Question to all you Bare Back only folks: Swingers Discussion 11760310841

SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

TOPIC: Question to all you Bare Back only folks

GoTo Page: Less ... 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 ... More

Start

841 to 850 of 930

End

User Details are only visible to members.	DandJ I've tried to explain to you several times that the 90% effective rate of condoms doesn't mean that barebackers have the same risk if they only fuck 10% of the people that condom users do. The effective rate is based on too many user action variables, and failure if it does occur could be with a non-infected person (blue marble from the 50 gallon drum). What do you expect me to think of your education?
Pittsburgh PA			Username hidden (14772 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Perfect...get my GED...that is a howler! Did you intend that as humor? Don't you find it a little odd the aspersions you cast upon a person you don't know at all? Do you really perceive me to be uneducated? Or do you cast them through anger that somehow will solve our differences? It's your aspersions that demonstrate precisely that you don't know.
Enosburg Falls VT			Username hidden (969 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Seduction, let me point out once again what you seem to have missed in my posts: "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%,..." which is ten times in my GED deficient statistics book. I know you claim to be protecting the impressionable youngsters just entering the swinging arena and who are simply dying for an excuse to bareback, and who will look at DandJ's posts and say, "Why it is only ten time safer to use condoms so we'll definitely bareback!" In reality it is us old farts who attempt evil barebacking and you younger swingers who take us to task for speaking that word.
Enosburg Falls VT			Username hidden (969 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	I see people with the typical liberal outlook: It feels good so it must be right, blatantly ignoring the facts.
Pittsburgh PA			Username hidden (14772 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	"Perfect, I asked for an explanation of the 90% and one in ten that you seemed not to agree with. Instead all I got was you playing with marbles." Once again, it's not my fault you are so deficient in mathmatics that you can't understand the explanation: 2 blue marbles are 10% of 20 blue marbles. You might want to consider getting your GED. It will open up many opportunities in your life.
Pittsburgh PA			Username hidden (14772 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Oh well -- a little humble pie -- let me admonish myself for using a descriptive that is perhaps literally inaccurate. When I characterized one of the gang of three as a dysfunctional inexperienced swinger wannabe. I took liberties from literal stated observation when I used those terms. I apologize for that tacitly and with the following caveats. Perhaps I should have stated it as " a dysfunctional swinger", or a "swinger who swung some in their early twenties, then stopped", or "a swinger who feels they are more mature than people twice their age but for whom swinging in not presently desirable". I do feel it is germane to point out that that person's conclusions about their world and methods has ultimtely led to their stopping swinging, and that was my point in overstating the descriptive. In this particular discussion of limitations, the admonitions of someone who has already admonished or reacted themselves out of swinging might not be the same as someone who addresses the dynamic of swinging in a way that makes it actually work for them. I hope my honesty about that observation is not taken too acidly, but this is an adult conversation and we should not pull any points simply out of political correctness. Of course no one despite their history or lack of it has either a block or a monopoly on speaking the truth. Just because typing is easy for me and a complex world is a fascination to me, no one should assume I am mad or upset at all. I just call em like I see em.
Zachary LA			Username hidden (154 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Let me point out Seduction that we are not getting a very wide denial of what we are saying. We are getting assertions from a predictable group that they are not comfortable with the challenge to do it in the field of endeavor they select for themselves. And DJ and I totally understand and agree with their feelings about their worlds. We have primarily two confrontational social conservative posting addicts and a dysfunctional inexperienced swinger wannabe who are touting the impossibility of deep enough bonds to count on some honest privilege that comes from increased intimacy. And true to form the social conservatives want to hammer in a principle as an absolute, and true to form the conservatives are more scared and more acting on their fears -- hurling accusations, and misinterpreting other people's writing as anger. If you're saying that we should not mention the unmentionable and question the message to the masses that you always MUST use a condom except with your spouse -- then yes we have violated your conservative edict to give those who might aspire at least a suggestion it can be done. Yes it can be done. DJ and I are not here to convince sport fuckers to go bareback. What we are saying is absolutely true as stated.
Zachary LA			Username hidden (154 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Mike THANK YOU for that. That is exactly what a psychologist would likely point out. When things get to the point of a frenetic NASTY insistence on WHO is RIGHT and who is the idiot that's WRONG, application has already been hijacked by domination. It smells of ISSUES -- dominance and control issues. Dominance and control issues are the PRIME THING swingers should watch out for in prospective partners for them and their mates. Yes you can tell from an email or postings on a website. The people here explaining the bareback phenomena are just trying to explain how in a rare situation it is something to shoot for -- an undeniable truth -- and situation -- sought by millions of people. Sport fuckers do not represent the entire swing community, and for them it is mostly a stupid idea -- for them. The closer you get to carefully considered polyamory the more it is possible to responsibly go native with your sex, of course with due caution and grand restriction on numbers of partners. Of course that means nothing to some, who will claim that level of intimacy does not and should not exist. They actually are speaking of themselves most often, and the level of honesty they give and expect in their particular type of interaction. But if you try to point it out, some will call you an idiot -- and these have a further pathology. Especially interesting are those who do this here who do not feel they are competent or available to be swingers and are here for social reasons. To them this sort of head pecking and domination game is being social -- yet they address a forum in which they are already more dysfunctional than the mean -- duh!. If swingers take the advice of those who are not able will they, too become dysfunctional as swingers? It is so cool how complex yet obvious our warts become visible when we get naked for fun! It is still the truth, you can go bareback with others if you are very focused, sensitive, smart and you care about details, and you can do it with a level of risk that is lower than many swing practices. You have to spend your time being smart and sensitive to do it -- and remember that the stupidest among us often feel themselves the smartest -- and that can apply to us all. But it can be done well.
Zachary LA			Username hidden (154 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Perfect, I asked for an explanation of the 90% and one in ten that you seemed not to agree with. Instead all I got was you playing with marbles.
Enosburg Falls VT			Username hidden (969 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Luvs and I understand the risks in barebacking very well. I brought to light a study that determined that the average number of fucks with an HIV infected person needed to transmit HIV to an uninfected person barebacking is 200. It's the only recent study I'm aware of. Barebackers attempt to reduce their risk in other ways that condom users can also utilize. Why? Because using a condom reduces the pleasure for some to the point that it simply is not sensual enough. They want sex within an order of magnitude of what they are used to with their mates, or why bother? Barebackers tend to be older people who had their sport fucking days when HIV didn't exist. They tend to be into few partners and more intimate friendships. They tend to have vasectomies, which reduces HIV transmission. They tend to be circumsized, which reduces HIV transmission in half. They tend to have far fewer partners than condom users, which reduces risk. But condom users can also do all these things and be ten times safer. The point is that barebackers judge their risk low enough to enjoy intimate play with a few friends or they don't play. Condom users can lower their risks even further. So why do some few of the condom users here have to play the hysteria card when barebacker do differently than they do???
Enosburg Falls VT			Username hidden (969 post)

GoTo Page: Less ... 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 ... More

Start

841 to 850 of 930

End

TOPIC: Question to all you Bare Back only folks

		HELP
FORUMS: General Discussions: Safe Sex: Question to all you Bare Back only folks