What is it with couples who require condoms for penetration but not for oral?

[lcjtsd]

RW1F,

If you want to use them, fine. If you read our post where we explained our story you will see that we did do unprotected oral and condoms for intercourse and got bit in the ass for it. All we're saying is that if you do unprotected oral, you're only fooling yourself if you think the condoms are going to "protect you". I know there are those of you who will say that you have been swinging for 10+years, 20+ years, whatever and say that "We have never caught anything". I say that it's more likely that the people you played with didn't have anything in the first place. If they did, you would have got it from the unprotected oral.

I guess I could relate this to when I am driving. Although my wife is an excellent driver, I HAVE TO drive whenever we go anyplace together. I cannot be the passenger and have her drive. I call this my "Illusion of being in control". This is the same as those who do oral unprotected and use condoms for intercourse. It is your "Illusion of being safe". Yes, I understand this feeling, this illusion, very well. Does this mean that the feeling is justified? No. Can I get into an accident just as easily as my wife? Yes. It's just an illusion of being in control or being safe.

So if doing Double Standard sex makes you "feel" safer, go ahead and continue. But don't expect my wife to do unprotected oral on you. All you're telling us is that you have something you don't believe can be spread via oral sex.

Once again, we did it that way and got bit.

[JustAskJulie]

I'm actually surprised you've had that hard of a time finding other couples who don't use condoms, I see them everywhere. Or is it that you are being extremely picky and have another set of expectations regarding their play since you don't require condoms.

What I've seen in regards to swingers who regularly don't use condoms are two types of swingers....

1. (for some reason more prevelent in certain areas of the country - especially FL) Club Swingers who never use condoms and pretty much screw anything that walks.

2. Swingers looking for LTR with another couple, figuring that if they are exclusive with another couple LT that it reduces the risk and the need for condoms.

Personally, I'd prefer to avoid both types, the only LTR committment I want is with my partner (if I have one), and I don't really want to go screwing someone who screws just anyone without a condom.

That said, have I swung without condoms? Yes. Would I again? Yes, it all depends on the situation and who is involved. Would I at a club with someone I just met? Hell, no.

I realize I didn't answer your question as to the double standard, and no I don't use condoms for oral sex. Never Have, never will. The risk is a lot lower for oral sex, even with a stranger and I'm willing to take that amount of risk.

We each have to choose our level of risk and our level of comfort. For each of us that will be slightly different. The circumstances vary from person to person for what risk they will accept.

[lcjtsd]

WOW! Hi Julie!

Due to the kids (we have 4) and our business, we don't have a lot of time to go out and meet people face-to-face. That's why we thought the online ads would be a great way to find other like-minded couples. It didn't work out that way. It seems that everone os looking for the bi-woman or the Hot, fit, athletic type. Sorry, my wife is straight and we're Mr & Mrs Average. Also, not wanting to lead anyone on, we also state in our profile out preference.

We did have couples email us and when we replied and re-stated our preference, we either never heard from them again or received a polite "No Thank You". The reason? They always use condoms as they only do "safe" sex. We did ask them if they do oral unprotected and the few answers we did we receive, they said that they did.

This is why we had to vent. It's just so frustrating. I know the way we contracted chlymadia was when my wife wife was doing oral on both of us, switching back and forth between us two guys. So what was the purpose of the condom?

I can think of a lot of scenarios with two couples where STD's can be spread and using condoms would not do anything to stop this. We feel that the people who classify themselves a "swingers" are the safest people to have sex with. Oh well.

I guess our option now is to take VegasLee's advice and actually go out and meet people face-to-face at a club type setting and find people this way. Once again, we don't have a lot of time so we may only get the opportunity to play once a year.

To answer your question as to are we being too picky, no. While we do have our preference on looks, etc., we would be happy to meet most couples at this point, just get out of the house!

Thanks for posting Julie.

LCJTSD

[BorisNatasha]

Originally Posted by lcjtsd

I say that it's more likely that the people you played with didn't have anything in the first place. If they did, you would have got it from the unprotected oral.

This is the flaw in your logic that I was trying to point out earlier. I guess a better way to get my point across is to say that exposure does not equal transmission. No illness in the world has a 100% transmission rate. And if the transmission rate is greatly reduced for oral vs vaginal intercourse, that is where the risk/reward decision comes into play for people. Just pulling numbers out of my ass for example's sake - if I have a 5% chance to catch something from oral but a 80% chance to catch if with vaginal intercourse, it's not too much of a stretch to say I'll get away scot-free with oral sex most of the time but I'd be a complete idiot to not wear a condom.

But I think this horse has been beaten to death. Seems like the condom issue is almost as bad as religion - nobody on either side is going to convince anyone of anything.

Boris

[Spoomonkey]

Originally Posted by BorisNatasha

Seems like the condom issue is almost as bad as religion - nobody on either side is going to convince anyone of anything.

The problem with this thread is really that the question is somewhat accusatory toward anyone with a differing opinion (which in this case is the majority of readers/posters). That's not exactly a hidden approach, when one considers that the title is "We just have to vent."

It is obviously an issue that causes some dismay for the original posters.

But the problem with debate is that some feel a need to weight the discussion with biased words - in this case "double standard sex". The term, by the original poster's admission, does not accurately describe the issue at all. A double standard implies that you are taking two equal things and applying different criterion. Oral sex does present less risk - the degree of which is up for debate - than genital contact. Therefore, they are not equal - and different standards would be unavoidable. In fact, if you applied the same approach, you would still not have "equal standards" since you are talking about two different risks.

So - while the term "double standard" is intended to cloud the issue and perhaps be inflammatory - it is quite easy to see that it does not fit within the context of the debate. It is intended to make some feel hypocritical or "uncritical" of their choices, thus forcing them to make a bad decision based on prejudicing.

You see this approach often in political debate.

As outlined above, some have a very clear, rational reason for approaching oral sex and gential penetration differently. This is obviously NOT a double standard, but an assessment of risk based on plenty of readily available information. Does risk exist? Yes. Will any measure completely eliminate risk? No. Does this mean one should simply accept 100% of the risk with no consideration of lessening that risk? That is an individual decision that has much more to do with the comfort level of the couple than it does risks involved.

Think of it this way. Two guys ride bikes. One wears a helmet - one chooses not to. Both face risks. The guy who doesn't wear a helmet may think the guy who does is fooling himself because the difference in risk is marginal at best. The guy who does wear a helmet may think the other guy is foolish because he takes absolutely no precautions.

Each has the right to make their decision - and each may have a valid case. As long as you are comfortable with the amount of risk you take - live and let live.

It is not an issue of "double standards" but an issue of comfort zones and risk tolerance. If you choose to ride without a helmet, your riding group may be a bit smaller - but at least you ride with the folks you want to ride with.

Spoomonkey

[lcjtsd]

Spoomonkey,

I used the term "Double Standard" as I couldn't think of any other way to describe it. That's all.

I have added a poll hoping to find out how much the people on this board feel that condom use reduces their risk. After two days there have only been three other votes. Either this is an issue the folks here don't want to talk about or they just don't like us. Oh well.

Maybe we'll leave here, too, and go elsewhere.

[Spoomonkey]

Originally Posted by lcjtsd

Either this is an issue the folks here don't want to talk about or they just don't like us.

I doubt it is either. Like I said - I think it is the presentation of the issue that limits useful discussion. The poll is probably going to be slow simply because everyone has discussed it here and to put a percentage on it is speculation at best for most of us.

Spoomonkey

[lcjtsd]

No Spoomonkey, I think the Naughties were right. We feel this forum has become cliquish, opinionated and closed minded to certain issues.

This issue we brought up, we feel, is an important one for all swingers. If anyone does unprotected oral, how effective is condom use in preventing STD's? We were hoping to raise awareness that there are many activities that swingers do with others that, basically, make condoms completely ineffective. Our own experience has shown that. Hence, why even bother with them? Did we go a bit overboard in our presentation? Maybe, and for that I apologize.

However, it seems that the people here would rather stick their heads in the sand and completely ignore the issue, (Which I feel the lack of voting in the poll illustrates). In other words, if a question or opinion comes up that goes against the majority here (which it seems that this one does) the issue is ignored by the majority, no matter how important the subject.

I feel that this is a darned good issue and, once again, apologize if our presentation was incorrect.

So I think we'll be on our way.

[Spoomonkey]

Originally Posted by lcjtsd

However, it seems that the people here would rather stick their heads in the sand and completely ignore the issue, (Which I feel the lack of voting in the poll illustrates). In other words, if a question or opinion comes up that goes against the majority here (which it seems that this one does) the issue is ignored by the majority, no matter how important the subject.

You have four pages of discussion on the issue... Not to mention that it is an issue that has been discussed in many other similar threads.

I am completely lost as to how that proves folks are sticking their head in the sand.

Just because they won't jump on another thread and discuss the same thing over again?

Let me ask you - what would the acceptable response look like to you?

Spoomonkey

[intuition897]

Originally Posted by lcjtsd

No Spoomonkey, I think the Naughties were right. We feel this forum has become cliquish, opinionated and closed minded to certain issues.

Cliquish? No, I don't see it as that at all. We just all happen to agree. What we have a problem with is being preached at, and our choices - our preferences - being discounted.

Originally Posted by lcjtsd

This issue we brought up, we feel, is an important one for all swingers. If anyone does unprotected oral, how effective is condom use in preventing STD's? We were hoping to raise awareness that there are many activities that swingers do with others that, basically, make condoms completely ineffective. Our own experience has shown that. Hence, why even bother with them?

Yes, it is a very important issue. But as Spoomonkey said, we've beaten this dead horse for four pages now, on this one thread alone. I'm sorry that you haven't been able to convince us that we should either be fanatical about safe sex to the point where swinging just stops being fun, or stop using condoms entirely. I'm also sorry that you two got burned , but I sincerely think it was a fluke. I, for one, would really love to see the numbers on this. What's the percentage of risk for oral vs. genital? Anyone?

Using condoms cuts down on risk. Doesn't eliminate risk, but it DOES cut the risk down. It seems to me that you're looking for some kind of guarantee that you won't catch a dose of something. There is no guarantee. Life is random. If this is unacceptable to you, don't swing. Or if you are happy swinging with extremely stringent safer sex standards, have at it! But don't tell us that the way we are doing it is wrong. You can't just say that because it happened once to you, that suddenly this risk is much greater. You just happened to win the lottery. Meanwhile - yeah! - lots of other experienced swingers (+20 years) are happily disease free. How do you explain 20 years of health in the face of such a grave risk? Luck?? Yeah, maybe partially, but sensible safer sex practices as well as careful partner selection probably played a greater part.

Condoms are not "completely ineffective". Let's extrapolate on Spoomonkey's biker analogy. Let's say the two guys get off their bikes at a roadside store and buy themselves an ice cream. So they sit outside eating their ice cream, one guy still wearing his helmet, and the other guy, as usual, not. Two seagulls fly overhead and at the same time, with military precision, shit in perfect synchronization on their heads. Now...who's happy he wore his helmet? And who's not happy? I'm just trying to say that shit can fly at you out of nowhere (ie: that guy/girl/couple seemed like such a nice, clean, couple...) and it doesn't hurt to be prepared. Now does the guy want to dress head to toe in rain gear on the off chance that a seagull could shit on him? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by lcjtsd

However, it seems that the people here would rather stick their heads in the sand and completely ignore the issue, (Which I feel the lack of voting in the poll illustrates). In other words, if a question or opinion comes up that goes against the majority here (which it seems that this one does) the issue is ignored by the majority, no matter how important the subject.

This is not the only thread on this subject. And THIS thread alone is quite long. If anything, I think swingers are pretty responsible and knowledgeable about STDs. I think the lack of voting just indicates that people are done discussing it. We've all made our decisions about it.

Swinging involves a measure of risk. The level of risk vs. reward is worth it to my husband and I. I am okay with this. Why is it not okay with you that I am okay with this?

[BradAndJanet]

lcjtsd, since I start with the first new post when I read a thread, I didn't even notice there was a new poll. I suspect that a lot of people do the same thing, which may be why the poll has few answers.

Also, this subject has been beaten to death, here and in older threads, and some people just don't have the time or the inclination to get into it again.

-B

[BradAndJanet]

Nevermind. It's in a new thread. Sorry.

-B

[good times]

Originally Posted by lcjtsd

However, it seems that the people here would rather stick their heads in the sand and completely ignore the issue, (Which I feel the lack of voting in the poll illustrates). In other words, if a question or opinion comes up that goes against the majority here (which it seems that this one does) the issue is ignored by the majority, no matter how important the subject.

I disagree with you on your conclusion of what the lack of participation in your poll means. I think, As I stated in that thread, that the format of the poll is flawed because it assumes that people know how much less risk they are subject to by not using condoms for oral but requiring them for vaginal sex. I think the people who beleive this just feel that it is generally less risky but have no idea by how much and so they can't honestly answer the poll structured the way it is.

[viking21]

Good morning. I agree with your position on condoms 100%! It always amazes me that a lady will suck my bare cock until I cum in her mouth and then ask me to use a condom when I fuck her. Sort of like taking a shower while wearing a raincoat. Makes no sense at all.

I am new to this site, and perhaps do not yet understand the correct protocall. Any comment I make which you find offensive is totally unintended.

I live in south Alabama and am seeking folks nearby who enjoy good sex. I am married but play solo. Have had many threesomes (mmf) and many one-on-ones. Any interested couples or ladies may contact me and we'll trade pics. If there is mutual interest in going forward, we'll arrange to meet.

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by lcjtsd

No Spoomonkey, I think the Naughties were right. We feel this forum has become cliquish, opinionated and closed minded to certain issues.

Unless oral without a condom and sex with one is cliquish this statement has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

You have a bone to pick, and most of us don't share your point of view.