For those who dont use condoms

[SnowwwWhite]

The statistic you quote says that 3 to 5% of people living in DC have HIV. Does that mean of every man, woman, and child or does that mean every man and woman in their most sexually active years?

Statistics have a way of being molded for the purpose of the person trying to make the point. I'd be willing to bet that the HIV percentage is much higher than 3-5% if you exclude the young and the old from the final figure. If that is correct, the chances of contracting HIV would be significantly higher because the exposure risk is spread only among the most sexually-active population.

Personally, to really assess the risk of random casual sex, I'd prefer to know the statistic for only people 20 years younger and 20 years older than myself. I know it's not the most scientific way to look at it, but it would be a more realistic assessment of my personal risk.

Erase the segments of the population who are truly monogamous (what, maybe 25% of the total?) and then you have an even higher established risk.

Erase the segment that has just tested negative in the preceding month (and assuming you are about to play with someone who hasn't been tested recently) and you can keep going higher and higher with that HIV positive number.

Just some thoughts.

[highlander]

Well, the other figure you need to look at here:
about 80% of folks that are HIV+ know it--and most of those folks will not play with folks without informing them. However, there is a minority of people that will not inform partners-and some of those folks are obsessed with having as many sex partners as possible.

Now, as far as testing goes, anyone who has tested negative the last 3 months is markedly safer than folks from a comparable population all things considered. Assume you have someone that is fairly sexually active, say 7 times per week-and they have a high risk pool of partners, say 10% are positive and they never use protection of any type. Their chance of getting infected in the last 3 months is only around 2%-if we assume a 1 in 500 chance of infection. Now, the problem is that folks are especially contagious for HIV right after infection. I'm not saying that testing is a silver bullet here. It just is one important tool in the arsenal of prevention(and one that gets downplayed quite a bit-and one for which there are some good recent technical advances).

Anyhow, I don't disagree here. The pool of folks that are open to casual sex without looking at test results may well be higher than the 3-5% cited in that article. Now, I would also expect a lot of those 3-5% to be folks like IV drug drug users or partners of those folks. Some folks might think they can spot IV drug users by looking at them. I tend to remember what a principal at a private boarding school told me. No matter how long he had that job, he was always surprised at just who the IV drug users he found were.

Originally Posted by SnowwwWhite

The statistic you quote says that 3 to 5% of people living in DC have HIV. Does that mean of every man, woman, and child or does that mean every man and woman in their most sexually active years?

Statistics have a way of being molded for the purpose of the person trying to make the point. I'd be willing to bet that the HIV percentage is much higher than 3-5% if you exclude the young and the old from the final figure. If that is correct, the chances of contracting HIV would be significantly higher because the exposure risk is spread only among the most sexually-active population.

Personally, to really assess the risk of random casual sex, I'd prefer to know the statistic for only people 20 years younger and 20 years older than myself. I know it's not the most scientific way to look at it, but it would be a more realistic assessment of my personal risk.

Erase the segments of the population who are truly monogamous (what, maybe 25% of the total?) and then you have an even higher established risk.

Erase the segment that has just tested negative in the preceding month (and assuming you are about to play with someone who hasn't been tested recently) and you can keep going higher and higher with that HIV positive number.

Just some thoughts.

[nudists4couple]

The wife and I both prefer bareback. My wife actually has a latex allergy and when the other male does use a condom of the non-latex kind, they simply don't fit the penis as good as the latex ones do. So to spare the moment and go with the flow, we will usually go bareback unless condoms are discussed before hand.

[highlander]

Originally Posted by nudists4couple

The wife and I both prefer bareback. My wife actually has a latex allergy and when the other male does use a condom of the non-latex kind, they simply don't fit the penis as good as the latex ones do. So to spare the moment and go with the flow, we will usually go bareback unless condoms are discussed before hand.

Just fYI, female condoms are not latex-and don't have this particular problem. Female condoms aren't quite as effective as regular condoms for preventing disease-but if you use them in conjunction with STD testing you are still VERY safe.

[lott]

highlander, can you tell me if the data compiled for hiv and other statistics come from private or public clinics because if they come from public that means a LOT of people are infected but the statistics won't show it due to the records being confidential?

[highlander]

There are some tricky issues with how states compile data on HIV and other STD's-the methods use aren't always uniform and folks need to estimate to get an accurate picture.

[Opportunists]

the number of folks on here claiming to go bareback is the most surprising thing i've read on this board.

i hear 'we prefer bareback'... well who the hell would prefer a condom? of course you prefer bareback.

for all the people saying they never or rarely use condoms, i can say i've never met any of you or any like you in a swinging situation.

in the past six years, we have not meet any couple that did not require condoms for full swap... nor have we ever witnessed any couples in full swap that weren't using condoms --- ourselves included.

[freshcream]

Originally Posted by Opportunists

the number of folks on here claiming to go bareback is the most surprising thing i've read on this board.

i hear 'we prefer bareback'... well who the hell would prefer a condom? of course you prefer bareback.

for all the people saying they never or rarely use condoms, i can say i've never met any of you or any like you in a swinging situation.

in the past six years, we have not meet any couple that did not require condoms for full swap... nor have we ever witnessed any couples in full swap that weren't using condoms --- ourselves included.

^THAT^ is incredibly refreshing to hear. I was starting to get really nervous that we would be a shunned minority for wanting to play a little safer!

I used to work at a sex store and was the resident "scholar". I read every damn book on the subject of sex that I could get my hands on. I know the risks involved and, frankly, I don't want 'em. I barely escaped herpes infection because TWO different previous long-term partners, whom I trusted and with whom I stopped using condoms eventually, chose not to disclose that they were infected until much later in the relationships - after the condoms had been shelved! Thankfully I did not contract, but I shouldn't have been forced to play that particular game of Russian roulette.

Trust is fine and dandy, but people lie, all the time, regardless of whether or not you trust them. If it reaches a point with a couple that we decide to go condomless, I will ask to swap STD tests first. If they are offended (as someone else here stated they would be), then I'll know that it's time to look elsewhere, for people that understand our concerns. Bareback is wonderful! Seriously, I wish I could go all free-love with everyone, but it's not worth the risks, IMO.

~Cream

[fun4Ds]

Wearing protection is not absurd by any means and actually shows your responsible...... But, neither is going without. We think our partners that we go without are very responcible people as well.

Sometimes I have to wonder..... suppose you start mentioning you prefer to go without protection to possible playmates and see how many agree. Just for the sake of seeing. What your not seeing... try it. We did...

I think what may surprise you is how many people are just agreeing with you. You say you only play with protection and the majority say " Oh yes, us too "

Then the next couple they play with goes without.

Do you really think they are going to come back and tell you ?

Thats why we say we might go without, depending on the couple and our comfort level.

Or would you prefer we just agree with you ?

Even if we were to tell you we always wear protection..... How will you know ?

Isn't it better to see that we are at least up front and honest.

Would that make a difference ? Would you never play with a couple just because they went without when you were not there ?

How can you be 100 % sure ?

[good times]

fun4Ds makes an excellent point, and it is actually what we did. When we first started we made the same assumption and thought the same thing as Opportunists did. Then we met someone who refused to use condoms. After meeting them, and doing the research that resulted in our current view on condom use, we changed our approach. Now when asked, or when we ask someone about condom use we say we prefer to go without but will use them if they prefer. With that approach you would be surprised at how many folks prefer not to use them. In fact, less than twenty percent of the people we meet at the clubs insist that they always require condoms. And this is not a regional thing, we have been to clubs all over the country now, and the percentage is the same.

Originally Posted by freshcream

I used to work at a sex store and was the resident "scholar". I read every damn book on the subject of sex that I could get my hands on. I know the risks involved and, frankly, I don't want 'em. I barely escaped herpes infection because TWO different previous long-term partners, whom I trusted and with whom I stopped using condoms eventually, chose not to disclose that they were infected until much later in the relationships - after the condoms had been shelved! Thankfully I did not contract, but I shouldn't have been forced to play that particular game of Russian roulette.

These are the types of statements that scare me, because the fact is, condoms offer little to no protection from contracting herpes. In other words, the false sense of security you place on condoms is allowing you to engage in behavior that you wouldn't if you knew the fact that the condoms are not protecting you. Frankly, regarding Herpes and HPV, condoms should be assumed to provide no protection. If you are worried about someone having either one of those contact transferred, and arguably most common incurable std's, the only safe sex is no sex.

[freshcream]

good times - I'm sorry. I realize I wasn't clear in what I said. It wasn't that the condoms would or wouldn't protect me from herpes - it was that these men didn't TELL me before I started sleeping with them. The lack of disclosure put me in a situation where I had no idea that I was playing with a loaded gun. I was using that as an example of how people - even the ones you trust - lie or won't disclose. That time was herpes, something condoms offer little protection for (though they do offer SOME protection), but the next time might be HIV, something condoms DO offer some protection for. Yes, there is risk to sexual activity with multiple partners, and the only "safe" sex is no sex, but OUR PREFERENCE is to use what protection we can get. It's like a bullet proof vest - sure, it won't protect against a blow to the head, but your chances are reduced that you won't be fatally shot because it protects other vital parts. There's certainly a difference between reduced risk and no risk, and we're quite aware of that. It's just our choice to reduce the risk.

fun4Ds - We aren't going to expect other couples to use condoms with every partner they have, either. That's simply unrealistic. Our only expectations will be that they use them WITH US. If we contract something after taking that precaution, at least we'll know we did what we could.



Frankly, I'm a little annoyed here. I did not tell anyone that they HAD to use condoms, nor try and convince anyone that our way is the only way. I was stating our preference and used a little background info to explain why we are sticking to our guns on this one. I also expressed concern that, being in the obvious minority, we would have problems with another couple for our choice. That's all. I was not debating - just expressing our choice and why. I come back to people trying to convince me that I'M wrong?! WTF?

You all have done your research and believe you have the right answers. I have done my research and believe I do, too. I'm not saying you all are wrong, so please don't expect me to flip around on what I know, either. We feel it's a responsible decision on our part, even if many of you feel it's arbitrary. As I stated before, I have done a whole lot of reading on the subject of sex - from history to health topics - and I strongly feel that our personal choice is an informed one, regardless of whether or not others here agree.

~Cream

[lott]

Originally Posted by good times

These are the types of statements that scare me, because the fact is, condoms offer little to no protection from contracting herpes. In other words, the false sense of security you place on condoms is allowing you to engage in behavior that you wouldn't if you knew the fact that the condoms are not protecting you. Frankly, regarding Herpes and HPV, condoms should be assumed to provide no protection. If you are worried about someone having either one of those contact transferred, and arguably most common incurable std's, the only safe sex is no sex.

I can't agree with this because even though the condom might not protect parts that aren't covered with it, it still protects the urethra hole on a man and that will be the most painful part if a blister goes there. Also it is a skin disease along with hpv and making sure your skin is well hydrated will help prevent tearing which prevents these diseases from getting into your system but that is another story.

I just know I don't want a blister on my dick head or the shaft of my dick because that would be PAIN and condoms do protect that part.

[good times]

Originally Posted by lott

I can't agree with this because even though the condom might not protect parts that aren't covered with it, it still protects the urethra hole on a man and that will be the most painful part if a blister goes there. Also it is a skin disease along with hpv and making sure your skin is well hydrated will help prevent tearing which prevents these diseases from getting into your system but that is another story.

I just know I don't want a blister on my dick head or the shaft of my dick because that would be PAIN and condoms do protect that part.

I understand your rational, unfortunately, it isn't true with contact transferred sti's. The fact is, if you touch an area on the woman that is shedding the virus, and then subsequently touch your penis with the same hand, you just transferred the virus. By the same token, if a guy has the virus on his hand and then uses that hand to roll on a condom, the virus is more than likely now coating the outside of the condom.

Please be clear, I am not out to convince anyone to use or not use condoms. That is a personal choice made for any number of reasons. After spending as much time as I have getting to the bottom of what condoms will and won't do, and in the process becoming alarmed at how much bad information is out there, mostly generated by folks with an agenda, who benefit by alarming the public as much as possible. When I see stuff said that isn't supported by the facts, I tend to point it out. That being said, even though we prefer to not use condoms, if a potential playmate requests that we use them, we do so without comment, we respect their choice and why they make that choice makes no difference to us.

freshcream, I understand your point now, and yes, I too would be pissed if I found out someone had something I could catch and didn't tell me. And it wouldn't make any difference to me if I had used a condom with them or not, because I do know so well what the limitations of condoms are as a form of protection.

[Mr.Essex]

I use condoms for one reason-I don't want to have any illegitimate children.

A-I-D-S kills quickly, but K-I-D-S kill slowly and expensively.

[GoNatural]

Originally Posted by highlander

how many bareback folks here regularly get tested for STD's?
How many ask for test results from partners?
How many would provide test results to a partner on request?

I am willing to go bareback if my partner gets tested regularly.

I regularly get tested for STD's. It has been just over 6 months now, but I'm planning to get tested before my next sex partner. I'm single and don't run down the one nighters. I believe that casual sex in the single's scene is riskier than in the swinging scene.

I do ask my partners if they have been tested, but I've never asked for results. I may step it up to that level though.

I would happily provide STD test results to a partner upon request.

Herpes and HPV are many times more prevalent in our society, and I'm suprised at the level of risk still present even if condoms are used.

If I could choose between bareback with a recently tested partner that provides results for overview, compared to a non-tested partner that wants to use a condom, I'd feel safer having sex with the tested partner that desires to go bareback.