Bareback gangbang with strangers?

[lovers 25]

Picture this scene:

 

My wife and went to a house party on the weekend where upstairs there were private rooms for 1 on 1 action and in the basement there was a group room. In the group room a woman in her late 40's or early 50's is literally taking on all the guys that her husband can get for her. Here's the catch, the only way you can do her is BAREBACK and she wants as many guys to cum in her pussy as possible. Much to my surprise, she had no shortage of guys willing to do this. Keep in mind that this was not a closed group of swingers, but a party open to any and all who wanted to attend.

 

Now I will admit that my wife and I have talked about doing something like this as she really gets off on having guys cum inside her, but we haven't because of the health risks (basically, you could never find enough d/d free guys who could prove it to ever attempt something like this).

 

What we'd like to know your opinions on are the following:

 

1. Why would any couple take a risk like this in this sort of environment?

2. Why would any guy go for this sort of thing?

3. Are we just over-reacting to this?

 

Thanks in advance.

[naughty A 23]

Originally posted by lovers

What we'd like to know your opinions on are the following:

 

1. Why would any couple take a risk like this in this sort of environment?

2. Why would any guy go for this sort of thing?

3. Are we just over-reacting to this?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

There has been a lot said about condoms lately

 

some will- some won't...

 

we wouldn't.

 

I don't think you are over reacting at all ... you should only accept the risks you are willing to take... if you aren't comfortable don't do it.

[OhioCouple 40]

Originally posted by lovers

1. Why would any couple take a risk like this in this sort of environment?

2. Why would any guy go for this sort of thing?

3. Are we just over-reacting to this?

I don't think you are over-reacting at all. While we choose to play 'bareback', there is no way on God's green earth that I would allow myself to be cummed in by people that I do not know. I don't know why anyone would take that risk, unless they were in a closed group. I can understand the fantasy, but not the insanity of just whomever.

[ciscosv 26]

We are not into that type of play. ESPECIALLY when you toss some single guys in there.

 

The fantasy of it kicks ass for us though!

 

1. Why would any couple take a risk like this in this sort of environment?

 

For fantasy fulfillment and pleasure.

 

2. Why would any guy go for this sort of thing?

 

It's sex. Also because boys have a penis and girls have a vagina.

 

3. Are we just over-reacting to this?

 

Hell No. What's good for them may not be good for you.

[BettyAnnMBSC 24]

now I'm not saying that this is the case but consider:

 

If this woman knew she was HIV+ and she didn't care whether she passed that on to others -- then she also wouldn't care whether any barrier was used at all.

 

That issue is always my first thought when I meet someone who seems too ready to not act safely with strangers...

 

That said, though the risks associated with unprotected sex can be high -- they are statistically no higher than driving your car or smoking and they are lower than some extreme sports.

[PaulKing 18]

"That said, though the risks associated with unprotected sex can be high -- they are statistically no higher than driving your car or smoking and they are lower than some extreme sports"

 

So true. Well said.

 

As Michael Fumento said: -

 

Author Michael Fumento, in his book The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, offers substantial evidence that white, middle-class, non-IV drug abuser heterosexuals are in less danger of contracting AIDS thru non-anal, sexual intercourse than they are of dying from shark attacks, being hit by lightning, or accidentally drowning in the bathtub. The book is very well referenced and documented.

 

The book was reviewed by the Journal of the American Medical Assn as "the best single source available to enable heterosexual persons to assess their personal risk."

 

Very best wishes,

 

Paul

[BiloxiCouple 695]

I've brought this subject up before and it looks like a good place to bring it up again.

 

That couple that gave you so much concern. You are probably only one couple away from having sex with them.

 

Someone at that house party has had sex with them and you probably had sex with that person and not realize they had sex with the people you that were extreme. Did this make sense?

 

Maybe not at the house party but somewhere along the line you are only a couple away from actual sex with this person. Maybe one of the guys cumming in her has already cummed with ya'll?

 

Also I saw mention of a closed group? Who monitors this closed group? I am playing devil's advocate. Also evaluating risk. We don't ask for or give blood tests. We use common sense which doesn't mean much sometimes.

[PaulKing 18]

Great post. If AIDS was really an std then everyone in the Rock, Swinging and Porn Industry would be long gone. Lifestyles reports that in twenty years there has never been one case of 'AIDS' in their 100,000 membership. Not one.

 

Makes you think.

 

Thanks again for an outstanding post.

 

Best wishes,

 

Paul

[BiloxiCouple 695]

I would like to see a copy of that Lifestyles report and know how the obtained their facts and figures.

[OhioCouple 40]

But what Paul actually said was:

Quote

Lifestyles reports that in twenty years there has never been one case of 'AIDS' in their 100,000 membership. Not one.

I would have to assume that would be the 100,000 people registered with Lifestyles, not the entire movie or rock industry in general. There certainly has to be well over 1,000,000,000 in those two professions alone. Not even considering Europeans. That is how I read it anyway.

[jessicat78 23]

This is a very interesting topic. Jess and I hate condoms. The bareback gangbang sounds hot.

[Wildthingplus 47]

Here is my experience with bareback Gangbangs. I frequently have them and really enjoy them. My husband and I travel all over the country and try every swing club we can. This experience made me realize how much I enjoy feeling different men inside me. I now enjoy as many men as I can. I am allergic to latex condoms and don’t like the feel of the others so I always go bareback. As far as STDs, I have been swinging for twelve years and have had many partners and have never had an STD.

[AskMeOk 148]

 

What we'd like to know your opinions on are the following:

 

1. Why would any couple take a risk like this in this sort of environment

 

a. They live "on the edge"

b. Bad things always happen to other people

c. They are f*cking crazy.

 

2. Why would any guy go for this sort of thing?

 

a. He lives "on the edge"

b. Bad things always happen to other guys

c. He is f*cking crazy.

 

3. Are we just over-reacting to this?

 

a. no.

b. NO.

c. Hell, no!

[Hellsgate 15]

I'm all for bareback, as you only live once. As long as there's no drama queen involved, that will howl like a wounded moose if she gets pregnant as a result as though she had no idea there would be a risk at a bareback GANGBANG.

[amsingsub 15]

Picture this scene:

 

My wife and went to a house party on the weekend where upstairs there were private rooms for 1 on 1 action and in the basement there was a group room. In the group room a woman in her late 40's or early 50's is literally taking on all the guys that her husband can get for her. Here's the catch, the only way you can do her is BAREBACK and she wants as many guys to cum in her pussy as possible. Much to my surprise, she had no shortage of guys willing to do this. Keep in mind that this was not a closed group of swingers, but a party open to any and all who wanted to attend.

 

Now I will admit that my wife and I have talked about doing something like this as she really gets off on having guys cum inside her, but we haven't because of the health risks (basically, you could never find enough d/d free guys who could prove it to ever attempt something like this).

 

What we'd like to know your opinions on are the following:

 

1. Why would any couple take a risk like this in this sort of environment?

2. Why would any guy go for this sort of thing?

3. Are we just over-reacting to this?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Where was this, Toronto? Was her name Kae/Kay?

[Fundamental Law 2,885]

Despite decades of research, isolation of the virus, proof of the efficacy of retroviral therapy and--this is important--the effectiveness of condoms and of circumcision in preventing transmission, there are still people who refuse the believe the data.

 

There is always room for skepticism, but the data are the data. HIV is transmissible through sexual contact, and condoms reduce the transmission rate.

 

Logic dictates that those who play take reasonable precautions. Condoms strike us as eminently reasonable precautions.

 

As a curiosity, a tiny fraction of the population lack the receptors necessary for the HIV virus to enter a cell and replicate. These few percent will never become infected.

[highlander 21]

Well, it is a little more complex than that. I _would_ agree condoms can reduce transmission rate. In this high risk population, it was 57% or so among those that reported consistent use (I understand that folks like serodiscordant couples where one is a hemophiliac report better results). The thing is there are a _whole bunch_ of other factors that can affect just how susceptible one is to HIV - it really is understandable to me why some folks were wondering just what is going on. It is going to take some really good statistical analysis to figure out just what is going on-and that just isn't being done in any broad sense.

[Greg & Sheryl 368]

Fundamental Law said:

It's sort of a war on logic.

 

Despite decades of research, isolation of the virus, proof of the efficacy of retroviral therapy and--this is important--the effectiveness of condoms and of circumcision in preventing transmission, there are still people who refuse the believe the data.

 

Indeed, regardless of the topic, there are always a few holdouts to a scientific consensus. Denialism is a fascinating phenomenon. In regard to STDs, it would be one thing to concede the risk and state you are comfortable with that risk, but to deny both the risk and the risk reduction behaviors is pretty bizarre.

[highlander 21]

Greg & Sheryl said:

Indeed, regardless of the topic, there are always a few holdouts to a scientific consensus. Denialism is a fascinating phenomenon. In regard to STDs, it would be one thing to concede the risk and state you are comfortable with that risk, but to deny both the risk and the risk reduction behaviors is pretty bizarre.

 

The issue around whether HIV is just one dimension here. What bothers me a bit is that the role of other STD's and a variety of other factors in HIV spread got obscured in the pissing match here. The strength of those factors is collectively strong enough that in their presence is stronger than condoms are a preventive.

 

What I also see is a lot of folks that want to believe that condoms are 100% effective. One was as a friend of mine who is statistician-and I had to trounce out a series of studies-and it was VERY hard for him to read those studies. He is enough of a professional that he had to admit I had a case.

 

It isn't just the denialism. There is strangeness on both sides that catches a lot of folks in the cross fire-and has stalled a lot of good work.

[HornyPisces20 15]

I personally could not do a gang bang without a condom. I was just reading an article in an online medical journal that said that documented STD infections in swingers are twice as high as the general public. 13%. The recommendation was to put swingers in a Doctors high risk category.

 

That to me is not a small risk.

 

I will always remember the fear that Marlyn Chambers had till the end of her life (miss her terribly) that she would develop AIDS at some point.

 

She worked primarily before the HIV virus created itself with in her words "hundreds of guys" which of course was all bareback and in many cases didn't even know there names because of the way the Porn industry worked back then.

 

Just that subconscious suggestion to me would put me in the same fear category.

 

I definitely understand the thrill of a new "affair", and know the heat of a gang bang but none of them are worth dying for, at least not yet...but I'd love to watch your gang bangs, call me.

[bbarnsworth 2,637]

I personally could not do a gang bang without a condom. I was just reading an article in an online medical journal that said that documented STD infections in swingers are twice as high as the general public. 13%. The recommendation was to put swingers in a Doctors high risk category.

 

Journal and edition/issue please?

 

I've seen these things before, and it's always equivocal.

 

No, I'm not denying anything.

[highlander 21]

That sounds a lot like the Dutch study in the June 23,2010 issue of the journal Sexually Transmitted Infections.

 

That study was flawed because it was looking at visitors to a specific STD clinic.

What it showed was that swingers are less likely to go to a clinic with false positives than other populations.

 

Swingers are a rather diverse group. One of the big rules of data analysis is to try to get a representative sample of whatever group you are talking about.

That is hard with swingers. There is a huge difference between folks that periodically swap partners among a group of old friends vs. Clubbers vs. folks that hang out at adult theaters.

 

The thing is this:

the technology now exists to test for many common STD's on the spot. Testing is not foolproof-and neither are condoms. However, if you use both together, you'll get more safety than either alone. Also, the risk of HIV in particular is largely concentrated among hard drug users and heavy drinkers. The first group can be easily weeded out among gang bang participants-and those tests are even cheaper than STD tests.

 

Life comes with risks. Driving a car can be life threatening. I have never seen any analysis that suggests that HIV can spread very well in any general population that takes some basic precautions-except in the presence of other medical issues like parasites. There are specific identifiable populations that have different risks(i.e. alcoholics and hard drug users).

[HornyPisces20 15]

Journal and edition/issue please?

 

I've seen these things before, and it's always equivocal.

 

No, I'm not denying anything.

 

I'll go back and see if I can find it. It came up in a google search where I was looking for Doctors for swingers, i.e., sympathetic to swingers.

 

While I am on that subject I never looked at demographics but are there any MD's here? It would add to the discussion if they were?

 

I am sharing my thought with you all here. I already said that I wouldn't do a gang bang without a condom but I haven't experienced the heat of the moment YET. Can't wait too though?

 

What is this DNA test for HIV that the Porn people are referring to? Anyone know, and HOW do they get STD CERTIFIED FREE? Hey Folks, I don't know everything, need to learn from the experts as much as I can. I want to be confident that I'm not a Typhoid Mary and passing anything on either since so many of the Ladies prefer no condoms.

[slevin 1,374]

I'll go back and see if I can find it. It came up in a google search where I was looking for Doctors for swingers, i.e., sympathetic to swingers.

 

While I am on that subject I never looked at demographics but are there any MD's here? It would add to the discussion if they were?

 

I am sharing my thought with you all here. I already said that I wouldn't do a gang bang without a condom but I haven't experienced the heat of the moment YET. Can't wait too though?

 

What is this DNA test for HIV that the Porn people are referring to? Anyone know, and HOW do they get STD CERTIFIED FREE? Hey Folks, I don't know everything, need to learn from the experts as much as I can. I want to be confident that I'm not a Typhoid Mary and passing anything on either since so many of the Ladies prefer no condoms.

 

I wouldn't be involved in a bareback gangbang either. In fact, I won't be involved in swinging bareback at all. Almost as much for pregnancy prevention as for any amount of STD protection.

 

The DNA test that AIM Healthcare uses is HIV-1 DNA by PCR. How that compares to other tests for HIV I don't know. I know that the porn community in LA have to be tested very 30 days for HIV, Chlamydia and Gonorrhea and Herpes/Syphilis every 6 months (not sure on this timeframe, but it's not every 30 days).

[two4youinswva 3,068]

While I am on that subject I never looked at demographics but are there any MD's here? It would add to the discussion if they were?

There are a few on here, and they provide very valuable input. Look through the STD/Safe Sex threads and you'll see many of their posts. Most have posted their opinions on this subject numerous times, so they may, or may not, have the desire to do so again.

[highlander 21]

I wouldn't be involved in a bareback gangbang either. In fact, I won't be involved in swinging bareback at all. Almost as much for pregnancy prevention as for any amount of STD protection.

 

The DNA test that AIM Healthcare uses is HIV-1 DNA by PCR. How that compares to other tests for HIV I don't know. I know that the porn community in LA have to be tested very 30 days for HIV, Chlamydia and Gonorrhea and Herpes/Syphilis every 6 months (not sure on this timeframe, but it's not every 30 days).

 

Consistent condom use appears to reduce risk of transmission of HIV 90-60%

(the estimates vary significantly).

 

What that means in a practical sense:

if you are playing in a high risk pool, you are still taking on significant risks. Conventional analysis included bisexual men and IV drug users as high risk pools. There are statistical correlations of HIV infection to heavy drinking, even non-IV use of cocaine and methamphetamine-and even tobacco use (and intimate partner violence).

 

The test AIM uses tests for the actual presence of even small amounts of HIV DNA in a patients. This is an extremely sensitive test-but can give some false positives. However, the test isn't going to catch all infections for 10-12 days after contact. The aim protocol isn't foolproof. They have had a few HIV cases since this protocol was introduced. However, the AIM protocol means that porn actors-with all the risky acts they perform have a lower risk of HIV than the general population in LA.

 

One well documented case was Darryl James. James apparently picked up HIV on a porn set in Brazil. Came back to the US-tested negative his first test. James proceeded to infect some actresses until his next test caught that he had HIV. James actually did show some of the initial symptoms of HIV (fever and cold like symptoms) and chose to work in porn anyhow.

 

That case has been used as an argument for requiring condoms on set. The thing is, even that measure couldn't have assured that none of those actresses James infected would have remained healthy. What might have worked was requiring that actors get their temperatures checked every few days before working. About 2/3 of people that pick up HIV show flu like symptoms a few days after infection-which James did. This information is contained in AIM's orientation video.

 

I think the moral of this story is that it isn't a good idea to swing with self-centered people-no matter how hot they are.

[HornyPisces20 15]

highlander said:

I think the moral of this story is that it isn't a good idea to swing with self-centered people-no matter how hot they are.

...or high-risk activity is high risk. Thanks doc.

[highlander 21]

...or high-risk activity is high risk. Thanks doc.

 

The thing is:

there is a LOT of evidence that suggests the risk per sex act varies a lot among different pools of partners. Porn actors are a _lower_ risk population despite a lot of sexual activity on their part with a variety of partners.

 

Beyond that, we have in the US specific populations where HIV spreads well heterosexually-and places where it doesn't. The difference appears to be largely rooted in some combination of drug use, presence of parasites and use of public health measures to handle treatable STD's.

 

Transmission of STD's can vary with things like age (young women appear more susceptible per coital act to HIV and some other STD's).

 

The basic idea that we should model spread of STD's just using risk per coital act is overly simplistic.

[lovinher 505]

Although informative, this debate could go on forever and there have been many threads on the subject of condom use with no consensus.

I wear a seat belt because I know in most situations it might save me from injury. But we all know people die in accidents using them. I use a helmet most of the time when riding. It is well documented that using one saves lives. But then again, many still die while using them.

It's all about reducing risk, not eliminating it.

 

Personally, I can't participate in a gang bang. With or without a condom. Even if the woman wants it, I just can't get over the feeling that I'm somehow abusing or degrading her. But that's just me. I have no problem women or men who have a different opinion though. To each their own. In fact, my wife has this fantasy. If the situation were to arise where she could have one, I would have no problem with it under the right circumstances-condoms only.

[HornyPisces20 15]

Doesn't the way data is interpreted play a big part? (I think you just said that in effect right Doc)?

 

What I mean is the following. If we could come up with a comparative analogy like for instance equating the likeliness of one person walking in and buying THE winning ticket to the Mega Millions Lottery to contracting HIV from one bareback contact to a person of a pretty much well know controlled group?

 

What are the odds that you are going to win the Mega Millions even with 100 tickets. Personally three tickets to the gang bang would most likely be beyond my limits?

 

Intravenous drug users still scare me, but some of the people that are doing it, don't normally fit into a know risk group, and you would never suspect that a popular run way model would be sharing needles with other IV users.

 

If you were doing even a full body physical on here, you probably would never even find the spot she uses unless there was some type of a rash?

 

There are probably a hundred places she can hide it and if she uses them all it would be back to the odds of the lottery that you discovered it as a Physician?

 

Anyway. That is the rationalization that I think of, i.e., that the odds are so low that it is next to impossible, but there is really no counter answer to...someone IS going to win that lottery?

 

As a secondary thought that has occurred to me here, and I apologize in advance because I don't mean to insult people with my clumsiness of proposing questions that are hurtful, but since there obviously MD's that are "swingers", maybe even husband and wife MD couples, are Gynecologists and Urologists suspiciously absent from the life, about the same as everyone else, or in greater numbers, AND are there as many female MD's that swing as males?

 

Like I said, I apologize for that question, but I had the thought that maybe the absence of one of these MD groups from "swinging" could be the unspoken truth answer that I'm looking for, i.e., the group of female Urologists essentially saying, what are you people freakin' nuts?

 

Sorry if I'm not making sense here (I think that I am) but I might just be not delineating my points correctly or clearly enough?

 

The last thing I want to do is turn off the MD segment. The insight by you is immeasurable, and yes I know, just like in all other medical decisions, the individual patient still has to make their own decision on weather or not to accept the professional advice or opt out. I think I understand that much, clearly enough?

[highlander 21]

Intravenous drug users still scare me, but some of the people that are doing it, don't normally fit into a know risk group, and you would never suspect that a popular run way model would be sharing needles with other IV users.

 

If you were doing even a full body physical on here, you probably would never even find the spot she uses unless there was some type of a rash?

 

There are probably a hundred places she can hide it and if she uses them all it would be back to the odds of the lottery that you discovered it as a Physician?

 

One of the people that had the most experience with junkies I've known was the former commandant of a military academy. It was the kind of place that upper class parents would send a kid they felt needed to get straightened out. This guy said that no matter how many times he saw it, the junkies were never who he would have expected. I honestly suspect this guy was at good at spotting junkies as anyone here.

 

Figuring out if someone is an IV drug user is hard. However, hair tests tell you pretty reliably if someone has used cocaine, meth, or opiates the last 30-90 days - and those tests are pretty inexpensive.

 

I've never organized a gang bang. The one I participated in most recently was condoms only (largely by my encouragement). That particular gang bang involved men that were all known to the center of attention-and she had seen recent test results for most of the men.

 

If I were organizing a gang bang or party, I'd require both recent STD tests and tests for drugs commonly used IV regardless of whether condoms were to be used or not. I've used condoms with all but my most regular partners for years. The thing is, I don't think that by themselves they provide all that much safety. They are just the only thing that there is lot of research on that clearly indicate they do something.

 

I personally think that restricting partners to those with recent tests results for both drugs and a variety of STD's does _more_ than condoms (and using condoms with such measures provide even more protection). I'm unaware of any good study comparing condoms to other precautions.

 

Condoms are the only precaution that has been jumped through all the right hoops so folks in the medical profession can all agree it does something beneficial. However, that is a long ways from saying that condoms work "well" or that nothing else actually works. Even rather haphazard serosorting has some protective effects(i.e. by haphazard, I mean stuff like guys at bathhouses asking anonymous partners are "clean").

 

The idea that frequent regular testing in a pool of partners like that used in the porn industry works fairly well sends some MD and MPH types into error mode. LA public health has gone on a jihad against AIM Healthcare foundation for that basic reason.

 

The thing is:

the research at AIM is probably more relevant to getting folks in the swinger and sexually active communities that are not now doing _anything_ to do _something_ protective than condomania.

[cuzzeyesaidso 31]

Picture this scene:

 

My wife and went to a house party on the weekend where upstairs there were private rooms for 1 on 1 action and in the basement there was a group room. In the group room a woman in her late 40's or early 50's is literally taking on all the guys that her husband can get for her. Here's the catch, the only way you can do her is BAREBACK and she wants as many guys to cum in her pussy as possible. Much to my surprise, she had no shortage of guys willing to do this. Keep in mind that this was not a closed group of swingers, but a party open to any and all who wanted to attend.

 

Now I will admit that my wife and I have talked about doing something like this as she really gets off on having guys cum inside her, but we haven't because of the health risks (basically, you could never find enough d/d free guys who could prove it to ever attempt something like this).

 

What we'd like to know your opinions on are the following:

 

1. Why would any couple take a risk like this in this sort of environment?

2. Why would any guy go for this sort of thing?

3. Are we just over-reacting to this?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

A few years ago I was in an adult book store that had a mini theater in the back. There was a lady in the back, fully nude, bent over sucking her man's dick and getting fucked by any guy who wanted a turn. Condom or not, it didn't matter. I didn't want to join in. Even with a condom I wasn't sure of what might be passed around by some of the dudes in this group. Some didn't appear to be the cleanest they could or should be. But it was nice to jack off to (twice) while I rub her tits

 

Are you over-reacting? Slightly I think. I know you don't agree with their idea of fun but it's their decision. Nothing you can do about it.

 

Why would a guy go for it? Thinking with the wrong head mostly. Some guys just don't care and are willing to do just about anything for easy pussy. Some guys don't get much action and will take whatever they can get.

[highlander 21]

The odds of getting HIV from a single encounter with someone HIV+ for a male top are fairly low 1/60-1/500 depending on who you ask. The odds of someone being HIV+ in most communities is fairly low-particularly among heterosexuals in which drug use is low. When it comes to sex, people can be VERY impulsive. People still had spontaneous sex in the days of syphilis-which was much more widespread and contagious than aids today. Really, it isn't a problem of risk. The problem is that HIV is gradually getting more widespread-and the only country the late 30 years that has apparently ever reduced the level of infection (as opposed to the rate of growth of the infected population) was Cuba (with a program of mass testing). That problem is only going to get worse with stuff like anti-viral drugs increasing how long HIV+ people live.

 

Anyhow, the bigger immediate risk in that situation is probably getting Chlamydia or Gonorrhea - which are "treatable" but can cause sterility or other problems before folks figure out they are infected.

 

If I was a 20 something guy between partners I can easily believe that I might have joined in-I certainly did equivalently risky things in my 20's. That said, I think getting ones sexual needs/desires met in safer contexts is really the best way to reduce your temptation to do something risky.

 

People like doing risky things-like riding motorcycles without a helmet on. Even if the level of HIV infection were a lot higher than it is now, people would still be engaging in risky activities like you describe. The only real safe sex is to deal with that fact.

[campgirl2in1 74]

I am skeptical of just how easy it is to contract HIV and here is why:

 

I personally know a female who was the on/off girlfriend of a hemophiliac in the late 80's early 90's. He contracted HIV via a contaminated blood product and was subsequently diagnosed and died a few years later.

 

They had unprotected sex regularly up until the diagnoses not only with each other but others as well, she was (and is) quite the cock hound, bless her soul.

 

No one else from the circle ever contracted HIV.

 

Just one experience but the only one that I have direct knowledge of.

 

All that being said I still don't condone dragging your bare ass on a men's room floor.

[highlander 21]

It isn't just the _average_ risk of contracting HIV-but also, the risk of a particular person. A lot of factors influence how likely someone is to get HIV from a single encounter. There are scientific articles that suggest smoking, recent contraction of HSV, meth or cocaine use, heavy drinking, history of intimate partner violence are measurably increase the chance someone will get HIV from each encounter. Eileen Stillwaggon, is an aids researcher who claims the big reason HIV spreads so fast in Africa, is HIV tends to piggyback on parasites common there.

 

It may well be this guy was playing in a group that just wasn't that susceptible to HIV. The thing is, most folks don't really know just how susceptible they are (or aren't).

[lotsoffun201 175]

I had a female friend who contracted HIV from a rape (very sad) about 8 years ago. She had unprotected sex with her husband (his choice since he was much older than her and figured old age would kill him first). He never contracted it. One thing to remember that hasn't been mentioned here is the viral load of the person. Hers was nearly undetectable due to medications making the potential for transmission VERY low. Be that as it may....this is one poster who doesn't feel it's worth the risk in a lifestyle encounter.

 

There are many other diseases which can be transmitted which can be equally devastating...HPV, Syphilis, Chlamydia, HSV, etc. While gangbangs could be fun (not our cup of tea), it is probably better to steer clear of women and men who condone this IMHO. Sadly it was reported to me through a friend that she took a turn for the worse recently.

[HornyPisces20 15]

IMHO: suicidal tendency personalities may be at play as far as the thrill of bareback is concerned. Risk factors are open to interpretation even by medical people. Common denominators perhaps are not be recognized accurately?

 

Urban areas that have high alien to the US populations and sourced from high infection countries may be a factor in risk, i.e., Miami, perhaps NYC as well?

 

Risk is lower perhaps by more people participating? One person infected in 1,000 is a higher factor then 1 infected in 100,000?

 

The chance of winning the Mega Millions is very low but there were two that still one the last one so the possibility still exists.

 

The answer is play at your own risk, and your mileage may vary.

 

If you want to worry about being infected like Marilyn Chambers did for the rest of your life then bareback all you want. You may feel that you have no problem until you wake up one day and get the thought that you could be Typhoid Mary and live in fear forever more.

 

Life is full of risks but make sure the ones you take are the ones you can control. Don't put yourself at risk chosen by a stranger. Chances are they couldn't care less about you.

 

It's also the circles that you travel in. I have yet to see a real life gangbang and therefore haven't had to choose to 1)recognize an offer to participate and 2)consider joining in. Chances are that all of the above will come to mind or come rushing to the surface and my little friend won't want to come out and play. In all of my considerable years, I have yet to find a woman who was so attractive that I would be willing to die for her...but I'm not dead yet! LOL

[JM153 346]

From what I know HIV is very difficult to catch which is a good thing because it is also very difficult and expensive to treat. As one of the posters stated the odds are very good that no one in a gangbang will get infected. But the problem is that you can get infected and it does not matter what the odds were if you do. We know that fucking with a condom is safer than without. So the use of condoms make sense even though they kill a lot of the pleasure. Each participant must make the risk/reward assessment. For me the people involved and the circumstances would control. I suppose if I knew everyone well enough to be as certain as one can be that no one was infected with any serious disease I might go bareback, but I can't see myself making that decision in the circumstances stated by the OP. I would have to pass.

[highlander 21]

Here's the thing: there is a lot more at play than whether folks use condoms or not--or whether they have sex with more than one person at a time or not. .

 

Porn actors do stuff a lot like gang bangs with folks they barely know-and have a low rate of STD's because they exchange test results no more than 30 days old for HIV, chlamydia and gonorrhea and their rate of STD's is 80% less than that of the general population in LA. Non-drug using prostitutes in Canada have a lower rate of HIV than the general population. They generally have a lot of partners-but it isn't clear just how often they use condoms (one study in Chicago claimed prostitutes their used condoms less than 30% of the time). Clearly there are populations with multiple partners that are relatively free of HIV risk.

 

Gay men that used condoms consistently reduced their risk per year of getting HIV only by 57% compared to gay men that didn't use them at all. That 57% is something in the way of risk reduction-but not nearly as enough to be really "safe" in my book.

 

Even if someone is monogamous, if they picked that partner from a high risk pool, they are at risk. Rape and Intimate partner violence BTW actually appear to be independent risk factors for HIV-they make it far more likely someone will get HIV per contact than other forms of encounters. Picking up partners in bars is risky. Why? Because heavy drinkers are more at risk of HIV than the general population-so picking partners at bars is picking from a higher risk pool-and booze may also lower your ability to ward off an HIV infection if you do get exposed.

 

That said, I think a gang bang with strangers that are tested free of drugs, non-smokers, and free of HIV and other STD's is probably safer per encounter than a "monogamous" relationship in certain zip codes in the US.

[Pocketroo2900 6]

My wife loved being gangbanged and creampied. It was part of our relationship. If she could be photographed with cum running out of her the more she enjoyed it! I do not have a problem with this as I met her on a gangbang at a swingers ckub in europe! The only thing we had to keep secret was our jobs.So all the gangbangs were arranged in private.

[Pocketroo2900 6]

I am now retired.My wife passed away in 2007. I do not know if this approppiate in this day and age but I met my wife in europe in a ganbang in a sex club.At that time she was being banged by about 15 guys. No condoms full on ejaculation in her vagina. I just by chance after her show asked her if she would like a drink.We became friends.I gave her my phone number not expecting her to call me. She did 12 months later. I brought her to Ausralia. No strings attached. We married and had 3 children. She one night when we were out what I asked what she would like! She said a full on gangbang! I arranged it through a girfriend I new who was a prostitute. She arranged 20 guys privatley at her house.I have never seen my wife so happy. I am not a jelous person but the smile on her face going home and the mess she made in cab was unbelievable. On special occasions I would arrange further gangbangs for her! I miss her so much! I would love to connect any females who think the same .Cheers

[NWAtlSwing 522]

On 2/24/2022 at 1:34 AM, Pocketroo2900 said:

I am now retired.My wife passed away in 2007. I do not know if this approppiate in this day and age but I met my wife in europe in a ganbang in a sex club.At that time she was being banged by about 15 guys. No condoms full on ejaculation in her vagina. I just by chance after her show asked her if she would like a drink.We became friends.I gave her my phone number not expecting her to call me. She did 12 months later. I brought her to Ausralia. No strings attached. We married and had 3 children. She one night when we were out what I asked what she would like! She said a full on gangbang! I arranged it through a girfriend I new who was a prostitute. She arranged 20 guys privatley at her house.I have never seen my wife so happy. I am not a jelous person but the smile on her face going home and the mess she made in cab was unbelievable. On special occasions I would arrange further gangbangs for her! I miss her so much! I would love to connect any females who think the same .Cheers

the pain always remains.

[herpob 563]

We both totally enjoy it but ONLY with dear people we fully trust and yes even then you pray that everyone in their circle is in yours and all stay trustworthy or the entire ship will sink. 

 

So 100% NO to strangers. 

[njbm 2,868]

The gangbang in concept is hot. In practice, I will say that a high percentage of the populace has HPV or HSV, many of whom do not even know they have it. We could introduce you to several women who used condoms for swinging, but had surgical events due to HPV. Not even getting to HIV. I think gangbangs are in our rear view mirror. 

[NerdsAreFun 226]

Bareback with strangers is definitely a case for getting a Truvada(Prep) prescription.  99% effective at preventing HIV transmission.

[Anon321 521]

A gangbang with strangers without condoms seems crazy to me.  We planned a gangbang with some friends in 2 weeks at a casino hotel but a couple of them already backed out and I'm afraid more might so we will see what the final list ends up looking like.  I would never be on board with my GF having a gangbang with strangers who don't use condoms although she has done a few blow bangs with strangers without condoms.  She has tried oral with a condom but hates it.

[Aphroditee 323]

I agree that this sounds like a big risk.  Personally I do not love condoms but if it is a new lover and we haven't built up that trust yet, he is wearing one.  I've taken guys I know really well bareback, cause we have trust and like I said I am not a Condom fan.  But I trust these guys, I know their wives and other partners.  I'm also very selective about who comes in me vs on me.  I could never let a bunch of strangers treat me like a cum dump, that sounds like a good way to get cooties or worse.  And if there was a guy that was gonna unknowingly give you cooties it would be a guy that is ok barebacking a chick who just let 5 guys fill her with cum.  Nope sounds gross.  

[njbm 2,868]

Be careful on the trust issue. Men cannot be tested for HPV and may not know they have HSV. Condoms do not reliably block either of them. People under 45 can be vaccinated to prevent HPV. HPV can lead to cervical cancer. Sorry to be a wet blanket, but we wish people explained this to us. 

[Bostonguitarist 25]

I enjoy watching my wife service other men, always have. When we first started we agreed condoms were a must. But over time, we became lax. I won’t say that this is a weekly occurrence for us. However she’s ganged maybe 5-6 times a year. We have one group she’s known for a while and trusted. The rest we sort of see where the vibe takes us. She’s 52 and I still love it as much , if not more, than when she was younger