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 |
""well" is one interpretation "Got a better word lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To keep the tone of the thread, it really needs a metaphor for the risks of playing bareback: skating on thin ice, or playing with fire, or....wait for it... Russian Roulette! "   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is certainly living a risky life but fair play to him if he is happy but getting a woman pregnant while swinging is a bit extreme " He wasn't happy when he found out! Lol  but each to their own I guess | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also didn't get to reply on the smallpox analogy. Thanks for continuing the thread... I think we first need to define what we mean by "barebackers". I didn't think it needs to be said that I am not referring to monogamous couples. Clearly it does. Thankfully the human race does not rely on it's continuity from meets with people in swingers clubs. Clearly I am suggesting that if everyone in non monogamous relationships stuck to safe sex then the likelihood of transmitting most of these diseases by other means is sufficiently low to cause them to eventually die out. So yes. Simply put. We all have to wear condoms because others refuse to do so." People in monogamous relationships do cheat though , so it wouldn’t solve it . Science coming up with a vaccine is the only way you will eradicate any std . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also didn't get to reply on the smallpox analogy. Thanks for continuing the thread... I think we first need to define what we mean by "barebackers". I didn't think it needs to be said that I am not referring to monogamous couples. Clearly it does. Thankfully the human race does not rely on it's continuity from meets with people in swingers clubs. Clearly I am suggesting that if everyone in non monogamous relationships stuck to safe sex then the likelihood of transmitting most of these diseases by other means is sufficiently low to cause them to eventually die out. So yes. Simply put. We all have to wear condoms because others refuse to do so. People in monogamous relationships do cheat though , so it wouldn’t solve it . Science coming up with a vaccine is the only way you will eradicate any std ." Well the definition of monogamy is having only one relationship at a time. As soon as someone strays it stops becoming monogamous. But semantics aside, one would assume that a straying partner is still not getting around as much the average swinger. Let us not forget that swingers have the highest incidence of STDs of any demographic including prostitutes. I'm not suggesting we will ever change the attitude of people who indulge in unprotected sex. I am saying that we owe the continued existence of STDs to this behaviour. Perhaps this explains the ill feeling of those put at risk towards those who put them at risk. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also didn't get to reply on the smallpox analogy. Thanks for continuing the thread... I think we first need to define what we mean by "barebackers". I didn't think it needs to be said that I am not referring to monogamous couples. Clearly it does. Thankfully the human race does not rely on it's continuity from meets with people in swingers clubs. Clearly I am suggesting that if everyone in non monogamous relationships stuck to safe sex then the likelihood of transmitting most of these diseases by other means is sufficiently low to cause them to eventually die out. So yes. Simply put. We all have to wear condoms because others refuse to do so. People in monogamous relationships do cheat though , so it wouldn’t solve it . Science coming up with a vaccine is the only way you will eradicate any std . Well the definition of monogamy is having only one relationship at a time. As soon as someone strays it stops becoming monogamous. But semantics aside, one would assume that a straying partner is still not getting around as much the average swinger. Let us not forget that swingers have the highest incidence of STDs of any demographic including prostitutes. I'm not suggesting we will ever change the attitude of people who indulge in unprotected sex. I am saying that we owe the continued existence of STDs to this behaviour. Perhaps this explains the ill feeling of those put at risk towards those who put them at risk." You could always give up being a swinger rather than just abstain | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also didn't get to reply on the smallpox analogy. Thanks for continuing the thread... I think we first need to define what we mean by "barebackers". I didn't think it needs to be said that I am not referring to monogamous couples. Clearly it does. Thankfully the human race does not rely on it's continuity from meets with people in swingers clubs. Clearly I am suggesting that if everyone in non monogamous relationships stuck to safe sex then the likelihood of transmitting most of these diseases by other means is sufficiently low to cause them to eventually die out. So yes. Simply put. We all have to wear condoms because others refuse to do so. People in monogamous relationships do cheat though , so it wouldn’t solve it . Science coming up with a vaccine is the only way you will eradicate any std . Well the definition of monogamy is having only one relationship at a time. As soon as someone strays it stops becoming monogamous. But semantics aside, one would assume that a straying partner is still not getting around as much the average swinger. Let us not forget that swingers have the highest incidence of STDs of any demographic including prostitutes. I'm not suggesting we will ever change the attitude of people who indulge in unprotected sex. I am saying that we owe the continued existence of STDs to this behaviour. Perhaps this explains the ill feeling of those put at risk towards those who put them at risk. You could always give up being a swinger rather than just abstain " I'll bear that in mind. Considering I am discussing a mindset and not my own personal circumstances.... let us for a moment consider what would happen if we all took your advice... there would not be enough swingers to sustain this site, not enough swingers to sustain clubs, and the non-swinging swingers who provide us expert advice on this forum would need a new place to congregate | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also didn't get to reply on the smallpox analogy. Thanks for continuing the thread... I think we first need to define what we mean by "barebackers". I didn't think it needs to be said that I am not referring to monogamous couples. Clearly it does. Thankfully the human race does not rely on it's continuity from meets with people in swingers clubs. Clearly I am suggesting that if everyone in non monogamous relationships stuck to safe sex then the likelihood of transmitting most of these diseases by other means is sufficiently low to cause them to eventually die out. So yes. Simply put. We all have to wear condoms because others refuse to do so. People in monogamous relationships do cheat though , so it wouldn’t solve it . Science coming up with a vaccine is the only way you will eradicate any std . Well the definition of monogamy is having only one relationship at a time. As soon as someone strays it stops becoming monogamous. But semantics aside, one would assume that a straying partner is still not getting around as much the average swinger. Let us not forget that swingers have the highest incidence of STDs of any demographic including prostitutes. I'm not suggesting we will ever change the attitude of people who indulge in unprotected sex. I am saying that we owe the continued existence of STDs to this behaviour. Perhaps this explains the ill feeling of those put at risk towards those who put them at risk. You could always give up being a swinger rather than just abstain I'll bear that in mind. Considering I am discussing a mindset and not my own personal circumstances.... let us for a moment consider what would happen if we all took your advice... there would not be enough swingers to sustain this site, not enough swingers to sustain clubs, and the non-swinging swingers who provide us expert advice on this forum would need a new place to congregate "I fit in wherever I hang out  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also didn't get to reply on the smallpox analogy. Thanks for continuing the thread... I think we first need to define what we mean by "barebackers". I didn't think it needs to be said that I am not referring to monogamous couples. Clearly it does. Thankfully the human race does not rely on it's continuity from meets with people in swingers clubs. Clearly I am suggesting that if everyone in non monogamous relationships stuck to safe sex then the likelihood of transmitting most of these diseases by other means is sufficiently low to cause them to eventually die out. So yes. Simply put. We all have to wear condoms because others refuse to do so. People in monogamous relationships do cheat though , so it wouldn’t solve it . Science coming up with a vaccine is the only way you will eradicate any std . Well the definition of monogamy is having only one relationship at a time. As soon as someone strays it stops becoming monogamous. But semantics aside, one would assume that a straying partner is still not getting around as much the average swinger. Let us not forget that swingers have the highest incidence of STDs of any demographic including prostitutes. I'm not suggesting we will ever change the attitude of people who indulge in unprotected sex. I am saying that we owe the continued existence of STDs to this behaviour. Perhaps this explains the ill feeling of those put at risk towards those who put them at risk." No , men who have sex with men are the highest risk group , swingers are 0.3% higher than general population but that could be because swingers are more likely to get tested . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What guesstimate proportion of the site gets regularly tested. Do we think there could be any ways that could improve these rates? " That's a really good point. At one stage Terrance Higgins Trust was setting up at the clubs and doing testing. I thought this was going to become a thing. It certainly was useful when people got their tests back positive and the blame game started, to have yours come back clean. Not me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What guesstimate proportion of the site gets regularly tested. Do we think there could be any ways that could improve these rates? That's a really good point. At one stage Terrance Higgins Trust was setting up at the clubs and doing testing. I thought this was going to become a thing. It certainly was useful when people got their tests back positive and the blame game started, to have yours come back clean. Not me." I believe they stop by some clubs and drop testing kits off for you to use at your pleasure, my last visit to Eurekas had some nurses carrying out tests too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also those studies are from the Netherlands , results could be very different over here in the U.K. , if reliable data was available ." The results in the UK are skewed. Bisexual and gay men are more likely to be swingers than hetrosexual men. Swingers have a higher incidence of STDs, therefore bisexual men come up as the second highest risk group. When studies are done out of swingers women actually come up as the highest risk group. Unless someone can come up with reasons why swinging in the Netherlands is so much different to the UK I would take their statistics more seriously than studies which do not even ask whether a person is a swinger or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What guesstimate proportion of the site gets regularly tested. Do we think there could be any ways that could improve these rates? That's a really good point. At one stage Terrance Higgins Trust was setting up at the clubs and doing testing. I thought this was going to become a thing. It certainly was useful when people got their tests back positive and the blame game started, to have yours come back clean. Not me. I believe they stop by some clubs and drop testing kits off for you to use at your pleasure, my last visit to Eurekas had some nurses carrying out tests too." It would be really good if every club had this facility, even if it's just for an hour at the beginning of the evening. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What guesstimate proportion of the site gets regularly tested. Do we think there could be any ways that could improve these rates? That's a really good point. At one stage Terrance Higgins Trust was setting up at the clubs and doing testing. I thought this was going to become a thing. It certainly was useful when people got their tests back positive and the blame game started, to have yours come back clean. Not me. I believe they stop by some clubs and drop testing kits off for you to use at your pleasure, my last visit to Eurekas had some nurses carrying out tests too." They came to the Attic not long ago, I think it's a good idea. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also those studies are from the Netherlands , results could be very different over here in the U.K. , if reliable data was available . The results in the UK are skewed. Bisexual and gay men are more likely to be swingers than hetrosexual men. Swingers have a higher incidence of STDs, therefore bisexual men come up as the second highest risk group. When studies are done out of swingers women actually come up as the highest risk group. Unless someone can come up with reasons why swinging in the Netherlands is so much different to the UK I would take their statistics more seriously than studies which do not even ask whether a person is a swinger or not." Can you point me towards the U.K. studies / results that you speak of please ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also those studies are from the Netherlands , results could be very different over here in the U.K. , if reliable data was available . The results in the UK are skewed. Bisexual and gay men are more likely to be swingers than hetrosexual men. Swingers have a higher incidence of STDs, therefore bisexual men come up as the second highest risk group. When studies are done out of swingers women actually come up as the highest risk group. Unless someone can come up with reasons why swinging in the Netherlands is so much different to the UK I would take their statistics more seriously than studies which do not even ask whether a person is a swinger or not. Can you point me towards the U.K. studies / results that you speak of please ? " Point me to the place on the questionaire where the GUM clinic asks whether you swing or not. They are more interested in the fact that I come from Afica where I have not been for 10 years than whether I am a swinger or not. The NHS questionnaire is a bit like a police investigation only has one suspect. The most dangerous part of the NHS skewing of information to put the blame of STDs at the feet of gay and bisexual men, is that it perpetuates the belief that risk of STDs is determined by sexual orientation and not the use of protection. A belief that is manifested on this forum. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also those studies are from the Netherlands , results could be very different over here in the U.K. , if reliable data was available . The results in the UK are skewed. Bisexual and gay men are more likely to be swingers than hetrosexual men. Swingers have a higher incidence of STDs, therefore bisexual men come up as the second highest risk group. When studies are done out of swingers women actually come up as the highest risk group. Unless someone can come up with reasons why swinging in the Netherlands is so much different to the UK I would take their statistics more seriously than studies which do not even ask whether a person is a swinger or not. Can you point me towards the U.K. studies / results that you speak of please ? Point me to the place on the questionaire where the GUM clinic asks whether you swing or not. They are more interested in the fact that I come from Afica where I have not been for 10 years than whether I am a swinger or not. The NHS questionnaire is a bit like a police investigation only has one suspect. The most dangerous part of the NHS skewing of information to put the blame of STDs at the feet of gay and bisexual men, is that it perpetuates the belief that risk of STDs is determined by sexual orientation and not the use of protection. A belief that is manifested on this forum. " So your quoting facts that don’t exist then ? You say swingers are the highest risk group but you have no data and tell me that none exists to prove it ? The big danger is people on forums stating their own opinion as fact . Condoms are good protection but they will never cure or eradicate Sti’s. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also those studies are from the Netherlands , results could be very different over here in the U.K. , if reliable data was available . The results in the UK are skewed. Bisexual and gay men are more likely to be swingers than hetrosexual men. Swingers have a higher incidence of STDs, therefore bisexual men come up as the second highest risk group. When studies are done out of swingers women actually come up as the highest risk group. Unless someone can come up with reasons why swinging in the Netherlands is so much different to the UK I would take their statistics more seriously than studies which do not even ask whether a person is a swinger or not. Can you point me towards the U.K. studies / results that you speak of please ? Point me to the place on the questionaire where the GUM clinic asks whether you swing or not. They are more interested in the fact that I come from Afica where I have not been for 10 years than whether I am a swinger or not. The NHS questionnaire is a bit like a police investigation only has one suspect. The most dangerous part of the NHS skewing of information to put the blame of STDs at the feet of gay and bisexual men, is that it perpetuates the belief that risk of STDs is determined by sexual orientation and not the use of protection. A belief that is manifested on this forum. So your quoting facts that don’t exist then ? You say swingers are the highest risk group but you have no data and tell me that none exists to prove it ? The big danger is people on forums stating their own opinion as fact . Condoms are good protection but they will never cure or eradicate Sti’s." No I'm quoting from a Netherlands study that does exist. You on the other hand are disputing this study with no grounds whatsoever. Please explain to me how the NHS factors in swinging when they do not collect data on swingers? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The nhs does not lay the blame at the door of gay men for sti’s, simply states that they are at higher risk due to their sexual practices ( anal sex ) . Interestingly , even though hiv is decreasing due to prep / antivirals ........ syphilis and gonorrhoea are increasing in that group , most likely due to less condom use because drugs can prevent hiv spread now ." You're saying that women never have anal? Ok.... I'll agree that the use of PrEP has done for the spread of STDs what the pill did. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also those studies are from the Netherlands , results could be very different over here in the U.K. , if reliable data was available . The results in the UK are skewed. Bisexual and gay men are more likely to be swingers than hetrosexual men. Swingers have a higher incidence of STDs, therefore bisexual men come up as the second highest risk group. When studies are done out of swingers women actually come up as the highest risk group. Unless someone can come up with reasons why swinging in the Netherlands is so much different to the UK I would take their statistics more seriously than studies which do not even ask whether a person is a swinger or not. Can you point me towards the U.K. studies / results that you speak of please ? Point me to the place on the questionaire where the GUM clinic asks whether you swing or not. They are more interested in the fact that I come from Afica where I have not been for 10 years than whether I am a swinger or not. The NHS questionnaire is a bit like a police investigation only has one suspect. The most dangerous part of the NHS skewing of information to put the blame of STDs at the feet of gay and bisexual men, is that it perpetuates the belief that risk of STDs is determined by sexual orientation and not the use of protection. A belief that is manifested on this forum. So your quoting facts that don’t exist then ? You say swingers are the highest risk group but you have no data and tell me that none exists to prove it ? The big danger is people on forums stating their own opinion as fact . Condoms are good protection but they will never cure or eradicate Sti’s." And they don't protect against all STIs either. It's better for everyone to take the decisions, testing and measures that they feel is responsible and right for them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also those studies are from the Netherlands , results could be very different over here in the U.K. , if reliable data was available . The results in the UK are skewed. Bisexual and gay men are more likely to be swingers than hetrosexual men. Swingers have a higher incidence of STDs, therefore bisexual men come up as the second highest risk group. When studies are done out of swingers women actually come up as the highest risk group. Unless someone can come up with reasons why swinging in the Netherlands is so much different to the UK I would take their statistics more seriously than studies which do not even ask whether a person is a swinger or not. Can you point me towards the U.K. studies / results that you speak of please ? Point me to the place on the questionaire where the GUM clinic asks whether you swing or not. They are more interested in the fact that I come from Afica where I have not been for 10 years than whether I am a swinger or not. The NHS questionnaire is a bit like a police investigation only has one suspect. The most dangerous part of the NHS skewing of information to put the blame of STDs at the feet of gay and bisexual men, is that it perpetuates the belief that risk of STDs is determined by sexual orientation and not the use of protection. A belief that is manifested on this forum. So your quoting facts that don’t exist then ? You say swingers are the highest risk group but you have no data and tell me that none exists to prove it ? The big danger is people on forums stating their own opinion as fact . Condoms are good protection but they will never cure or eradicate Sti’s. And they don't protect against all STIs either. It's better for everyone to take the decisions, testing and measures that they feel is responsible and right for them. " I've found an umbrella never keeps me completely dry. I still keep one in my car. Car brakes don't prevent all accidents. Should we make them a personal decision? There are a lot of examples of what we have isn't foolproof but still a lot better than nothing at all. But yes I agree they aren't 100% guarantee against STDs. They aren't 100% guarantee against pregnancy either. But if everyone used them all the time mankind would go extinct. (That's the barebacker argument used to disprove the barebacker argument) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just as an off side I also read somewhere a random link of TB with HIV increase. Thought it was interesting as we had spoke about irradicating smallpox earlier by vaccination, this was something I thought we had done. Apparently not. " Interesting. Have you got a link? Are we talking TB or smallpox? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn't it strange how when we talk about epidemics, isolation is considered the only way to contain them. But when we talk about STDs the same principle of preventing spread to combat them is considered a totally redicilous notion." This is the current study https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tuberculosis-in-england-annual-report | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn't it strange how when we talk about epidemics, isolation is considered the only way to contain them. But when we talk about STDs the same principle of preventing spread to combat them is considered a totally redicilous notion. This is the current study https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tuberculosis-in-england-annual-report" TB is far from eradicated. 450 000 people get TB in South Africa alone. The last known case of smallpox I can find is in the last century. But it pretty much proves my point. Smallpox, compulsory vaccinations. Eradicated. TB vaccinations not compulsory. Alive and well. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""So your quoting facts that don’t exist then ?" - no I'm quoting a study that you refuse to acknowledge because it incorporates swinging. "You say swingers are the highest risk group but you have no data and tell me that none exists to prove it ?" - again the Amsterdam study. "The big danger is people on forums stating their own opinion as fact ." - talking about yourself I take it. Where's YOUR study? "Condoms are good protection but they will never cure or eradicate Sti’s." - an opion or a fact? Based on which study? If you would like to use Google there is a 176 page study done on STDs. If you can provide an equivalent English study incorporating all the risk groups then we can pit fact against fact. This is a forum discussion, not a dissertation. Just because I don't have a smoking gun doesn't mean what I say is rubbish. Any statistical analysis is based on data collection and when I fill in a form which does not ask me whether I swing or not I seriously question how they base their conclusions having not gathered all the data." The Netherlands study is valid in the Netherlands , nowhere else , I didn’t dispute it . I don’t have a study and don’t pretend to , it’s commonly known scientific fact that anal sex is higher risk for transmission of sti’s , and I never said women don’t have anal . Some sti’s can be spread even when using condoms , also condoms can break and of course you will never get 100% usage of them , that is pie in the sky . There isn’t an equivalent English study and that’s exactly my point , a study in another county won’t have the same results as one in this country , for obvious reasons . Yes it’s a discussion , you don’t have to provide anything , you can literally make stuff up if you like . Again , making my point for me , you don’t possess facts for this country , the data does not exist . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn't it strange how when we talk about epidemics, isolation is considered the only way to contain them. But when we talk about STDs the same principle of preventing spread to combat them is considered a totally redicilous notion." How do you suggest isolating everyone who has an Sti? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also those studies are from the Netherlands , results could be very different over here in the U.K. , if reliable data was available . The results in the UK are skewed. Bisexual and gay men are more likely to be swingers than hetrosexual men. Swingers have a higher incidence of STDs, therefore bisexual men come up as the second highest risk group. When studies are done out of swingers women actually come up as the highest risk group. Unless someone can come up with reasons why swinging in the Netherlands is so much different to the UK I would take their statistics more seriously than studies which do not even ask whether a person is a swinger or not. Can you point me towards the U.K. studies / results that you speak of please ? Point me to the place on the questionaire where the GUM clinic asks whether you swing or not. They are more interested in the fact that I come from Afica where I have not been for 10 years than whether I am a swinger or not. The NHS questionnaire is a bit like a police investigation only has one suspect. The most dangerous part of the NHS skewing of information to put the blame of STDs at the feet of gay and bisexual men, is that it perpetuates the belief that risk of STDs is determined by sexual orientation and not the use of protection. A belief that is manifested on this forum. So your quoting facts that don’t exist then ? You say swingers are the highest risk group but you have no data and tell me that none exists to prove it ? The big danger is people on forums stating their own opinion as fact . Condoms are good protection but they will never cure or eradicate Sti’s. And they don't protect against all STIs either. It's better for everyone to take the decisions, testing and measures that they feel is responsible and right for them. I've found an umbrella never keeps me completely dry. I still keep one in my car. Car brakes don't prevent all accidents. Should we make them a personal decision? There are a lot of examples of what we have isn't foolproof but still a lot better than nothing at all. But yes I agree they aren't 100% guarantee against STDs. They aren't 100% guarantee against pregnancy either. But if everyone used them all the time mankind would go extinct. (That's the barebacker argument used to disprove the barebacker argument) "Not having car brakes means you will definitely have an accident , bareback sex does not mean you will definitely get an sti. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""So your quoting facts that don’t exist then ?" - no I'm quoting a study that you refuse to acknowledge because it incorporates swinging. "You say swingers are the highest risk group but you have no data and tell me that none exists to prove it ?" - again the Amsterdam study. "The big danger is people on forums stating their own opinion as fact ." - talking about yourself I take it. Where's YOUR study? "Condoms are good protection but they will never cure or eradicate Sti’s." - an opion or a fact? Based on which study? If you would like to use Google there is a 176 page study done on STDs. If you can provide an equivalent English study incorporating all the risk groups then we can pit fact against fact. This is a forum discussion, not a dissertation. Just because I don't have a smoking gun doesn't mean what I say is rubbish. Any statistical analysis is based on data collection and when I fill in a form which does not ask me whether I swing or not I seriously question how they base their conclusions having not gathered all the data. The Netherlands study is valid in the Netherlands , nowhere else , I didn’t dispute it . I don’t have a study and don’t pretend to , it’s commonly known scientific fact that anal sex is higher risk for transmission of sti’s , and I never said women don’t have anal . Some sti’s can be spread even when using condoms , also condoms can break and of course you will never get 100% usage of them , that is pie in the sky . There isn’t an equivalent English study and that’s exactly my point , a study in another county won’t have the same results as one in this country , for obvious reasons . Yes it’s a discussion , you don’t have to provide anything , you can literally make stuff up if you like . Again , making my point for me , you don’t possess facts for this country , the data does not exist . " OK so this is not a discussion about safe sex. It's a discussion about safe sex IN the UK. What I was asking for is a reason WHY data collected on swingers in another country is so irrelevant. Having been to swinging clubs in various countries, Argentina, Spain, Sweden.... I couldn't see any difference in behaviour that would make data collected in any other country irrelevant. In the Spanish clubs there were lots of Netherlanders and lots of English, all in the same orgy. In the modern age of international travel I can't understand why this data should be so insular. Simply saying CLEARLY its not relevant isn't really proof for me either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also those studies are from the Netherlands , results could be very different over here in the U.K. , if reliable data was available . The results in the UK are skewed. Bisexual and gay men are more likely to be swingers than hetrosexual men. Swingers have a higher incidence of STDs, therefore bisexual men come up as the second highest risk group. When studies are done out of swingers women actually come up as the highest risk group. Unless someone can come up with reasons why swinging in the Netherlands is so much different to the UK I would take their statistics more seriously than studies which do not even ask whether a person is a swinger or not. Can you point me towards the U.K. studies / results that you speak of please ? Point me to the place on the questionaire where the GUM clinic asks whether you swing or not. They are more interested in the fact that I come from Afica where I have not been for 10 years than whether I am a swinger or not. The NHS questionnaire is a bit like a police investigation only has one suspect. The most dangerous part of the NHS skewing of information to put the blame of STDs at the feet of gay and bisexual men, is that it perpetuates the belief that risk of STDs is determined by sexual orientation and not the use of protection. A belief that is manifested on this forum. So your quoting facts that don’t exist then ? You say swingers are the highest risk group but you have no data and tell me that none exists to prove it ? The big danger is people on forums stating their own opinion as fact . Condoms are good protection but they will never cure or eradicate Sti’s. And they don't protect against all STIs either. It's better for everyone to take the decisions, testing and measures that they feel is responsible and right for them. I've found an umbrella never keeps me completely dry. I still keep one in my car. Car brakes don't prevent all accidents. Should we make them a personal decision? There are a lot of examples of what we have isn't foolproof but still a lot better than nothing at all. But yes I agree they aren't 100% guarantee against STDs. They aren't 100% guarantee against pregnancy either. But if everyone used them all the time mankind would go extinct. (That's the barebacker argument used to disprove the barebacker argument)
Not having car brakes means you will definitely have an accident , bareback sex does not mean you will definitely get an sti."Ok then why do we wear seatbelts? They don't prevent accidents, they don't guarantee injury in case of an accident. From a statistical standpoint anyone who swings long enough bareback will eventually pick up an STI. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn't it strange how when we talk about epidemics, isolation is considered the only way to contain them. But when we talk about STDs the same principle of preventing spread to combat them is considered a totally redicilous notion. How do you suggest isolating everyone who has an Sti? " You don't have to isolate the people you just need to isolate genital skin on skin contact. Condoms. They aren't perfect. But then they don't have to be. Let's imagine STDs were rare. One in a thousand. Imagine condom breakages and slippages are one in a thousand too. So if STDs relied on these two factors to line up they wouldn't last too long. That's the logic. Btw I did some digging in the NHS for a detailed breakdown of studies and the don't have anything I can find except references to the Dutch study. Perhaps we should let the NHS know that the spreading of sexual diseases is geodepenent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not having car brakes means you will definitely have an accident, bareback sex does not mean you will definitely get an sti." Male or Female, if you go bareback often enough with others you will get, and then pass on an STI. Although not everyone will be infected, the daily queue at the sexual health (GUM) clinic is evidence of this. At clubs and saunas, it staggers me how many men attempt bareback, and also how many recipients will allow them to do it! There is much denial on these threads about the risks of bacterial infection and HIV from bareback.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not having car brakes means you will definitely have an accident, bareback sex does not mean you will definitely get an sti. Male or Female, if you go bareback often enough with others you will get, and then pass on an STI. Although not everyone will be infected, the daily queue at the sexual health (GUM) clinic is evidence of this. At clubs and saunas, it staggers me how many men attempt bareback, and also how many recipients will allow them to do it! There is much denial on these threads about the risks of bacterial infection and HIV from bareback. "I know a lady who was stealthed in a club but otherwise practices safe sex. Next test she came back positive as well as her FB. To my recollection the FB was married so in all likelihood passed it on to his wife. So ignoring the 100% success rate in transmitting the disease from a single event, you have a person who thought she was in a monogamous relationship having to be treated for an STD.... good luck telling her bareback sex isn't her business. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So yes. Simply put. We all have to wear condoms because others refuse to do so." So the opposite of that is that if everyone wore condoms no-one would need to. Now do you see how ridiculous that is? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not having car brakes means you will definitely have an accident, bareback sex does not mean you will definitely get an sti. Male or Female, if you go bareback often enough with others you will get, and then pass on an STI. Although not everyone will be infected, the daily queue at the sexual health (GUM) clinic is evidence of this. At clubs and saunas, it staggers me how many men attempt bareback, and also how many recipients will allow them to do it! There is much denial on these threads about the risks of bacterial infection and HIV from bareback. "I went to the GUM clinic for my Hep B shots. As I was going in there was a young lady who had received her HIV test results. She was throwing up in the corridor from the stress. If you had given her one wish in that moment it would have been that she had insisted on a condom. My heart broke for her. But at the same time if everyone could see how a nurse had to hold her up because her knees had gone weak people might not have such a cavalier attitude. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So yes. Simply put. We all have to wear condoms because others refuse to do so. So the opposite of that is that if everyone wore condoms no-one would need to. Now do you see how ridiculous that is?" Actually for me, the fact that we're having this conversation in 2020 is redicilous. Which part sounds redicilous? The opinion that if disease can't spread it dies out? Or the opinion that once it has died out we won't need protection from it any more? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It takes two (or more) people to have bareback sex. If both are in agreement, their choice. Yes, they risk passing something on to someone else, but that next person also has the choice of going bareback or not. For all their faults and risks of breaking, condoms are pretty effective, overall. If they weren't, no one would use them to avoid STDs in the first place." Nicely put | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It takes two (or more) people to have bareback sex. If both are in agreement, their choice. Yes, they risk passing something on to someone else, but that next person also has the choice of going bareback or not. For all their faults and risks of breaking, condoms are pretty effective, overall. If they weren't, no one would use them to avoid STDs in the first place." This is a good argument.
Agree with everything you say.
Two points though.
1) If your condom did break or slip off, would you want it to happen with a person who also practices safe sex or with a person who barebacks?
2) Do you accept that STDs owe their existence to unprotected sex in non monogamous intercourse? Is it conceivable that if everyone used a condom for a given period of time they would eventually die out? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What guesstimate proportion of the site gets regularly tested. Do we think there could be any ways that could improve these rates? " How about publishing your test results as dates. Then shaming others into doing so? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It takes two (or more) people to have bareback sex. If both are in agreement, their choice. Yes, they risk passing something on to someone else, but that next person also has the choice of going bareback or not. For all their faults and risks of breaking, condoms are pretty effective, overall. If they weren't, no one would use them to avoid STDs in the first place. This is a good argument.
Agree with everything you say.
Two points though.
1) If your condom did break or slip off, would you want it to happen with a person who also practices safe sex or with a person who barebacks?
2) Do you accept that STDs owe their existence to unprotected sex in non monogamous intercourse? Is it conceivable that if everyone used a condom for a given period of time they would eventually die out?"1--Some STIs are not spread solely though sex. HIV and the blood scandals are a good example. HPV, genital warts, and herpes are others. No, I don't want contact with these or any other! However, the people with these viruses may not even have symptoms at the time, and pass them on even with condom use. 2--Bacteria and viruses exist for their own reasons, not simply to cause us harm. Much as do Lions and Tigers and Bears (oh my). Theoretically, they could be eliminated, but A-viruses can mutate extremely quickly, B-there are trillions of bacterial cells out there. Given their extremely short life spans and quick reproduction times, plus the number of people on earth who carry them, I doubt they'd be eliminated. They are more likely to mutate to a form that is otherwise transferable than those lions, tigers, and bears that we can quickly kill off. Smallpox was officially eliminated, but it occurs in outbreaks, and is immediately apparent who has it, so can be quarantined. (Side note: various governments around the world to have live smallpox stocks. I'm not paranoid, but have no doubt STIs would be similarly guarded. I think the likelihood of catching every single STI virus or bacterium around the world highly unlikely. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok let's take another approach... who here thinks that unprotected sex: A) Increases the incidence of STDs B) Decreases the incidence of STDs C) Has no effect whatsoever " A. In my naively stupid early 20s, I managed to get chlamydia. No symptoms, diagnosed through a regular health check. It's undeniable that unprotected sex increases the chances of STIs. I also had (protected vaginal, unprotected oral) sex with a partner many moons ago who had chlamydia. He was man enough to tell me within hours of getting his results. When I went to the sex clinic, the doc told me I had it without a doubt, and I started antibiotics. All test results came back negative, so obviously without a doubt was his incorrect opinion only. I usually don't state my condom use preferences, as I believe it's no one's business but my own (and my partners). Bareback is not my choice, but I still believe it's not my place to judge or decide for others what they should do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It takes two (or more) people to have bareback sex. If both are in agreement, their choice. Yes, they risk passing something on to someone else, but that next person also has the choice of going bareback or not. For all their faults and risks of breaking, condoms are pretty effective, overall. If they weren't, no one would use them to avoid STDs in the first place. This is a good argument.
Agree with everything you say.
Two points though.
1) If your condom did break or slip off, would you want it to happen with a person who also practices safe sex or with a person who barebacks?
2) Do you accept that STDs owe their existence to unprotected sex in non monogamous intercourse? Is it conceivable that if everyone used a condom for a given period of time they would eventually die out?
1--Some STIs are not spread solely though sex. HIV and the blood scandals are a good example. HPV, genital warts, and herpes are others. No, I don't want contact with these or any other! However, the people with these viruses may not even have symptoms at the time, and pass them on even with condom use.
2--Bacteria and viruses exist for their own reasons, not simply to cause us harm. Much as do Lions and Tigers and Bears (oh my). Theoretically, they could be eliminated, but A-viruses can mutate extremely quickly, B-there are trillions of bacterial cells out there. Given their extremely short life spans and quick reproduction times, plus the number of people on earth who carry them, I doubt they'd be eliminated. They are more likely to mutate to a form that is otherwise transferable than those lions, tigers, and bears that we can quickly kill off.
Smallpox was officially eliminated, but it occurs in outbreaks, and is immediately apparent who has it, so can be quarantined. (Side note: various governments around the world to have live smallpox stocks. I'm not paranoid, but have no doubt STIs would be similarly guarded.
I think the likelihood of catching every single STI virus or bacterium around the world highly unlikely."Brilliant post.
I very much agree that we will never eliminate STDs. It's a theoretical hypothesis. So lets just say high occurrence or low occurrence? Let's look at South Africa where there is the world's highest occurrence of HIV... What's great about this example is that use of condoms is a cultural belief and in general terms you can use these demographics to determine the effecy of codom use on STD incidence.
"The Human Sciences Research Council that found a 13.6% infection rate among Africans, 1.7% among Coloreds, 0.3% among Indians, and 0.3% among Whites."
So what should we conclude from this? HIV is racist? Black South Africans are mainly gay/bisexual?
Or that cultures who believe in condoms have their chances of contracting HIV reduced by a factor of 45?
These are old figures because the ANC government chose to deny HIV exists. (Probably got their information from a thread on fab). The figure for the entire nation is now 20% (7.1 million people). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What guesstimate proportion of the site gets regularly tested. Do we think there could be any ways that could improve these rates? How about publishing your test results as dates. Then shaming others into doing so?" I don't know about this. Any action which will lead to active shaming on the Internet seems wrong to me. What I will do though, and will advocate, anyone we are planning on meeting can see our results on request. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok let's take another approach... who here thinks that unprotected sex: A) Increases the incidence of STDs B) Decreases the incidence of STDs C) Has no effect whatsoever A. In my naively stupid early 20s, I managed to get chlamydia. No symptoms, diagnosed through a regular health check. It's undeniable that unprotected sex increases the chances of STIs. I also had (protected vaginal, unprotected oral) sex with a partner many moons ago who had chlamydia. He was man enough to tell me within hours of getting his results. When I went to the sex clinic, the doc told me I had it without a doubt, and I started antibiotics. All test results came back negative, so obviously without a doubt was his incorrect opinion only. I usually don't state my condom use preferences, as I believe it's no one's business but my own (and my partners). Bareback is not my choice, but I still believe it's not my place to judge or decide for others what they should do." I really believe in freedom and the right to choose. However when one person's freedom effects other people's freedom then that's different. If a guy wants to get d*unk that's his business. When he gets behind the wheel of a car then I consider it my business. Using the logic thrown at me in this forum we would have to say let d*unk divers carry on (it's their choice!) If you don't want to be endangered by d*unk drivers stay off the roads! YOU are deliberately putting yourself in a situation where you get hit by a d*unk driver. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok let's take another approach... who here thinks that unprotected sex: A) Increases the incidence of STDs B) Decreases the incidence of STDs C) Has no effect whatsoever A. In my naively stupid early 20s, I managed to get chlamydia. No symptoms, diagnosed through a regular health check. It's undeniable that unprotected sex increases the chances of STIs. I also had (protected vaginal, unprotected oral) sex with a partner many moons ago who had chlamydia. He was man enough to tell me within hours of getting his results. When I went to the sex clinic, the doc told me I had it without a doubt, and I started antibiotics. All test results came back negative, so obviously without a doubt was his incorrect opinion only. I usually don't state my condom use preferences, as I believe it's no one's business but my own (and my partners). Bareback is not my choice, but I still believe it's not my place to judge or decide for others what they should do. I really believe in freedom and the right to choose. However when one person's freedom effects other people's freedom then that's different. If a guy wants to get d*unk that's his business. When he gets behind the wheel of a car then I consider it my business. Using the logic thrown at me in this forum we would have to say let d*unk divers carry on (it's their choice!) If you don't want to be endangered by d*unk drivers stay off the roads! YOU are deliberately putting yourself in a situation where you get hit by a d*unk driver." Logically, comparing d*runk driving and condom use isn't logical. You have the right to use any public road without fear of being killed in the process. You do NOT have the right to have sex with anyone in the general public. So condom use is irrelevant in that debate. You DO have the right to insist on condom use in your own life, just as the government has the right to set a law forbidding driving under the influence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok let's take another approach... who here thinks that unprotected sex: A) Increases the incidence of STDs B) Decreases the incidence of STDs C) Has no effect whatsoever A. In my naively stupid early 20s, I managed to get chlamydia. No symptoms, diagnosed through a regular health check. It's undeniable that unprotected sex increases the chances of STIs. I also had (protected vaginal, unprotected oral) sex with a partner many moons ago who had chlamydia. He was man enough to tell me within hours of getting his results. When I went to the sex clinic, the doc told me I had it without a doubt, and I started antibiotics. All test results came back negative, so obviously without a doubt was his incorrect opinion only. I usually don't state my condom use preferences, as I believe it's no one's business but my own (and my partners). Bareback is not my choice, but I still believe it's not my place to judge or decide for others what they should do. I really believe in freedom and the right to choose. However when one person's freedom effects other people's freedom then that's different. If a guy wants to get d*unk that's his business. When he gets behind the wheel of a car then I consider it my business. Using the logic thrown at me in this forum we would have to say let d*unk divers carry on (it's their choice!) If you don't want to be endangered by d*unk drivers stay off the roads! YOU are deliberately putting yourself in a situation where you get hit by a d*unk driver. Logically, comparing d*runk driving and condom use isn't logical. You have the right to use any public road without fear of being killed in the process. You do NOT have the right to have sex with anyone in the general public. So condom use is irrelevant in that debate. You DO have the right to insist on condom use in your own life, just as the government has the right to set a law forbidding driving under the influence. " Getting d*runk and using condoms are the comparable things here. How you go about it (when/where/how) is the other comparison. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok let's take another approach... who here thinks that unprotected sex: A) Increases the incidence of STDs B) Decreases the incidence of STDs C) Has no effect whatsoever A. In my naively stupid early 20s, I managed to get chlamydia. No symptoms, diagnosed through a regular health check. It's undeniable that unprotected sex increases the chances of STIs. I also had (protected vaginal, unprotected oral) sex with a partner many moons ago who had chlamydia. He was man enough to tell me within hours of getting his results. When I went to the sex clinic, the doc told me I had it without a doubt, and I started antibiotics. All test results came back negative, so obviously without a doubt was his incorrect opinion only. I usually don't state my condom use preferences, as I believe it's no one's business but my own (and my partners). Bareback is not my choice, but I still believe it's not my place to judge or decide for others what they should do. I really believe in freedom and the right to choose. However when one person's freedom effects other people's freedom then that's different. If a guy wants to get d*unk that's his business. When he gets behind the wheel of a car then I consider it my business. Using the logic thrown at me in this forum we would have to say let d*unk divers carry on (it's their choice!) If you don't want to be endangered by d*unk drivers stay off the roads! YOU are deliberately putting yourself in a situation where you get hit by a d*unk driver. Logically, comparing d*runk driving and condom use isn't logical. You have the right to use any public road without fear of being killed in the process. You do NOT have the right to have sex with anyone in the general public. So condom use is irrelevant in that debate. You DO have the right to insist on condom use in your own life, just as the government has the right to set a law forbidding driving under the influence. Getting d*runk and using condoms are the comparable things here. How you go about it (when/where/how) is the other comparison." One is the description of someone who has endangered others through reckless behaviour. And the other is the same. If you don't have sex with others you are in no danger. If you don't go on the road you are in no danger. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok let's take another approach... who here thinks that unprotected sex: A) Increases the incidence of STDs B) Decreases the incidence of STDs C) Has no effect whatsoever A. In my naively stupid early 20s, I managed to get chlamydia. No symptoms, diagnosed through a regular health check. It's undeniable that unprotected sex increases the chances of STIs. I also had (protected vaginal, unprotected oral) sex with a partner many moons ago who had chlamydia. He was man enough to tell me within hours of getting his results. When I went to the sex clinic, the doc told me I had it without a doubt, and I started antibiotics. All test results came back negative, so obviously without a doubt was his incorrect opinion only. I usually don't state my condom use preferences, as I believe it's no one's business but my own (and my partners). Bareback is not my choice, but I still believe it's not my place to judge or decide for others what they should do. I really believe in freedom and the right to choose. However when one person's freedom effects other people's freedom then that's different. If a guy wants to get d*unk that's his business. When he gets behind the wheel of a car then I consider it my business. Using the logic thrown at me in this forum we would have to say let d*unk divers carry on (it's their choice!) If you don't want to be endangered by d*unk drivers stay off the roads! YOU are deliberately putting yourself in a situation where you get hit by a d*unk driver. Logically, comparing d*runk driving and condom use isn't logical. You have the right to use any public road without fear of being killed in the process. You do NOT have the right to have sex with anyone in the general public. So condom use is irrelevant in that debate. You DO have the right to insist on condom use in your own life, just as the government has the right to set a law forbidding driving under the influence. Getting d*runk and using condoms are the comparable things here. How you go about it (when/where/how) is the other comparison. One is the description of someone who has endangered others through reckless behaviour. And the other is the same. If you don't have sex with others you are in no danger. If you don't go on the road you are in no danger." But legally, you have the right to be safe on any road you choose to be on. Other drivers have the same right to use those roads, asking permission to do it is not required. Legally, you do NOT have the right to have sex with anyone you choose. Permission to do it IS required. The basis of each set of logic is not equivalent. The basis is: Choice: Using a road. Having sex. OR Choice: Being d*unk. Using a condom. To compare using a condom with using a road doesn't make sense, as (in this case) being d*unk and having sex. Neither do driving d*unk AND using a condom compare within the logic you've presented. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok let's take another approach... who here thinks that unprotected sex: A) Increases the incidence of STDs B) Decreases the incidence of STDs C) Has no effect whatsoever A. In my naively stupid early 20s, I managed to get chlamydia. No symptoms, diagnosed through a regular health check. It's undeniable that unprotected sex increases the chances of STIs. I also had (protected vaginal, unprotected oral) sex with a partner many moons ago who had chlamydia. He was man enough to tell me within hours of getting his results. When I went to the sex clinic, the doc told me I had it without a doubt, and I started antibiotics. All test results came back negative, so obviously without a doubt was his incorrect opinion only. I usually don't state my condom use preferences, as I believe it's no one's business but my own (and my partners). Bareback is not my choice, but I still believe it's not my place to judge or decide for others what they should do. I really believe in freedom and the right to choose. However when one person's freedom effects other people's freedom then that's different. If a guy wants to get d*unk that's his business. When he gets behind the wheel of a car then I consider it my business. Using the logic thrown at me in this forum we would have to say let d*unk divers carry on (it's their choice!) If you don't want to be endangered by d*unk drivers stay off the roads! YOU are deliberately putting yourself in a situation where you get hit by a d*unk driver. Logically, comparing d*runk driving and condom use isn't logical. You have the right to use any public road without fear of being killed in the process. You do NOT have the right to have sex with anyone in the general public. So condom use is irrelevant in that debate. You DO have the right to insist on condom use in your own life, just as the government has the right to set a law forbidding driving under the influence. Getting d*runk and using condoms are the comparable things here. How you go about it (when/where/how) is the other comparison. One is the description of someone who has endangered others through reckless behaviour. And the other is the same. If you don't have sex with others you are in no danger. If you don't go on the road you are in no danger. But legally, you have the right to be safe on any road you choose to be on. Other drivers have the same right to use those roads, asking permission to do it is not required. Legally, you do NOT have the right to have sex with anyone you choose. Permission to do it IS required. The basis of each set of logic is not equivalent. The basis is: Choice: Using a road. Having sex. OR Choice: Being d*unk. Using a condom. To compare using a condom with using a road doesn't make sense, as (in this case) being d*unk and having sex. Neither do driving d*unk AND using a condom compare within the logic you've presented. " Lets go through this one step at a time. You've agreed that that bareback sex increases incidence of STDs. Would you agree that with that increase in incedence, there is an increased risk for swingers who DO use protection? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""So your quoting facts that don’t exist then ?" - no I'm quoting a study that you refuse to acknowledge because it incorporates swinging. "You say swingers are the highest risk group but you have no data and tell me that none exists to prove it ?" - again the Amsterdam study. "The big danger is people on forums stating their own opinion as fact ." - talking about yourself I take it. Where's YOUR study? "Condoms are good protection but they will never cure or eradicate Sti’s." - an opion or a fact? Based on which study? If you would like to use Google there is a 176 page study done on STDs. If you can provide an equivalent English study incorporating all the risk groups then we can pit fact against fact. This is a forum discussion, not a dissertation. Just because I don't have a smoking gun doesn't mean what I say is rubbish. Any statistical analysis is based on data collection and when I fill in a form which does not ask me whether I swing or not I seriously question how they base their conclusions having not gathered all the data. The Netherlands study is valid in the Netherlands , nowhere else , I didn’t dispute it . I don’t have a study and don’t pretend to , it’s commonly known scientific fact that anal sex is higher risk for transmission of sti’s , and I never said women don’t have anal . Some sti’s can be spread even when using condoms , also condoms can break and of course you will never get 100% usage of them , that is pie in the sky . There isn’t an equivalent English study and that’s exactly my point , a study in another county won’t have the same results as one in this country , for obvious reasons . Yes it’s a discussion , you don’t have to provide anything , you can literally make stuff up if you like . Again , making my point for me , you don’t possess facts for this country , the data does not exist . OK so this is not a discussion about safe sex. It's a discussion about safe sex IN the UK. What I was asking for is a reason WHY data collected on swingers in another country is so irrelevant. Having been to swinging clubs in various countries, Argentina, Spain, Sweden.... I couldn't see any difference in behaviour that would make data collected in any other country irrelevant. In the Spanish clubs there were lots of Netherlanders and lots of English, all in the same orgy. In the modern age of international travel I can't understand why this data should be so insular. Simply saying CLEARLY its not relevant isn't really proof for me either." Because different countries have different customs , ways of behaving , stigma about being tested is different in different countries . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn't it strange how when we talk about epidemics, isolation is considered the only way to contain them. But when we talk about STDs the same principle of preventing spread to combat them is considered a totally redicilous notion. How do you suggest isolating everyone who has an Sti? You don't have to isolate the people you just need to isolate genital skin on skin contact. Condoms. They aren't perfect. But then they don't have to be. Let's imagine STDs were rare. One in a thousand. Imagine condom breakages and slippages are one in a thousand too. So if STDs relied on these two factors to line up they wouldn't last too long. That's the logic. Btw I did some digging in the NHS for a detailed breakdown of studies and the don't have anything I can find except references to the Dutch study. Perhaps we should let the NHS know that the spreading of sexual diseases is geodepenent." Sti’s are quite rare in the grand scheme of things but they would be even more rare if everyone got tested regularly, testing is key . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""So your quoting facts that don’t exist then ?" - no I'm quoting a study that you refuse to acknowledge because it incorporates swinging. "You say swingers are the highest risk group but you have no data and tell me that none exists to prove it ?" - again the Amsterdam study. "The big danger is people on forums stating their own opinion as fact ." - talking about yourself I take it. Where's YOUR study? "Condoms are good protection but they will never cure or eradicate Sti’s." - an opion or a fact? Based on which study? If you would like to use Google there is a 176 page study done on STDs. If you can provide an equivalent English study incorporating all the risk groups then we can pit fact against fact. This is a forum discussion, not a dissertation. Just because I don't have a smoking gun doesn't mean what I say is rubbish. Any statistical analysis is based on data collection and when I fill in a form which does not ask me whether I swing or not I seriously question how they base their conclusions having not gathered all the data. The Netherlands study is valid in the Netherlands , nowhere else , I didn’t dispute it . I don’t have a study and don’t pretend to , it’s commonly known scientific fact that anal sex is higher risk for transmission of sti’s , and I never said women don’t have anal . Some sti’s can be spread even when using condoms , also condoms can break and of course you will never get 100% usage of them , that is pie in the sky . There isn’t an equivalent English study and that’s exactly my point , a study in another county won’t have the same results as one in this country , for obvious reasons . Yes it’s a discussion , you don’t have to provide anything , you can literally make stuff up if you like . Again , making my point for me , you don’t possess facts for this country , the data does not exist . OK so this is not a discussion about safe sex. It's a discussion about safe sex IN the UK. What I was asking for is a reason WHY data collected on swingers in another country is so irrelevant. Having been to swinging clubs in various countries, Argentina, Spain, Sweden.... I couldn't see any difference in behaviour that would make data collected in any other country irrelevant. In the Spanish clubs there were lots of Netherlanders and lots of English, all in the same orgy. In the modern age of international travel I can't understand why this data should be so insular. Simply saying CLEARLY its not relevant isn't really proof for me either. Because different countries have different customs , ways of behaving , stigma about being tested is different in different countries ." Granted you couldn't use exact figures. The latest report also refects the effect that PrEP has had on the stats. It hardly mentions swingers at all. It does show that of the people who identified as swingers there were 4 times more gay and bi men than hetrosexual men. Which shows that gay and bi men should not be taken from a demographic of general population but out of a swinging group. Way higher than gay or bisexual men is a risk group idenfied as "did not use a condom with previous sexual partner". Unfortunately I cannot paste a link since it is a pdf download. I can give you the name of the document if you are interested. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn't it strange how when we talk about epidemics, isolation is considered the only way to contain them. But when we talk about STDs the same principle of preventing spread to combat them is considered a totally redicilous notion. How do you suggest isolating everyone who has an Sti? You don't have to isolate the people you just need to isolate genital skin on skin contact. Condoms. They aren't perfect. But then they don't have to be. Let's imagine STDs were rare. One in a thousand. Imagine condom breakages and slippages are one in a thousand too. So if STDs relied on these two factors to line up they wouldn't last too long. That's the logic. Btw I did some digging in the NHS for a detailed breakdown of studies and the don't have anything I can find except references to the Dutch study. Perhaps we should let the NHS know that the spreading of sexual diseases is geodepenent. Sti’s are quite rare in the grand scheme of things but they would be even more rare if everyone got tested regularly, testing is key ." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm saying my hobby has become riskier than it needs to be, and barebackers are option A - Making it riskier." And you are trying to dictate to others how they behave in a perfectly legal way to make life easier for YOU. Maybe you need a new hobby. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm saying my hobby has become riskier than it needs to be, and barebackers are option A - Making it riskier. And you are trying to dictate to others how they behave in a perfectly legal way to make life easier for YOU. Maybe you need a new hobby." I'm not trying to dictate to anyone. There are members of the of the bareback community stating that their behaviour is none of my business. I am simply expressing an opinion that suggests that it is my business when it is my health that is put at risk. You are saying that I am trying to dictate behaviour to others, yet in the same breath suggest I change my own lifestyle. I have used comparisons to question why people who don't break the unwritten rules of swinging need to suffer because of those that do. There were three questions posed in the previous thread which no one was able to answer. Yes there has been nitpicking at the details but in the main no one has been able to justify barebacking or say how it isn't selfish. Hopefully none of the barebackers on this site don't pick up something nasty. Hopefully none of us who play safe have any of accidents that make us victim to a disease we don't deserve. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm saying my hobby has become riskier than it needs to be, and barebackers are option A - Making it riskier. And you are trying to dictate to others how they behave in a perfectly legal way to make life easier for YOU. Maybe you need a new hobby. I'm not trying to dictate to anyone. There are members of the of the bareback community stating that their behaviour is none of my business. I am simply expressing an opinion that suggests that it is my business when it is my health that is put at risk. You are saying that I am trying to dictate behaviour to others, yet in the same breath suggest I change my own lifestyle. I have used comparisons to question why people who don't break the unwritten rules of swinging need to suffer because of those that do. There were three questions posed in the previous thread which no one was able to answer. Yes there has been nitpicking at the details but in the main no one has been able to justify barebacking or say how it isn't selfish. Hopefully none of the barebackers on this site don't pick up something nasty. Hopefully none of us who play safe have any of accidents that make us victim to a disease we don't deserve." You don't get it, do you. There are no "unwritten rules". The only person that puts you at risk is you. Everything in life is a risk and you either need to stop swinging, if the risk is too great for you, or pull on your big boy pants and suck it up buttercup. The reason people won't answer your questions I'd probably because you are starting with a ridiculous pre-position i.e. that we only need safesex because people bareback. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm saying my hobby has become riskier than it needs to be, and barebackers are option A - Making it riskier. And you are trying to dictate to others how they behave in a perfectly legal way to make life easier for YOU. Maybe you need a new hobby. I'm not trying to dictate to anyone. There are members of the of the bareback community stating that their behaviour is none of my business. I am simply expressing an opinion that suggests that it is my business when it is my health that is put at risk. You are saying that I am trying to dictate behaviour to others, yet in the same breath suggest I change my own lifestyle. I have used comparisons to question why people who don't break the unwritten rules of swinging need to suffer because of those that do. There were three questions posed in the previous thread which no one was able to answer. Yes there has been nitpicking at the details but in the main no one has been able to justify barebacking or say how it isn't selfish. Hopefully none of the barebackers on this site don't pick up something nasty. Hopefully none of us who play safe have any of accidents that make us victim to a disease we don't deserve. You don't get it, do you. There are no "unwritten rules". The only person that puts you at risk is you. Everything in life is a risk and you either need to stop swinging, if the risk is too great for you, or pull on your big boy pants and suck it up buttercup. The reason people won't answer your questions I'd probably because you are starting with a ridiculous pre-position i.e. that we only need safesex because people bareback." I have a point of view. I'm entitled to it. If you don't like it or agree with you that is your perogative. If you want to get personal with me I shall not engage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"‘None of us get a disease we don’t deserve...’ I take issue with this. We choose to have sex with multiple partners. We know that there is a chance, one we choose to try and mitigate, but a chance nonetheless, that we might contract an STI. So if you get a disease, darn skippy you ‘deserve’ it. You want to be safe, don’t sleep with anyone bar your partner. Simple. Be willing to accept the consequences of your actions or get the hell out of the kitchen. Your life is no-one else’s responsibility but your own. I’m finding an appalling lack of personal accountability on this thread, from the very people berating others for not being responsible. " I invite you to do some reading on a division of science called acceptable risk. What I do is within the bounds of acceptable risk. Actually what I said was a positive thing, hoping that barebackers do not become infected. Pity you needed to see the negative. Are you saying a person who engages in responsible swinging and still gets infected deserves to get infected for swinging? Well there's a lot of swingers on that site you are wishing that on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sleeping with multiple partners will always be more risky than only sleeping with one , with or without condoms , in or out of the swinging world . I know people that go on 3/4/5 dates a week from tinder / bumble etc , promiscuity is not confined to swinging ." Agreed and Agreed
But what is it that makes intercourse risky? The numbers or the increased likelihood of engaging with someone infected? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sleeping with multiple partners will always be more risky than only sleeping with one , with or without condoms , in or out of the swinging world . I know people that go on 3/4/5 dates a week from tinder / bumble etc , promiscuity is not confined to swinging . Agreed and Agreed
But what is it that makes intercourse risky? The numbers or the increased likelihood of engaging with someone infected?"Doesn’t really matter , you have a perception of the level of risk involved , you decide on that basis wether to be promiscuous or not . Others will play or not according to their own perception of the risk involved . Your more likely to die from crossing the road than of an sti but it doesn’t stop you crossing the road . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sleeping with multiple partners will always be more risky than only sleeping with one , with or without condoms , in or out of the swinging world . I know people that go on 3/4/5 dates a week from tinder / bumble etc , promiscuity is not confined to swinging . Agreed and Agreed
But what is it that makes intercourse risky? The numbers or the increased likelihood of engaging with someone infected?
Doesn’t really matter , you have a perception of the level of risk involved , you decide on that basis wether to be promiscuous or not .
Others will play or not according to their own perception of the risk involved .
Your more likely to die from crossing the road than of an sti but it doesn’t stop you crossing the road ."No that was never my argument. Someone on the previous thread stated that their choice to bareback is no one else's business. Someone else challenged that with 3 questions. No one had been able to answer these questions. The best anyone has been able to come up with is that it is the fault of people who put themselves in a position to catch the STDs, not the people spreading them around. Actually they are confirming my argument: By saying that swingers have to give up swinging to avoid catching these STDs it becomes their business! How does one person say to another "You have to give up YOUR hobby because of MY reckless behaviour, but it's not your business"??? How does a person say "I want you to have NO fun, so I can have MORE fun" and then say they aren't being selfish. The discussion has been reduced to the barebackers suggesting I give up swinging and me suggesting why don't they just be like everyone else and stick a condom on their willy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The discussion has been reduced to the barebackers suggesting I give up swinging and me suggesting why don't they just be like everyone else and stick a condom on their willy." Actually it was me that suggested you gave up swinging if the risk was too great for you and we never bareback with others. Your assumptions are about as accurate as your other argfuments. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The discussion has been reduced to the barebackers suggesting I give up swinging and me suggesting why don't they just be like everyone else and stick a condom on their willy. Actually it was me that suggested you gave up swinging if the risk was too great for you and we never bareback with others. Your assumptions are about as accurate as your other argfuments." Well said | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The discussion has been reduced to the barebackers suggesting I give up swinging and me suggesting why don't they just be like everyone else and stick a condom on their willy. Actually it was me that suggested you gave up swinging if the risk was too great for you and we never bareback with others. Your assumptions are about as accurate as your other argfuments. Well said" Is it well said? My argument is whether barebacking is not the business of barebackers. I have previously mentioned that this a concept being debated not my own personal choice under discussion. Again. To tell people that their argument is either stupid, redicilous, illogical, inaccurate or any combination of the above does not not constitute a counter argument. It is the last resort of a person unable to provide a response that disproves what the person is saying. I am yet to be provided a logical argument to disprove that bareback casual sex does not increase the incedence of STDs. I am yet to find a reason as to why this increased incedence does not pose an increased risk for swingers who do use condoms. If you want to talk about completely innocent parties in the bareback debate we can talk about children born with defects because their mother had an STD. We could also discuss how an already overburdened NHS system has to budget to treat a great number of people who got STDs because it was 'their choice' and the people who have no choice but to pay extra tax to pay to have those diseases treated. We can talk about people who don't get sufficient care in hospitals because we are understaffed but there is an entire branch of the NHS dedicated to getting all the creepy crawlies off peoples genitals. This isn't about me. This is about a war against the spread of STDs. You're either a person trying to prevent the spread or you are a person who doesn't care if it gets spread or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The discussion has been reduced to the barebackers suggesting I give up swinging and me suggesting why don't they just be like everyone else and stick a condom on their willy. Actually it was me that suggested you gave up swinging if the risk was too great for you and we never bareback with others. Your assumptions are about as accurate as your other argfuments. Well said Is it well said? My argument is whether barebacking is not the business of barebackers. I have previously mentioned that this a concept being debated not my own personal choice under discussion. Again. To tell people that their argument is either stupid, redicilous, illogical, inaccurate or any combination of the above does not not constitute a counter argument. It is the last resort of a person unable to provide a response that disproves what the person is saying. I am yet to be provided a logical argument to disprove that bareback casual sex does not increase the incedence of STDs. I am yet to find a reason as to why this increased incedence does not pose an increased risk for swingers who do use condoms. If you want to talk about completely innocent parties in the bareback debate we can talk about children born with defects because their mother had an STD. We could also discuss how an already overburdened NHS system has to budget to treat a great number of people who got STDs because it was 'their choice' and the people who have no choice but to pay extra tax to pay to have those diseases treated. We can talk about people who don't get sufficient care in hospitals because we are understaffed but there is an entire branch of the NHS dedicated to getting all the creepy crawlies off peoples genitals. This isn't about me. This is about a war against the spread of STDs. You're either a person trying to prevent the spread or you are a person who doesn't care if it gets spread or not." Everything in life has risk attached to it , it’s up to you what level of risk you take . What exactly do you want to happen ? Make bareback sex illegal ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The discussion has been reduced to the barebackers suggesting I give up swinging and me suggesting why don't they just be like everyone else and stick a condom on their willy. Actually it was me that suggested you gave up swinging if the risk was too great for you and we never bareback with others. Your assumptions are about as accurate as your other argfuments. Well said Is it well said? My argument is whether barebacking is not the business of barebackers. I have previously mentioned that this a concept being debated not my own personal choice under discussion. Again. To tell people that their argument is either stupid, redicilous, illogical, inaccurate or any combination of the above does not not constitute a counter argument. It is the last resort of a person unable to provide a response that disproves what the person is saying. I am yet to be provided a logical argument to disprove that bareback casual sex does not increase the incedence of STDs. I am yet to find a reason as to why this increased incedence does not pose an increased risk for swingers who do use condoms. If you want to talk about completely innocent parties in the bareback debate we can talk about children born with defects because their mother had an STD. We could also discuss how an already overburdened NHS system has to budget to treat a great number of people who got STDs because it was 'their choice' and the people who have no choice but to pay extra tax to pay to have those diseases treated. We can talk about people who don't get sufficient care in hospitals because we are understaffed but there is an entire branch of the NHS dedicated to getting all the creepy crawlies off peoples genitals. This isn't about me. This is about a war against the spread of STDs. You're either a person trying to prevent the spread or you are a person who doesn't care if it gets spread or not." No, I'm not anything you try to pigeonhole me into being. People who wear condoms or insist on their playmates wearing them can spread sti's unknowingly, and by your logic #43 contributing to this ideological war you have created in your own mind. You're a soapbox without an interested audience, making you pointless. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The discussion has been reduced to the barebackers suggesting I give up swinging and me suggesting why don't they just be like everyone else and stick a condom on their willy. Actually it was me that suggested you gave up swinging if the risk was too great for you and we never bareback with others. Your assumptions are about as accurate as your other argfuments. Well said Is it well said? My argument is whether barebacking is not the business of barebackers. I have previously mentioned that this a concept being debated not my own personal choice under discussion. Again. To tell people that their argument is either stupid, redicilous, illogical, inaccurate or any combination of the above does not not constitute a counter argument. It is the last resort of a person unable to provide a response that disproves what the person is saying. I am yet to be provided a logical argument to disprove that bareback casual sex does not increase the incedence of STDs. I am yet to find a reason as to why this increased incedence does not pose an increased risk for swingers who do use condoms. If you want to talk about completely innocent parties in the bareback debate we can talk about children born with defects because their mother had an STD. We could also discuss how an already overburdened NHS system has to budget to treat a great number of people who got STDs because it was 'their choice' and the people who have no choice but to pay extra tax to pay to have those diseases treated. We can talk about people who don't get sufficient care in hospitals because we are understaffed but there is an entire branch of the NHS dedicated to getting all the creepy crawlies off peoples genitals. This isn't about me. This is about a war against the spread of STDs. You're either a person trying to prevent the spread or you are a person who doesn't care if it gets spread or not. No, I'm not anything you try to pigeonhole me into being. People who wear condoms or insist on their playmates wearing them can spread sti's unknowingly, and by your logic #43 contributing to this ideological war you have created in your own mind. You're a soapbox without an interested audience, making you pointless." Once again. You have no argument. Just what amounts to the forum equivalent of hair pulling. Once again the questions I pose are not argued. Something I would suppose are easy to do since my argument is so redicilous and illogical. Instead I have personal attacks. That's very intellectual. Bravo! If what you say is true then there is a 'pointless' checkbox on this site saying 'Safe sex'. Perhaps you should bring this up with Admin. There is also a pointlessly long blocklist which many safe swingers have which includes every person who advocates bb finds themselves on. Others waste their time by adding BB to that profiles notes. Do they know they are wasting their time with pointlessness. Perhaps you should tell the volunteers at Terrence Higgins trust that testing and handing out free condoms is just a waste of time and that they are fighting a war that only exists in their minds. They should also get off their soapbox because the queue outside their door is a figment of their imagination. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Again. To tell people that their argument is either stupid, redicilous, illogical, inaccurate or any combination of the above does not not constitute a counter argument. " It's quite reasonable if the argument is "either stupid, redicilous (sic), illogical, inaccurate or any combination of the above" Why would anyone try to argue with someone that believed that you wouldn't need safe sex if no one barebacked. Anyone that could come up with a statement so lacking in logic is far past reasoned argument. It's nor our fault you can't see that and frankly, I really can't be bothered anymore. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Again. To tell people that their argument is either stupid, redicilous, illogical, inaccurate or any combination of the above does not not constitute a counter argument. It's quite reasonable if the argument is "either stupid, redicilous (sic), illogical, inaccurate or any combination of the above" Why would anyone try to argue with someone that believed that you wouldn't need safe sex if no one barebacked. Anyone that could come up with a statement so lacking in logic is far past reasoned argument. It's nor our fault you can't see that and frankly, I really can't be bothered anymore." "Your argument is so redicilous it can't be counter argued" Is that the best you've got? I can understand taking up a contrary position simply because you feel you have a good point to put across. But then not having one good point and just a lot of angry words about the other person's reasoning... well that's just venting and not particularly constructive. So this is how debates work. You listen to the other person's argument, weigh up the merits, explain why you think they are wrong, maybe bring up a few points of your own. And so it goes back and forth. Telling me I'm ugly and my mommy dresses me funny is really the discussion I was hoping for either. Frankly. | |||
| 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 |
"It's the blame aspect I'm so opposed to. Indulging in casual indiscriminate sex with others is a risky pastime. Regardless of whether condoms are involved or not. If you're unfortunate enough to get an STI, reflect on what *you* do...don't go looking for someone to hang. " Why does this debate on what's right and wrong always become personal? Want to know about me? It's not relevant but here goes. I've been swinging for nearly 6 years. I always use protection except with my partner, she does the same. We both have had penetrative intercourse with members of the opposite sex running into the tripple figures in this time. We both get tested regularly. Neither of us has come back positive. We attribute this to ALWAYS using condoms regardless of the situation. This isn't about blame. There are two camps. You either always use protection with someone you don't know for sure is clean. Or you don't. To maintain that STDs are spread by Barebackers and Non-Barebackers in equal proportion is to deny the effectiveness of condoms completely. Something I find difficult to subscribe to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Why does this debate on what's right and wrong always become personal? " It was a generic you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can’t trust anyone with your sexual health. Take responsibility for it. Considering how upset people get about folk lying on here I can’t believe how many are will to trust the old ‘I’m only having bareback with you’ tosh. I wouldn’t ever knowingly take a risk. The danger on here is the number of people that are staying ‘safe sex only’ but then have regular friends that they trust, who in turn trust others. You can avoid the ones that say they go bareback, you can’t necessarily know about the others. Bonkers " Yup. What is a 'trusted friend?' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Why does this debate on what's right and wrong always become personal? It was a generic you" Sorry my bad. I was wrong about that. Thanks for calling me on it
Yes this is a risky hobby. Of this there is no doubt. It's a decision I have made fully aware of what I am getting into. I think most of us are.
So without pointing fingers or laying blame... Do you think people who go bareback increase or reduce the incidence of STDs? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... and as everyone above continues to argue, some people are still having unprotected sex, catching STI's and HIV and passing it around to others they have unprotected sex with ... The original question a week ago was "Have you ever found yourself starting sex safely and ending up having unprotected sex due to getting excited during a meet?" Well, have you? Personally, if I'm having sex I'm already excited and don't feel the need to remove a condom. "So here's me. I'm on my way to the mens room at Arousal and in the passage meet a very sexy couple I know. The lady and I start a hello kiss which turns into one of those weak at the knees kisses and before we know it we are naked upstairs in a state of mutual lust. You know those crazy moments where animal instinct and carnal desire just sweeps you away? Of course I had not prepared for this and I was left baying from the balcony 'my kingdom for a condom!' I was at last rewarded by a kind donor but by this time the initial spark needed to be rekindled. For me there is no woman sexy enough, no situation steamy enough for me to put myself (and more importantly my partner) at risk. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can’t trust anyone with your sexual health. Take responsibility for it. Considering how upset people get about folk lying on here I can’t believe how many are will to trust the old ‘I’m only having bareback with you’ tosh. I wouldn’t ever knowingly take a risk. The danger on here is the number of people that are staying ‘safe sex only’ but then have regular friends that they trust, who in turn trust others. You can avoid the ones that say they go bareback, you can’t necessarily know about the others. Bonkers
Yup. What is a 'trusted friend?'"A trusted friend is usually a regular fb or fwb that obviously they completely trust and have bareback sex with, because they trust them completely. The problem is that friend also has other trusted friends and so it goes on. So they do have safe sex generally apart from when they’re with their trusted friend and then it’s ok to have bareback sex and then go on to the next person without disclosing this to them, therefore taking their choice away. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can’t trust anyone with your sexual health. Take responsibility for it. Considering how upset people get about folk lying on here I can’t believe how many are will to trust the old ‘I’m only having bareback with you’ tosh. I wouldn’t ever knowingly take a risk. The danger on here is the number of people that are staying ‘safe sex only’ but then have regular friends that they trust, who in turn trust others. You can avoid the ones that say they go bareback, you can’t necessarily know about the others. Bonkers
Yup. What is a 'trusted friend?'
A trusted friend is usually a regular fb or fwb that obviously they completely trust and have bareback sex with, because they trust them completely. The problem is that friend also has other trusted friends and so it goes on. So they do have safe sex generally apart from when they’re with their trusted friend and then it’s ok to have bareback sex and then go on to the next person without disclosing this to them, therefore taking their choice away. "Thats not re4ally any different to married people or people in long term relationships .......they trust their partner , who could very well be cheating . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can’t trust anyone with your sexual health. Take responsibility for it. Considering how upset people get about folk lying on here I can’t believe how many are will to trust the old ‘I’m only having bareback with you’ tosh. I wouldn’t ever knowingly take a risk. The danger on here is the number of people that are staying ‘safe sex only’ but then have regular friends that they trust, who in turn trust others. You can avoid the ones that say they go bareback, you can’t necessarily know about the others. Bonkers
Yup. What is a 'trusted friend?'
A trusted friend is usually a regular fb or fwb that obviously they completely trust and have bareback sex with, because they trust them completely. The problem is that friend also has other trusted friends and so it goes on. So they do have safe sex generally apart from when they’re with their trusted friend and then it’s ok to have bareback sex and then go on to the next person without disclosing this to them, therefore taking their choice away. "It's a phrase I hear so often. I have a lot of friends on this site and trust them when they say they always practice safe sex. Do I bet my life on it? Not a chance! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Again. To tell people that their argument is either stupid, redicilous, illogical, inaccurate or any combination of the above does not not constitute a counter argument. It's quite reasonable if the argument is "either stupid, redicilous (sic), illogical, inaccurate or any combination of the above" Why would anyone try to argue with someone that believed that you wouldn't need safe sex if no one barebacked. Anyone that could come up with a statement so lacking in logic is far past reasoned argument. It's nor our fault you can't see that and frankly, I really can't be bothered anymore. "Your argument is so redicilous it can't be counter argued" Is that the best you've got? I can understand taking up a contrary position simply because you feel you have a good point to put across. But then not having one good point and just a lot of angry words about the other person's reasoning... well that's just venting and not particularly constructive. So this is how debates work. You listen to the other person's argument, weigh up the merits, explain why you think they are wrong, maybe bring up a few points of your own. And so it goes back and forth. Telling me I'm ugly and my mommy dresses me funny is really the discussion I was hoping for either. Frankly. "You haven't answered what you would like to happen? Are you wanting bareback sex to be made illegal? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can’t trust anyone with your sexual health. Take responsibility for it. Considering how upset people get about folk lying on here I can’t believe how many are will to trust the old ‘I’m only having bareback with you’ tosh. I wouldn’t ever knowingly take a risk. The danger on here is the number of people that are staying ‘safe sex only’ but then have regular friends that they trust, who in turn trust others. You can avoid the ones that say they go bareback, you can’t necessarily know about the others. Bonkers
Yup. What is a 'trusted friend?'
A trusted friend is usually a regular fb or fwb that obviously they completely trust and have bareback sex with, because they trust them completely. The problem is that friend also has other trusted friends and so it goes on. So they do have safe sex generally apart from when they’re with their trusted friend and then it’s ok to have bareback sex and then go on to the next person without disclosing this to them, therefore taking their choice away.
It's a phrase I hear so often. I have a lot of friends on this site and trust them when they say they always practice safe sex. Do I bet my life on it? Not a chance!"Exactly | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can’t trust anyone with your sexual health. Take responsibility for it. Considering how upset people get about folk lying on here I can’t believe how many are will to trust the old ‘I’m only having bareback with you’ tosh. I wouldn’t ever knowingly take a risk. The danger on here is the number of people that are staying ‘safe sex only’ but then have regular friends that they trust, who in turn trust others. You can avoid the ones that say they go bareback, you can’t necessarily know about the others. Bonkers
Yup. What is a 'trusted friend?'
A trusted friend is usually a regular fb or fwb that obviously they completely trust and have bareback sex with, because they trust them completely. The problem is that friend also has other trusted friends and so it goes on. So they do have safe sex generally apart from when they’re with their trusted friend and then it’s ok to have bareback sex and then go on to the next person without disclosing this to them, therefore taking their choice away.
Thats not re4ally any different to married people or people in long term relationships .......they trust their partner , who could very well be cheating ."So there's no difference between people who have exchanged marrige vows and someone who you gave your phone number to?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Again. To tell people that their argument is either stupid, redicilous, illogical, inaccurate or any combination of the above does not not constitute a counter argument. It's quite reasonable if the argument is "either stupid, redicilous (sic), illogical, inaccurate or any combination of the above" Why would anyone try to argue with someone that believed that you wouldn't need safe sex if no one barebacked. Anyone that could come up with a statement so lacking in logic is far past reasoned argument. It's nor our fault you can't see that and frankly, I really can't be bothered anymore. "Your argument is so redicilous it can't be counter argued" Is that the best you've got? I can understand taking up a contrary position simply because you feel you have a good point to put across. But then not having one good point and just a lot of angry words about the other person's reasoning... well that's just venting and not particularly constructive. So this is how debates work. You listen to the other person's argument, weigh up the merits, explain why you think they are wrong, maybe bring up a few points of your own. And so it goes back and forth. Telling me I'm ugly and my mommy dresses me funny is really the discussion I was hoping for either. Frankly.
You haven't answered what you would like to happen?
Are you wanting bareback sex to be made illegal?"Sorry I missed the question. Could you repeat it? I'm not on a crusade. I am refuting anyone who says that the spreading of STDs is not my business. It's everyone's business. I have given numerous examples of why this is so. Lots of deflection but no one to prove me wrong with dialectic argument. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can’t trust anyone with your sexual health. Take responsibility for it. Considering how upset people get about folk lying on here I can’t believe how many are will to trust the old ‘I’m only having bareback with you’ tosh. I wouldn’t ever knowingly take a risk. The danger on here is the number of people that are staying ‘safe sex only’ but then have regular friends that they trust, who in turn trust others. You can avoid the ones that say they go bareback, you can’t necessarily know about the others. Bonkers
Yup. What is a 'trusted friend?'
A trusted friend is usually a regular fb or fwb that obviously they completely trust and have bareback sex with, because they trust them completely. The problem is that friend also has other trusted friends and so it goes on. So they do have safe sex generally apart from when they’re with their trusted friend and then it’s ok to have bareback sex and then go on to the next person without disclosing this to them, therefore taking their choice away.
Thats not re4ally any different to married people or people in long term relationships .......they trust their partner , who could very well be cheating ."They could be cheating. But are they cheating and having bareback sex? Being married isn’t the issue, or being single for that matter. The issue is taking away someone else’s choice about sexual health. It’s about saying safe sex but then going bareback with someone then saying to the next person that you only practice safe sex therefore putting them at risk. Just say you enjoy bareback and give the person the opportunity to make a judgement call about whether or not they would risk it. It’s about choice, that’s all I’m saying. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can’t trust anyone with your sexual health. Take responsibility for it. Considering how upset people get about folk lying on here I can’t believe how many are will to trust the old ‘I’m only having bareback with you’ tosh. I wouldn’t ever knowingly take a risk. The danger on here is the number of people that are staying ‘safe sex only’ but then have regular friends that they trust, who in turn trust others. You can avoid the ones that say they go bareback, you can’t necessarily know about the others. Bonkers
Yup. What is a 'trusted friend?'
A trusted friend is usually a regular fb or fwb that obviously they completely trust and have bareback sex with, because they trust them completely. The problem is that friend also has other trusted friends and so it goes on. So they do have safe sex generally apart from when they’re with their trusted friend and then it’s ok to have bareback sex and then go on to the next person without disclosing this to them, therefore taking their choice away.
Thats not re4ally any different to married people or people in long term relationships .......they trust their partner , who could very well be cheating .
So there's no difference between people who have exchanged marrige vows and someone who you gave your phone number to? "Thats not what i said at all 
Some married people and people in relationships cheat , its a fact .
Some friends with benefits may or may not cheat / be allowed to cheat.
I take it your ignoring my question because you dont have an answer? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Again. To tell people that their argument is either stupid, redicilous, illogical, inaccurate or any combination of the above does not not constitute a counter argument. It's quite reasonable if the argument is "either stupid, redicilous (sic), illogical, inaccurate or any combination of the above" Why would anyone try to argue with someone that believed that you wouldn't need safe sex if no one barebacked. Anyone that could come up with a statement so lacking in logic is far past reasoned argument. It's nor our fault you can't see that and frankly, I really can't be bothered anymore. "Your argument is so redicilous it can't be counter argued" Is that the best you've got? I can understand taking up a contrary position simply because you feel you have a good point to put across. But then not having one good point and just a lot of angry words about the other person's reasoning... well that's just venting and not particularly constructive. So this is how debates work. You listen to the other person's argument, weigh up the merits, explain why you think they are wrong, maybe bring up a few points of your own. And so it goes back and forth. Telling me I'm ugly and my mommy dresses me funny is really the discussion I was hoping for either. Frankly.
You haven't answered what you would like to happen?
Are you wanting bareback sex to be made illegal?
Sorry I missed the question. Could you repeat it?
I'm not on a crusade. I am refuting anyone who says that the spreading of STDs is not my business. It's everyone's business.
I have given numerous examples of why this is so. Lots of deflection but no one to prove me wrong with dialectic argument. "My question was " do you want bareback sex to be made illegal?" If not , what is your solution ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Again. To tell people that their argument is either stupid, redicilous, illogical, inaccurate or any combination of the above does not not constitute a counter argument. It's quite reasonable if the argument is "either stupid, redicilous (sic), illogical, inaccurate or any combination of the above" Why would anyone try to argue with someone that believed that you wouldn't need safe sex if no one barebacked. Anyone that could come up with a statement so lacking in logic is far past reasoned argument. It's nor our fault you can't see that and frankly, I really can't be bothered anymore. "Your argument is so redicilous it can't be counter argued" Is that the best you've got? I can understand taking up a contrary position simply because you feel you have a good point to put across. But then not having one good point and just a lot of angry words about the other person's reasoning... well that's just venting and not particularly constructive. So this is how debates work. You listen to the other person's argument, weigh up the merits, explain why you think they are wrong, maybe bring up a few points of your own. And so it goes back and forth. Telling me I'm ugly and my mommy dresses me funny is really the discussion I was hoping for either. Frankly.
You haven't answered what you would like to happen?
Are you wanting bareback sex to be made illegal?
Sorry I missed the question. Could you repeat it?
I'm not on a crusade. I am refuting anyone who says that the spreading of STDs is not my business. It's everyone's business.
I have given numerous examples of why this is so. Lots of deflection but no one to prove me wrong with dialectic argument.
My question was " do you want bareback sex to be made illegal?"
If not , what is your solution ?"My answer was: "I'm not on a crusade. I am refuting anyone who says that the spreading of STDs is not my business. It's everyone's business." No I don't think it should have to be law. I think grown adults should be intelligent and informed enough to make the correct choice. Is there a law saying don't stick your head in the fire? No. You would assume swingers were wiser than 20 year old d*unken students.... but apparently not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Again. To tell people that their argument is either stupid, redicilous, illogical, inaccurate or any combination of the above does not not constitute a counter argument. It's quite reasonable if the argument is "either stupid, redicilous (sic), illogical, inaccurate or any combination of the above" Why would anyone try to argue with someone that believed that you wouldn't need safe sex if no one barebacked. Anyone that could come up with a statement so lacking in logic is far past reasoned argument. It's nor our fault you can't see that and frankly, I really can't be bothered anymore. "Your argument is so redicilous it can't be counter argued" Is that the best you've got? I can understand taking up a contrary position simply because you feel you have a good point to put across. But then not having one good point and just a lot of angry words about the other person's reasoning... well that's just venting and not particularly constructive. So this is how debates work. You listen to the other person's argument, weigh up the merits, explain why you think they are wrong, maybe bring up a few points of your own. And so it goes back and forth. Telling me I'm ugly and my mommy dresses me funny is really the discussion I was hoping for either. Frankly.
You haven't answered what you would like to happen?
Are you wanting bareback sex to be made illegal?
Sorry I missed the question. Could you repeat it?
I'm not on a crusade. I am refuting anyone who says that the spreading of STDs is not my business. It's everyone's business.
I have given numerous examples of why this is so. Lots of deflection but no one to prove me wrong with dialectic argument.
My question was " do you want bareback sex to be made illegal?"
If not , what is your solution ?
My answer was: "I'm not on a crusade. I am refuting anyone who says that the spreading of STDs is not my business. It's everyone's business."
No I don't think it should have to be law. I think grown adults should be intelligent and informed enough to make the correct choice. Is there a law saying don't stick your head in the fire? No.
You would assume swingers were wiser than 20 year old d*unken students.... but apparently not."The correct choice for you may not be the correct choice for someone else . Sticking your head in the fire is no comparison to having bareback sex , ridiculous comment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Again. To tell people that their argument is either stupid, redicilous, illogical, inaccurate or any combination of the above does not not constitute a counter argument. It's quite reasonable if the argument is "either stupid, redicilous (sic), illogical, inaccurate or any combination of the above" Why would anyone try to argue with someone that believed that you wouldn't need safe sex if no one barebacked. Anyone that could come up with a statement so lacking in logic is far past reasoned argument. It's nor our fault you can't see that and frankly, I really can't be bothered anymore. "Your argument is so redicilous it can't be counter argued" Is that the best you've got? I can understand taking up a contrary position simply because you feel you have a good point to put across. But then not having one good point and just a lot of angry words about the other person's reasoning... well that's just venting and not particularly constructive. So this is how debates work. You listen to the other person's argument, weigh up the merits, explain why you think they are wrong, maybe bring up a few points of your own. And so it goes back and forth. Telling me I'm ugly and my mommy dresses me funny is really the discussion I was hoping for either. Frankly.
You haven't answered what you would like to happen?
Are you wanting bareback sex to be made illegal?
Sorry I missed the question. Could you repeat it?
I'm not on a crusade. I am refuting anyone who says that the spreading of STDs is not my business. It's everyone's business.
I have given numerous examples of why this is so. Lots of deflection but no one to prove me wrong with dialectic argument.
My question was " do you want bareback sex to be made illegal?"
If not , what is your solution ?"I don't think you will change the mind of someone with argument when they are prepared to die rather than think about what they are doing. There is no solution. I'm not proposing one. I'm saying that the behaviour of barebackers doesn't just affect them. There is a thread running parallel to this one where people say that everything is curable. What's the problem? Who pays for their treatment? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Again. To tell people that their argument is either stupid, redicilous, illogical, inaccurate or any combination of the above does not not constitute a counter argument. It's quite reasonable if the argument is "either stupid, redicilous (sic), illogical, inaccurate or any combination of the above" Why would anyone try to argue with someone that believed that you wouldn't need safe sex if no one barebacked. Anyone that could come up with a statement so lacking in logic is far past reasoned argument. It's nor our fault you can't see that and frankly, I really can't be bothered anymore. "Your argument is so redicilous it can't be counter argued" Is that the best you've got? I can understand taking up a contrary position simply because you feel you have a good point to put across. But then not having one good point and just a lot of angry words about the other person's reasoning... well that's just venting and not particularly constructive. So this is how debates work. You listen to the other person's argument, weigh up the merits, explain why you think they are wrong, maybe bring up a few points of your own. And so it goes back and forth. Telling me I'm ugly and my mommy dresses me funny is really the discussion I was hoping for either. Frankly.
You haven't answered what you would like to happen?
Are you wanting bareback sex to be made illegal?
Sorry I missed the question. Could you repeat it?
I'm not on a crusade. I am refuting anyone who says that the spreading of STDs is not my business. It's everyone's business.
I have given numerous examples of why this is so. Lots of deflection but no one to prove me wrong with dialectic argument.
My question was " do you want bareback sex to be made illegal?"
If not , what is your solution ?
My answer was: "I'm not on a crusade. I am refuting anyone who says that the spreading of STDs is not my business. It's everyone's business."
No I don't think it should have to be law. I think grown adults should be intelligent and informed enough to make the correct choice. Is there a law saying don't stick your head in the fire? No.
You would assume swingers were wiser than 20 year old d*unken students.... but apparently not.
The correct choice for you may not be the correct choice for someone else .
Sticking your head in the fire is no comparison to having bareback sex , ridiculous comment."So choosing to protect my health is the right choice for me but someone else might actually be in a position where putting their health at risk is beneficial? Are we about to hear about yhe benefits of STDs. Why is it so redicilous? One is a law that prevents people from harming themselves and the other is a law preventing people from harming thrmselves. Just saying it's redicilous doesn't make it so. The point is that self preservation shouldn't need to be made law. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Here's a question... If you KNEW for a fact that the person you were about to have sex with was HIV positive would you still have Bareback sex with that person?" Your assuming that i have bareback sex with strangers , i have never said that i do . Of course i wouldn't , neither would i fuck them while wearing a condom . But only 0.17% of the adult population of the uk have HIV and 87% of that 0.17% are virally suppressed and cannot pass it on ....... the chances of me sleeping with someone that has hiv and can pass it on to me are tiny. But wearing a condom would not make me feel safe sleeping with someone that has hiv, so condoms dont solve that for me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Here's a question... If you KNEW for a fact that the person you were about to have sex with was HIV positive would you still have Bareback sex with that person? Your assuming that i have bareback sex with strangers , i have never said that i do . Of course i wouldn't , neither would i fuck them while wearing a condom . But only 0.17% of the adult population of the uk have HIV and 87% of that 0.17% are virally suppressed and cannot pass it on ....... the chances of me sleeping with someone that has hiv and can pass it on to me are tiny. But wearing a condom would not make me feel safe sleeping with someone that has hiv, so condoms dont solve that for me. " When I pose a question without a quotation it denotes that I am posing a question to forumites. No one person in particular. It also does not imply anyone does anything. It's a hypothetical situation. I am trying to move from one point of agreement to another. It's not really possible with so much vehement anger being brought into the discussion. Now that we have been reduced to name calling I shall take my leave. I think I've more than made my point. Dale Carnegie said it is impossible to reason with the unreasonable. I shall it at that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Dale Carnegie said it is impossible to reason with the unreasonable. I shall it at that." Oh the irony! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Dale Carnegie said it is impossible to reason with the unreasonable. I shall it at that. Oh the irony! " Exactly! | |||
| 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 |
"The men who push push and push for bareback do so because they struggle to keep it up with a condom on. Lets be honest its a frustration for them. " They should be honest then. That is a situation that can be dealt with a lot of the time. Just needs a bit of planning. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The men who push push and push for bareback do so because they struggle to keep it up with a condom on. Lets be honest its a frustration for them. " Not being able to maintain an erection with a condom is all in the mind. Because you're just about to have sex, the act of putting on a condom should be enough to get hard. That said, some condoms are a bit numb and don't fit well, so it's a good idea to experiment with different types until an acceptable one is found. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The men who push push and push for bareback do so because they struggle to keep it up with a condom on. Lets be honest its a frustration for them. Not being able to maintain an erection with a condom is all in the mind. Because you're just about to have sex, the act of putting on a condom should be enough to get hard. That said, some condoms are a bit numb and don't fit well, so it's a good idea to experiment with different types until an acceptable one is found. "Errr its their cock that goes floppy not the condom  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The men who push push and push for bareback do so because they struggle to keep it up with a condom on. Lets be honest its a frustration for them. Not being able to maintain an erection with a condom is all in the mind. Because you're just about to have sex, the act of putting on a condom should be enough to get hard. That said, some condoms are a bit numb and don't fit well, so it's a good idea to experiment with different types until an acceptable one is found.
Errr its their cock that goes floppy not the condom "Well I never knew. Thanks for that.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Safe sex is the best option but i have to say their is nothing better then having sex after you have already filled her pussy with your first load it feels great pushing your cumback deep inside having a messy fuck " Well if you have a partner you get to do that too | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
