For those who don't use condoms

[highlander 21]

The best safety video I have seen for folks that tend to go bareback is Porn 101 from the AIM Foundation-which is a medical foundation serving folks from the adult film industry. The actors in the adult film industry often rely exclusively on exchanging test results to increase safety.

 

One thing I'm curious about here:

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?

[2inVT 122]

highlander said:

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?

 

We are regularly tested for STDs. Partly because we both (as aging people) are tested for other things regularly, so why not, and partly because we really do not want to pass anything nasty on to others.

 

We don't ask for test results - but we are pretty selective, and don't play with folks who would lie about it.

 

We'd provide results to anyone who asked, and we use condoms on request.

[good times 991]

One thing I'm curious about here:

how many bareback folks here regularly get tested for STD's?

I haven't ever been tested. My wife has been tested recently for reasons unrelated to swinging. She has no STD's, so I am assuming I probably don't either.

 

How many ask for test results from partners?

As I am firmly convinced any test results they showed me would be meaningless, I have never, nor will I ever ask for test results from a play partner. Frankly, if I was worried enough about a play partner to want them to be tested, I wouldn't want to play with them anyway.

 

How many would provide test results to a partner on request?

Not me, similar to my answer to the previous question, if my potential play partner is that worried about me, I wouldn't want to play with them.

 

My only other comment regarding this condom issue is based on an observation we have made over the years. That is, that in the lifestyle, it is very politically correct for people to say they are a condom only when asked, but when they find out that you are willing to play without condoms they suddenly admit that they prefer not to use them either.

 

This has a very interesting effect, which is if you ask someone who truly is condom only, if most people in the lifestyle use condoms for sex. They would say yes they do, because that is what most people told them when they asked. On the other hand, if you ask someone who openly admits they prefer not to use condoms, if most people in the lifestyle use condoms for sex. They will say no, the vast majority of people in the lifestyle prefer not to use condoms. The difference is, while both people received the same answer from folks when they originally asked them if they required condoms for sex. The second group that prefers not to use condoms and is willing to tell folks that, will have the majority of those same people they asked change their answer when they find out that they prefer not to use condoms.

 

That is why in the last 6 years or so of active swinging, we have only been requested to use condoms about 5 or 6 times, which amounts to less than 10 percent of the folks we hooked up with for sex. Yet, well over 50% of those people we played with in that time said they were strictly condom only when we originally asked them if they required condom use.

 

Of course, I understand why people do this, as we have had two couples over the years decline to hook up with us because we admitted to preferring not to use condoms. Even though we told them we had no problem using condoms if they preferred for us to do so. Frankly, it didn't bother us though, we wouldn't feel comfortable playing with someone that felt that way anyway.

[tittietwister 126]

Our preference has always been no condoms but we will use at other’s request as long as both men use.

 

Unless otherwise requested internal ejaculation is the norm.

[Greg & Sheryl 368]

highlander said:

How many bareback folks here regularly get tested for STD's?

We do, annually.

 

highlander said:

How many ask for test results from partners?

We don't.

 

highlander said:

How many would provide test results to a partner on request?

We could, but no one has ever asked.

[2inVT 122]

I have to agree with some of the other posts, though. A lot of swingers pay lip service to condom use, but in reality, they don't use them.

 

I expect it's because for the most part, if you admit to playing bareback, you get a whole lot of people giving you shit about it.

[meandu2gether 15]

I am blown and maybe just too new since I have yet to have an experience. However him meaning my man will be using condoms...we live in the DC area where I think statistically every third person is infected with the HIV virus. After watching a close friend die from that terrible disease I cannot take any chances. It's just not optional for me. I am shocked people go bareback in this "lifestyle"...as I said I have a whole lot to learn I guess.

[tallnsexy405 15]

So, when I cum in my woman it's deep inside and after a morning of good sex she goes to work. I get a call later that love juice is still dripping out of her. I read from the (morning after) that or later that night couples will make mad love. What do you do if the other mans cum is still there. I had no idea people came inside of their playmates....yes obviously we are new to this.

[2inVT 122]

Well, we tend to clean up after sex. And, if you don't want someone else to cum in your wife, use condoms.

[highlander 21]

meandu2gether said:

I am blown and maybe just too new since I have yet to have an experience. However him meaning my man will be using condoms...we live in the DC area where I think statistically every third person is infected with the HIV virus. After watching a close friend die from that terrible disease I cannot take any chances. It's just not optional for me. I am shocked people go bareback in this "lifestyle"...as I said I have a whole lot to learn I guess.

 

Actually, DC does have a VERY high rate of HIV infection, but it is much less that 30%

 

Quote

According to the Post, at least 12,500 district residents have developed AIDS -- one of the highest rates in the country -- and officials estimate that between 3% and 5% of people living in the city are HIV-positive.

 

Now, what that means in practical terms is the chance of getting infected by a single unprotected/untested encounter in DC is maybe 1 in 10,000 on average. Now if you are VERY sexually active in DC, say an average of 5 unprotected/untested contacts per week for 20 years, you probably still won't become HIV+-but there is a good chance you would(40% or so if my math is right).

 

Anyhow, people take risks like smoking and drunken driving all the time. A lot of folks just don't think long term. The risk from a single encounter is small-but it adds up over a lifetime.

[SnowwwWhite 39]

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 21]

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 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.

 

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 16]

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 21]

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 38]

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 21]

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 17]

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 met 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 43]

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 1,098]

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 responsible 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?

 

That is 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 991]

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.

 

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 43]

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 38]

good times said:

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 991]

lott said:

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 264]

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 104]

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 surprised 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.

[SheLovesTheSun 40]

My boyfriend and I've discussed this thoroughly. While we do not use condoms when together, we will be requiring if and when we're with other people. There's too much risk, even if someone is tested regularly. Sometimes the std doesn't show up immediately. Sorry, but Ive seen what can happen when a person gets a std. I'm going to reduce that chance as much as possible.

[carrysmith 57]

We always use 100% with other couples, the thought of catching a disease scares the hell out of us! The place we go to hardly anybody uses condoms and we've heard of several diseases & many pregnancies, as we found out most couples at the club have 4 & 5 kids. I wounder why? Hmmmmmm.

[xxxboxy 139]

I'd recommend that you find a new group of friends to hang out with.

[ggymm 15]

I don't like condoms. But some questions scares me when other men could cum inside my wife. I will not like to penetrate her to feel a lot of "strange" cum filling her vagina. Nor go down on her to swallow another man ejaculate.

 

Nor even fingering her.

[Professor_Zoom 15]

I prefer bareback. But if I don't know you, I'm wearing a condom. I had a threesome with a couple I knew, and I knew that they were exclusive to each other. So when the wife said she preferred that I not wear a condom, I didn't mind.

[Shelia 15]

I don't like condoms, but for safety reasons we use them.

[slevin 1,374]

I'd recommend that you find a new group of friends to hang out with.

 

Yes, I have to be honest: I am wondering why carry is still swinging. If I'd been exposed to all of the drama and fucked up stuff they've posted about we would have been done with swinging long ago.

 

Fortunately none of that has been our experience

[couplers 4,640]

No condoms for us. I am on the pill and have sex with only my husband and boyfriend who is monogamous. Hubby has sex with a few other women, but it has been only with women I have known fairly well to very well. Part of the process (it has actually become part of a extended, exciting ritual now) is that I search for, recruit, and screen potential sex partners for hubby. After the initial interest from her and discussing them with hubby, I keep her talking with me about sex over a period of time to confirm she is healthy, on birth control and won't create a lot of drama. We all, both girls and boys, enjoy ejaculation inside our vaginas too much to consider otherwise.

[bbarnsworth 2,637]

Yes, I have to be honest: I am wondering why carry is still swinging. If I'd been exposed to all of the drama and fucked up stuff they've posted about we would have been done with swinging long ago.

 

Fortunately none of that has been our experience

 

Carry's experiences as posted here have no connection to the reality in swinging we have experienced, nor the reality we see others posting about here. Diseases rampant? No. Unintended pregnancies? No (only read of one here). Drugs put in people's drink? It happens in real life, and has nothing to do with swinging itself. Men suddenly wanting to have sex with the husband unannounced? Er, no.

 

None of this adds up to any sort of swinging setting I've even remotely heard of.

[HardTongue 31]

Quite a lengthy thread and some very good posts. However, most all of them refer to the prevention of STD's, and few mention the advantages of bareback sex. For one thing my wife loves the feel of another man's cock when it spurts cum deep inside her cunt and I love the sight, smell, and yes taste of her cum-filled pussy. It is also a turn-on when she has fucked another man and returns to me for another dance and tells me to guess what is running down her thighs. Needless to say I get to confirm what it is when I kiss her and taste the other fellow's cock and cum on her lips.

 

We started many years ago, way before the AIDS scare and Mary has always fucked her lovers bareback. Condoms were never an issue as she was on the pill and after she started to take lovers she knew how much of a turn-on it was for me to have her return from a date with a smile on her face, cock on her breath and cum in her cunt. It just wouldn't be the same if she returned from a date an the only taste I got from her cunt was latex. Would love to hear more from others that find bareback a turn-on.

[SheLovesTheSun 40]

My boyfriend and I don't use condoms when we're together. But there's too much risk not to use a condom when with others. Yes, bareback does feel good, but it's not worth the risk.

[SecretAsianMan 348]

Quite a lengthy thread and some very good posts. However, most all of them refer to the prevention of STD's, and few mention the advantages of bareback sex. For one thing my wife loves the feel of another man's cock when it spurts cum deep inside her cunt and I love the sight, smell, and yes taste of her cum-filled pussy. It is also a turn-on when she has fucked another man and returns to me for another dance and tells me to guess what is running down her thighs. Needless to say I get to confirm what it is when I kiss her and taste the other fellow's cock and cum on her lips.

 

We started many years ago, way before the AIDS scare and Mary has always fucked her lovers bareback. Condoms were never an issue as she was on the pill and after she started to take lovers she knew how much of a turn-on it was for me to have her return from a date with a smile on her face, cock on her breath and cum in her cunt. It just wouldn't be the same if she returned from a date an the only taste I got from her cunt was latex. Would love to hear more from others that find bareback a turn-on.

 

In an ideal situation... yes, doing it bareback is definitely preferred.

[rick181au 85]

When we started swinging it was bare back all the time, the wife had her tubes tied when she was 30 and we did not start swinging until we were 35. We have adjusted our still of swinging as time goes on so we have gone bare back all the time (we have not used a condom since I was a teen).

 

As we got older we decided to stop swinging as it was just too much bother trying to meet compatible couples where you could have a lasting relationship after the initial lust wore off and it was just getting to risky meeting new people all the time, we decided to stick with M F M threesomes, the wife surprised me when she said that she would like to form a relationship with a married guy or two as their was less risk of them straying and more chance of them remaining clean as they had to go home to their wife, (I thought she would have had a problem going with another woman’s husband behind his wife’s back) but not so. That’s the way we have been doing it for 10 or so years now, all up we have been in the scene for 25 + years and have not caught an STD, I think we have been careful, “and lucky!

 

A woman (X swinging) friend of ours caught Herpes last year and that has put the wind up us a bit and we have decided to just stick with the people we know from now on and not go looking for new partners anymore. I think 25 years has been a pretty good run and we have been married over 40 years.

[RDfnd 180]

The bareback issue always seems to be a debatable one from both sides. Especially since it seems to be the norm for unprotected oral which carries enough risk that some would argue, once that occurs F on M in particular, why bother for penetration.

 

On another note, feeling MFM's with cheating husbands is OK is difficult to understand? Probably a discussion for a different thread.

[Menage_a_Trois 182]

We have been in the lifestyle for several years. This is a subject that we have discussed many times with people over the years. It is actually makes for great conversation. We have found that with most people that insist on condom use, when they talk one on one it really comes down to territorial issues (and insecurity). They always say it is for protection against STD's and I am sure to a small degree that is true. However they also say some other things that really boils down to some territorial issues such as some of the following..." I don't want another man's sperm inside my wife", "I don't want my husband sharing his seed with another woman, that belongs to me", "I don't want another man's cum inside me", and "with a condom there really isn't actual skin to skin contact inside of her, we only want skin to skin between the two of us, we think that is just too intimate. With a condom on then this isn't an issue".

 

These are just a few of the ones we have heard over the years. But most when in a non playing situation and just having conversation will admit to this being a huge factor. Some have even gone so far as to say that the "only playing safe" was just an easier way of dealing with the situation without having to go into any reason. Some couples have said it really wasn't a subject that they discussed much past "we will use condoms with everyone else" because of not really wanting another man ejaculating inside of her or vise versa. That it was just widely accepted without question because of STD protection. Like I said when I started this it can make for some very interesting conversation, notice I said CONVERSATION, not converting, arguing or debating. Just good old fashion conversation.

 

Just my two cents.

[RDfnd 180]

Menage,

 

Never thought of it that way. Bet there are probably a fair number of couples that may consciously or even sub-consciously be in that group. When discussion gets into the "intimacy" realm it's usually very interesting.

 

Unprotected oral (even in some cases to completion), condoms for genital penetration, no kissing etc. Some combinations seem somewhat illogical but guess that's what happens when you're dealing with emotions maybe more than health and science.

 

I feel that it is pretty intimate if a man has his uncovered penis in a woman's mouth, uncovered in her vagina less intimate. Safety from an STD standpoint is certainly a different issue. The real risk analysis is difficult at best to assess.

[mwc_mich 16]

For me it was not something that I did right from the start and in fact I thought going without a condom was a pretty crazy idea. A couple of years after we started I kind of realized that I wasn't being any more risky than when I was single and I adopted that attitude. I prefer my partner to cum inside but again it all depends on the moment, situation, etc.

[2lovers 87]

My husband and me never use condom. When we first started swinging, we required using condoms, but in our first experience in a MFM situation, the guy has trouble keeping it up putting it on and taking it off . We discussed it afterward and decide that we want to stick with only one partner (my husband prefers MFM rather then couples, and who am I to refuse? ) and my husband and me decide that I would go out alone (without any intimacy) with a new partner for a few times to get to know him and feel more comfortable with him to get into playing without protection. I am fixed so I am nor worrying about getting pregnant. We know that the chance of us getting STD and etc. is still there, but by socializing with a male partner to get to know him long before intimacy making me feel comfortable enough to decide going bareback.

[rick181au 85]

We never used condoms with others when we were swinging back in the 80’s (my wife had her tubes tied after our last child when she was 30 and we did not start swinging until we were 35) but when we stopped swinging and she started hotwifing it and having M F M threesomes we “she” decided that we were better off sticking with regular guys and it made sense that we stuck to married guys who had a wife to go home to and had to look after their self so we carried on having unprotected sex with others.

 

We have enjoyed 25 + years of swinging- swapping and having M F M threesomes and have never caught an STD, we were careful “and lucky” their were sometimes where lust took over and caution was thrown to the wind but all turned out OK.

 

[asncpl 729]

Mr. A and I both prefer no condoms in an ideal situation. I like the idea and feeling of a guy cumming inside me, and Mr. A likes the sight and smell of it and frequently likes to go in for sloppy seconds. When we started swinging (and before we knew of this Board), we required condoms for intercourse, but I didn't require condoms for blowjobs which seemed to be the norm for the couples we were playing with. In hindsight that was probably a bad idea. We had this condom discussion many times and we decided that we really prefer the feelings of going bareback, so what we did was to find those few couples we trust and go bareback. But at a club or with anyone new, we require condoms for everything. We try to have it both ways and so far it seems to work out.

[Lascivious L&L 866]

The bottom line is always what is the risk. How can you say it's too risky if you don't know what the risk is?

 

HIV is the big banana in risk, but the real risk of meeting an HIV infected person in swinging with those you've had some conversation with is very small. Very small to the point of 1 in 20,000, 30,000, 50,000? The little discussed fact is that HIV infection rarely happens on the first fuck. In fact the few studies I've seen put the number at around 200 fucks on average with an HIV infected person for transmission of HIV.

 

This means death from infection from HIV is less likely than death from an accident in your automobile and other common everyday risks. That's an acceptable risk for me and my wife.

 

The CDC site says most adults are infected with the herpes virus. The stats are 58% with HSV-1 and 20% with HSV-2. Either one can be transmitted orally or genitally. So assume you and everyone you swing with is infected. Why do so few people realize they are infected? Because most people have no symptoms from herpes infection. It's a virus that most immune systems handle, like chicken pox, which is in the herpes family. HPV is similar, being present in most sexually active adults and most do not have any symptoms.

 

Herpes and HPV are not well protected from by condoms. Oral sex transmits and few people wear condoms for oral sex. Skin contact transmits, hand to cock, kissing, etc. The reality is that herpes and HPV are normal, just like the common cold or flue.

 

We each decide what risks are acceptable. Knowing the actual risks is the bottom line. Knowing the limitations of condoms is also important.

[SnowwwWhite 39]

It would be great if it took "200 fucks" to transmit HIV. But that's not the reality. It's worth reading about porn star Darren James' experience and how he contracted the disease from one encounter on set in Brazil and subsequently transmitted the virus to three female actresses during a film a few weeks later. One of the women he infected had only been in the industry for one month when they filmed together. Her next HIV test came up positive.

 

Porn Industry Hit With 16 Confirmed HIV Cases - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

Porn star recalls nightmare of testing HIV positive - Los Angeles Times

 

Maybe this is a reach, but wouldn't it make sense that swingers are at a greater risk than porn stars to be exposed to STDs? Think about it... porn stars are tested every 30 days and cannot perform if they haven't tested negative in the previous 30 days. Swingers, however, are on the honor system and don't have to be accountable to anyone. Both groups are known to have multiple sexual partners in a somewhat closed loop, with the risk supposedly coming from outside the loop.

 

We all know there are risks in swinging but it's frustrating to see people throw out "facts and figures" in an effort to justify unsafe sex or to minimize the significance of infections.

 

And let's be real. Herpes is not "normal" or just like the flu. Just because supposedly 58% of people have it doesn't mean "everyone" has it. This is what scares me about swinging. People who want to play even though they have a disease and make a decision about what they think is an acceptable risk for others. With that kind of thinking, yes, everyone eventually will have Herpes. Thanks.

 

Call me naive, but I always assumed swingers were a safer risk because they realize that bringing an infection into the group compromises the lifestyle and hurts innocent people. But reading comments that say it takes "200 fucks" to get HIV and that Herpes is no big deal makes me wonder if there is an unspoken assumption in the swinging world that we're all going to end up with an STD so why bother protecting yourself or anyone else.

 

Most everyone in the forums claims to not have an STD and "never caught one" but then there's a lot of talk of barebacking and downplaying of Herpes. The only people I can imagine don't think Herpes is a big deal is someone who already has it... and doesn't want uninfected people to care if they get it or not.

 

I guess I always assumed married spouses want to protect each other and their family from the fallout of disease and would play as safe as possible. But some of the comments I've been reading have really made me wonder if there's an unspoken assumption that all swingers probably have some form of Herpes and if not, we're eventually going to get it.

 

Is it just a given that by participating in the swinging world, swingers are accepting that they will eventually get Herpes... and that it's okay to pass it along without much guilt? My partner and I have been taking it slowly, soft swapping several times with other newbies until we get comfortable. It's scary to think there might be an STD "secret code" that long-time swingers know about... and the rest of us will eventually find out by surprise.

 

Sorry if this post is a downer... just looking for the truth from experienced people who would know!

[bbarnsworth 2,637]

SnowwwWhite, I don't think many swingers downplay the risk of STDs. Certainly there are a few that do. But, any sufficiently large group is bound to have a few people who have opinions significantly disparate from the majority.

 

_Nobody_ in swinging wants to get an STD. Yes, there's some ignorance out there. There's also, as you note, perhaps too much dependency on the honor system.

 

But, how is swinging different than vanilla dating/sex? Quite a number of people would say "but you're having sex with lots of people, virtually at random!". Reality check; so do vanilla people. How many vanilla people actually ask a partner, before having sex with them, for a recent STD test result? That number approaches zero, I'll guarantee it. How many vanilla people believe "It's ok. I am/he is using a condom"? Lots and lots.

 

There is a level of indifference and lackadaisical attitude with regards to STDs that is extant whether swinging or vanilla. There is, from my admittedly anecdotal experience, considerably more concern and proactive defense about STDs among swingers than among vanillas. I had nine penile-vaginal sex partners before getting into swinging, and several other "soft" sex experiences (to borrow a term from swinging). Not one of those women ever asked me my STD status prior to playing the first time. Not one. Among swingers? 100% so far.

 

So, I can readily make an argument that swingers are considerably more conscious of STDs, aware of the consequences of them, and more concerned about the transmission of them than vanilla counterparts.

 

Swingers most certainly are not immune to STDs. But as you note, it's somewhat of a closed system. No, there's no testing as in the porn industry. However, the 'inputs' to the system are (with couples at least) in the vast majority of cases couples that have been married for a number of years, and have a strong, stable relationship that didn't involve cheating on each other. The incidence rate of STDs among such people is very, very low. Non-zero, but low. If your inputs to the system have a very, very low rate of STDs, the general population of swingers COULD see an outbreak of a given STD, but the chances are considerably lower than among non-married vanillas.

 

Consider this; since they started keeping track in the 1980s, there has never...ever...been a legal, licensed Nevada brothel prostitute that has tested positive for HIV. Contrast that in 2000, the HIV rate among New Jersey prostitutes was 57%.

[slevin 1,374]

Also, when it comes to porn stars the only STD they are really concerned with is HIV. Porn stars regularly transmit other STD's amongst each other. Yes, when they get their test done and it's positive for the clap, they cannot work until it's negative. But they aren't concerned with that, because some antibiotics and it clears up. They also don't test for herpes, as far as I know. All of that coupled with the fact that the majority of porn stars are having sex 5-10 times a week, mostly with different people (though there will be repeats over a longer sample time). They almost never wear condoms and many of the girls are also escorting, which has them fucking untested guys out of the porn world. Overall I don't think they are 'safer' than anyone else. As swingers we've probably had sex with less people than our single friends have over the same period. I know for a fact that is true in a number of cases for us.

 

Also, I believe that both recent cases of HIV in the porn industry came from guys filming scenes outside of the US with women who don't need to be tested every month like the women in California do. Those scenes also involved anal sex, without a condom (to my knowledge). That is a much higher risk factor than vaginal sex with a condom.

[Lascivious L&L 866]

I got my herpes information from the CDC website. It was a test of the general population. 58% of the general population has HSV-1, 20% had HSV-2, and some had both. That's the general population. Among swingers it is likely higher. I'm sorry if you don't understand the word normal, but those figures mean the norm is herpes and the exception is not having herpes.

 

Herpes has been hyped as a horrible STD. That does not fit the reality of most adults being infected. There are those who have serious symptoms from herpes. But most have no symptoms. In most people it is not even as serious as the flue. One perfect demonstration of that fact is how people refuse to believe a study conducted by the CDC on herpes. Herpes is a big bad STD and yet we don't see that in 50% of the adults we know. The reason is not that they aren't infected, rather the reason is that our assumptions driven by the hype of herpes are inconsistent with the reality that most people simply are never aware they are infected. For the majority of people infected our bodies seem to hold the virus in check.

 

That hype is similar to the media hype about those who get infected with HIV from a single fuck. Who the hell can claim that? The porn stars only fucked once??? Right. How many fucks did the porn star have with the porn starlet. Did he fuck no other people? Did the women he supposedly fucked fuck no other men? How can such broad statements be made about a porn star and how he was infected with HIV?

 

Several studies have been done of couples where one is infected and the other not. They attempt to determine how many instances of intercourse happen before the other becomes infected. There are many variables, so there is variation in the results. But the ones I've seen all come to the conclusion that it takes multiple fucks, far more than ten, and probably hundreds to reliably transmit HIV. This agrees with the knowledge about how HIV works and how most people have become infected. Most of those infected have many different partners and fuck often. HIV does not survive well out of the body and needs direct and repeated bodily fluid transfer. The most efficient way to transmit HIV is through intravenous drug use, direct blood to blood injection. The second most efficient transmission method is repeated anal sex.

 

The media loves to hype. That's how they make their money. The science of STDs is nothing like how they are portrayed in the media. Holier than thou media warriors latch onto any report of HIV transmitted by a single instance and run with it like a dog with a T-bone. To take the word of a porn star in Brazil as gospel...oh my!