Poll: Are You Willing to go Bareback?

[MIbbwcpl]

We use condoms all the time with other couples. On an individual basis it's different, but overall we use them 99% of the time. Not during oral though, yuck!

[toycple]

We use condoms all the time. For one, we don't know everyone out there, and you can't always know where someone has been. The main reason is the Mrs. is not fixed or on any type of birth control. If we ever did get to the point were we were fixed or she went on BC then possibly, but it would have to be with a couple we knew extremely well, for a long time and are very close to.

[WeUse]

Originally Posted by oliverx

Interesting poll. . . . a couple we know and trust is our bareback playmate couple . . . There is always a risk but when we have reached our age and feel comfortable with our players we do take the ride...Oliverx

Oliverx: I noticed you are in Iceland. I think the population of Iceland is something like 300,000 pretty homogeneous white, Christian, church-going folks. In light of your general population, lack of real heavy influx of outsiders from the high STD countries, and your decision to go bare back sometimes, What is the incidence of STD in your community?

I've read where Isla Vista, California, has now surpassed the slums of Calcutta, as having a higher incidents of STD (all those college kids at Santa Barbara, I suppose). Where on that scale does your community fit?

For me, this would be a factor in electing to go bareback.

~J

[steve as is]

yes we go bareback as long as its with one of our regular mfm partners as the wife loves being filled and then me entering or going down on her

[LFM2]

I highly doubt we will ever go bareback with anyone. It's a safety factor. I talked to Dave once about going bareback with our exclusive single male, and even though he was sexually monogamous with us, we weren't monogamous with him. Not fair to him. It would just be better to keep on wrapping the tool.

[Mr.Essex]

As a single male, my answer is a firm, definite "No". I'm a very slutty person, but I've never had unprotected sex. The first time that I have unprotected sex will be on my wedding night, no matter how tempting the lady(ies) who I meet upon the way.

[jdavisauto]

There is only one couple that we have sex with without protection and we knew them for about ten years. Everyone else we use protection with.

[j&rcouple]

we have gone bareback with some couples others we have to use protection we can't tell how safe they are you can't tell by looking at them you don't know their history the wife is very picky

[SecretAsianMan]

Originally Posted by WeUse

I've read where Isla Vista, California, has now surpassed the slums of Calcutta, as having a higher incidents of STD (all those college kids at Santa Barbara, I suppose).

~J

Wow... really???!!! Damn, I went to school at UCSB and remember quite a few drunken nights staggering through Isla Vista. Of course, that was ten years ago & I guess if I haven't shown any symptoms through all the testing I've done since then I dodged a bullet!

[Taylor74]

If you engage in unprotected oral sex, what purpose would wearing a condom serve? If anything, the gesture of wearing a condom would pretty much be an illusion of safe sex and a weak attempt at playing it safe, don't you think?

[rpu3]

Originally Posted by Taylor74

If you engage in unprotected oral sex, what purpose would wearing a condom serve? If anything, the gesture of wearing a condom would pretty much be an illusion of safe sex and a weak attempt at playing it safe, don't you think?

One person's illusion might be another person's reasoned decision based on what few stats are known. Some STDs aren't as easily transmitted through oral sex as through intercourse. Thus, I don't think of it as an weak attempt to play it safe as much as I'm willing to accept the risk for odds of transmission of STD through oral but I'm not willing to accept the increased risk via intercourse at this time.

[Taylor74]

Originally Posted by rpu3

One person's illusion might be another person's reasoned decision based on what few stats are known. Some STDs aren't as easily transmitted through oral sex as through intercourse. Thus, I don't think of it as an weak attempt to play it safe as much as I'm willing to accept the risk for odds of transmission of STD through oral but I'm not willing to accept the increased risk via intercourse at this time.

I'm not so sure if I agree with your reasoning. I can't see how putting something in one's mouth is less dangerous and/or risky than putting it in another orifice. The contact and exposure is there regardless.

[sweet_tna]

I don't remember how I voted on this poll initially . . . but I as I will be having a tubal done next week, and Mr. Sweet is already V-safe, we've given the bareback idea some consideration. Of course, this would only be with couples we know well and feel comfortable with.

=)

[rpu3]

Originally Posted by Taylor74

I'm not so sure if I agree with your reasoning. I can't see how putting something in one's mouth is less dangerous and/or risky than putting it in another orifice. The contact and exposure is there regardless.

Fair enough. No one said you had to agree and I don't disagree with your right to go without. Nor did I call out anyone else's reasoning to use condoms or not use comdoms as a weak attempt or an illusion. I simply gave you one viewpoint why one may use condoms for intercourse but not necessarily for oral, and why I personally don't view that as "weak" or an "illusion". If I want to use CDC and other research stats as the basis of my decisions, so be it. It's not weak or an illusion to me. Clearly, your mileage varies.

I've been on the bareback train with one person. I really thought I knew the person and thought, based on conversations, etc. over the course of a year, that we had the same idea as to safer sex practices and I could trust this person to be honest about things if there were changes in risk. I always advised as to negative tests or the fact that I had never received a call from the Red Cross that I was positive for HIV or Hepatitis C for the 20+ apherisis donations I"d given over the previous few months. Turns out, he had gone bareback elsewhere. That in and of itself isn't a bad thing. However, I wasn't told that there was a change in risk for him so that I had information to make choices best for me and that was the problem for me.

That event was and remains a very big deal. The trust was gone, of course, but it was a big lesson to me that you really don't know anyone else. I don't know if I'll ever be able to put some trust or faith in the words coming out of someone else's mouth when it comes to safe sex and histories and exposures. It's just going to be easier to require condoms so that I don't have to rely on someone else being truthful as to any change in risk.

I've tried to tell myself the same thing that you are sying, Tyler - it's really no difference. But when it comes to HIV, the stats say otherwise and my head can't get past that difference in the stats between oral and intercourse. It does exist, and it was the basis of my choice and that doesn't mean weak or illusion.

So, to each their own. I have no issue with the concept of bareback. I certainly would have preferred to have continued to do so. I'm glad others don't seem to have the same amount of problems I do with stats, and trust, and acceptance of risk.

[Opportunists]

thanks for the post rpu3...

we don't do bareback and aren't even considering it... while he is fixed, we don't feel you can really know or trust anyone enough to risk harming each other or our family just to have a little bit of fun.

yes condoms suck... but until they come up with something better, we will be requiring them for the necessary protection/piece of mind.