115
Question to all you Bare Back only folks : Swingers Discussion 11760310901
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   901 to 910 of 934   End
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
(16698 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
(972 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)
User Details are only visible to members.
Amazing........

Annandale NJ
 
 
Username hidden
(1988 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
""The stats I've read give condoms a reduction of HIV risk of 90%. That means if you fuck 10 people with condoms to my one without, we have the same risk of HIV. This is the quality vs quantity risk adjustment."

lol. I guess you never had a statistics course/

Pittsburgh PA
 
 
Username hidden
(16698 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I don't really think whether a person chooses to use protection or not is really an issue of quality or character. I've known some people who were honest, respectful, and all around decent people who chose not to use protection, as well as people with the same character traits who did chose to use it. The same goes for people of bad character who make the same choices. As was previously mentioned, there are many different reasons why a person might choose to not use protection. Their specific reason can say more about their character than just the fact that they do or don't, out of context of why.

Boone NC
 
 
Username hidden
(954 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Not so much super beauty( what people normally mean by quality, which is fine if you want to add it on) I think by quality I and others who understand me on this know I am talking about folks who show a high level in the following traits:

honesty and openness

a somewhat studied examination of what they do as a habit

a lack of urgency that would interfere with their studied view

a value system that would give them the motivation to hold back a bit so they can still be honest and claim safety

an awareness of what diseases are out there and symptoms

In the above traits NO, people are ABSOLUTELY NOT created equal. And it only slights the caring to pretend we are. The Egalitarian pretense that it is snooty to notice these differences smack of a ruse created by the guilty to pretend they are more than they are. We are not talking about the right to be here on this Earth, we are talking about who gets some of your stuff -- or your wife's stuff.

These don't have to be a big pain in the butt to determine -- a lot of singles use the same strategy for selecting fuck buddies even if they are not going to pair bond with them.

Also I would caution against getting grossed out because of the stupid risks some barebackers take. There are some REALLY stupid people who think swinging is just a wonderful candy store for them. Despite the fact that some barebackers take incredible risks, some take fewer than the raincoat crowd. So people should not assume all barebackers are pensive, studious and cautious --- or the reverse.

Brookhaven MS
 
 
Username hidden
(154 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"The stats I've read give condoms a reduction of HIV risk of 90%. That means if you fuck 10 people with condoms to my one without, we have the same risk of HIV. This is the quality vs quantity risk adjustment."

You stand a risk anytime you play regardless of whether protection is used or not, thus your argument isn't sound. You can take two people and let one fuck 10 people w/out a condom and the other fuck 10 people with one...neither of them might catch a thing, or they could get something the first time. How do you figure it is quality vs quantity?

Boone NC
 
 
Username hidden
(954 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"One choice barebackers almost always make is quality over quantity."

That definitely isn't true around here. The barebackers here will fuck anything that moves. Very scary, if you ask me.

Carrie

Corpus Christi TX
 
 
Username hidden
(17852 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
Start   901 to 910 of 934   End
TOPIC: Question to all you Bare Back only folks