115
Question to all you Bare Back only folks : Swingers Discussion 11760310891
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsSafe SexQuestion to all you Bare Back only folks
TOPIC: Question to all you Bare Back only folks
GoTo Page: Less ... 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 ... More 
Start   891 to 900 of 930   End
User Details are only visible to members.
"It was mentioned that barebackers have more incentive to reduce it by screening their partners."

I don't think anyone is doubting that.

You can't screen your way to the reduced level of risk a condom provides. It's that simple.

Pittsburgh PA
 
 
Username hidden
(16572 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
It was mentioned that barebackers have more incentive to reduce it by screening their partners.

Let's remember that the studies likely compared entire populations of those who were getting exposed. If you put yourself in the upper 10% of the paying attention crowd then the numbers for you would NOT look the same as they do for the entire group of barebackers.

For us it's not so much HIV but hepatitis, herpes and HPV that are worth screening for -- the last being the toughest. Know people well enough to know if they have the sense to be aware of herpes, hep and HPV and you know your partners pretty well. Then know if they have bad exposure risks, and what they do for medical care in general, etc the picture gets even clearer.

You can be simply deceived, as we came close a couple of years ago to a herpes sufferer who just claimed to think it was benign, but was hiding it. If it was all happening on a first date we never could have known. But she acted a bit squirrelly and wierd, so we suspected something was up -- and she showed us other ways she bends the truth to get freaky and our warning flags went up.

Brookhaven MS
 
 
Username hidden
(154 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"Perfect, the figures I cited were the relative reduction rate in HIV transmission rates for condom users vs barebackers. Condom users were 90% less likely to become infected. Not that they had a 10% rate if they fucked someone who was infected. The true rate is far, far less than that. The rate of transmission in barebacking is far less than 10%."

So if a bareback has a 2% chance of becoming infected when fucking an HIV positive then a condom user only has a 0.2% chance (90% less). The risk is reduced by a factor of 10. Now multiply that by the odds of actually having sex with an HIV positive and you'll roughly know your relative risk.

Condom users would have to act in such a way as to increase their likelyhood of fucking an HIV positve by a factor of 10 to be at the same risk as barebackers. I don't think that's even possible unless you were trolling at an HIV clinic. Simply fucking 10 times more people wouldn't do it because the odds that those additional people are HIV positive are astonomically low.

" Luv pointed out that we can reduce the likelihood that our partners are infected by using care. Can't eliminate it, but we can reduce it. And barebackers have more incentive to do so than condom users."

I agree you can reduce it..... just not by a factor of 10 if you're not monogamous.

Pittsburgh PA
 
 
Username hidden
(16572 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Perfect, the figures I cited were the relative reduction rate in HIV transmission rates for condom users vs barebackers. Condom users were 90% less likely to become infected. Not that they had a 10% rate if they fucked someone who was infected. The true rate is far, far less than that. The rate of transmission in barebacking is far less than 10%.

That means condom users have a 90% less chance of HIV infection than barebackers, all other conditions being equal. So if they fuck ten times as many people than barebackers do, the risk of HIV infection is the same for barebackers and condom users.

The point that we can't become infected with HIV, condom or not, unless we play with someone who is infected, if a good one. No infection, no possibility of transmission. Luv pointed out that we can reduce the likelihood that our partners are infected by using care. Can't eliminate it, but we can reduce it. And barebackers have more incentive to do so than condom users.

I've read studies about the actual rate of HIV transmission between partners. They involved couples where one is infected, the other not. How many incidences of penetration on average would it take to infect the uninfected member of the couple? The answer the study I read came up with is 200. I hope there are more studies done to make sure that is accurate, but it does indicate that HIV is rarely transmitted by single instances of fucking.

Enosburg Falls VT
 
 
Username hidden
(970 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Well -- I have opinions on that. I'm speaking mostly in general here -- this does not apply to all older swingers -- but to more than you would assume. Three reasons -- windows of opportunity, potency, and brains -- not so much in that order.

Getting herpes or aids is one type of problem when you are 26 and another type of problem when you are 56. If a disease or disorder means you will have to change your behavior for 3 years versus 30 years, then the misery factor or the need for protection may be different. Someone might argue that the motivational imperative should be the same if consequences are for the rest of your active life, but it is not. With decreased time of impact there is often unrelated but simultaneously an increase in proficiency in selection based on all risks -- the result is an alternative to condoms that offers more protection than condoms ever did. One reason alternatives matter is the following.

Potency, the nature of which is not what most folks think it is. To enjoy using a condom you must think -- evewn subconsciously -- a couple of things --

1) It is necessary because you can't come up with a safe concept of an alternative

2) If you can't scrogg strangers or promiscuites you won't have the smarts to keep yourself in enough sex partners to scratch your itch.

Being smarter about happiness and seeing the pitfalls and options better has a profound effect on those two factors.

The reason a lot of older people are less sexually interested later on is because of what they have to fuck. Viagra sales to aging men are as much because their wife -- and likely partners -- ain't what they once were -- as it is they can't get it up. In addition, there is the wisdom factor -- that little trollop you might be interested in when you are 25 or 35 or 45 -- something happens to a lot of people around 50 that makes that little trollop less worth the trouble -- she is no longer simply hot and available, but the drama and dissatisfying crap she brings with her count more. The trollop can become a turnoff as the desperation of rutting for all the ego reasons subsides.

Stupid shit you put up with when you're younger out of benevolent ignorance becomes something that you include as a part of the selection process when you see it enough. You can get to the point where you know people much better, you know life much better, you know your limitations and other people's limitations much better and your illusions are better grounded than when you are younger. Risk matters less after you put all these filters on who is even worth fucking. The preferences naturally select for a more safe, stable partner before the sex happens.

I know it can be hard to accept when you are 25, 35 or 45 but if you are on the ball your mind starts to process things much better as you see that opportunity for happiness is far more mental than physical. I used to have to strut and pursue and rabble on to get my nut, but nowadays I just put myself in the proper place and let the fruit fall into my hand.

I am graced to have a superhot wife who still considers me the best lover in all categories. That has kept me hard -- just blow on that thing. I have an almost shameful preference for young women for sex partners -- but I leaven it by knowing what sort of contacts will nourish me and which will be draining. I don't have a hard like that for women that would threaten my happiness by including me too much in their problems.

Life appears -- and gets -- more complicated when you get older. Instead of an annoyance which is how a lot of people see complexity, when you are older you realize that each of those complications includes alternatives and options. When you stop wincing at the complexity it can be quite relaxing to see twice as many options.

That's why they say youth is wasted on the young.....

Make any sense?

Brookhaven MS
 
 
Username hidden
(154 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
That's cool Seduction. That is the same reasoning that a good friend of mine uses to not get sexual with anyone except his mate.

He is a medical professional in a area that has a lot of HIV patients, and sees a lot. A statement he used for me was that a tiny skin pore is like an olympic swimming pool to a virus -- and there is no such thing as safe sex. He cites a long list of condom failures he a has witnessed. Just his opinion, of course, but he says what you and I do is not worth the risk to his union. He,he -- maybe he loves his wife more than we love ours -- in case that is sort of what you were saying to distinguish you and me.

I figure I have been doing the married swing thing since I was 20 (for the first 20 years I just called it fucking my friends) without STD casualty and in not too many years I am about to run out the clock. The longer my wife and I live the pickier we get, the fewer partners we have and the better we get at assessing risk of all the downside traits people can have -- translating to lower risk.

Single guys, cute but freaky girls who might be Crystal freaks in their private moments, Xanax heads who don't remember what they did Thursday of last week, and people who disdain examination and discourse are, for us, just a few examples of folks that would require a little extra getting to know, and a condom can be needed. We usually prefer to wait for better partners, but are capable of using a glove in a pinch.

Brookhaven MS
 
 
Username hidden
(154 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I do believe Perfect is right on the reduced risk. And I think everyone knows that the term "safe sex" is bullshit.

The only question -- as we pursue sex that is safe enough to enjoy and still be thinking -- is there any protocol or method that can make sex without condoms safe ENOUGH to be desirable. I say yes. Not everybody is patient enough to pursue those methods, though.

Brookhaven MS
 
 
Username hidden
(154 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"Perhaps Perfect will enlighten me on stats. And yes, I have taken statistics courses. But I would like to know your point of view."

Sure.

First you have to consider the chance of having sex with somebody that has HIV. Let's assume that probability is equal for the condom and the non-condom users. According to the stat given the condom user has only a 10% chance of being infected whereas the chance for the bareback is (?) maybe 50%.

So let's put some numbers in.

If we all have a 10 in 10,000 chance of having sex with an HIV positive, the condom user has reduced the risk to 1 in 10,000 whereas the bareback has a 5 in 10,000 chance of being infected. That's FIVE times more risk.

I have no clue if the above numbers used in the example are correct, and there are many other factors to consider but it's foolish to think that if you have sex bareback with only 10% of the people condom users do that your risk is the same.

Anybody who graduated high school should be able to understand it.

Pittsburgh PA
 
 
Username hidden
(16572 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Perhaps Perfect will enlighten me on stats. And yes, I have taken statistics courses. But I would like to know your point of view.

There is much media hype about the risks of barebacking. And there is much conflict in the studies that do pertain to risk. Some go so far as to call condoms safe sex, rather than the simple and not complete reduction of risk they are.

To me and others I've discussed this with, bareback is higher quality sex simply because there is more sensory input involved. It is more exquisite. Do most here have condom sex with their own mates? I understand there are many to whom there is too much sensory input when their cocks slide inside a wet pussy and condoms to them are a boon. But it is not so for me.

Enosburg Falls VT
 
 
Username hidden
(970 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Perhaps the word "quality" has wrinkled some's egalitarian sensitivities and is confusing.

Values vary and what can be a "quality" couple for some because of traits that make them useful for bareback sex would not be quality points at all for a condoms only couple -- perhaps plainer if called more of an issue of "suitability".

fOR INSTANCEIf you are an always condoms couple and someone else is a bareback only couple then it would be a stretch to call that a "quality" score. Of course, many ladies who prefer bareback will allow a condom user male to have sex with them, while a condoms only couple would likely prevent a bareback only man -- that alone would constrict the relationship and render them a mismatch.

My apologies if I was too erudite in my word usage, or appeared to insinuate that ANYONE would not be looking for quality partners. Hell, around here, if you use whole sentences and proper grammar folks think you are too snooty to relate to -- most other places that trait is a good "quality".

Brookhaven MS
 
 
Username hidden
(154 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 ... More 
Start   891 to 900 of 930   End
TOPIC: Question to all you Bare Back only folks