reasons for NOT using condoms

[Vjklander]

It's purely psychological

[eroticsensation]

paulking are you on crack? are you really serious? condoms dont protect against HIV etc? are you another christian spreading propaganda? as if Africa is a good place and trustworthy place for such a study.
I have never heard anything more stupid as to what you have said pualking. I dont care if I offend you because quite frankly your comments are amazingly stupid.

[Pink]

I've read with interest as this is a subject i've tossed around alot!

Here is my *twist*.........
What about BI women? Where and HOW does a condom assist?

Your thoughts?

[SluttyWife]

Originally Posted by Regularguy

Reasons for not using condoms:

1. I don't wear a helmet when driving

2. I swim the the ocean with sharks

3. I walk city streets

4. I ride bikes hard for exercise and fun

5. I fly

6. I don' have sex, oral or otherwise with baggies and rubber

6. I don't have sex with skanks

7. I don't engage in male homosexuality

8. I have never had an STD ever

9. I am not a syringe sharing IV drug abusers and neither is anyone I would have sex with

10. I also don't wear a whole body condom to protect me from contact viral transmission of HPV via hands, limbs, face, torso, etc.

11. I do not subscribe to politically inspired paranoia about diseases, ALAR, eletromagentisim, cell phones, herpes, pit bulls, SARS, terrorism, assault weapons, Africanized bees when the scientific method of detached analysis is proves quite more reliable.

Sir Mike, KCBSW here...

I am with you and just about all of the aforementioned, Regular Guy.

Firstly, we (Slutty and I) believe that each partner has the right to know the level of danger that he/she is exposed to. We happen to swing together, but otherwise believe that it would be unforgivable for either partner to have sex (protected or unprotected) without telling the other. This way, each partner has the choice to be exposed or not.

We always use protection with strangers. This is sometimes not well received and has dampened several potential adventures, but today we believe it to be crucial.

The danger of STD, together with emotional "maturity" in the lifestyle, has caused us to become more selective in recent years. We seek singles and couples who are similarly careful. We recommend Hepatitis shots, and leading a very healthy lifestyle to keep one's immunity up as well. Lots of yoga, vitamins, eating well, balancing work, family, your love relationship and play.

Sir Mike, KCBSW

[BettyAnnMBSC]

I have never heard anything more stupid as to what you have said pualking. I dont care if I offend you because quite frankly your comments are amazingly stupid.

Well now, I wasn't going to chime in but I now can't resist. You see, I think there is no person as ignorant as the one who refuses to consider another's opinion at least as valid as his own.

Herein we have an example of a person who would refer to an argument presented (with significant source material as well) as not only stupid but as amazingly stupid

Now I ask you dear friends; what evidence has eroticsensation provided for our consdieration? Has he/she offered any argument at all in defense of his claim that some others may be amazingly stupid. Has he/she presented nothing more than an ad hominem attack?

And what's with this attack on Christians -- re: "another christian spreading propaganda"??? Does the poster propose that only Christians oppose the use of latex?

Does the poster propose that there is no need to worry about severe reactions to latex? And, what about the studies that show the incidence of HIV transmission is nowhere near 100% among heterosexual married couples where one member is HIV+?

Is eroticsensation such a competent expert on applied erotology, human sexual psychology, and epidemiology that his opinions need no support other than "that's stupid"? I think not!!!

What a shame that there are people walking free who have no love of academic inquiry and would then attack any debate they disagree with as amazingly stupid -- I'll listen to supported arguments far more than to name calling. eroticsensation, please learn to form an argument based in logic if not fact....

[Brit_Pair]

Thanks for stepping in and highlighting eroticsensation's post, BettyAnn. I can appreciate what you're saying, but what I'd like to avoid is a situation with the potential to degenerate any further. Suffice to say, eroticsensation, I've sent you a Private Message (PM) on this subject: if you're having problems receiving it, then post that fact somewhere on the board, and someone will try to guide you.

I'd like to draw a line under this now. Back to the subject of the thread, please.

[BettyAnnMBSC]

What about BI women? Where and HOW does a condom assist?

There are many folks that use the low incidence of disease transmission among the population of non-IV-drug using bisexual women to support an argument that condom use is a touch over-rated. There is such a thing as a dental dam designed for use by women in intimate situations; they are of infrequent use indeed.

On the general topic - while I too don't agree with the far right's mass hysterics about the use of safe sex to prevent the spread of the dreaded HIV (which I personally have come to believe is not an STD at all) -- Condoms are in fact effective against the spread of some less deadly pathogens such as genital herpes, syphilis, ghonorhea, and Hepatitis.

That said, many anti-condom pundits have a valid argument when they claim that there are both alternative and effective disease prevention models. They argue that relying on condom use as the epitome of good safe sex behaviour only increases a false sense of security and comfort.

These folks present that behaviour modification and not barrier sex are needed to stem the spread of disease. Now, to some on the very far right, this behavior modification is in the form of abstinence and self denial of sexual pleasure -- their method does work in disease prevention to a degree. But, like any other method, only to the degree that it is followed 100%.

Others (including myself) argue that safe sex is a misnomer, that such an animal does not exist in entirety. That sex acts are inherently risky and by electing to participate in them, I accept certain risks of my behavior. Not unlike the risks accepted when one rides a motorcycle or jumps from airplanes. We tend to argue that by labeling certain behaviours as safe we then label others (by association) as unsafe. One could argue that riding a motorcycle without a helmet on is unsafe and yet there are millions of riders that persue that activity (visit Myrtle Beach SC in early May) by choice. While some of these riders are denying that there exists a risk - many others simply accept the risk they undertake. Few would argue against the idea that careful and deliberate operation of their motorcycle is a far better preventative than wanton operation with a helmet on.

It remains that careful selection of partners is a far better disease prevention model than condom wear and random/unselective partnering. As an example - what will happen if you allow a guy with oral herpes to "go down on you"? What if he's wearing a condom? Yep - doesn't matter if he's wearing a condom at all. Understand, there are in fact some annectdotal indications that condom use will help prevent the spread of HIV (ie: studies in brothels among professionals in Nevada) yet those studies do remain annectdotal since it would be unrealistic to expect blind studies which place the subjects at high risk (such as introducing a known HIV+ client into the study).

There is also anectodtal support that condoms do not prevent the spread of HIV (ie: condom use studies already cited in this board) and that increased levels of personal hygeine and care will prevent the spread of all STDs (see studies by the US Army dating into WWI on STD disease prevention theory).

One academic I've heard on the topic sums it up this way:

If you pick your playmates carefully and you're both clean, going in without a rubber is as safe as wearing one. If you insist on sticking your willie-peter in any ol' nasty whore, you better have a raincoat on and even then you'll probably get something painful as a reminder...

[eroticsensation]

BettyAnn I really must be missing something. Every Dr. and health specialist I have spoken too have always said a condom "HELPS" in the prevention of contracting HIV and any other disease. You made a point with regards to someone wearing a condom but having someone go down on them with herpes, well naturally you have to take precautions in other areas as well. I will tell you a little story, once upon a time I met this cute little Japanese college student. She seemed oh so pure and innocent. Anyhow long story short I went back to her place and we had sex. I had a condom in my pocket but did not use it because I trusted that she would not have an STD. I ended up with clymidia (not too sure of spelling). Had I worn a condom I would not have got this nastly little STD. Sure you can have sex with someone you feel you trust but how do you know what their health situation is, most people dont even know what their own health situation is.
I dont have to supply you or this board with "studies". That is a load of rubbish, im sure I could find studies for + and - on any subject on the net.
tell me how can you get HIV when using a condom???? if the condom does not break and no fluids are passed through it just cannot happen.
I think it VERY dangerous that there are people out there saying that condoms dont help on the prevention of STD`s. I dont need studies on this subject cause using a condom DOES help. One thing I would agree with though is if the person you intend to play with seems a risk then you should not do it at all. But if you meet up with friends or whatever and you feel you can trust them, you should still use a condom. you just never know.

[windsor4fun2]

Originally Posted by eroticsensation

BettyAnn I really must be missing something.

eroticsensation,
I don't think BettyAnn was questioning the advisability of wearing/using condoms. It was the tone of the message that was the problem. While I strongly disagree with most of Paul Kings positions I found the post insulting to him.
Your second post gives some in-site into the cause of your strong feelings and would have been better to use it to dispute his opinion. Posts where one simply states that someone else's's ideas are "stupid" don't advance the discussion and often start a flamethrow war which is a waste of everyones time.
P.S. Welcome to the board.

Jesse

[BettyAnnMBSC]

tell me how can you get HIV when using a condom????

HIV is a bloodborne pathogen and not an STD (Centers for Disease Control, Bloodborne Pathogens, 1994). Since it enjoys a method of transmission in addition to and exclusive of sexual intercourse, wearing a condom is not an assurance against transmission. There are many many people in the USA who are HIV+ and who did not receive the infection via sexual interaction (CDC).

I dont need studies on this subject cause using a condom DOES help.

While you may in fact strongly believe you are right on this point; the whole point of public discourse is to sway or persuade opinion. Since we don't know you from Adam; you are not in a position to use your own authority as a means of statement of fact. For example, a quote in source of your comment would be "Condoms prevent STDs" (eroticsensation on SwingersBoard 2004) -- that's a very week argument in debate. Imagine using a citation like that in a paper in college -- it wouldn't have much weight. (see this article for tips - http://www.smithfam.com/news/nov01z.html)

I however like to read the variuos studies on various issues -- very often (too often), we find that what scientists felt was an absolute fact for many years was wrong from the outset. Remember the old food groups model of basic nutrition for example? It's only by examination of those studies that we understand better.

I dont have to supply you or this board with "studies".

No you don't. But I think you will find that if you can provide either some personal expose (as you did in the second post) or an authoritative study (such as Paul and others do) or even some personal analogy (which I do often) you will find your message better received and will have a more succesful communication. It is not a valid debate to simply state "that is stupid" or even "that is wrong" without some form of support or the caveat "in my opinion".

And that brings the discussion to the real point of my chiming in. You see, I could care less whether most of the readers here wear a condom because it has no real impact on my unless you show up in my bed. What I do care about here is the furtherance of open discussion. In fact, that's the whole reason I read this board - open debate and discussion on points of applied erotology.

"That's stupid" doesn't further discussion -- it often either stops the discussion or turns it into an argument. Now I ask, what good is a message board if nobody wants to offer their opinion in fear of being called "stupid"?

[HotCoupleGnS]

Quote: If you pick your playmates carefully and you're both clean, going in without a rubber is as safe as wearing one. If you insist on sticking your willie-peter in any ol' nasty whore, you better have a raincoat on and even then you'll probably get something painful as a reminder...

I don't think this quote sums this up at all. I have met & heard of people that are as normal & as clean as anyone I have ever met that get things. Just b/c you are a nasty whore doesn't mean you have something, & just b/c you say you are clean doesn't mean you are. We live in a world where I wouldn't really believe everything someone tells me. Someone may not even know if they are carrying something. I'm not sure of the length of time, but people can carry HIV & it not even come up in a test for a period of time. So I mean who is to say. Everyone has their own opinion!

[eroticsensation]

"HIV is a bloodborne pathogen and not an STD (Centers for Disease Control, Bloodborne Pathogens, 1994). Since it enjoys a method of transmission in addition to and exclusive of sexual intercourse, wearing a condom is not an assurance against transmission. There are many many people in the USA who are HIV+ and who did not receive the infection via sexual interaction (CDC)."

So what? ever heard of getting HIV through drugs.

"While you may in fact strongly believe you are right on this point; the whole point of public discourse is to sway or persuade opinion. Since we don't know you from Adam; you are not in a position to use your own authority as a means of statement of fact. For example, a quote in source of your comment would be "Condoms prevent STDs" (eroticsensation on SwingersBoard 2004) -- that's a very week argument in debate. Imagine using a citation like that in a paper in college -- it wouldn't have much weight."


I just love the way you write!!
I dont want to sway or persuade you cause I dont know you from "Adam". I just make my point that condoms to help a great deal in the spread of HIV and any other STD`s. This is not a debate either. That is like me having to "persuade" you that if you dont wear a parachute whilst jumping 40,000 feet from a plane you will die. It is obvious a condom helps a great deal in protecting from STD`s and HIV. Plain and simple.
This is not college, this is a swingers board. Where people talk about blow jobs, anal sex, gay sex, bi-sexual sex, gang bangs etc etc. far form a college.
No you don't. But I think you will find that if you can provide either some personal expose (as you did in the second post) or an authoritative study (such as Paul and others do) or even some personal analogy (which I do often) you will find your message better received and will have a more succesful communication. It is not a valid debate to simply state "that is stupid" or even "that is wrong" without some form of support or the caveat "in my opinion".

And that brings the discussion to the real point of my chiming in. You see, I could care less whether most of the readers here wear a condom because it has no real impact on my unless you show up in my bed. What I do care about here is the furtherance of open discussion. In fact, that's the whole reason I read this board - open debate and discussion on points of applied erotology.

"That's stupid" doesn't further discussion -- it often either stops the discussion or turns it into an argument. Now I ask, what good is a message board if nobody wants to offer their opinion in fear of being called "stupid"?"

Well it depends on the person opinion now doesnt it. I have heard many people say that it makes them sick to think people over 45 actually have sex let alone swing. I am 31 and have spoken about swingers to many a friend and a lot of people actually say that most swigners are over age fat blimps.
now wouldnt you say that comment is stupid? now what does that comment have to do with what paul said? a lot. it can touch home. it can be offensive. why not??? it was to me purely and simply because I know myself if I had used a condom I would have NOT contracted an STD.
"

If someone says something stupid then I see no problem in pointing that out without having to deliver a college thesis on your reasons.

I mean we are adults arent we? I know there are some very sensitive people out there but hey we are not in primary school.

[eroticsensation]

Originally Posted by HotCoupleGnS

Quote: If you pick your playmates carefully and you're both clean, going in without a rubber is as safe as wearing one. If you insist on sticking your willie-peter in any ol' nasty whore, you better have a raincoat on and even then you'll probably get something painful as a reminder...

I don't think this quote sums this up at all. I have met & heard of people that are as normal & as clean as anyone I have ever met that get things. Just b/c you are a nasty whore doesn't mean you have something, & just b/c you say you are clean doesn't mean you are. We live in a world where I wouldn't really believe everything someone tells me. Someone may not even know if they are carrying something. I'm not sure of the length of time, but people can carry HIV & it not even come up in a test for a period of time. So I mean who is to say. Everyone has their own opinion!

well said.

Just b/c you are a nasty whore doesn't mean you have something, & just b/c you say you are clean doesn't mean you are.

Whats wrong with being a Nasty Whore??



OK, seriuosly... I'm not laughing!!







Yes I am.....

[Mr. Sparks]

Mrs. Sparks and I are working on trying to find our all-important first couple to play with, so the condom issue is up front and imminent for us. Mrs. Sparks is uneasy about STDs and wants her partners to wear a condom. I'm not as scared as she is, but I will honor her concerns, so that means I will wear one, too. While I agree that careful selection of partners and thorough personal hygeine are very important protective factors, the Centers for Disease Control have stated emphatically that, properly used, condoms offer the best protective measure (short of abstinence or monogamy) that is available to the general public. Although they offer imperfect protection, I dare say that many folks in the Lifestyle wouldn't be swinging without them.

As far as the latex issue goes, the smell and feel of latex isn't pleasant, but only about 3% of the U.S. population is allergic to it, from what I have read. Unless you are having sex with condoms quite frequently (or marathon sessions), I don't see how the latex issue is much of a health concern at all. I would think that you are more likely to suffer tangible physical harm from carpet burns, sore or bruised genitals or kissing someone with a cold or flu.

I'm curious if anyone here has tried condoms made of alternative materials, such as polyurethane or Tactylon. They supposedly allow more sensation because they heat up more than latex. Polyurethane, at least, is also suposed to be tasteless and odorless. Haven't tried one myself, but here's a link to a pretty good discussion of non-latex condoms:

http://www.contraceptiononline.org/c...01.cfm?art=243

I can never fault anyone's decision to use a condom. It's a personal judgment, and I don't see the validity of trying to push either a pro-condom or anti-condom point of view. I feel pretty safe about swimming without one, but then again, I think about having to explain to my parents/inlaws how a monogomous spouse married for 17 years has contracted an STD!