Bareback Rule of Thumb

[Regularguy]

When you drive your car, you put others at risk. When you go skiing, you put others at risk, when you ride your bike, you put others at risk.....when you sneeze when you have a cold, you put others at risk, when you have a sore throat, and you go to work, you put others at risk.

Is your point that people should not be allowed to put others at risk? If they should not be allowed to put others at risk engaging in the above mentioned behaviors, then do you drive? If they should be able to put others at risk by engaging in the above behaviors, then justify your position. If you justify your position, I will use the same justification for engaging in sex without condoms and Saran wrap.

Of course, the glaring problem with this line of logic is that I am not putting anyone at risk at all, since I am healthy, have always been, and always have proof.

Do you?

[ciscosv]

Comparing apples to oranges man. Nobody needs to justify anything. Have fun, but it wont be with us.

[Fire_and_Air]

I think the question is more, who wants to put themselves at risk? There are many asymptomatic carriers out there, many people who are unknowingly infected, or worse, people who do know they're infected, but won't tell the truth. My partner and I save the bareback playing for each other, and use condoms when playing with anyone we don't know and trust completely. One time he slipped up and didn't use one in the heat of the moment with a lady whose history we didn't really know (and who also was not on any form of birth control), and we went through hell for 6 months till our blood tests came back with reassuring results. I wouldn't want to go through that every time we slept with someone.

[saranmark]

Well, my opinion is this:

I've read through the thread and it has been mentioned that you might go bareback with someone that you have known for a while and trust.

Okay. This is all well and good, BUT- what if the person that you know and trust had unprotected sex with someone that THEY trusted who turned out to not be trustworthy and did in fact have an STD? They would have just trusted the wrong person, and unknowingly transmitted the disease to you.

It has been said before: When you sleep with someone, you sleep with EVERYONE they have slept with.

I think there is nothing wrong or offensive about insisting on a rubber! No, they are not 100% effective, but at least you are doing your best to ensure that everyone stays disease free!

SARA

[Chris&Amelia]

Originally posted by saranmark
what if the person that you know and trust had unprotected sex with someone that THEY trusted who turned out to not be trustworthy and did in fact have an STD?

Sara -

Valid point. But there comes a point when you have to make a decision regarding compromises and trade-offs. Yes, you can go through life trying to be as safe as possible. Never drink alcohol. Avoid roller-coasters. Don't swim without a personal flotation device on. Never partake in fatty foods. Lock yourself indoors after dark. Yes, you'll be as safe as humanly possible, and you may live to be over 100, but what fun will you have?

On the other extreme, some people decide to not take even moderate or sensible safety precautions. Drinking and driving. Surfboarding in a typhoon. Refusing to ever use a condom when playing with other people*. Fencing without wearing padding and a face-mask. Sure, they may have more fun, live life to the "extreme", but their life spans has a significant chance of being much shorter in return.

Life is about balancing risks and rewards. I think that it's pretty safe to say that, realistically speaking, we as Swingers have a better chance of catching a STD then a strictly monogamous religious couple. But I think it's pretty safe to say that we're having more fun them then, as well.

Amelia and I, as a couple, have decided to assume the risk of going bareback with one other couple. We base this decision on (grossly simplified) how long we've known then, how well we trust them, and mutual understanding with them. As such, we enjoy increased pleasure when playing with them. With other couples that we do not know nearly as well (which is everybody else), we use condoms. This is an acceptable risk-to-reward ratio for us.

Hope this helped.

* - Note to anti-condom advocates: Please don't bother posting long screeds on why condoms are dangerous, evil, and/or bad for the environment. You're not going to change our mind.

Edit: Grammatical correction.

[lovers]

I think part of the reason why this is even discussed is that bareback sex is thrilling these days. Face it, most of us are products of the "safe sex" generation and I'm willing to bet that at some level we see this as a way of rebelling against that message. Consider that in the 70's we wouldn't be talking about condoms or no condoms because the worst that you could get was the clap. Going condom free wasn't a big deal at all and you wouldn't start this kind of debate back then. Now with AIDS and HPV, going condom free is almost like skydiving or something. It's a thrill of sorts, and some of us get off on it.

Just my $0.02 worth.

[Tanman aka Mike and Marie]

There is a free report from Consumers Report.org regarding condoms, manufacturers, performance and reliability.

Just a little more info to help you make your decision



http://www.consumerreports.org/main/home.

jsp

[lovers]

That link didn't work for me. Try this one:


http://www.consumerreports.org/main/...=1059700661252

Not that this link is from 1999. One wonders how well condoms do in 2003.

[Tanman aka Mike and Marie]

I messed up the link, just go to consumerreports.org and search for "condoms"

[outofcontrol]

Originally posted by thekolonel
Went bareback a couple of times with a female play partner of ours. I'll never do it again. Wasn't worth the anxiety it caused later on.

I don't want to make babies. There are some crazy women out there who don't use any form of birth control. And I don't trust a casual partner enough to leave this in her hands. This alone is reason enough never to go bareback. Paternity suit? No thank you.

How about getting a disease? screw pregnancy , that would be the least of my concern

[PaulKing]

Dear OutofControl,

If a grand total of 138 studies failed to show condoms are protection against std's I cannot imagine what would.

Best wishes,


Paul


"The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health, released the report compiled by the panel of 28 experts, who analyzed about 138 published studies on the use of condoms during penile-vaginal intercourse.

"There was a lack of evidence to help us make a definitive conclusion about the effectiveness of condoms," said panel member Dr. Timothy Schacker, an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota"

[bill&sabrina]

Originally posted by PaulKing

"There was a lack of evidence to help us make a definitive conclusion about the effectiveness of condoms,"

When you post something to support 138 studies to show that condoms are NOT effective. Make sure it says condoms are NOT effective instead of what is above. All it looks like to me is you are looking for evidence to convince your partners that wearing a condom is pointless. Maybe you are convinced, but not me. Especially after reading the consumer reports article about condoms. I never knew what it meant on the package about Electronically tested. Now I do. Companies put each condom on a metal "dildo" and charge it with electricity. If any sparks are present the condom isn't sold. Can anyone tell me what electricity is. It is the movement of electrons. What are electrons? They are sub-atomic particles. If sub-atomic particles can't get through how can pathogens that are made of atoms get through? And yes Paul viruses are made of atoms. All matter is. Living or inanimate. I will admit that a latex allergy is nothing to take lightly, but don't try to tell me that other than the allergic reactions possible that condoms are bad or gives a false sense of security.

Bill

[Alura]

I certainly don't trust condoms enough to put my life at stake, Bill, nor to keep my partner un-pregnant. That does not mean I wouldn't use one, especially if my partner asked me to.

If I thought there was a risk with a particular partner, I'd suddenly remember my appointment for my enlistment physical with the French Foreign Legion.

On pregnancy, Mrs. Alura and I left the condoms in the drawer, the pills untaken, and relied on oral sex for almost two and a half years between children, because she was nursing our older son. Boring? Not at all! Of course, we didn't play during that time, either.

Our playmates have been in long-term, monogamous relationships, "fixed" or on the pill and presented almost no risk of STDs, assuming they didn't lie to us. We don't believe they did. We're still healthy.

We think sex with strangers who have a lot of experiences, especially in club settings, using condoms, is a lot more risky than sex with a regular long-term married couple without condoms.

We believe in calculating our risks based on the people we consider playing with. After that, we'll consider using or not using condoms.

Mr. Alura

[Elusive BiFem]

I haven't weighed in on this discussion in quite some time. Seems rather pointless and redundant.

As all of us know, with only minor effort, we can find "research" studies to support any hypothesis we choose. In part, that is the foundation and the building block of research. The question then becomes the validity of the research - the controls, the variables, the "quality" of those doing and reporting the research. The standards under which the research was conducted. The list is almost endless. The mere change of a word in the written report can skew the interpretation for the reader, and especially for those of us not accustomed to reading such reports.

Let me ask you...where would you assign the greatest validity on, let's say, the effect of a fish acquarium on lowering people's blood pressure?
A. Dr. Joe Smith, Hobunk, Texas with 10, 20..100 "subjects" studied and no real controls, etc." And let's not forget, Dr. Smith has never published in anything other than the local newspaper.
B. John Hopkins Medical Center, several well-published, well-respected researchers, control group of 1000+, along with publication of their methodology and all the other things that encompass valid research.

Look at the dietary research on the food pyramids. We were all taught, for years, about the food pyramids - breads, meats, vegetables, etc. Recent additional research has recommended changes in what was known and acceptable for many years.

Bottom line: Do Your Own Research and Form Your Own Conclusions, in conjunction with your own health care providers, based entirely upon what you and your partners feel comfortable with. Adequate and appropriate and respectable research may come out in a few years indicating that condoms are as useless as tits on a boar hog (I love saying that!), but you will have done the best you could given the information you had to work with at the time. Do not ever rely upon the messages being sent to you by essentially anonymous people on a message board, particularly where your health and the health of those you love and care about is at stake. You do not know what others "hidden" agendas may be. -EBF

[autumn528]

Hey Regularguy-
You're right. When you drive you put others at risk. BUT, keep in mind, you also have the obligation to drive responsibly. When you don't take responsibilty for your behavior you run the risk of consequences-some very serious.