyone that using precautions is a bad idea!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter


"and so you all make my point

airbags / abs / esr etc are all marketed as safety features, and they all work, IF YOU ARE IN A CRASH

NONE of them do ANYTHING to reduce the probability you will be in a crash

Condoms/dental dams etc are all marketed as safety features if you use them during various sexual practices.

NONE of them will do ANYTHING if you don't bother using them In the first place.

This thread is getting weirder by the minute. If you wanna go bare etc then that's up to you and you've stated it on your profile but I don't think your gonna convince anyone that using precautions is a bad idea!! "

Is anyone really this dense?

airbags only work if a car is in a crash, they don't stop you getting in a crash.

the analogy is

condoms only reduce the risk of infection, they don't stop you fucking someone infected

how the fuck you get they don't work if you don't use them, and THEN say the thread is getting weird, is beyond me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *issHottieBottieWoman
over a year ago

Kent


"and so you all make my point

airbags / abs / esr etc are all marketed as safety features, and they all work, IF YOU ARE IN A CRASH

NONE of them do ANYTHING to reduce the probability you will be in a crash

Condoms/dental dams etc are all marketed as safety features if you use them during various sexual practices.

NONE of them will do ANYTHING if you don't bother using them In the first place.

This thread is getting weirder by the minute. If you wanna go bare etc then that's up to you and you've stated it on your profile but I don't think your gonna convince anyone that using precautions is a bad idea!!

Is anyone really this dense?

airbags only work if a car is in a crash, they don't stop you getting in a crash.

the analogy is

condoms only reduce the risk of infection, they don't stop you fucking someone infected

how the fuck you get they don't work if you don't use them, and THEN say the thread is getting weird, is beyond me."

Of course they don't stop you fucking someone infected but they reduce the chance of you catching something a hell of a lot more then not using them at all which is what you are trying to advocate.

And you call ME dense?? Pot, kettle springs to mind.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 13/02/13 20:22:44]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter


"

Of course they don't stop you fucking someone infected but they reduce the chance of you catching something a hell of a lot more then not using them at all which is what you are trying to advocate.

And you call ME dense?? Pot, kettle springs to mind. "

There you go... REDUCE the chance, not cut it to zero, not cut it to one thousandth, not cut it to one hundredth, not even cut it by half in many cases

this is "safe sex" is it, anything only half as risky as bareback WITH SOMEONE INFECTED

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I seem to be able to offer you at least one decent bit of research that pertains to exactly the scenario that we are talking about.

I'm aware of the stuff you are talking about.

I've been onto all the medical databases, such as CINHAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AIDS Line.... and I can only find evidence to support the practice of the majority here.

If you want to BB, just find other people who like it and go for it. But don't try and sell it to everyone as a great idea and as safe as what they do, because the evidence is..... overwhelming from my brief time on MEDLINE, CINHAHL etc this evening.

What you are doing is performing a high risk behaviour with everything left to a subjective guess about your partner. Folks here won't buy it unless you provide the proof.:/

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *issHottieBottieWoman
over a year ago

Kent


"

Of course they don't stop you fucking someone infected but they reduce the chance of you catching something a hell of a lot more then not using them at all which is what you are trying to advocate.

And you call ME dense?? Pot, kettle springs to mind.

There you go... REDUCE the chance, not cut it to zero, not cut it to one thousandth, not cut it to one hundredth, not even cut it by half in many cases

this is "safe sex" is it, anything only half as risky as bareback WITH SOMEONE INFECTED"

Yeah, reduce!! A damn site better then nothing I think you'll find most people would agree, airbags, bullet proof vests, condoms, etc, all tools to provide people with a better chance if they come into contact with danger.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Surely that's what this is all about reducing the risk as much as possible you have your way and we have ours, you think yours is better we think ours is better, so where is any of this getting us?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter


"

What you are doing is performing a high risk behaviour with everything left to a subjective guess about your partner. Folks here won't buy it unless you provide the proof.:/

"

sigh...

LAST attempt

lets say for the sake of argument someone like you and someone like me fuck, the someone like you is by your definition low risk, the someone like me is by your definition high risk.

1/ you claim condoms are incredibly effective, if you believe this, then the low risk person can fuck the high risk person, while remaining low risk themselves.... you MUST, by DEFINITION, either hold this to be true, OR, accept that condoms are not huge risk reducers.

2/ the low risk and high risk person have sex with a condom, great, but at some point oral sex without a condom occurs, at this point the exposure of the low risk person to the high risk person is as high as if no condom was used... this is only a difficult point to accept if you refuse to believe that oral sex is a high risk transmission path, which is fine as a belief, but is about as scientific as the african guys who believe that having sex with a virgin is a cure for AIDS

3/ the high risk person knows he is indulging in something potentially dangerous, so is very cautious, the low risk person is in reality hardly any safer than the high risk person, but they are self delusional about their safety, and so will fuck people the high risk person would not....

QED

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So the point of this thread is to try and convince people that they don't have to use protection, sorry but it's freedom of choice simple as you do your thing we will do ours. In short your point has no bearing on the way we choose to swing. Sorry but it really is that simple.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter


"So the point of this thread is to try and convince people that they don't have to use protection, sorry but it's freedom of choice simple as you do your thing we will do ours. In short your point has no bearing on the way we choose to swing. Sorry but it really is that simple."

Derwin was right.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *issHottieBottieWoman
over a year ago

Kent


"So the point of this thread is to try and convince people that they don't have to use protection, sorry but it's freedom of choice simple as you do your thing we will do ours. In short your point has no bearing on the way we choose to swing. Sorry but it really is that simple.

Derwin was right."

Who's derwin?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andACouple
over a year ago

glasgow

This all seems to be based on the following assumptions

1) People who practice safe sex are sleeping with anyone because they think it's safe

2) Some people who practice bareback sex are far more selective and therefore less at risk of meeting someone with an std

Both premises are flawed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Fuck it, I'm going to stick to wanking with a condom and a pair of marigolds on

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter


"

Derwin was right.

Who's derwin?"

same guy as darwin + a touch screen UI on a smartphone while shooting the shit about japanese reflation and currency wars at a pub

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

3/ the high risk person knows he is indulging in something potentially dangerous, so is very cautious

Define "cautious".

I am genuinely interested in how you "vet" your meets by erring on the side of caution?

x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *estless in batterseaCouple
over a year ago

Wandsworth


"This all seems to be based on the following assumptions

1) People who practice safe sex are sleeping with anyone because they think it's safe

2) Some people who practice bareback sex are far more selective and therefore less at risk of meeting someone with an std

Both premises are flawed."
How exactly is it flawed?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Sorry but I would rather follow the advice of local health professionals than some guy on a forum. This isn't meant as nasty or harsh but GUM clinics all over the country give the same advise based on a great deal of research, are they wrong? Just out of interest have you ever had a test. We both have and will continue to do so. No condoms are not 100% protection from STI s or pregnancy but they do reduce the risk. Please don't assume that just because we use condoms we would have sex with anyone we too are picky with who we might play with. Add the two together and we have a better chance of staying clean than being picky alone. That's how we do things you chose to do things differently. It really is that simple.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

482,000 New STDs every year, you forgot to mention the number of unplanned pregnancies as well.

Most think the number of diagnosed STDs are the tip of the ice berg as some never get tested, but do pass on the infections.

Its not just the one person you have unprotected sex with, its the other 100 in the chain that the person had sex with, as well as the countless others that had sex with those 100.

Any protection is better than none at all surely.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andACouple
over a year ago

glasgow


"This all seems to be based on the following assumptions

1) People who practice safe sex are sleeping with anyone because they think it's safe

2) Some people who practice bareback sex are far more selective and therefore less at risk of meeting someone with an std

Both premises are flawed.How exactly is it flawed? "

Well it's a false dichotomy for a start. Point 1 is also a straw man.

And that's before we even get into specifics of working out the process of being cautious and the problems that arise with that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Sorry but I would rather follow the advice of local health professionals than some guy on a forum. This isn't meant as nasty or harsh but GUM clinics all over the country give the same advise based on a great deal of research, are they wrong? Just out of interest have you ever had a test. We both have and will continue to do so. No condoms are not 100% protection from STI s or pregnancy but they do reduce the risk. Please don't assume that just because we use condoms we would have sex with anyone we too are picky with who we might play with. Add the two together and we have a better chance of staying clean than being picky alone. That's how we do things you chose to do things differently. It really is that simple."

How can being picky alter anything though? If being picky includes showing their last test results and not met anyone since, fair enough but I can't get my head round how being picky can reduce risks

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Sorry but I would rather follow the advice of local health professionals than some guy on a forum. This isn't meant as nasty or harsh but GUM clinics all over the country give the same advise based on a great deal of research, are they wrong? Just out of interest have you ever had a test. We both have and will continue to do so. No condoms are not 100% protection from STI s or pregnancy but they do reduce the risk. Please don't assume that just because we use condoms we would have sex with anyone we too are picky with who we might play with. Add the two together and we have a better chance of staying clean than being picky alone. That's how we do things you chose to do things differently. It really is that simple.

How can being picky alter anything though? If being picky includes showing their last test results and not met anyone since, fair enough but I can't get my head round how being picky can reduce risks "

I'd love to know how the OP does his risk management :/

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum


"Sorry but I would rather follow the advice of local health professionals than some guy on a forum. This isn't meant as nasty or harsh but GUM clinics all over the country give the same advise based on a great deal of research, are they wrong? Just out of interest have you ever had a test. We both have and will continue to do so. No condoms are not 100% protection from STI s or pregnancy but they do reduce the risk. Please don't assume that just because we use condoms we would have sex with anyone we too are picky with who we might play with. Add the two together and we have a better chance of staying clean than being picky alone. That's how we do things you chose to do things differently. It really is that simple.

How can being picky alter anything though? If being picky includes showing their last test results and not met anyone since, fair enough but I can't get my head round how being picky can reduce risks "

It's simple! If they look skanky they must be riddled with disease!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Never understand why safe sex gets liked to driving..

Atleast cars have to have mot's and safety checks to be road worthy!

That's a lot more than a person has to have before having sex :/

Also find it laughable that u can tell by the state of a person if they are diseased? Lol so if u shower before and after then you can't get an infection... Serious?!?

Everything we do in life is a risk of some kind and we all have to do things to minimise the risk.. No matter how small the risk.

Its a small risk u will get something nasty from uncooked food..but would u eat a half cooked burger from a fast food joint?

Its cause of the people who do play safe that keep things like hiv down in this country, look at africa where condoms aren't used..

Also we have fewer road deaths cos we take more safety precautions here than countries that don't

Etc..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_Turpin OP   Man
over a year ago

Exeter


"

I'd love to know how the OP does his risk management :/

"

I cast the runes and consult the ashes of the pyre.

Alternatively I look at threads like this and just include everyone with a room temperature IQ in the unfuckable category.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackCherryCouple
over a year ago

Bristol


"

I cast the runes and consult the ashes of the pyre.

Alternatively I look at threads like this and just include everyone with a room temperature IQ in the unfuckable category.

"

I guess if someone told you to go fuck yourself you would be in a bit of a conundrum then judging by this thread.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackCherryCouple
over a year ago

Bristol


"

I'd love to know how the OP does his risk management :/

"

He can smell a STI at 100 yards.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum


"

I cast the runes and consult the ashes of the pyre.

Alternatively I look at threads like this and just include everyone with a room temperature IQ in the unfuckable category.

I guess if someone told you to go fuck yourself you would be in a bit of a conundrum then judging by this thread."

Now that would be safe sex!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think if the term was "safer sex" rather than "safe sex" I can understand where the OP is coming from.

Let's face it, the only safe sex is none existent sex.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *issHottieBottieWoman
over a year ago

Kent


"I think if the term was "safer sex" rather than "safe sex" I can understand where the OP is coming from.

Let's face it, the only safe sex is none existent sex."

That's very true. But the OP was not suggesting abstinence. But that people who bare back are more aware of safety then people who use condoms etc.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think if the term was "safer sex" rather than "safe sex" I can understand where the OP is coming from.

Let's face it, the only safe sex is none existent sex.

That's very true. But the OP was not suggesting abstinence. But that people who bare back are more aware of safety then people who use condoms etc."

And that philosophy has more holes in it than the worlds largest sieve

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

I'd love to know how the OP does his risk management :/

I cast the runes and consult the ashes of the pyre.

Alternatively I look at threads like this and just include everyone with a room temperature IQ in the unfuckable category.

"

Oh yes, I forgot when I got a degree, that the unintelligent plebs beneath me were handed out GUM appointment cards instead!!!!

Now, you are being a plonker!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ighland_RoseCouple
over a year ago

Brigadoon

"In 2009 there were 482,000 new STD diagnoses in the UK, call the sexually active population 48 million, so approximately 1% of the fucking population gets an STD OF SOME SORT every year."

That's just twisting the stats to suit your _iew.

I think you'd find that most people getting STIs will be the casual shaggers and non condom wearers and they aren't 100% of the fucking population.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

I'd love to know how the OP does his risk management :/

I cast the runes and consult the ashes of the pyre.

Alternatively I look at threads like this and just include everyone with a room temperature IQ in the unfuckable category.

"

Now he knows our IQ at a glance, along with our latest STD results.

Notwithstanding... If we are all in your unfuckable category, then I think that suits us all quite nicely.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittlebitWoman
over a year ago

Plymouth

My brain melted reading all that!

A chastity belt sounds good to me right now

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *evilwolfCouple
over a year ago

Leicestershire


"My brain melted reading all that!

A chastity belt sounds good to me right now "

I think I'll stick to wearing elbow-length marigolds in future

Wolf

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Now he knows our IQ at a glance, along with our latest STD results.

Notwithstanding... If we are all in your unfuckable category, then I think that suits us all quite nicely.

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top