Bareback rule of thumb?

[Guest Unregistered]

Anyone got a rule of thumb about when to go bareback with another couple?

 

We're both D/D free and get tested yearly but don't mind going more often to get tested. Pregnancy is not an issue with either of us: vasectomy and tied tubes.

[BettyAnnMBSC 24]

our bareback rule is easy! LOL

 

Bareback rule 1

Don't go bareback with playmates

 

Bareback rule 2

Refer to rule 1

 

Bareback rule 3

Don't get caught by the other partner missing rule 1

 

Bareback rule 4

Always remember -- bareback isn't even fun when riding a horse.

[lovers 25]

IF we really trust the people we're with (and we have to REALLY trust them) then we MAY go bareback. But generally we don't as we meet most of our partners in the clubs.

[Tanman aka Mike and Marie 16]

NEVER

[naughty A 23]

Originally posted by BettyAnnMBSC

our bareback rule is easy! LOL

 

Bareback rule 1

Don't go bareback with playmates

 

Bareback rule 2

Refer to rule 1

 

Bareback rule 3

Don't get caught by the other partner missing rule 1

 

Bareback rule 4

Always remember -- bareback isn't even fun when riding a horse.

 

 

Originally posted by Tanman aka Mike and Marie

NEVER

 

same here.

 

I like to think that all of "MY/OUR" play partners follow the same rule as well... but unless I followed them everywhere, all the time how could I be sure?

 

BUT for those people whom I do not play with...

 

If you are in a closed group... that does not EVER play with anyone outside your group and you ALL get tested regularly... I'm not playing with you anyway... if you feel comfortable with that... do your own thing... who cares.

[Misty&Todd 16]

BettyAnnMBSC, I love your avatar, it is so cool... anyway we have the same rule we are d&d free and get tested every year as well but better to be safe than sorry even though we are particular about our partners.

[Chris&Amelia 253]

Always with playmates, with one exception, and one possible exception...

 

1) We play bareback with another couple I've known since high school. And they use condoms with everybody else.

 

2) Lately, we've been discussing going bareback with a female playmate of ours we've known for the past six years. But only after I get a vasectomy.

 

Otherwise, "no glove, no love"

[PaulKing 18]

Always natural "bareback" sex.

 

Reason: - See thread "FDA is considering (at long last) banning latex condoms"

 

I believe in safe sex which is very clearly latex condom free sex.

[Regularguy 17]

First of all I find it curious that heterosexuals would adopt the homosexual lexicon, i.e., "bareback". ( I study the ways of my political adversaries)

 

I could say "better safe then sorry" about wearing a helmet while driving, but I choose to risk it.

 

I confess to having walked the streets of big cities alone, but choose to risk it.

 

I like adventure sports, each of which, like driving, can kill me quickly...but I risk it.

 

I swim in the ocean with no protection against sharks, but I risk it. Come to think of it, electric eels have been known to shock people so badly, they have drowned...speaking of that, I engage in unsafe bathing because I don't have anti-skid strips on my bathtubs or shower floors.

 

I stay armed in my home, but it is in the nightstand drawer...I know I am risking not being able to get to it quickly, but it is a chance I take.

 

On that note, I don't have an intruder alarm in my home, I know that would wake me up if someone broke in, but I risk it. I figure it is cheaper to just terminate them then pay a monthly fee.

 

Cops in these parts seem to have a penchant for beating the crap out of people and killing them, but I take the risk.

 

I do some hiking now and then, and I hear brown and black bears have been known to kill people, but I still go hiking even though it is taking a chance.

 

Every once in awhile I take the train, even though a lot of people have been killed doing so, but I take the chance.

 

I still fly commercial passenger jets, even though they seem to crash and kill a lot of people...and seem to be prime targets for terrorists. I know I am taking a chance.

 

I always have new cars now to lessen the chance of fires, but I don't insist my friends have new cars when I hop on in.

 

I don't take and have never used drugs, and I don't engage nor have ever engaged in male homosexuality, nor am I a blood product recipient.

 

When I ride my bike in the boonies, I know I run the risk of a lethal confrontation with mountain lions, but I confess to engaging in such risky behaviors.

 

I know when I shake people's hands, I run the risk of getting HPV viral particles on my hands...I know that is risky...when I have had warts on my fingers, I didn't wear rubber gloves till they disappeared as a child, I just got them frozen off.

 

I know I should be wearing a positive pressure respirator to prevent SARS, and I know I am taking a risk.

 

Every great once in awhile I have been known to have a Burger King Charbroiled Whopper, which has a lot of unhealthy fat in it...I hear the lawyers say I can become addicted to it and die from arterial sclerosis, but one every 3 months or so is risky but I do it anyway.

 

In fact, I have had condomless intercourse and oral sex with body fluid exchanges with well over a 100 women, but it was always safe sex because I never acquired any diseases...now because I can afford it, I periodically get tested for friends peace of mind...I know I run the risk of getting an infection and death from the syringe they draw blood through, but I risk it.

 

I only have sex with upper middle class women of the same race as me...now I know that may be more risky then sex with, say, British Royal Family members, but I risk it...do you think if I switched to having sex strictly with high class women, it might be safer? nah, I think I will risk it...because I am not a congenital, paranoid hypochondriac.

[Tanman aka Mike and Marie 16]

We won't risk it...

 

Married for 22 years, love each other, plan a long life together, have 2 good kids, looking forward to retirement someday, want to grow old and cranky together.

 

Engage in some oral contact with others now and when we do decide to have intercourse with another couple we will use condoms and maybe some other protection if available.

 

Why?

 

Because we won't risk any of the above

[PaulKing 18]

The concept is fine but unfortunately it has now been proven beyond the slightest possibility of a doubt that condoms are NO protection and pose a very considerable and serious health risk.

[Rickyle 15]

Regularguy:

 

I looked at your post more than once before replying. If I missed your point or just plain missed something, I apologize.

 

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

 

The same is true of all risky behaviors. If you think it is only effecting your life or health or peace of mind, you aren't paying attention.

[thump29 16]

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

 

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

[thekolonel 15]

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

 

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

[Chris&Amelia 253]

Originally posted by thekolonel

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

 

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

 

That's exactly why I won't go bareback with our female playmate until I get a vasectomy. While we've known her for a while and she's good friends (obviously) with both of us, due to medical reasons she can not use the Pill. She's limited to the diaphragm for birth control. She's told us that she wants to feel me "fill her up" when I ejaculate, but until I can be sure it won't result in the piddle-padder of little Chris', it ain't gonna happen.

[Elusive BiFem 70]

Originally posted by thump29

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Thanks!

[Alura 2,774]

Originally posted by Rickyle

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Elusive BiFem 70]

Quote

Originally posted by Alura

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

 

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

 

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

 

Anyway...

[Alura 2,774]

Quote

Originally posted by Elusive BiFem

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

 

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

 

Thanks!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Alura 2,774]

Originally posted by Elusive BiFem

We take risks everyday from the moment we open our eyes, but most of us weigh the risk/benefit ratios.-EBF

 

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

[Tanman aka Mike and Marie 16]

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

 

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

 

Bareback?

 

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

 

Right or wrong that's how we have to look at it.

[OhioCouple 40]

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[PaulKing 18]

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

 

Completely false.

 

Also read this: -

 

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

 

By Peter Plumley

 

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

 

HIV and social/sexual clubs

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Tanman aka Mike and Marie 16]

That's funny Dan Rather mentioned hetero also? It is not mentioned in the net article???

 

Here's the link to the news story

 

HIV Up In Gay And Bisexual Men - CBS News

 

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

 

Paul, when was that study done?

[dpdarling 16]

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

[Alura 2,774]

Quote

Originally posted by dpdarling

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[ciscosv 26]

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

 

I don't buy into the HIV/AIDS propaganda that has been introduced to the Internet and this site. It is out there and real. Herpes is another thing I could live my life without.

 

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

 

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

[ciscosv 26]

Quote

Originally posted by Alura

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

 

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

 

I should have reread.

 

I agree

 

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

 

agree Alura!

[Alura 2,774]

Quote

Originally posted by Alura

 

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

 

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

[Alura 2,774]

Thanks, Cisco!

 

Mr. Alura

[Regularguy 17]

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

 

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

 

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

 

Do you?

[ciscosv 26]

Comparing apples to oranges man. Nobody needs to justify anything. Have fun, but it won't be with us.

[Fire_and_Air 17]

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

[saranmark 15]

Well, my opinion is this:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

SARA

[Chris&Amelia 253]

Originally posted by saranmark

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

 

Sara -

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Hope this helped.

 

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

 

Edit: Grammatical correction.

[lovers 25]

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

 

Just my $0.02 worth.

[Tanman aka Mike and Marie 16]

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

 

Just a little more info to help you make your decision.

 

Product Ratings and Reviews - Consumer Reports

[outofcontrol 15]

Quote

Originally posted by thekolonel

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

 

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

 

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

[PaulKing 18]

Dear OutofControl,

 

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

 

Best wishes,

 

 

Paul

 

 

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

 

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

[bill&sabrina 22]

Quote

Originally posted by PaulKing

 

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

 

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

[Alura 2,774]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Elusive BiFem 70]

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

 

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

 

Let me ask you...where would you assign the greatest validity on, let's say, the effect of a fish aquarium on lowering people's blood pressure?

A. Dr. Joe Smith, Hobunk, Texas with 10, 20..100 "subjects" studied and no real controls, etc." And let's not forget, Dr. Smith has never published in anything other than the local newspaper.

B. John Hopkins Medical Center, several well-published, well-respected researchers, control group of 1000+, along with publication of their methodology and all the other things that encompass valid research.

 

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

 

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

[autumn528 16]

Hey Regularguy-

 

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

[bill&sabrina 22]

This post is to answer a comment posted by Alura, but it is also to clear up some confusion my previous post may contain. I am not trying to convince anyone to solely trust their life to condoms. Common sense and good judgment must be exercised before engaging in sex. Alura has what looks to be an excellent plan, and I applaud them. I have a HUGE problem with the so called "facts" that PaulKing has presented. I felt I needed to remind everyone of facts we were taught in grade school, and how they can help us make good sense choices.

 

Bill

[travelman 15]

I follow the belief of no glove no love. I've only done bareback with girlfriends in the past.

 

I think I know the answer to my question but I'll ask anyway.

 

WHAT ABOUT ORAL? Should you use protection? I've never used protection to give oral for my female partner.

 

I'm 50/50 on wearing the glove to receive.

 

P.S. Several years ago my girlfriend at that time introduced me into yearly STD testing. It's a great idea if your out there living the free lifestyle. Take care all...TM:cool:

[thump29 16]

Quote

Originally posted by Elusive BiFem

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

 

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

 

Well I would be happy to answer your question Elusive. First of all we do not swing with a lot of people. We started with one couple who we grew up with and we have known them for 15 years so we all we very comfortable with not using a condom with them. We like to get to know the people really well before that happens tho. Everybody else we swing with we insist on using a condom and there has only been one other person with which we didn't use a condom. I think if u know the people like we knew the one couple that there is nothing wrong with not using a condom. Like I said if it is somebody we don't know then we always use one. I hope this answers your question and it is not something obviously that everybody would do of course but after knowing somebody 15 years we so no problem in it.

[Elusive BiFem 70]

At first, when you didn't answer, I was afraid I may have offended you with the question. I'm glad I didn't.

 

15 years is a long time to know someone for any reason now-a-days. It must be nice having friends - and playmates - with that much "history" between you. I've read in other post that ya'll are quite young (OK, OK...everything is relative ) so ya'll have almost grown up together.

 

Deciding to insist on the use of condoms or not is a tough decision for many, I'm sure. For me, much of my decision making on this subject and others has to do with the amount of anxiety the choice will cause down the road. In other words, will the slight inconvenience of condom usage be worth the anxiety I may feel for weeks or months to come? I just absolutely hate that feeling of anxiety - hate it!! Such an awful feeling in the pit of your stomach that lingers for days/weeks. In all honesty, I don't know that condoms really are that much protection, but until something better comes along, my choice would be to stick with them.

 

Thanks again.

[Alura 2,774]

Quote

Originally posted by Elusive BiFem

I just absolutely hate that feeling of anxiety - hate it!! Such an awful feeling in the pit of your stomach that lingers for days/weeks. In all honesty, I don't know that condoms really are that much protection, but until something better comes along, my choice would be to stick with them.

 

Thanks again.

 

If the use of condoms relieve that feeling of anxiety, EBF, you should continue to use them. I doubt if anything better will come along in the near future. I don't even know what might be better if not a cure for AIDS.

[Tom & Bonnie 99]

According to the CDC, Swingers are not even classified as risk group for STD's.

 

That being said a lot of people have mixed opinions on safe sex and STD's.

 

Will you get one without unprotected sex? Perhaps

 

Will it kill you? Not likely

 

From what we've learned it seems that the biggest health risk is from a strain of Hepatitis for which you can be inoculated against. Herpes? Research is showing now that genitals herpes can be the same as the cold sore you get on your lip... So, everyone is a potential risk there. And, wearing a condom will not prevent it's spread.

 

The biggest danger nowadays, as was pointed out in an earlier post, is Latex Toxicity. That's serious and fatal to some!

 

I have talked to quite a few medical professionals who absolutely will not use a condom because of it. However, I have talked to a few other medical professionals who insist on them. What does it mean? Beats the hell out of me but as long as we've been in the lifestyle (15 + years) we've never run across anyone who has gotten anything serious.

 

What should you do? Inform yourself... Read everything you can find on the subject and form your own opinion. Don't take the advice of anyone other than your own conscience and go with it. remember, it's better to be informed than not!

 

Realize this, the Only Safe Sex is No Sex! And without any sex Life is dull so you might as well take a gun and shoot yourself!

[Elusive BiFem 70]

Quote

Originally posted by Alura

If the use of condoms relieve that feeling of anxiety, EBF, you should continue to use them. I doubt if anything better will come along in the near future. I don't even know what might be better if not a cure for AIDS.

 

Exactly, Mr. Alura. Isn't that what it's really about. Your own feelings about things? Something as simple as driving down the interstate 90-to-nothing...It's great fun, and I'm really a much safer driver in many respects if only because I am far more focused than when tooling along at 45 MPH, but the anxiety of knowing there may be the cop up ahead is what slows me down. I don't want to deal with that or the repercussions.

 

Thinking about it a bunch, I believe that is what I've tried to say in several posts on the subject of condoms. Give me honest facts and let me make my own decisions based on my comfort level. Don't try to sway me to your way of thinking - just give me the legitimate facts. After all, you (not you Mr Alura - people in general) aren't the one that will be lying there wondering and worried late at night. -EBF