Bareback Rule of Thumb

[Elusive BiFem]

Originally posted by thump29
Well we only not use a condom if we know the person we are with and if it is somebody we totally trust. Condoms is a rule until we know the person for a while.

We have only went bareback once so far but soon it will happen again and I am looking forward to it. We do get tested every 6 months and do not make it a habit of going without one.

Hi, Thump. I sincerely don't want to give rise to any type of argument or debate here, but I have a really serious question in response to your comments (and those of others). Aside from the pregnancy issue, which I certainly understand...how do you rationalize not using a condom with someone you "totally trust" and have "known for a while?"

I've wondered for myself - how and when do you make that determination? And how well do you really know anyone? Like the kolonel said, is it worth the anxiety? I don't know - in this day and age it may be the eternal question?

Thanks! - EBF

[Alura]

[quote]Originally posted by Rickyle

Your comments about risky behavior seem to indicate that the only risk is to you. It's like the lame argument about not wearing a seatbelt _ "It's my life." True. But your actions effect others. In this example, your accidental death would raise my insurance rates long after you're gone.

Here's a better reason for wearing your seat belts, folks:

A lady friend in Germany was on the autobahn about five A.M. on her way to work, running about 115MPH on a cold clear starlit night in a Triumph TR-7.

She came upon a bridge that was covered in "glatteis" (I think it's called "black ice" here. Anyway, you can't see it.) The car spun, struck a guardrail, spun the other way, and came off the bridge onto dry asphalt, still doing 100MPH, but in reverse.

Nancy retook control, scrubbed off speed gradually, and brought the car to a stop in the emergency lane, facing the wrong way on the highway. Once she stopped shaking, she started the car, did a u-turn, and drove on to work.

She had a crunched front fender and a livid.bruise that ran from her left shoulder, between her breasts, to her right hip, the width of her seatbelt. Had the seatbelt not held her in her seat, not only would she have been seriously injured, she would not have been in the driver's seat, and therefore, unable to regain control.

Mr. Alura

[Elusive BiFem]

Originally posted by Alura
She had a crunched front fender and a livid.bruise that ran from her left shoulder, between her breasts, to her right hip, the width of her seatbelt. Had the seatbelt not held her in her seat, not only would she have been seriously injured, she would not have been in the driver's seat, and therefore, unable to regain control.

Mr. Alura

Point well made, Mr. Alura. We take risks everyday from the moment we open our eyes, but most of us weigh the risk/benefit ratios. A seatbelt affords great protection with little interference other than wrinkles in my starched blouse. A small price to pay for my life and the life of others. In your example, had Nancy not stayed alive, thanks to the seatbelt, to control the vehicle, other lives may have been lost in addition to her own.

Certain risks we take because we really have no choice. A while back, I read that statistically speaking, more heart attacks occur in the first couple of hours after awakening than at any other time of the day. We don't have a choice about waking up every day. (Well, I guess there is ONE choice, but you get the point). So I choose to wake up everyday. However, I don't walk big city streets at night, alone. That is something I don't have to put myself in the position of doing, and there would be little to gain for me.
Anyway.... -EBF

[Alura]

Originally posted by Elusive BiFem
I have a really serious question in response to your comments (and those of others). Aside from the pregnancy issue, which I certainly understand...how do you rationalize not using a condom with someone you "totally trust" and have "known for a while?"

I've wondered for myself - how and when do you make that determination? And how well do you really know anyone? Like the kolonel said, is it worth the anxiety? I don't know - in this day and age it may be the eternal question?

Thanks! - EBF

What a great question, EBF! Thanks for asking it!

Our experiences have all been one at a time, with couples who claimed to have been sexually exclusive for ten to thirty years of marriage, with the exception of one couple who had played with another similarly-committed couple ten years before we met. We believed them and felt we were taking no serious risks in playing "au natur." We always told them honestly about our experiences and they must have trusted us as well.

If we felt a couple presented risks, we would not trust a condom to protect us; we would not play.

If we felt a couple did not present risks, we would gladly play with condoms, if they wanted us to.

We've made our decisions by picking brains and "reading eyes" over a series of conversations. We trust our instincts.

Alura

[Alura]

[quote]Originally posted by Elusive BiFem
We take risks everyday from the moment we open our eyes, but most of us weigh the risk/benefit ratios.-EBF

That's the way we see it. We can stay safer by not playing. Our ability to properly assess the risks is, we think, the key, EBF. We choose to limit our risks through our choice of partners. We hope this policy remains effective.

Alura

[Tanman aka Mike and Marie]

Newsflash July 28th HIV and AIDS on the rise 3 years in a row

On the evening news, it was reported that the number of cases of HIV and AIDS is on the rise for the past 3 years now. The statistics were on the decline but for the past 3 years have risen amongst the gay and hetero population.

Bareback?

I don't think so, don't forget everytime you have sex with someone else you have sex with everyone else that person has had sexual contact with.

Right or wrong thats how we have to look at it

:p

[OhioCouple]

I have a really serious question in response to your comments (and those of others). Aside from the pregnancy issue, which I certainly understand...how do you rationalize not using a condom with someone you "totally trust" and have "known for a while?"

That is a really great question. In actuality we are much like the Alura's. We would never play with someone that we felt would pose a risk to us, condom or not.

All of our play partners have had long term relationships and, it's hard to explain, but you can just tell that they haven't been bed hoppers. Having worked in an environment that brought me in contact with 1000's of people, you begin to become a pretty good judge of character. I always go with my gut instinct in all situations, and rarely have I ever been duped.

We do have one couple that we have played with in which my husband does wear a condom, due to the fact that both he and the lady are still capable of making little bundles of joy.

If we came across a couple that we really liked and we trusted, like the Alura's, we would utilize condoms if they preferred us to. But again, we wouldn't play with them regardless, if we felt they weren't safe anyway.

[PaulKing]

"HIV and AIDS on the rise 3 years in a row"

Completely false.

Also read this: -

AN ACTUARIAL ANALYSIS OF THE AIDS EPIDEMIC IN THE U.S.

By Peter Plumley

Presented at the 75th Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California.

HIV and social/sexual clubs

Another group with multiple sexual partners are the members of social/sexual clubs, commonly known as "swingers". Swingers engage in recreational sexual activity with multiple partners. In many cases, these sexual partners were strangers when the evening began. There are more than 200 swingers clubs in the U.S. and Canada, with a membership totalling perhaps 100,000, according to one magazine report. Swingers generally do not use condoms. Therefore they provide in effect a made-to-order laboratory for the study of transmission of HIV through multiple sexual partnerships and unprotected sex. If in fact the swinging lifestyle did present an "increased risk" of HIV infection, by now there would have been many cases of HIV and AIDS among the various swing clubs (or, more likely, the clubs would have closed up because of the unacceptability of the high risk).

However, there has been only one reported episode of HIV infection among members of a swingers club. It involved anal rather than vaginal sex, and was reported by the CDC. In this instance, which occurred in 1986, all of the members of a swingers club were tested, and two female members were found to be HIV-positive. Both had engaged in repeated anal intercourse with two bisexual men whose HIV status could not be determined. As will be seen later in this paper, receptive anal intercourse appears to involve much higher risk levels than penile-vaginal sex. Presumably they became infected from the anal sex, rather than from vaginal sexual activity. They did not infect any of their male sexual partners, even though their HIV status was not detected until some time after their infection occurred, during which time they continued their sexual activity with various other partners.

A recent article in Penthouse magazine titled "Swinging Swings Back" described the resurgence of swinging. As might be expected, the article included some "hand wringing" about the risks of AIDS being taken by these people, including a quote from a representative of the CDC that swingers were "just whistling past the graveyard".

Yet the facts are to the contrary. Robert McGinley, President of the North American Swing Club Association, is quoted in the Penthouse article as stating categorically that "as far as we can tell, no person has ever contracted AIDS through heterosexual [i.e., penile-vaginal] swinging in North America". His statement appears to be correct. This author has been unable to find any data which contradicts his statement or suggests anything to the contrary.

[Tanman aka Mike and Marie]

Thats funny Dan Rather mentioned hetero also ? its not mentioned in the net article..........???



Heres the link to the news story


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in565541.shtml

I don't actually support either viewpoint, just presenting information. I like to read it all, then decide for myself.

Paul, when was that study done ?

[dpdarling]

i never insist on bareback, but i do prefer it. i chatted with a guy the other day, he seemed obsessed with the aids thing, ranting about the dangers, multiple sex partners, and swinging in general. i placed him on my ignore list. if a partner is that worried about infection, he should think about another type of entertainment.

[Alura]

Originally posted by dpdarling
i never insist on bareback, but i do prefer it. i chatted with a guy the other day, he seemed obsessed with the aids thing, ranting about the dangers, multiple sex partners, and swinging in general. i placed him on my ignore list. if a partner is that worried about infection, he should think about another type of entertainment.

I think you've pretty much nailed it here, Misty. I'm sure we could have a lot more experiences if we were willing to go to clubs and have sex with strangers. The risks are too big, in our opinion, and probably not diminished enough with the use of condoms.

We can also reduce our risks by not playing with bisexual males or any single males for that matter. There are lots of reasons for this policy other than STDs.

Judging from the article linked by Tanman, we could also reduce our risk by not playing with anyone from New York, California or Florida.

We'll stick with married couples, preferably Hick Okies, who, like ourselves, "don't get around much anymore..."

Mr. Alura

[ciscosv]

Our rule of thumb is simple: use a condom. My wife and I are products of the 80's and 90's where using a condom is taught. This is especially for casual sex.

I dont buy into the HIV/AIDS propaganda that has been introduced to the internet and this site. It is out there and real. Herpes is another thing I could live my life without.

Who was it here said that avoiding single males and bi-men reduce their risk? I agree with that! Sticking with couple on couple that play with only couples is the way we'd rather be.

Life is full of choices.......

[ciscosv]

Originally posted by Alura

We can also reduce our risks by not playing with bisexual males or any single males for that matter. There are lots of reasons for this policy other than STDs.


We'll stick with married couples, preferably Hick Okies, who, like ourselves, "don't get around much anymore..."

Mr. Alura

I should have reread.

I agree

agree and..........

agree Alure!

[Alura]

Originally posted by Alura


We'll stick with married couples, preferably Hick Okies, who, like ourselves, "don't get around much anymore..."

Mr. Alura

I just want to clarify that we might well choose to play with a couple who were other than "Hick Okies." Okies would, of course, be more convenient but, what the hell, we like to travel, too.

Mr. Alura

[Alura]

Thanks, Cisco!

Mr. Alura