Tested and go bareback?

[Dont.Stop 339]

Our new friends, with whom we clicked instantly and have visited 3 times in the past two weeks hit us with a bit of a surprise last night.

 

They proposed we all get tested and play bare.

 

Which is not to say it is a bad idea. Mrs.DontStop and I have talked for a while (but not in a while) about having a safe couple to play bare. I guess when we found how tough it really is to have that strong chemistry we shelved the idea.

 

Our new friends are a lot of fun, and after the last time we got wrapped up in a couple similarly it didn't quite work out. Our intentions and hopes turned out to be above theirs. We remain friends, thankfully, but the play aspect seems to have gone away.

 

It's quite an enticing proposition, though we didn't talk a whole lot about it since they wanted us to bounce it around between ourselves. The kicker here is that he is a doctor... a general practitioner. And we're thinking "Ok, if you're gonna trust a couple to go bare with, a doctor and his wife are probably not a bad choice."

 

Anyone have that one couple that you're okay with doing this? Or maybe think we're just being naive??

[DigginIt 1,132]

We had a couple that we were always bareback with. We do not spend time with them any longer unfortunately, we really like them but their lives have had a few unexpected changes lately. Maybe it will spark up again in the future.

[ViSexual 1,008]

You are so lucky! Not only to have a couple who is safe to go unprotected with but, to have a family doctor you can be completely open and honest with! How cool is that? I'd love to know my doctor was in the lifestyle! And, now that I think about it, she's not bad looking either! LOL!

[angelkin 1,326]

Dont.Stop - Only you guys can decide if it's right for you. If you trust the couple and everyone is in agreement to remain exclusive, then why not? It wouldn't be for us because we're not an exclusive kind of couple.

[rainbowskye 102]

I agree with angel. I have found a couple that I would consider this with. We have known each other a while and the subject came up. Now that I am in a new but familiar relationship it changes the dynamics a bit. So We now have to make sure there is a 4 way connection and all that jazz. But it will be a while before he and I *swing* since we need our us time and time to build our own foundation .

[wisconsin 58]

It's very hard to find chemistry compatible people in LS especially a couple. If you are interested in playing with the same people and you think they are fun for more then one encounter it's a great opportunity.

 

There are only two things that bother me. I would not want get HIV or hepatitis (B or C). You would need to take a ton of pills with lot's of side effects for rest of your life with HIV and it's annoying. or your liver will fall apart and you will look jaundiced and unhappy with huge swollen belly with hepatitis. Sorry for gross details.

 

Everything else is easy treatable (bacterial infections). There are diseases condoms won't protect you anyway (viral infections such as HPV or herpes) and almost any swinger has them and doesn't know about it or I think about 80% of swingers have them.

 

I personally am not worried about them. Life is full of risks and this risk is acceptable for me. I am a nurse BTW.

 

It is always a risk playing bareback but in my opinion majority of folks in LS play bareback. I usually assess people's lifestyle and risky behaviors and how much I enjoy playing with them.

 

It's your decision.

[Galanga 249]

If he's a doctor then he should know that a medical test is only good the day the test was taken. Unless he assumes you're going to get tested prior to every single time you play together, and remain celibate between the day of the test and the day you play, then he's deluding himself and you. Also, just because he's a doctor doesn't mean he's any cleaner than anyone else, nor does it mean he's necessarily an honest person. But what it does mean is that he knows how to fake a medical test better than you. The best reason to go bareback is because of its inherent enhancement of sexual excitement. In doing so YOU weight the risk/benefit equation.

[wisconsin 58]

"Doctors knows how to fake a test". What does it mean? There is no way to fake a blood work test, unless you run your own lab, and what kind of person would do it, especially a doctor? This is just sick.:eek:and illegal BTW. And test is still not safe even if it was taken the same day. Antibodies needs time to build up to show in a test. Sometimes in takes up to 3 months to develop them to detect them in a test.It means you can get tested and be negative but still be infected and not know it for about for 3 months and you can still transmit it. Ask Chicup he is a microbiologist he will tell you.

 

There are people with HIV and other diseases who are open about it and look for sex with people with the same problems. Making somebody purposely acquire a STD is way beyond wrong.

 

Playing bareback is a serious decision and needs to be evaluated seriously. People do lie and it doesn't matter what kind of job they are doing, however being a medical professional gives you more knowledge about disease process and signs and symptoms to watch for.

[rainbowskye 102]

I have lupus and my rheumatologist is always testing me for everything just because you can have a false negative because the disease has yet to become active. Now generally he only tests for auto immune illnesses but I still ask him to run the tests for HIV and other diseases that have blood testing available .

[Playingnow 39]

We have played bare back but only with those we have known quiet awhile. Some we know almost like our own spouses. Those we don't know get the protection. This is only for illnesses and disease.

 

Now the pregnancy side, we don't have to worry about it. Both of us are safe.

 

Once we had a couple that said they were tested and safe. They almost demanded we go without. Well we basically told them, we wasn't taking the chance as we didn't know them well enough. So they walked.

[DigginIt 1,132]

I'm not singling out anyone particular on this thread and what I'm about to say really isn't about anything anyone really posted here but I have noticed something across a few different threads, from different posters and because of the nature of this thread, it just kind of made me want to vocalize it.

 

I would like to believe that most people in the lifestyle are, on average, smarter about STD's than people in general and more apt to make better decisions based on that knowledge and are more caring about the partners they play with.

 

As far as playing, yes, there are tons of bed notchers in the lifestyle but in general, the people we play with, play the same as we do. We have played with four couples in the past 12 months and we are probably higher than our friends. The last eight months has only been the same two couples, over and over.

 

I don't belive that people here on the boards are bluntly saying, "I don't care that I have , I'm going to play anyways, if someone else get's it, well, they knew that was a possible risk so they deserve it." I do feel there is a small minority of people that believe that though and it bothers me sometimes.

 

Again, not directed at any poster on this thread but for people reading this thread. If you are one of those people that are playing with something with disregard to other peoples health and safety. I hope you get caught and get your ass beaten.

[rainbowskye 102]

I agree that as singers we are more cautious about STD's. I also feel that a doctor who swings is not only aware of those risks but knows what to look for.

 

General rules anew common sense for testing aside, Like digginit said many of us swing in small circles. It doesn't eliminate the risks but if everyone is honest and doing the same it sure does reduce the risk.

 

While I am full away of false negatives and false positives , due to my in medical situation, there is a couple that I've considered this with as well. Right now isn't the time for us due to other things getting in the way, but it isn't ruled out completely .

 

While I have no contagious disease, when the talks began I made them fully aware that I have lupus which is not contagious . Not to just tell them my business but to be 100% honest.

 

While I am std and hiv free, at the moment, we all know that could change, I do have a non contagious disease.

[DigginIt 1,132]

I agree that as singers we are more cautious about STD's. I also feel that a doctor who swings is not only aware of those risks but knows what to look for.

 

General rules anew common sense for testing aside, Like digginit said many of us swing in small circles. It doesn't eliminate the risks but if everyone is honest and doing the same it sure does reduce the risk.

 

While I am full away of false negatives and false positives , due to my in medical situation, there is a couple that I've considered this with as well. Right now isn't the time for us due to other things getting in the way, but it isn't ruled out completely .

 

While I have no contagious disease, when the talks began I made them fully aware that I have lupus which is not contagious . Not to just tell them my business but to be 100% honest.

 

While I am std and hiv free, at the moment, we all know that could change, I do have a non contagious disease.

 

If you told us this, we would be inclined to trust you even more. It shows that you are concerned about us a couple.

[Chicup 41]

wisconsin said:

"Doctors knows how to fake a test". What does it mean? There is no way to fake a blood work test, unless you run your own lab, and what kind of person would do it, especially a doctor? This is just sick.and illegal BTW. And test is still not safe even if it was taken the same day. Antibodies needs time to build up to show in a test. Sometimes in takes up to 3 months to develop them to detect them in a test.It means you can get tested and be negative but still be infected and not know it for about for 3 months and you can still transmit it. Ask Chicup he is a microbiologist he will tell you.

 

There are people with HIV and other diseases who are open about it and look for sex with people with the same problems. Making somebody purposely acquire a STD is way beyond wrong.

 

Playing bareback is a serious decision and needs to be evaluated seriously. People do lie and it doesn't matter what kind of job they are doing, however being a medical professional gives you more knowledge about disease process and signs and symptoms to watch for.

 

I think her point is pretty true though. Doctors are people too and some are not honest people.

 

We unfortunately know people who had an STD and covered it up. Turns out they infected a few couples (and they changed their profile name, and a few other things trying to 'hide' their tracks after).

 

What I think needs to be said is just because someone is a doctor doesn't mean you assess the risk any differently.

[DigginIt 1,132]

Chicup said:

I think her point is pretty true though. Doctors are people too and some are not honest people.

 

We unfortunately know people who had an STD and covered it up. Turns out they infected a few couples (and they changed their profile name, and a few other things trying to 'hide' their tracks after).

 

What I think needs to be said is just because someone is a doctor doesn't mean you assess the risk any differently.

 

Please tell me it was something treatable

[Chicup 41]

Please tell me it was something treatable

 

HSV and HPV. Herpes is forever.

[DigginIt 1,132]

HSV and HPV. Herpes is forever.

 

Oh, that sucks in a major way.

[wisconsin 58]

I hope it wasn't referenced about my comment when I said I don't care about getting HPV or herpes. :nono:I really do. I only played bareback with 2 partners for last 15 years hubby and BF. And so far didn't meet another man I wanted to risk my life or my husband's life for it playing bareback.

 

I believe there is no way to protect yourself from getting these diseases when condoms are not effective. It's just like playing Russian roulette. According to statistics 60% people have either herpes I or II and not know about it. I am just being real about it. Lot's of people have sores on their lips and have herpes type I many people completely asymptomatic with type II.

 

Women who had been treated for cervical dysplasia can and most likely carry form of HPV. Their partners can be carriers and they can't even get tested because there is no tests for men for HPV. It's just a hope that your body and immune system can kick it out if you played with such partner.

 

Having said that having lupus or any type of autoimmune disease you need to be especially cautious choosing partners because your immune system is already been compromised.

 

Swingers community is pretty small and exposing somebody on purpose is very wrong.

There was a lot said here before about STD's here.

 

They do exist and very real. Some of them in my humble opinion not so scary though. as we were told.

Sometimes we do take risks, hopefully they are worth it.

[Lascivious L&L 866]

58% of people have HSV-1, about 20% have HSV-2, and it's unknown how many of those had both. So most people have herpes. Herpes is forever. Well many things are forever, including chicken pox (in the herpes family). I think most people of my generation had chicken pox. I did. My sister recently had a bout with shingles. I never have.

 

Most sexually active people have one form or another of HPV. These viruses, HPV and HSV, are ubiquitous. It's easy to imagine you aren't infected, but you probably are.

 

The whole STD clean/not clean, infected/not infected is so blurred as to be useless for these most common viruses. Assume you and everyone you play with are infected with these two.

[Chicup 41]

How long have you been living with HSV-2 L&L?

[Coupleerotic22 1,419]

I have always been curious about those statistics. While I will accept them as a warning to be cautious, I have wondered about their accuracy.

 

I have had a full panel of test, all negative. Frankly, reading those stats, my STD status surprises me. When I was in my teens and early 20's I was a hound and played unprotected frequently. Granted that was many years ago so the prevalence may have been much lower at that time, and in the wake of the aids scare I took far more precautions. But to have played with fire so often and not get burned defies reason.

 

Do I ignore the stats? Hell no, but I do wonder what populations they are drawn from and how much extrapolation is used to get the figures. Are they extremely accurate or over exaggerated for other purposes? In either case I pay heed and act accordingly, but I do still wonder.

[Lascivious L&L 866]

Haven't been...and how long you?

[Chicup 41]

Haven't been...and how long you?

 

So good, but you wouldn't mind playing with an hsv2 couple right?

[tribbles 490]

HSV-3 probably since I was under 10. I think it's was type 4 I got at age 19 or 20.

 

Both parents had cold sores so type 1....exposed since birth...just never had sores like they did. Do I have it? I dunno.

 

Type 2...no positive tests but I'm not running around swearing it's not sitting somewhere inside me. Same with HPV. There are false negatives.

 

I mentioned before a friend came up + with HPV....but had been in a monogamous relationship for 5-6 yrs....now, did the guy cheat or could she have had the HPV all that time? Her doc says yes she could...they don't really know time of exposure to time of + test....they know more about + test to what seems to be the body clearing the infection and then testing negative. But even after a negative test, years later, that HPV infection, while gone (?) can have led to the cellular changes that mean cancer.

 

Those who rarely play, may luck out and stay totally unexposed.

 

The rest of us should probably say 'no symptoms' rather than telling folks we are sure we are DD free. If for no other reason than to educate the people starting out in the lifestyle.

 

Explaining why you say symptom free rather than swear to being clean gives you a chance to let others really consider the risk they are taking. If you get tested regularly, you know what you are tested for....and you can even explain the limits of the tests.

 

A negative HPV test for a woman might just mean it is not a positive test...YET...which may mean even if she has it, it won't spread to a partner or it might mean it can but the test says negative today. NOT Useful right?

 

If I have sex today and am infected with HSV-2, and Thursday get tests done...will it show +? Will it be a negative that will give false confidence to me and others?

 

Even HIV tests are not 'infected today, test + tomorrow' type tests....

 

Not only does explaining this help newbies to decide if they can cope with the risk....it also means no one will ever come back to you and scream "You LIED, YOU gave me ___________."

 

Yes, some people will simply not play with you cuz you are honest about risks...and will live in the pretend world of "if they tell me they are clean, I'm safe". Others will decide to wear a condom thinking that is protection and you can explain the limits of condom protection to them.

 

Are other hobbies honest about risks? Does anyone go skydiving without learning you can die from doing it? Or riding dirt bikes? Or surfing? Skiing? People still do those activities and experienced people will tell them of the risks and many of those hobbies have classes to teach you how to and to warn of the risks.

 

Why not be open about risks of swinging?

 

(HSV3 as I learned it is chicken pox and type 4 is Mono )

[tribbles 490]

Chicup, do you work with patients or in a lab?

 

I know those in the medical field with patient contact learn early on.... they WILL be exposed to many things.

 

It is age dependent to what degree...before face shields in the OR were used, a friend dated a surgeon....the kind who do hips and knees...and she gave him a pair of fancy clear glasses to protect his eyes while operating. Until then, he never wore anything but the mask for his mouth....guess what they both saw after the first time he wore his new glasses? Bits of bone and tissue and blood.

Over all his years working, what all do you suppose he was exposed to?

 

If HSV, both 1 and 2 are found both above and below the waist, not just on genitals and the mouth, but anywhere we have skin....how many medical people are exposed at their jobs? Just touching someones ARM with your fingers as you take a blood pressure means possible skin to skin exposure. Heck, a HANDSHAKE means possible exposure.

 

Do any procedure where your hands are gloved but your arm skin brushes someone's skin....if sores do not need to be present to pass HPV or HSV...just skin to skin....

 

In other words, many people, even car salesmen can be exposed to HPV and HSV, not to mention all the other nasties living here on earth on us.

 

I probably would pass on playing with someone who said they had HSV (maybe not if they were on anti-virals and we used condoms) but I also know the odds are high I've already played with folks who either don't tell OR don't know that they have it.

[twistedpretzels 100]

PrivateMDlabs.com will run antibody herpes2 tests to see if you have been exposed. That is what my doctor told Pete to have done after we found out the NURSE he began fucking ' actually had herpes2. She wanted him so bad she decided to lie to him. His inner radar didn't work so well...

Just because someone is in the medical field does not mean they will not lie. Just talk a lot about all your possibilities and choices. Enjoy!

[Chicup 41]

There is risk of exposure and knowing exposure.

 

It is one thing to talk about universal precautions, be it medical or 'swinger'. It is another thing to actively expose yourself.

 

So while we can all assume there is a risk of STD's that doesn't mean you play STD Russian roulette with a bullet in every chamber. You still look for playmates which seem to value avoiding infection, you still want to avoid those with active infections.

[Lascivious L&L 866]

Classic denial technique: "How long have you been living with HSV-2 L&L?"

 

Denial is a fascinating emotional response. To suggest infection in those who discuss exposure seriously is a classic way not to face the reality of exposure.

 

Exposure is real if you swing. Exposure is less but still real if you don't swing.

 

Denial is all about your emotional response when you don't want to face reality.

[DigginIt 1,132]

Classic denial technique: "How long have you been living with HSV-2 L&L?"

 

Denial is a fascinating emotional response. To suggest infection in those who discuss exposure seriously is a classic way not to face the reality of exposure.

 

Exposure is real if you swing. Exposure is less but still real if you don't swing.

 

Denial is all about your emotional response when you don't want to face reality.

 

You say it like we don't take exposure seriously, but in fact it's the exact opposite, we take it very seriously but our disagreement is that we tend to believe our circles are smaller and therefore our chances of exposure are much more limited. Granted, there is never a guaranty.

 

You on the other hand, come across as very adamant about it not being a matter of "if," but "when" and like Chicup, the first thing that jumped to my mind is that your defending it because of personal experience with one or more of them.

 

True or not, it is the perception that comes across.

[tribbles 490]

Look up twistedpretzels near miss...I still shake hands with folks but it sure let me know...I could shake hands and get HSV-2 ON A FINGER, from a finger.

 

I don't even get to have fun to be exposed. I just have to wander onto a used car lot.

 

I don't have to live with it to read a thread like that and find out the risk is bigger than I thought.

 

When I first started reading here, most were sure they didn't have it....some who are gone, altered their ID and posted they had to quit swinging cuz they did catch it. Some posted they caught it under their own id. Some just stopped posting. Maybe they just stopped posting and didn't get anything. We can all hope for that.

 

Others here and at other sites, would say they knew people who said they did not have it, but did....they just didn't play when they had an outbreak. Some had zero outbreaks a year. I remember one thread somewhere that a husband said he had it and to the best of his knowledge his wife did not. He was careful and never gave it.

 

HPV seems even more likely to be there, test neg then finally reach the test positive stage and oops...you been playing for 1-3 years with only that one couple and somewhere before you hooked up, they had it but she tested neg...now you rush out to get tested and it's neg...but wait...it doesn't mean you won't turn positive at some point down the road. Do you keep playing with them or go find a neg couple that maybe YOU will give it to IF you happen to actually have it but not test positive YET? Maybe you were exposed but won't ever test positive...how long till you feel sure you are neg and won't pass it on?

 

I think exposure is likely but every exposure doesn't mean you get it. I have walked through a group of folks with flu and not gotten sick...I've worked with pneumonia patients and didn't get sick. I've taken care of folks with MRSA and not caught it. But I touched them, breathed the same air in the room...didn't let them cough in my face tho!

 

Knowing info on a std doesn't mean that person lives with that disease. Could be a friends kid, a friend, a recent patient if you work in the medical field, could be a recent patient of a friend who does got your friends attention and she/he looked up info and shared it with you. A student, a co-worker, a neighbors kid came over with a cold sore.

 

Could just be a thread here or another board caught your interest and send you out gathering info and testing your google fu Am I the only one that happens to?

[Lascivious L&L 866]

It's simple math that if 50% or more of the general population are infected with these two STD's, not swingers but average people, then exposure is not if but when.

 

That means if you have had sex with one person, the risk is 50%, and with two people the risk goes higher, three higher still, four and so on.

 

To jump from simple math to "your defending it because of personal experience with one or more of them." is more about denying the risk math than actually doing the math and accepting "I have been exposed."

 

Exposed does not mean the STD was transmitted, but that you ran into at least one infected person. Remember, most people don't know they've been infected because they have no symptoms. The stats do suggest infection is likely...

 

Human denial is fascinating. Here we have a situation where risk stats are pretty clear, I've been posting about them for some time because discussions show that many people don't accept them or are not aware of them, and still there is focus on whether I have personal experience rather than on the stats.

 

I have posted this before and I'll do it again. I have not been tested because I've never had symptoms. I certainly assume I've been exposed. Assuming exposure is the reasonable and responsible conclusion. My feeling is that if you don't assume exposure from these risk stats YOU are the one not truly serious about risks.

[Dont.Stop 339]

Sorry that I've been conspicuously absent since starting this thread.

 

We are still playing with this couple. In fact we're getting a room near them tomorrow night. They are coming to join us, then the male is going back home. Female is staying the night with us and we'll take her back home the following morning. Mrs.DontStop and I have already discussed returning the "favor", and it's all good.

 

He's not OUR family doctor. He has mentioned before that he prefers to go to parties and such that are a good distance from home so that he doesn't end up playing with patients. He and I had dinner last week while our wives were involved with the monthly get-together of the ladies in the lifestyle. Good conversation. Definitely a likeable guy.

 

We're not going exclusive with them. Oh, heck no. We don't want that. "Bare exclusivity" is more like it. If either couple wants out... or goes without, just say so and we go back to condoms. It's equal parts risk assessment and trust assessment. They have admitted that they haven't always played safe (which really, really surprised us). This does sit in the back of my mind. The honesty is both reassuring and unnerving. We haven't yet made the plunge... it will take some more time and discussion with them. For now, we just have a lot of fun together. And that's not too bad either.

[slevin 1,374]

It's simple math that if 50% or more of the general population are infected with these two STD's, not swingers but average people, then exposure is not if but when.

 

That means if you have had sex with one person, the risk is 50%, and with two people the risk goes higher, three higher still, four and so on.

 

The risk of catching an STD from having sex with someone who does not have an STD is 0. The math on this is not simple. Even taking the fact that you can't /know/ who has an STD and who doesn't into account the math is still not simple. There are so many factors to account for that statisticians will fight about the actual math.

[Lascivious L&L 866]

The risk of meeting someone who is infected is much nearer 1 than 0 if you have more than one sexual partner. That word is exposure.

 

The risk of catching an STD is the one statisticians will argue over till they're in their graves.

[slevin 1,374]

The risk of meeting someone who is infected is much nearer 1 than 0 if you have more than one sexual partner. That word is exposure.

 

The risk of catching an STD is the one statisticians will argue over till they're in their graves.

 

The word exposure presupposes that the person is not just carrying the virus, but that it's also contagious at the time of exposure. This is also something statisticians will argue over and the math on that is not simple. Simply meeting someone who has HSV doesn't mean you'll be exposed to the virus as they are not always contagious.

[Swing*8701 887]

There was a research study several years ago. While there are more variables that I can explain here, there were some interesting basics. These had to do with non-lethal STD's:

 

If ten people had a non-lethal STD, two people gave it to the other eight. And in those cases, fifty percent of the time the infected someone, unaware they had a disease. The other fifty percent were fully aware they had a disease and could infect others.

 

The data was mostly for younger people and lower socio-economic groups, yet you get the picture.

[Lascivious L&L 866]

And I did clearly.

 

One other thought. How did 50% or more of the general population get infected if people aren't exposed to it often?

 

Assume you have been exposed and will be in the future.

[Swing*8701 887]

That's 50 % of an infected population, not the general population.

[Coupleerotic22 1,419]

That means if you have had sex with one person, the risk is 50%, and with two people the risk goes higher, three higher still, four and so on.

 

Not exactly. Risk & probability doesn't work that way. The probability of exposure does not rise with each encounter. Each encounter would be 50% chance of exposure using your statistics.

 

I was never in combat but the veterans I served with used to warn us to stay away from certain personality types. One was the 10' tall and bullet proof, the ones that thought they couldn't be killed, they were too tough, too smart, too something for a bullet to get them. Another type was the fatalist, the ones tat just knew there was a bullet out there with their name on it, it wasn't about if, but when. Both types, for very different reasons, took unnecessary risk or failed to follow SOP and put others at risk.

 

There seem to be similar personalities in the lifestyle, and just like those the vets warned us against, I would avoid them in the lifestyle as well.

 

There are risk in the lifestyle, just like in life. We assess risk, take precautions and try to do the things the help us avoid the STD bullet. In the end we would avoid those that think they are impervious as well as those that believe it is just a matter of time before the bullet gets them.

[Lascivious L&L 866]

If 50% of the normal population is infected and you meet and have sex with 20 different people over your swinging career, then the probability is that 10 of the people you had sex with were infected.

[slevin 1,374]

If 50% of the normal population is infected and you meet and have sex with 20 different people over your swinging career, then the probability is that 10 of the people you had sex with were infected.

 

See, we're still arguing about the simple math

 

The real concern isn't whether you've had sex with someone who has HSV, it's whether they were actively contagious at the time you had sex with them. Which the real reason why the math isn't so simple.

[Galanga 249]

The issue of disease with sex is an important one, but with all issues of health people can become obsessed over it – to the point of missing the point. There is a real reason we are in an alternative sexual lifestyle. Ask yourself, “can I live happily without the kind of recreational sex I enjoy?” If the answer is yes, then you’re in a different category from people for whom the answer is “no”. In my case the answer is “no”. There will be something seriously missing in my life if I give up my form of recreational sex.

 

So for me, and people like me, the specter of disease is not the only term in the equation. I viewed the original intention of this post as an expose of why the thrill of bareback intercourse outweighs the probability of getting a serious illness. As with most public forum posts, this one morphed into a mathematical comparison of statistical data. That’s ok. Forums like this are supposed to morph with the will of the readers. But I believe there is a more pressing question about why we do what we do. Why is a race car driver willing to risk being burned to death for his recreation? Why would anyone join the army? Why do you swing? Most people view conventional swinging as abhorrent. For most swingers the lifestyle is a choice designed to add excitement to their lives. For a few it is a necessity. Homosexuality is not a choice. It is part of one’s blood. And the so-called cumslut fetish inflicts women in a way that I can’t describe with language. If you don’t feel it, you’ll never know it.

 

Now I admit my case is different than most. I became sexually active at age 9 with an adult male family member who I adored. Perhaps someday I’ll get up enough nerve to tell that story in a public forum like this. But for now suffice it to say that summer permanently altered the path of my life, dictating my desires, my career choice, the way I interact with family and friends, the almost smothering way I sheltered my daughter, my education, my intellect, and my adult sexual proclivities. There is nothing about my current life that doesn’t relate back to the summer of 1969. Different girls are altered in different ways by such premature sexualization. I, like most, became withdrawn, introverted, and secretive. And, like most, I formed a pathological hatred of any link between sex and love. But unlike most, I became hypersexual at puberty. I will venture to say (partly from suspicion, but mostly from real data) that most women with the so-called “cumslut” fetish have a history similar to mine.

 

So the questions brought up about anonymous sex, bareback sex, fetish sex, depersonalized sex, etc, etc, are issues with more complicated terms in the equation than just the numerical probability of catching X, Y, or Z. For me, and I think for others as well, it is more interested on both academic and personal levels to discuss why the need for anonymous bareback behavior of “cumsluts”. The addiction is so incredibly strong that it comes with actual narcotic withdrawal symptoms, including nausea, fever, hot flashes, the shakes, and obsessive thoughts.

 

So one has to ask which illness does she want in her life – withdrawal or HSV? I’ll take HSV.

[MN Tom 251]

This whole disease thing can really suck some time up if you delve deeply into it.

 

Our view is that you get tested every so often (twice yearly for hiv, every 3 months for most everything else is what our local clinic suggests).

 

And if you want to use protection, use it. If not, don't. Having the trust that others are telling you the truth about what they do is a big part, and sometimes you can, sometimes you can't.

 

In our personal experience over the last few years, the usage of condoms is like a bell curve. On one end you have the ~10% of people who always use, on the other 10% who never do. And then rest vary. We've encountered a much larger (than we had thought) number of people who are willing to not use a condom after meeting someone more than once. Especially when it comes to separate play or 1v1.

 

Personally, if we felt confident that a couple was being truthful with us, we would probably go bareback. We've never gotten to that point, but we have discussed it with couples before.

[Desdemona1980 297]

It's quite an enticing proposition, though we didn't talk a whole lot about it since they wanted us to bounce it around between ourselves. The kicker here is that he is a doctor... a general practitioner. And we're thinking "Ok, if you're gonna trust a couple to go bare with, a doctor and his wife are probably not a bad choice."

 

I know this has been addressed, but being a doctor means very little. Go to your local hospital and walk around. Watch the doctors as they leave the patient rooms and see how many wash their hands or use hand gel between patients.

 

They know universal precautions say to wash hands, as it's the best safeguard against spreading germs. Most hospitals have a less than 50% compliance rate on something as simple as hand washing. This includes all patient care personnel.

 

If you choose to go bareback, just be willing to accept any consequences that could come from that decision.

[DigginIt 1,132]

Desdemona1980 said:

Go to your local hospital and walk around. Watch the doctors as they leave the patient rooms and see how many wash their hands or use hand gel between patients.

 

They know universal precautions say to wash hands, as it's the best safeguard against spreading germs. Most hospitals have a less than 50% compliance rate on something as simple as hand washing. This includes all patient care personnel.

 

Where do you get your statistics that most hospitals have less than 50% compliance? Here where we live, they use the hand gel, or wash hands in front of the patient when they enter the room.

[Desdemona1980 297]

Compliance rates differ from hospital to hospital. Typically when a hand washing campaign is occurring compliance increases, but people are creatures of habit and old habits die hard.

 

DigginIt said:

Where do you get your statistics that most hospitals have less than 50% compliance? Here where we live, they use the hand gel, or wash hands in front of the patient when they enter the room.

 

In 44.2 percent of the hospitals, there was no evidence of a multidisciplinary program to improve compliance. Hand hygiene rates remained low (average of 56.6 percent).

 

Although these and other studies reported improved compliance with hand hygiene, at best compliance improved to 66 percent of opportunities for hand hygiene in one study [Pittet et al., 2000] and 48 percent in another.” [bischoff et al., 2000]

 

Hand Hygiene Compliance Rates in the United States?A One-Year Multicenter Collaboration Using Product/Volume Usage Measurement and Feedback

 

Our results show that HH compliance at baseline was 26% for intensive care units (ICUs) and 36% for non-ICUs. After 12 months of measuring product usage and providing feedback, compliance increased to 37% for ICUs and 51% for non-ICUs. (ICU, P = .0119; non-ICU, P

 

Studies show an average compliance rate of 40 percent, and that poor compliance can be due to multiple factors, including perceived lack of time and irritation or dryness caused by the antiseptic.

[Chicup 41]

Where do you get your statistics that most hospitals have less than 50% compliance? Here where we live, they use the hand gel, or wash hands in front of the patient when they enter the room.

 

I've heard the same stats. I read of one hospital that put cameras in the staff bathrooms at the sink for this reason.

[DigginIt 1,132]

That has to be a culture that is established at each hospital I think to be effective.

 

I find in my experience that the physicians go overboard. They have all the hand sanitizers right there at the ER rooms and in patient rooms. It's usually the first thing they do when they enter. Two squirts in the hand before they even touch you. I spent quite a bit of time in the ER at the beginning of the year. Seven trips and $8,700 later

 

Of course, that was the ER. The higher average was outside the ICU's. It's those dirty nurses....just kidding.

[LFM2 1,482]

Desdemona1980 said:

Watch the doctors as they leave the patient rooms and see how many wash their hands or use hand gel between patients.

 

The doctors that I work with, and my peers all wash our hands before any patient contact and after patient contact. It's habit for me to wash my hands and then walk outside a room and use alcohol gel right after. (My poor cracked, dry hands) but... to make a statement that doctors don't wash between patients is off. They wash before they leave the room, but you wouldn't see that unless you were in the room with them, right?

 

ETA: I don't think our infection control dept. really counts how many empty soap containers we throw away to see if they can gauge who's really washing their hands. It's all based on honesty... and well...I'll admit that when I was patient in my own hospital, I had to ask a student nurse to wash her hands before she touched me. The regular nurses just do it naturally. I wash my hands so often that I will never become a hand model. They're cracked, dried, and on a rare occasion, bleeding. There isn't enough lotion in the Northwest to make them supple again.

[LFM2 1,482]

It's those dirty nurses....

 

Watch it, buster!!