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 ... 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
Start   891 to 900 of 936   End
User Details are only visible to members.
Only an idiot would think they can be as safe without a condom as with one while being in the lifestyle.

If you want to accept higher risk than that's your choice. You ARE at a higher risk of getting an STD. No amount of rationalizing will change it.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(16796 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Yeah it's a shame D+J makes sense.

It's so much easier to take something they said once and use that as an excuse not to validate what they are saying now. It requires less thinking.

Anybody ever notice how swingers tend to think they get to pick what is true and what is not like they were at a Chinese restaurant? One from column A and two from column B -- and their choice is as good as any and they will fight all the way to Hell to assert that.

If you want to make a deity of risk -- you won't be swinging.

It's the people who see how to do things that are competent at doing them.

People who feel condoms are the only solution should use them -- not because nobody can be safe without them -- but because the people who CAN be safe without them spend their time doing what it takes to make that possible -- the other guys are still stressing how right they are.

My advice is don't do sex without condoms if you think they are essential to safety. When you want to deal with the details of safety without condoms then you will be approaching things differently in your swinging.

Brookhaven MS
Username hidden
(154 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"The question for some of us is whether that risk is greater or less than other everyday risks we take and hardly think about, such as driving. I do a fair amount of driving and have had a number of close calls. The risk of driving is very real to me."

lol.

Driving is generally a necessity. Do you wear a seatbelt? Do you have a car with airbags? Maybe you don't. Do you drive with your headlights off at night? a crack in your windshield?

OR do you minimize your risks of being harmed.

You can, and do, rationalize your actions. That's fine with me. Just don't pretend there is logic in it. Just be honest and say you like barebacking better and you'll take your chances.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(16796 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
DandJ

I don't know where you learned statistics but you're teacher should be fired or possibley even shot as you appear to be clueless in this area.

For the average person condoms do not fail once in each 10 uses. That's the equivalent of saying a 3 digit lottery number hits once every 1000 days.....it just ain't so. Some stupid ass, small dicked moron who buys cheap condoms could have a failure everytime. Some intelligent, large dicked considerate person that buys quality may NEVER have a failure.

"The chance of a barebacker getting infected from one instance of intercourse with an HIV infected person is one in two hundred or 0.5%, not 2%, if we use the figures from the study I mentioned previously."

And the chance of a condom user is STILL 90% LESS. I never claimed to know the actual rate. I used numbers that would hopefully be easiy understood by those not mathematically inclined. I guess I didn't succeed.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(16796 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
The chance of a barebacker getting infected from one instance of intercourse with an HIV infected person is one in two hundred or 0.5%, not 2%, if we use the figures from the study I mentioned previously.

What I gathered from the condom study was that the primary reason condoms only rated a 90% reduction of risk was the failure rate of condoms, either because they broke, weren't put on correctly, fell off during intercourse, or some such reason. This is similar to its failure rate in birth control. So in one out of ten times using a condom it is not working period. Thus the condom user is essentially fucking bareback one out of ten times. Which brings about the equivalency of ten condom partners equalling one bareback partner.

Of course these are averages and conscientious people can improve on those odds. That is true for condoms as well as barebacking.

What the absolute risk of running into an HIV positive partner in swinging is simply not known. It may be infintesimally small. I do not know of a single swinger who contracted HIV nor have I read of a documented case. That's not to say there aren't some. We just don't know. The question for some of us is whether that risk is greater or less than other everyday risks we take and hardly think about, such as driving. I do a fair amount of driving and have had a number of close calls. The risk of driving is very real to me.

Enosburg Falls VT
Username hidden
(972 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
You can't screen your way to the reduced risk a condom provides? Sure you can. You can screen yourself down to one partner -- yourself. One or two more carefully selected ones need not raise your risk appreciably.

But really, if your partner has no infection, can you get any lower risk? Only if you average yourself with all the others out there who don't screen exactly like you do, and that is not an accurate assessment of risk, either. It is a reasonable expectation of the average methods of the study group.

Screen yourself down to a very few partners you know and you quite likely have already done it better than the average condom user by far. Never mind that using the condom on top of that would be even safer. If being safe was the object people would be monogamous or give up sex.

If you seek to avoid other infectious agents, the condom does not necessarily work as well as a good brain. That herpes virus resting there in the pubes is just waiting for someone who thinks he is safe then rubs all that stuff together with a little moisture into some other pubes -- or a nice shaved beaver complete with microscopic nicks.

One other caveat -- a very important one -- is that some of us can do the screening effectively and some of us can't.

Brookhaven MS
Username hidden
(154 posts)
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
(16796 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
(16796 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
(972 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
Start   891 to 900 of 936   End
TOPIC: Question to all you Bare Back only folks