Screening would essentally be blindly dipping a 5 gallon bucket into the 50 gallon drum and then drawing from there first.

DandJ I'm going to try and explain this ONE more time at the most remedial level I can. Suppose there's a 50 gallon drum filled with blue marbles. In that drum there are also a small numer of red marbles representing the swingers with STD's. Then there are two 5 gallon buckets also filled with blue marbles. One of those buckets has 20 red marbles in it. This bucket is called the 'Bareback Bucket'. The other 5 gallon bucket only has 2 red marbles in it. This is the 'Condom bucket. To get an STD you need to draw TWO red marbles: first a red marble from the drum, then a red marble from one of the 5 gallon buckets. Do you now understand now?

Ha Satan willing...I'm sure Satan doesn't take his sex willingly LOL

I agree that the OP requested info from bareback lovers only. However, the point that some in that category have made is that it's possible to "be safe" without condoms through proper screening, trust, etc. That assumes a few things... (1) That everything a person or couple has told you is correct and complete. (2) They have no communicable STI that you yourself do not have the same strain of. (3) Proof is given prior to every encounter, in the form of STD screening that has had ample time to prove itself complete, as many infections take time to show up on a test. (4) Their doctor ordered every test available and each was done perfectly prior to every encounter (most doctors don't test for everything unless you specifically ask for each test). (5) All STIs can be effectively tested for. The fifth assumption is problematic. HPV, in particular, is not usually tested for, and is usually seen only after the woman has an abnormal pap smear. It is a virus and has the potential to linger for the life of the person. If they display no symptoms, as is the case with many people, they may say they are "clean" and be truthful, but due to the nature of the disease no one knows for certain. Condoms, while not 100% effective (especially against HPV), do cut the risk considerably. Something like 80% of all sexually active people have it. Sorry this is total reruns for some. I have absolutely no beef with those that choose to play bareback. But to say that its possible to be safe merely by trusting people's assertions is patently false. You can't "be safe" even with condoms, but you can be "safer". I think what myself and others here are saying is that you can't deny that condom-free fucking with multiple partners is riskier behavior. Anyone that plays bareback should fully understand that risk, just like risk is understood by the larger swing community. Wouldn't want a newbie to think that their philosophy alone will protect them, condom or not. But all that said, we are all pleasure hounds. I dislike condoms and wish I could in good conscience fuck everyone without the hassle. But I choose to fuck another day, Satan willingly :)

DandJ

You're insulted by the truth? Oh well.

Perfect, you've picked figures from the air and then give me a lecture on statistics! I've discussed 90% and one in ten. If I've got it wrong, would you please explain how? This is the second time I've asked. Statistics is an area easy to stumble within, and I have on occasion. Statistians often disagree vehemently. I ask this because you made a claim that you were educated in the realm of statistics.

Insults are not explanations. Insults are only interesting in how they illustrate your mindset. In a discussion they are worthless.

I guess you kids are just going to have to wear condoms with all your sex partners then until you get smart enough to figure out when you don't have to. If nobody can believe anybody in your harems then that's what you will have to do.

Some of the people who prefer not to wear them are actually a lot smarter and deeper than you are -- not the reverse. I know that's hard to believe.

Just the truth, you don't have to get pissed.

Licks

Yes, I see exactly what you mean.

This thread is 90 days old and I'll post what I damn well please. Only a liberal would think they can have a one-sided public discussion DandJ "It was you who made the mistake calling a 1 in 200 risk a 2% risk." I made no such mistake. I clearly stated I was picking numbers out of the air to show your lack of understanding of statistics. "Why do you claim I ever said that barebacking is as safe as using a condom???" I've repeatedly said that condoms reduce the risk 90%, a figure I got from a study, not my figure. You've been putting me down for that figure...it's not mine! " No, I've been putting you down for your misuse of that figure. " If that 90% risk reduction statistic is correct, if you fuck 10 times as many people as I do using condoms that reduce that risk by a factor of ten, we each have the same risk load. That was the point I initially made." And you're STILL wrong. I suggest you get a book on statistics and variables. Study up. I'm tired of teaching you.

You guys are priceless. There is a super nice little book out by Jay Carter. I mention it here in an effort to augment some order on a basic level -- the task of staying on subject without insults becoming the order of the moment. D+J tried and so I will too. Nasty People: How to Stop Being Hurt by Them Without Becoming One of Them by Jay Carter, is the book. I inherited this little book in a box of a deceased aunt's belongings and thought it was just one of those little self-help rags. Although I love motivation as a study this little book really hits the mark. It was great for my kids -- and some adults -- and helped them understand better how to deal with folks who must dominate at all costs. It details how manipulative people degrade situations into dominance games and assert themselves dishonestly -- and points out very cleverly how close the enemy actually is. I want to say that swingers make an incredible case study in how they reshuffle dominance in the aftermath of shaking off society's conventions. They are special -- we are special -- in that respect. I'm sorry, but after hearing the sophomoric bullshit I have heard from you guys, I offer a different way of seeing. And I am just going to do it. If you can't agree on the existence of my separate reality we will all have to watch you invalidate my message in your tired ways. I have had a lot of practice expressing myself, and it does not bother me at all that some people cannot understand what I might write. I would not expect everyone to understand -- that is not the sort of social banter I do. I guess people will have to keep writing me like that nice couple from Pennsylvania did today about this thread: "You'll never win an argument with someone that is an authority on everything...they just change the facts/rules to suit themselves...we like your reasoning even if you made the mistake of stating facts!"