Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
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 |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have seen many meets posted on here for bareback gangbangs over the last few years. I know the subject is quite controversial. But I get the feeling that people are getting more relaxed about protection. I was wondering how people felt about them??" You see the meets posted but do you ever see the results posted? I'm guessing not many turn up tbh | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Its not something we would ever do,but people can make their own informed choices. Miss"  And un-informed choices  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just the thought of a bareback gangbang makes me feel quite queasy to be honest." Me too  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I cannot get my head around for a couple of hours fun, people are prepared to put both their sexual health and health in real danger WTF ???? Madness is my eyes " Completely agree with you on this one. Health comes first | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have seen many meets posted on here for bareback gangbangs over the last few years. I know the subject is quite controversial. But I get the feeling that people are getting more relaxed about protection. I was wondering how people felt about them??" freaks me! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have seen many meets posted on here for bareback gangbangs over the last few years. I know the subject is quite controversial. But I get the feeling that people are getting more relaxed about protection. I was wondering how people felt about them??" Not relaxed at all. It takes a lot of trust in your meets to risk this I would say, but people will lie to get what they want. If you want to put your life in their hands then I suppose that is your choice, but we just can't find that sort of trust so it's condom on or goodbye in our books. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just the thought of a bareback gangbang makes me feel quite queasy to be honest." I find the thought of it highly arousing. However. I would never participate. Then again i have a lot of fantasies that inwould never fulfill. Theoretically if i was to participate, I would want to be the first to fuck her. Each to their own though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's not really like Russian roulette though is it? Russian roluette - a 1 in 6 chance of blowing your head off and dying instantly. Bareback sex - significantly better odds than that, and I'm pretty sure you don't die instantly. " This. The odds of a woman catching HIV from an infected man in a "high-income country" is 0.08%. Having said that, it's 40% for chlamydia. But whatever, just get on with your own life | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why risk it " Because the people who indulge, enjoy it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just the thought of a bareback gangbang makes me feel quite queasy to be honest." With you there | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think statistically playing Russian roulette you're more likely to bite the bullet " Literally as well as metaphorically | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Food for thought a lot of people here have unprotected Oral sex. Isnt the risk the same?" No | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't got to them so have no thoughts beyond, if it's legal...they can do it. We look after our own sexual health and leave others to their choices. " Farting in lifts is legal, doesn't mean it's a good idea. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have seen many meets posted on here for bareback gangbangs over the last few years. I know the subject is quite controversial. But I get the feeling that people are getting more relaxed about protection. I was wondering how people felt about them?? You see the meets posted but do you ever see the results posted? I'm guessing not many turn up tbh " You'd be very surprised believe me. I'd never go to one. The idea that several guys who you have no idea who they are or what they do in their personal life just puts me right off  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think most people wouldn't. But for arguments sake everyone who attended would need to be tested and have an up to date proof that they were. Its no guarantee though. Food for thought a lot of people here have unprotected Oral sex. Isnt the risk the same?" There are risks to oral sex but they are much lower than that of penetrative sex. Your mouth is better designed to deal with infection than your genitals. You can use an oral barrier (basically a sheet of cling film) or a condom to reduce risks further. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know it's PC to say 'each to their own' on here, but anyone who takes part in a bareback gangbang has to be completely insane and should be made to play russian roulette for real, but with a bullet in every chamber. There, I've said it "So you want to execute them all, how nice x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not for us...In South Africa years back a specialist told us if you go with a HIV infected person and bang away normal route 1 in ten thousand is the risk.. in the ass 1 in 3 .... a route which in Aftrica made it spread because of a lack of essentials and knowledge." Plus government denial of the risks... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's not really like Russian roulette though is it? Russian roluette - a 1 in 6 chance of blowing your head off and dying instantly. Bareback sex - significantly better odds than that, and I'm pretty sure you don't die instantly. " No there's a sick glamour in blowing your head off in Russian roulette hence it's prevailing in media, films, music, news etc... whereas there's no glamour in hiv/aids just stigma and restriction illness and death. So as an analogy it works, for me it's understandable doesn't really require significant leaps to connect the dots... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know it's PC to say 'each to their own' on here, but anyone who takes part in a bareback gangbang has to be completely insane and should be made to play russian roulette for real, but with a bullet in every chamber. There, I've said it "A truly stomach churning shocking comment | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Obviously one should always use condoms except with a trusted partner but those comparing bareback sex with strangers with Russian roulette are being a tad hyperbolic. There are around 100,000 people with hiv in the UK, so around 0.2% of the adult population. If you have unprotected vaginal sex with someone with hiv you have an 0.08% chance of being infected if you are female and an 0.04% chance of you are male. So if you have bareback sex with a random stranger there is a one in five hundred chance they will have hiv and even if they have, there is a more than one in two thousand chance you will be infected. So overall if my maths is right an act of bareback vaginal sex with a stranger in the uk gives you around a one in a million chance of catching hiv. It should also be noted that getting hiv is no longer a death sentence. With proper treatment life expectancy is not effected. Obviously lots of us don't want to take even that one in a million chance but to suggest people who do are playing Russian roulette is nonsense. An interesting thought experiment. There are probably plenty of sports where the chances of getting serious life effecting injury is considerably greater than one in a million (hang gliding, mountaineering, boxing). Why do people who practice those not get vilified in a similar way to barebackers? " Good to read a comment that shows at least one other person understands about safety and risks. The most frightening thing on Fab is not those who are happy to bareback but those people who think a condom provides safe sex. In such cases many do not even have regular checks at a GUM clinic to ascertain they are STI free. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Additionally there seems to be a special antipathy displayed towards bareback gangbangers. My ex who is not a swinger slept with 5 guys in the 3 years before we met. All bareback. Not sure why a woman who screws 5 men in one evening attracts so much abuse. " A lot of it is actually morality based. For example catching gonorrhea through swinging is no more significant than getting a groin strain playing football- painful but easily treatable. However there is a long history in Western cultures in seeing stds as different from other diseases and as some sort of punishment for sin and hence shameful . I think that belief still unconsciously effects lots of people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Additionally there seems to be a special antipathy displayed towards bareback gangbangers. My ex who is not a swinger slept with 5 guys in the 3 years before we met. All bareback. Not sure why a woman who screws 5 men in one evening attracts so much abuse. A lot of it is actually morality based. For example catching gonorrhea through swinging is no more significant than getting a groin strain playing football- painful but easily treatable. However there is a long history in Western cultures in seeing stds as different from other diseases and as some sort of punishment for sin and hence shameful . I think that belief still unconsciously effects lots of people. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Obviously one should always use condoms except with a trusted partner but those comparing bareback sex with strangers with Russian roulette are being a tad hyperbolic. There are around 100,000 people with hiv in the UK, so around 0.2% of the adult population. If you have unprotected vaginal sex with someone with hiv you have an 0.08% chance of being infected if you are female and an 0.04% chance of you are male. So if you have bareback sex with a random stranger there is a one in five hundred chance they will have hiv and even if they have, there is a more than one in two thousand chance you will be infected. So overall if my maths is right an act of bareback vaginal sex with a stranger in the uk gives you around a one in a million chance of catching hiv. It should also be noted that getting hiv is no longer a death sentence. With proper treatment life expectancy is not effected. Obviously lots of us don't want to take even that one in a million chance but to suggest people who do are playing Russian roulette is nonsense. An interesting thought experiment. There are probably plenty of sports where the chances of getting serious life effecting injury is considerably greater than one in a million (hang gliding, mountaineering, boxing). Why do people who practice those not get vilified in a similar way to barebackers? Good to read a comment that shows at least one other person understands about safety and risks. The most frightening thing on Fab is not those who are happy to bareback but those people who think a condom provides safe sex. In such cases many do not even have regular checks at a GUM clinic to ascertain they are STI free." With cancer killing 1 in 5 in this country I am always surprised when I hear smokers going on about STIs however there is still a stigma about STIs. Flu kills on average 12,000 a year in the UK but that does not stop people kissing, shaking hands and, horror or horrors, touching lift buttons!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Additionally there seems to be a special antipathy displayed towards bareback gangbangers. My ex who is not a swinger slept with 5 guys in the 3 years before we met. All bareback. Not sure why a woman who screws 5 men in one evening attracts so much abuse. A lot of it is actually morality based. For example catching gonorrhea through swinging is no more significant than getting a groin strain playing football- painful but easily treatable. However there is a long history in Western cultures in seeing stds as different from other diseases and as some sort of punishment for sin and hence shameful . I think that belief still unconsciously effects lots of people. " I think it's a little simpler than that... you were expected to hit sexual maturity get married have kids and die. We are different as a society now. I think that's a given... but that change needs generations to filter through. People shouldnt be castigated for that surely. That same society was faced with a disease that couldn't be controlled and there was no know cure. Hence the reaction and education around it. Unless am mistaken there is still no cure... even the best attempts have failed to clear cellular resivoirs of infection which 3, 6 or 9mths later re-trigger, even after a clean test! The 100,000 figure as I understand it is an estimation and doesn't factor in the 73% increase in people accessing hiv care since 2005. It's also a figure that means the people know they're infected. The that suggest that could be revised up 30-35% from people who do not know they are infected. There does need to be a balance... because misinformation reigns. That said suggesting that sports risks equate to hiv is one hell of a leap. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Additionally there seems to be a special antipathy displayed towards bareback gangbangers. My ex who is not a swinger slept with 5 guys in the 3 years before we met. All bareback. Not sure why a woman who screws 5 men in one evening attracts so much abuse. A lot of it is actually morality based. For example catching gonorrhea through swinging is no more significant than getting a groin strain playing football- painful but easily treatable. However there is a long history in Western cultures in seeing stds as different from other diseases and as some sort of punishment for sin and hence shameful . I think that belief still unconsciously effects lots of people. I think it's a little simpler than that... you were expected to hit sexual maturity get married have kids and die. We are different as a society now. I think that's a given... but that change needs generations to filter through. People shouldnt be castigated for that surely. That same society was faced with a disease that couldn't be controlled and there was no know cure. Hence the reaction and education around it. Unless am mistaken there is still no cure... even the best attempts have failed to clear cellular resivoirs of infection which 3, 6 or 9mths later re-trigger, even after a clean test! The 100,000 figure as I understand it is an estimation and doesn't factor in the 73% increase in people accessing hiv care since 2005. It's also a figure that means the people know they're infected. The that suggest that could be revised up 30-35% from people who do not know they are infected. There does need to be a balance... because misinformation reigns. That said suggesting that sports risks equate to hiv is one hell of a leap. " Please explain how it is a leap. The chances of getting hiv from bareback vaginal sex in the UK is tiny however you criticise the stats round the edges. I have little doubt the chances of getting serious injury from, say attempting to scale a peak in the himalayas are much greater. Why is that a leap? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh look. Fab forums being chock full of people who are full of shit. I admit a bareback gangbang may not be something I wanna throw myself into but this idea that its some spawn of satan pastime is pretty comical. With a little bit of planning (up to date STI checks, waiver forms) it can be made relatively safe fairly easy...if this wasnt the case then porn would have died out a long, long time ago. " As I have said it's morality masquerading as safety. People want to say "l may be a swinger but I am not as manky as THAT" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Additionally there seems to be a special antipathy displayed towards bareback gangbangers. My ex who is not a swinger slept with 5 guys in the 3 years before we met. All bareback. Not sure why a woman who screws 5 men in one evening attracts so much abuse. A lot of it is actually morality based. For example catching gonorrhea through swinging is no more significant than getting a groin strain playing football- painful but easily treatable. However there is a long history in Western cultures in seeing stds as different from other diseases and as some sort of punishment for sin and hence shameful . I think that belief still unconsciously effects lots of people. I think it's a little simpler than that... you were expected to hit sexual maturity get married have kids and die. We are different as a society now. I think that's a given... but that change needs generations to filter through. People shouldnt be castigated for that surely. That same society was faced with a disease that couldn't be controlled and there was no know cure. Hence the reaction and education around it. Unless am mistaken there is still no cure... even the best attempts have failed to clear cellular resivoirs of infection which 3, 6 or 9mths later re-trigger, even after a clean test! The 100,000 figure as I understand it is an estimation and doesn't factor in the 73% increase in people accessing hiv care since 2005. It's also a figure that means the people know they're infected. The that suggest that could be revised up 30-35% from people who do not know they are infected. There does need to be a balance... because misinformation reigns. That said suggesting that sports risks equate to hiv is one hell of a leap. Please explain how it is a leap. The chances of getting hiv from bareback vaginal sex in the UK is tiny however you criticise the stats round the edges. I have little doubt the chances of getting serious injury from, say attempting to scale a peak in the himalayas are much greater. That said Why is that a leap? " Your comparing bareback everyday sex... with climbing the fucking Himalayas lol At any point 100 million+ are hanging out the back of something... how many people are on Everest. The risk is exponentially great due to the sheer numbers of proponants... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about the risks of bareback sex vs bearback sex? Them grizzlies, browns, and yogis are fucking lethal. " Only in russia and even then It's 'bear-ly' legal...  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Additionally there seems to be a special antipathy displayed towards bareback gangbangers. My ex who is not a swinger slept with 5 guys in the 3 years before we met. All bareback. Not sure why a woman who screws 5 men in one evening attracts so much abuse. A lot of it is actually morality based. For example catching gonorrhea through swinging is no more significant than getting a groin strain playing football- painful but easily treatable. However there is a long history in Western cultures in seeing stds as different from other diseases and as some sort of punishment for sin and hence shameful . I think that belief still unconsciously effects lots of people. I think it's a little simpler than that... you were expected to hit sexual maturity get married have kids and die. We are different as a society now. I think that's a given... but that change needs generations to filter through. People shouldnt be castigated for that surely. That same society was faced with a disease that couldn't be controlled and there was no know cure. Hence the reaction and education around it. Unless am mistaken there is still no cure... even the best attempts have failed to clear cellular resivoirs of infection which 3, 6 or 9mths later re-trigger, even after a clean test! The 100,000 figure as I understand it is an estimation and doesn't factor in the 73% increase in people accessing hiv care since 2005. It's also a figure that means the people know they're infected. The that suggest that could be revised up 30-35% from people who do not know they are infected. There does need to be a balance... because misinformation reigns. That said suggesting that sports risks equate to hiv is one hell of a leap. Please explain how it is a leap. The chances of getting hiv from bareback vaginal sex in the UK is tiny however you criticise the stats round the edges. I have little doubt the chances of getting serious injury from, say attempting to scale a peak in the himalayas are much greater. That said Why is that a leap? Your comparing bareback everyday sex... with climbing the fucking Himalayas lol At any point 100 million+ are hanging out the back of something... how many people are on Everest. The risk is exponentially great due to the sheer numbers of proponants..." That's not my point. If I posted a thread on here saying I was having a bareback gangbang with ten people lots of people would vilify me. On the other hand if I said I was going on a ten person Everest expedition no one would, even though the risks of the latter are substantially greater. The only reason I can think of for that difference is that people think that enjoyment achieved through mountain climbing is superior to that achieved via sex and hence worth a greater degree of risk. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There are around 100,000 people with hiv in the UK, so around 0.2% of the adult population. If you have unprotected vaginal sex with someone with hiv you have an 0.08% chance of being infected if you are female and an 0.04% chance of you are male. So if you have bareback sex with a random stranger there is a one in five hundred chance they will have hiv and even if they have, there is a more than one in two thousand chance you will be infected. So overall if my maths is right an act of bareback vaginal sex with a stranger in the uk gives you around a one in a million chance of catching hiv. " The devil is in the wording. If you had sex with a randomly selected individual from the sample population then the maths works. But its not a normal distribution, once you find a stranger that would voluntarily have bareback sex with you (i.e. not randomly selected) then the odds get considerably worse since most people don't have sex with strangers. The average number of lifetime partners for the average person in the uk is 10 and thats just a good friday night at AbFabs for some. However the odds get considerably better when you factor in people that do or don't have a recent sexual health test which is how porn survives, as mentioned above. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Additionally there seems to be a special antipathy displayed towards bareback gangbangers. My ex who is not a swinger slept with 5 guys in the 3 years before we met. All bareback. Not sure why a woman who screws 5 men in one evening attracts so much abuse. A lot of it is actually morality based. For example catching gonorrhea through swinging is no more significant than getting a groin strain playing football- painful but easily treatable. However there is a long history in Western cultures in seeing stds as different from other diseases and as some sort of punishment for sin and hence shameful . I think that belief still unconsciously effects lots of people. I think it's a little simpler than that... you were expected to hit sexual maturity get married have kids and die. We are different as a society now. I think that's a given... but that change needs generations to filter through. People shouldnt be castigated for that surely. That same society was faced with a disease that couldn't be controlled and there was no know cure. Hence the reaction and education around it. Unless am mistaken there is still no cure... even the best attempts have failed to clear cellular resivoirs of infection which 3, 6 or 9mths later re-trigger, even after a clean test! The 100,000 figure as I understand it is an estimation and doesn't factor in the 73% increase in people accessing hiv care since 2005. It's also a figure that means the people know they're infected. The that suggest that could be revised up 30-35% from people who do not know they are infected. There does need to be a balance... because misinformation reigns. That said suggesting that sports risks equate to hiv is one hell of a leap. Please explain how it is a leap. The chances of getting hiv from bareback vaginal sex in the UK is tiny however you criticise the stats round the edges. I have little doubt the chances of getting serious injury from, say attempting to scale a peak in the himalayas are much greater. That said Why is that a leap? Your comparing bareback everyday sex... with climbing the fucking Himalayas lol At any point 100 million+ are hanging out the back of something... how many people are on Everest. The risk is exponentially great due to the sheer numbers of proponants... That's not my point. If I posted a thread on here saying I was having a bareback gangbang with ten people lots of people would vilify me. On the other hand if I said I was going on a ten person Everest expedition no one would, even though the risks of the latter are substantially greater. The only reason I can think of for that difference is that people think that enjoyment achieved through mountain climbing is superior to that achieved via sex and hence worth a greater degree of risk. " But look your placing a socially significant undertaking with fucking... I see your angle am saying it's acute...very acute. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not for us...In South Africa years back a specialist told us if you go with a HIV infected person and bang away normal route 1 in ten thousand is the risk.. in the ass 1 in 3 .... a route which in Aftrica made it spread because of a lack of essentials and knowledge. Plus government denial of the risks..." The Catholic Church also had a major part to play by not condoning safe sex/contraception! Many African nations are hugely religious/Catholic! All it would take to save countless thousands of lives is for the Catholic Church to enter the 21st Century! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Additionally there seems to be a special antipathy displayed towards bareback gangbangers. My ex who is not a swinger slept with 5 guys in the 3 years before we met. All bareback. Not sure why a woman who screws 5 men in one evening attracts so much abuse. A lot of it is actually morality based. For example catching gonorrhea through swinging is no more significant than getting a groin strain playing football- painful but easily treatable. However there is a long history in Western cultures in seeing stds as different from other diseases and as some sort of punishment for sin and hence shameful . I think that belief still unconsciously effects lots of people. I think it's a little simpler than that... you were expected to hit sexual maturity get married have kids and die. We are different as a society now. I think that's a given... but that change needs generations to filter through. People shouldnt be castigated for that surely. That same society was faced with a disease that couldn't be controlled and there was no know cure. Hence the reaction and education around it. Unless am mistaken there is still no cure... even the best attempts have failed to clear cellular resivoirs of infection which 3, 6 or 9mths later re-trigger, even after a clean test! The 100,000 figure as I understand it is an estimation and doesn't factor in the 73% increase in people accessing hiv care since 2005. It's also a figure that means the people know they're infected. The that suggest that could be revised up 30-35% from people who do not know they are infected. There does need to be a balance... because misinformation reigns. That said suggesting that sports risks equate to hiv is one hell of a leap. Please explain how it is a leap. The chances of getting hiv from bareback vaginal sex in the UK is tiny however you criticise the stats round the edges. I have little doubt the chances of getting serious injury from, say attempting to scale a peak in the himalayas are much greater. That said Why is that a leap? Your comparing bareback everyday sex... with climbing the fucking Himalayas lol At any point 100 million+ are hanging out the back of something... how many people are on Everest. The risk is exponentially great due to the sheer numbers of proponants... That's not my point. If I posted a thread on here saying I was having a bareback gangbang with ten people lots of people would vilify me. On the other hand if I said I was going on a ten person Everest expedition no one would, even though the risks of the latter are substantially greater. The only reason I can think of for that difference is that people think that enjoyment achieved through mountain climbing is superior to that achieved via sex and hence worth a greater degree of risk. But look your placing a socially significant undertaking with fucking... I see your angle am saying it's acute...very acute. "Why is me organising a mountaineering expedition socially significant? I am doing it for my fun. No other reason. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Additionally there seems to be a special antipathy displayed towards bareback gangbangers. My ex who is not a swinger slept with 5 guys in the 3 years before we met. All bareback. Not sure why a woman who screws 5 men in one evening attracts so much abuse. A lot of it is actually morality based. For example catching gonorrhea through swinging is no more significant than getting a groin strain playing football- painful but easily treatable. However there is a long history in Western cultures in seeing stds as different from other diseases and as some sort of punishment for sin and hence shameful . I think that belief still unconsciously effects lots of people. I think it's a little simpler than that... you were expected to hit sexual maturity get married have kids and die. We are different as a society now. I think that's a given... but that change needs generations to filter through. People shouldnt be castigated for that surely. That same society was faced with a disease that couldn't be controlled and there was no know cure. Hence the reaction and education around it. Unless am mistaken there is still no cure... even the best attempts have failed to clear cellular resivoirs of infection which 3, 6 or 9mths later re-trigger, even after a clean test! The 100,000 figure as I understand it is an estimation and doesn't factor in the 73% increase in people accessing hiv care since 2005. It's also a figure that means the people know they're infected. The that suggest that could be revised up 30-35% from people who do not know they are infected. There does need to be a balance... because misinformation reigns. That said suggesting that sports risks equate to hiv is one hell of a leap. Please explain how it is a leap. The chances of getting hiv from bareback vaginal sex in the UK is tiny however you criticise the stats round the edges. I have little doubt the chances of getting serious injury from, say attempting to scale a peak in the himalayas are much greater. That said Why is that a leap? Your comparing bareback everyday sex... with climbing the fucking Himalayas lol At any point 100 million+ are hanging out the back of something... how many people are on Everest. The risk is exponentially great due to the sheer numbers of proponants... That's not my point. If I posted a thread on here saying I was having a bareback gangbang with ten people lots of people would vilify me. On the other hand if I said I was going on a ten person Everest expedition no one would, even though the risks of the latter are substantially greater. The only reason I can think of for that difference is that people think that enjoyment achieved through mountain climbing is superior to that achieved via sex and hence worth a greater degree of risk. But look your placing a socially significant undertaking with fucking... I see your angle am saying it's acute...very acute.
Why is me organising a mountaineering expedition socially significant? I am doing it for my fun. No other reason. "Look you've used the Himalayas... not fucking Snowdonia. Lol So to equate you using the Himalayas is like your bareback gang bang containing Beyonce... Cameron Diaz and Mila kunis... The scale of the proposition or event is significant surely you seeing that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Additionally there seems to be a special antipathy displayed towards bareback gangbangers. My ex who is not a swinger slept with 5 guys in the 3 years before we met. All bareback. Not sure why a woman who screws 5 men in one evening attracts so much abuse. A lot of it is actually morality based. For example catching gonorrhea through swinging is no more significant than getting a groin strain playing football- painful but easily treatable. However there is a long history in Western cultures in seeing stds as different from other diseases and as some sort of punishment for sin and hence shameful . I think that belief still unconsciously effects lots of people. I think it's a little simpler than that... you were expected to hit sexual maturity get married have kids and die. We are different as a society now. I think that's a given... but that change needs generations to filter through. People shouldnt be castigated for that surely. That same society was faced with a disease that couldn't be controlled and there was no know cure. Hence the reaction and education around it. Unless am mistaken there is still no cure... even the best attempts have failed to clear cellular resivoirs of infection which 3, 6 or 9mths later re-trigger, even after a clean test! The 100,000 figure as I understand it is an estimation and doesn't factor in the 73% increase in people accessing hiv care since 2005. It's also a figure that means the people know they're infected. The that suggest that could be revised up 30-35% from people who do not know they are infected. There does need to be a balance... because misinformation reigns. That said suggesting that sports risks equate to hiv is one hell of a leap. Please explain how it is a leap. The chances of getting hiv from bareback vaginal sex in the UK is tiny however you criticise the stats round the edges. I have little doubt the chances of getting serious injury from, say attempting to scale a peak in the himalayas are much greater. That said Why is that a leap? Your comparing bareback everyday sex... with climbing the fucking Himalayas lol At any point 100 million+ are hanging out the back of something... how many people are on Everest. The risk is exponentially great due to the sheer numbers of proponants... That's not my point. If I posted a thread on here saying I was having a bareback gangbang with ten people lots of people would vilify me. On the other hand if I said I was going on a ten person Everest expedition no one would, even though the risks of the latter are substantially greater. The only reason I can think of for that difference is that people think that enjoyment achieved through mountain climbing is superior to that achieved via sex and hence worth a greater degree of risk. But look your placing a socially significant undertaking with fucking... I see your angle am saying it's acute...very acute.
Why is me organising a mountaineering expedition socially significant? I am doing it for my fun. No other reason.
Look you've used the Himalayas... not fucking Snowdonia. Lol
So to equate you using the Himalayas is like your bareback gang bang containing Beyonce... Cameron Diaz and Mila kunis...
The scale of the proposition or event is significant surely you seeing that?
"Are you really not seeing the argument? Person A likes attending bareback gangbangs for fun. In doing so he is behaving purely in pursuit of his own pleasure. He attends one bareback gb a year. Person B likes climbing in the Himalayas for fun. In doing so he is behaving purely in pursuit of his own pleasure. He goes on one mountaineering expedition a year. Objectively person B is at far greater risk of death or serious injury than person A. Neither activity has any wider social benefit. My question is to whether there is any objective reason for saying that person A should be criticised more about the risk he is taking than person B. Whether or not an everest expedition is a better thing to do than a bareback gb is a matter for individual choice surely and irrelevant to the risk point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not for us...In South Africa years back a specialist told us if you go with a HIV infected person and bang away normal route 1 in ten thousand is the risk.. in the ass 1 in 3 .... a route which in Aftrica made it spread because of a lack of essentials and knowledge. Plus government denial of the risks... The Catholic Church also had a major part to play by not condoning safe sex/contraception! Many African nations are hugely religious/Catholic! All it would take to save countless thousands of lives is for the Catholic Church to enter the 21st Century! " That happened about 6 years ago: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/8148944/The-Pope-drops-Catholic-ban-on-condoms-in-historic-shift.html | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There are around 100,000 people with hiv in the UK, so around 0.2% of the adult population. If you have unprotected vaginal sex with someone with hiv you have an 0.08% chance of being infected if you are female and an 0.04% chance of you are male. So if you have bareback sex with a random stranger there is a one in five hundred chance they will have hiv and even if they have, there is a more than one in two thousand chance you will be infected. So overall if my maths is right an act of bareback vaginal sex with a stranger in the uk gives you around a one in a million chance of catching hiv. The devil is in the wording. If you had sex with a randomly selected individual from the sample population then the maths works. But its not a normal distribution, once you find a stranger that would voluntarily have bareback sex with you (i.e. not randomly selected) then the odds get considerably worse since most people don't have sex with strangers. The average number of lifetime partners for the average person in the uk is 10 and thats just a good friday night at AbFabs for some. However the odds get considerably better when you factor in people that do or don't have a recent sexual health test which is how porn survives, as mentioned above. " Fair enough. But even if we say that the hiv rate in the swinging population is five times that of the general population (probably a large over estimate) , that still only gives a one in two hundred thousand chance of contracting hiv from an act of bareback vaginal sex As I say people may well reasonably not want to take that risk, but comparing a bareback gangbang to Russian roulette is nonsense. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Additionally there seems to be a special antipathy displayed towards bareback gangbangers. My ex who is not a swinger slept with 5 guys in the 3 years before we met. All bareback. Not sure why a woman who screws 5 men in one evening attracts so much abuse. A lot of it is actually morality based. For example catching gonorrhea through swinging is no more significant than getting a groin strain playing football- painful but easily treatable. However there is a long history in Western cultures in seeing stds as different from other diseases and as some sort of punishment for sin and hence shameful . I think that belief still unconsciously effects lots of people. I think it's a little simpler than that... you were expected to hit sexual maturity get married have kids and die. We are different as a society now. I think that's a given... but that change needs generations to filter through. People shouldnt be castigated for that surely. That same society was faced with a disease that couldn't be controlled and there was no know cure. Hence the reaction and education around it. Unless am mistaken there is still no cure... even the best attempts have failed to clear cellular resivoirs of infection which 3, 6 or 9mths later re-trigger, even after a clean test! The 100,000 figure as I understand it is an estimation and doesn't factor in the 73% increase in people accessing hiv care since 2005. It's also a figure that means the people know they're infected. The that suggest that could be revised up 30-35% from people who do not know they are infected. There does need to be a balance... because misinformation reigns. That said suggesting that sports risks equate to hiv is one hell of a leap. Please explain how it is a leap. The chances of getting hiv from bareback vaginal sex in the UK is tiny however you criticise the stats round the edges. I have little doubt the chances of getting serious injury from, say attempting to scale a peak in the himalayas are much greater. That said Why is that a leap? Your comparing bareback everyday sex... with climbing the fucking Himalayas lol At any point 100 million+ are hanging out the back of something... how many people are on Everest. The risk is exponentially great due to the sheer numbers of proponants... That's not my point. If I posted a thread on here saying I was having a bareback gangbang with ten people lots of people would vilify me. On the other hand if I said I was going on a ten person Everest expedition no one would, even though the risks of the latter are substantially greater. The only reason I can think of for that difference is that people think that enjoyment achieved through mountain climbing is superior to that achieved via sex and hence worth a greater degree of risk. But look your placing a socially significant undertaking with fucking... I see your angle am saying it's acute...very acute.
Why is me organising a mountaineering expedition socially significant? I am doing it for my fun. No other reason.
Look you've used the Himalayas... not fucking Snowdonia. Lol
So to equate you using the Himalayas is like your bareback gang bang containing Beyonce... Cameron Diaz and Mila kunis...
The scale of the proposition or event is significant surely you seeing that?
Are you really not seeing the argument?
Person A likes attending bareback gangbangs for fun. In doing so he is behaving purely in pursuit of his own pleasure. He attends one bareback gb a year.
Person B likes climbing in the Himalayas for fun. In doing so he is behaving purely in pursuit of his own pleasure. He goes on one mountaineering expedition a year.
Objectively person B is at far greater risk of death or serious injury than person A. Neither activity has any wider social benefit.
My question is to whether there is any objective reason for saying that person A should be criticised more about the risk he is taking than person B.
Whether or not an everest expedition is a better thing to do than a bareback gb is a matter for individual choice surely and irrelevant to the risk point. "Iam guessing people dont stand up to you and your arguements much...Its surprising seeing that even your point of clarity is so blinkered... 
Your point... am happy to be corrected here was in relation to roulette and the death sentence.
Fundamentally you are now adding nuances to your argument to make your point fit.
Your off the cuff remark... re. Hiv isn't a death sentence and just now the irrelevance to the risk point is refined ignorance.
Objectivity is clearly not being used mate...
Person A... Is sleeping with and offloading whatever they have. Potentially spreading (x) to unknown people who are spreading (x) to their circle inturn and on and on. So the individuala risk is totally relavent it is ignorant to deny that considering the risk is 'exponential'. (A recent example in Manchester a private clinic made 56 calls to partners from one lady...good eh.)
Person B. fell an died...the family were upset is the extent of the impact.
Your point whilst relavent is tainted blinkered and far from objective mate.
But you clearly fancy yourself as liberal intelligencia so pop on lol... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There are around 100,000 people with hiv in the UK, so around 0.2% of the adult population. If you have unprotected vaginal sex with someone with hiv you have an 0.08% chance of being infected if you are female and an 0.04% chance of you are male. So if you have bareback sex with a random stranger there is a one in five hundred chance they will have hiv and even if they have, there is a more than one in two thousand chance you will be infected. So overall if my maths is right an act of bareback vaginal sex with a stranger in the uk gives you around a one in a million chance of catching hiv. The devil is in the wording. If you had sex with a randomly selected individual from the sample population then the maths works. But its not a normal distribution, once you find a stranger that would voluntarily have bareback sex with you (i.e. not randomly selected) then the odds get considerably worse since most people don't have sex with strangers. The average number of lifetime partners for the average person in the uk is 10 and thats just a good friday night at AbFabs for some. However the odds get considerably better when you factor in people that do or don't have a recent sexual health test which is how porn survives, as mentioned above. Fair enough. But even if we say that the hiv rate in the swinging population is five times that of the general population (probably a large over estimate) , that still only gives a one in two hundred thousand chance of contracting hiv from an act of bareback vaginal sex As I say people may well reasonably not want to take that risk, but comparing a bareback gangbang to Russian roulette is nonsense. " Well yes the russian roulette cliche is rather silly as you say but if you take the probability of catching any STD from a bareback gangbang then it's probably 50%. As Belladonna says "99% of pornstars have herpes". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Additionally there seems to be a special antipathy displayed towards bareback gangbangers. My ex who is not a swinger slept with 5 guys in the 3 years before we met. All bareback. Not sure why a woman who screws 5 men in one evening attracts so much abuse. A lot of it is actually morality based. For example catching gonorrhea through swinging is no more significant than getting a groin strain playing football- painful but easily treatable. However there is a long history in Western cultures in seeing stds as different from other diseases and as some sort of punishment for sin and hence shameful . I think that belief still unconsciously effects lots of people. I think it's a little simpler than that... you were expected to hit sexual maturity get married have kids and die. We are different as a society now. I think that's a given... but that change needs generations to filter through. People shouldnt be castigated for that surely. That same society was faced with a disease that couldn't be controlled and there was no know cure. Hence the reaction and education around it. Unless am mistaken there is still no cure... even the best attempts have failed to clear cellular resivoirs of infection which 3, 6 or 9mths later re-trigger, even after a clean test! The 100,000 figure as I understand it is an estimation and doesn't factor in the 73% increase in people accessing hiv care since 2005. It's also a figure that means the people know they're infected. The that suggest that could be revised up 30-35% from people who do not know they are infected. There does need to be a balance... because misinformation reigns. That said suggesting that sports risks equate to hiv is one hell of a leap. Please explain how it is a leap. The chances of getting hiv from bareback vaginal sex in the UK is tiny however you criticise the stats round the edges. I have little doubt the chances of getting serious injury from, say attempting to scale a peak in the himalayas are much greater. That said Why is that a leap? Your comparing bareback everyday sex... with climbing the fucking Himalayas lol At any point 100 million+ are hanging out the back of something... how many people are on Everest. The risk is exponentially great due to the sheer numbers of proponants... That's not my point. If I posted a thread on here saying I was having a bareback gangbang with ten people lots of people would vilify me. On the other hand if I said I was going on a ten person Everest expedition no one would, even though the risks of the latter are substantially greater. The only reason I can think of for that difference is that people think that enjoyment achieved through mountain climbing is superior to that achieved via sex and hence worth a greater degree of risk. But look your placing a socially significant undertaking with fucking... I see your angle am saying it's acute...very acute.
Why is me organising a mountaineering expedition socially significant? I am doing it for my fun. No other reason.
Look you've used the Himalayas... not fucking Snowdonia. Lol
So to equate you using the Himalayas is like your bareback gang bang containing Beyonce... Cameron Diaz and Mila kunis...
The scale of the proposition or event is significant surely you seeing that?
Are you really not seeing the argument?
Person A likes attending bareback gangbangs for fun. In doing so he is behaving purely in pursuit of his own pleasure. He attends one bareback gb a year.
Person B likes climbing in the Himalayas for fun. In doing so he is behaving purely in pursuit of his own pleasure. He goes on one mountaineering expedition a year.
Objectively person B is at far greater risk of death or serious injury than person A. Neither activity has any wider social benefit.
My question is to whether there is any objective reason for saying that person A should be criticised more about the risk he is taking than person B.
Whether or not an everest expedition is a better thing to do than a bareback gb is a matter for individual choice surely and irrelevant to the risk point.
Iam guessing people dont stand up to you and your arguements much...Its surprising seeing that even your point of clarity is so blinkered...
Your point... am happy to be corrected here was in relation to roulette and the death sentence.
Fundamentally you are now adding nuances to your argument to make your point fit.
Your off the cuff remark... re. Hiv isn't a death sentence and just now the irrelevance to the risk point is refined ignorance.
Objectivity is clearly not being used mate...
Person A... Is sleeping with and offloading whatever they have. Potentially spreading (x) to unknown people who are spreading (x) to their circle inturn and on and on. So the individuala risk is totally relavent it is ignorant to deny that considering the risk is 'exponential'. (A recent example in Manchester a private clinic made 56 calls to partners from one lady...good eh.)
Person B. fell an died...the family were upset is the extent of the impact.
Your point whilst relavent is tainted blinkered and far from objective mate.
But you clearly fancy yourself as liberal intelligencia so pop on lol..."OK. As you can't conduct an argument without personal insult it's best left there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is that 50% statistic drawn from anything scientific or simply plucked from mid air based upon a hunch? Why having sex with 5 guys in gangbang is regarded as being high risk when swingers will have sex with as many over a short period and regard it as less risky. By your 50% calculation we should have been riddled with stds many many times in the last 10 years. The fact is we have been clean throughout. " According to the FDA, 50% of people get HPV at some point. Most gum clinics won't test for HPV at all or herpes / warts unless you have symptoms. Not having symptoms is not the same as not having anything. So actually nobody really knows for 100% if they are 'clean' and as swingers its a risk we mitigate and take. The difference between a gangbang and 5 partners is the time period for symptoms to arise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is that 50% statistic drawn from anything scientific or simply plucked from mid air based upon a hunch? Why having sex with 5 guys in gangbang is regarded as being high risk when swingers will have sex with as many over a short period and regard it as less risky. By your 50% calculation we should have been riddled with stds many many times in the last 10 years. The fact is we have been clean throughout. According to the FDA, 50% of people get HPV at some point. Most gum clinics won't test for HPV at all or herpes / warts unless you have symptoms. Not having symptoms is not the same as not having anything. So actually nobody really knows for 100% if they are 'clean' and as swingers its a risk we mitigate and take. The difference between a gangbang and 5 partners is the time period for symptoms to arise. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There does need to be a balance... because misinformation reigns. That said suggesting that sports risks equate to hiv is one hell of a leap. Please explain how it is a leap. The chances of getting hiv from bareback vaginal sex in the UK is tiny however you criticise the stats round the edges. I have little doubt the chances of getting serious injury from, say attempting to scale a peak in the himalayas are much greater. That said Why is that a leap? Your comparing bareback everyday sex... with climbing the fucking Himalayas lol At any point 100 million+ are hanging out the back of something... how many people are on Everest. The risk is exponentially great due to the sheer numbers of proponants..." No it is a good comparison, take for instance Michael Schumacher he retired from an ultra high risk sport and was incapacitated enjoying recreational skiing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There does need to be a balance... because misinformation reigns. That said suggesting that sports risks equate to hiv is one hell of a leap. Please explain how it is a leap. The chances of getting hiv from bareback vaginal sex in the UK is tiny however you criticise the stats round the edges. I have little doubt the chances of getting serious injury from, say attempting to scale a peak in the himalayas are much greater. That said Why is that a leap? Your comparing bareback everyday sex... with climbing the fucking Himalayas lol At any point 100 million+ are hanging out the back of something... how many people are on Everest. The risk is exponentially great due to the sheer numbers of proponants... No it is a good comparison, take for instance Michael Schumacher he retired from an ultra high risk sport and was incapacitated enjoying recreational skiing." Wasn't Michael skiing off piste when he crashed? That raises the risk considerably. The bottom line is many "socially acceptable" sports and activities present a far higher physical risk than any STI but the stigma attached to STIs mean people fear them more. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the bottom line is pure ignorance then...lol " Yes we are afraid so. That ignorance is displayed in many of the points you are trying to make in your posting. Before we start let us say we are not encouraging bareback sex but are trying to remove the fear many people on the forum seem to have about bareback sex. We are not saying there is no risk but rather that people who engage in sex (both with protection and without protection should be aware of the risks involved. To build a fear culture is irresponsible and in the long run counterproductive. "I can understand the point may get traction from people within this community who want that to be the case. It just isnt... And thats why people rightly play safe [as far as is reasonably practical]. The sports injury approach works on a single level and enforces the we're risque alternative swinger type people baby yeah... Disease was invented by the MAN! Which is an infantile or ostrich like approach. Which is why the majority play safe. I will expand... " You are dismissing sports injuries (which can be minor like a groin strain or terminal (death)) as something not comparable to STIs, but in reality the results may be the same. That is they may be minor, they may be lifelong or they may lead to death. "Firstly unlike sports injuries there is no male female level playing field with STDs. Woman are unfortunately at greater risk due to a number of factors... " Unfortunately you seem totally ignorant of the proven fact that women are more susceptible to sports injuries than men. Take for instance anterior cruciate ligament; women are 6 times more likely to injure that ligament than men. (Other injuries more common in women athletes include shoulder injury, ankle sprain and stress injuries) thought to be caused by such things as higher estrogen levels and physical differences such as wider pelvis and lower muscle mass and higher body fat. "1. There anatomy is just a better breeding ground for infection. The vaginal wall is thinner and more predisposed to various issues due to it. " Compared with what, if compared to the anus this is incorrect which is why anal sex is the highest risk sexual practice. "2. Women are more likely to confuse discharge with something else...men dont discharge so instantly you know. " Though men do not normally show discharge through the penis they can show blood discharge from the anus that can be from causes other than STIs, your blanket statements are therefore false. " 3. Genital ulcers [example] can occur without symptoms and are not immediately visible... 4. The majority of STDs can if untreated lead to significant issues with womens reproductive ability. Recent studies [in S.America] suggest damage can be done in as little as 7mths. 5. Non of what i mentioned above cause huge health issues for men plus there all much more easily identifiable in men. Not to mention a lot of men carry HPV with no issue or knowledge...causing them no problem. However, it is the major factor in cervical cancer for woman." It also may be a cause of colonic cancer in men, though the link has not been proven. " 6. Am assuming we all understand that certain bloodborne STIs just dont go? they just float about your system? Primary and Secondary Syphallis [currently rising globally]. I have stated the above without mentioning the HIV or Aids question. Partially to actually point out even at the most "insignificant" level of STI it is more serious than and should not be equated too - an ice pack on your groin / ankle or 6 weeks out from 5 aside. Bringing STIs down to the level of a simple sports injury is a fucking nonsense... Am not saying like a scene from naked gun - we should have full body condoms! Rather, their there, be aware of them dont belittle them as they are real. Alternatively, if you dont agree and you like the sound of the odds get yourself out there and get some serious bareback gangbanging done! " Your fear mongering is as counter productive as being ignorant about the risks. Fear mongering will reduce risks taken in the short term but when people become more aware they then question the fear mongering and many dismiss it out of hand. In other words it becomes counter productive. To be safe adults should be aware of the risks and the consequences and then make a conscious decision as to what level of risk is acceptable to them. That may be as simple as not indulging in oral sex as they have bleeding gums, or not risking anal sex, but the decision is down to the individual | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the bottom line is pure ignorance then...lol Yes we are afraid so. That ignorance is displayed in many of the points you are trying to make in your posting. Before we start let us say we are not encouraging bareback sex but are trying to remove the fear many people on the forum seem to have about bareback sex. We are not saying there is no risk but rather that people who engage in sex (both with protection and without protection should be aware of the risks involved. " The people on this site are not idiots.. I think the point being we are all aware / conscious of risks but to demean them to the level of a sports injury is a silly billy thing to do. "To build a fear culture is irresponsible and in the long run counterproductive. I can understand the point may get traction from people within this community who want that to be the case. It just isnt... And thats why people rightly play safe [as far as is reasonably practical]. The sports injury approach works on a single level and enforces the we're risque alternative swinger type people baby yeah... Disease was invented by the MAN! Which is an infantile or ostrich like approach. Which is why the majority play safe. I will expand... You are dismissing sports injuries (which can be minor like a groin strain or terminal (death) as something not comparable to STIs, but in reality the results may be the same. That is they may be minor, they may be lifelong or they may lead to death. " No am not am using an example previously suggested - youre citing death as a result of sports injury utilising its most polar and egregious form of injury we as i used general STIs and avoiding its most polar and egregious form - aids... but its me that fear mongering right? "Firstly unlike sports injuries there is no male female level playing field with STDs. Woman are unfortunately at greater risk due to a number of factors... Unfortunately you seem totally ignorant of the proven fact that women are more susceptible to sports injuries than men. " Noooo am not thats why i used the terence higgins trust, the cdc and the nhs and the bbc website and stole verbatim what they told me - which i guess you disagree with... "Take for instance anterior cruciate ligament; women are 6 times more likely to injure that ligament than men. (Other injuries more common in women athletes include shoulder injury, ankle sprain and stress injuries) thought to be caused by such things as higher estrogen levels and physical differences such as wider pelvis and lower muscle mass and higher body fat. " I totally get this... yet every injury you mention is 'not specific / exclusive' to women! Men get them too and suffer equal damage! You see that youve missed the point here right? They are not exclusive to a sex - a certain sex is just more likely to get them. I trust you understand 'Not exclusive'... am assuming you get that...? See the damage some of the STDs do to ladies is so much more destructive than what it does to men. So - man gets ACL tear, Women gets ACL tear. Who suffers more or is at greater risk if left waiting for NHS treatment? No one its not exclusively worse for either. So - man has NS-STI, woman has NS-STI [NS=Non specific]. Who suffers more... Get what am saying Champ? " 1. There anatomy is just a better breeding ground for infection. The vaginal wall is thinner and more predisposed to various issues due to it. Compared with what, if compared to the anus this is incorrect which is why anal sex is the highest risk sexual practice. " Again you need to nuance your point with an extreme [appreciate anal isnt extreme on this site - but to gen pop it is] to make it... General vanilla sex... a penis and a vagina... " 2. Women are more likely to confuse discharge with something else...men dont discharge so instantly you know. Though men do not normally show discharge through the penis they can show blood discharge from the anus that can be from causes other than STIs, your blanket statements are therefore false. " You need to read the free .pdf 'fact sheet' from the CDC also available from Abacus which is where this point is derived from. I use the CDC [American] as per population they see the trends in viral infections much quicker that we can in the EU. " 3. Genital ulcers [example] can occur without symptoms and are not immediately visible... 4. The majority of STDs can if untreated lead to significant issues with womens reproductive ability. Recent studies [in S.America] suggest damage can be done in as little as 7mths. 5. Non of what i mentioned above cause huge health issues for men plus there all much more easily identifiable in men. Not to mention a lot of men carry HPV with no issue or knowledge...causing them no problem. However, it is the major factor in cervical cancer for woman. It also may be a cause of colonic cancer in men, though the link has not been proven. " 'It may'... If my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle... thats the best you got there? " 6. Am assuming we all understand that certain bloodborne STIs just dont go? they just float about your system? Primary and Secondary Syphallis [currently rising globally]. I have stated the above without mentioning the HIV or Aids question. Partially to actually point out even at the most "insignificant" level of STI it is more serious than and should not be equated too - an ice pack on your groin / ankle or 6 weeks out from 5 aside. Bringing STIs down to the level of a simple sports injury is a fucking nonsense... Am not saying like a scene from naked gun - we should have full body condoms! Rather, their there, be aware of them dont belittle them as they are real. Alternatively, if you dont agree and you like the sound of the odds get yourself out there and get some serious bareback gangbanging done! Your fear mongering is as counter productive as being ignorant about the risks. Fear mongering will reduce risks taken in the short term but when people become more aware they then question the fear mongering and many dismiss it out of hand. In other words it becomes counter productive. To be safe adults should be aware of the risks and the consequences and then make a conscious decision as to what level of risk is acceptable to them. That may be as simple as not indulging in oral sex as they have bleeding gums, or not risking anal sex, but the decision is down to the individual " Jesus son... did you miss the bit were i said this "Rather, they're there, be aware of them dont belittle them as they are real." Its not a government conspiracy fella - so take your foil hat off. Its a nod to be aware... Am not saying shit yourself if offered sex lol. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
??? ....Anyone interested ?? Someone??? Is that a maybe?? Oh well nevermind  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We always use condoms like most others as everyone including ourselves seems more comfortable that way but thinking about the relative risk of things it doesn't seem to stack up . Obesity and smoking kills literally thousands every day yet go into any swinging club and half present are obese and at least a quarter will be smokers yet they want to wear condoms. Also how come when 2 people become a 'couple' both on the scene and out of it then all of a sudden it's safe not to use condoms with each other and all previous sexual encounters are suddenly irrelevant ? " I say go for it. Trail blaze. If the relative risk doesn't stack up just go have a pop you might sway the tide. It's only by doing it that people will see it's totally fine and the understand risks truly don't stack up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Its none of my business what others do or desire to do. If it doesn't involve me then I don't care. Their health, their life, their choice!! " Technically it does involve you since healthcare costs are tax payer funded in this country... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Its none of my business what others do or desire to do. If it doesn't involve me then I don't care. Their health, their life, their choice!! Technically it does involve you since healthcare costs are tax payer funded in this country..." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
