Do you think it is high risk to play with a bi male swinger who engages in anal sex ?

[njbm 2,901]

We are 100% condom users. Of course, HIV is the concern.

[Emt 91]

We are 100% condom users. Of course, HIV is the concern.

 

We will both be on Truvada so we have no concern about HIV. It's super cheap with our insurance and there's no significant side-effects. Plus, at least until we would get to a point of weekly/bi-weekly play, we only need to take it 5 days before and 5 days after playing. So it's not like a daily regiment for us. We have enough to think about so we can (hopefully) be happy and successful within the LS... HIV is one thing I don't want to have to concern myself with.

 

While I'm not bi/bi-curious, I don't think we'd refuse to play with a couple that was. My wife is bi so that'd be somewhat hypocritical.

[njbm 2,901]

I presume that you need a prescription for that. How did you explain that to your doctor?

[Emt 91]

I presume that you need a prescription for that. How did you explain that to your doctor?

 

Yes, you need a script. I was 100% open and to the point. I told him my wife and I were getting into swinging and that I wanted 2 scrips. One for Viagra so I could last 3-4 hours without worry about refractory timing and another for Truvada so we did not have to worry about contracting HIV.

 

He was absolutely excellent and very comfortable and supportive to process with. Not an ounce of hesitation or discomfort on either side. We reviewed the data on Truvada together, looked at use, side effects, etc. Then he told me about the 5 days prior 5 days after so we don't have to take it daily. Then I went and got the script filled. I'm stock piling it monthly at this point in case insurance changes so it does affect our enjoyment/health. So far I have 6 pills just waiting for a reason to be taken.

[njbm 2,901]

So you take one pill 5 days before and one pill 5 days after? If you are a straight male playing straight, do you think that you are at (high) risk for HIV?

 

Have you considered the HPV vaccine?

[Emt 91]

So you take one pill 5 days before and one pill 5 days after? If you are a straight male playing straight, do you think that you are at (high) risk for HIV?

 

Have you considered the HPV vaccine?

 

Nosir, one pill per day 5 days before and 5 days after. And no again, but when we're talking something that can kill you we're not taking any chances.

 

And yes, the HPV series is free for me but $300 a shot for my wife. But her deductible only has $50 left to cover so she'll get it to.

[Napoleon 230]

Almost half of all women have an STD. It's near 50/50 risky between men and women. And condoms though very effective do not guard against all STD's. I sexually reject over 80% of the women willing to have sex with me. STD's and false sexual assault allegations are a major concern to me. I either don't trust or not physically attracted to the vast majority of women who show me interest.

[Guest]

Certainly in terms of STDs it is. There can also be more of a problem with them becoming infactuated or attached or in love….

[Theron 19]

As a bi male swinger that only engages in safer sex and always uses condoms, the risk is minimal for me.

[enhancer 1,586]

Yes we do not play with bi man at all! First off all I am not bi even a bit so we don’t see any point at all of taking an extra risk playing with men that are and yes we believe there is a higher risk playing with men that do play with other men. Even a close gay male friend of ours told us that men are less likely to use condoms when engaging with other men and he himself has got std’s in the past from doing things without.

 

Why take a risk being with someone who is not of interest in the first place?

[padoc 1,704]

Short answer for us is…..NO!!

[ntx_partycouple 16]

How do you know?

 

We actually screen in a similar way but being bi isn't the only relevant criteria and one other thing is "bi how". the issue is more promiscuity in certain ways and places as well as possible use of IV drugs and even someone being a paramedic could be relevant.

Lab testing IMO isn't much better than screening based on profiles but nothing is certain and no matter what you're doing you are taking a chance with something that can kill you. You're just mitigating your exposure to potential risk to a level acceptable to you.

 

I'm no different, I may just be more honest with myself on some points and lying to myself about some other part of it.

 

Consider testing as many say it's the gold standard. Look at the potential for it to miss, mistakes happen anywhere, but people tend to forget that if your tested during the incubation period it shows to be negative yet you're infected and it doesn't show yet because of math.

Female bi activity isn't the same as the risk is different so it's not about being hypocritical. Male bi activity can depend on what they are doing and things are relevant depending on the amount of risk of tearing so if someone is a pitcher or a catcher makes a difference.

 

It gets more complicated, the care in selecting partner one of those guys in a particular sample may take might change his risk and women accepting anal sex might sometimes be at higher risk depending on the totality of the situations. her are people that you have no idea of hw they are when they are out of you immediate sight and hardly anyone details all their activity so you have to look at how they tend to conduct themselves in other situations and their overall opportunity or lack thereof.

 

Confused yet? AES algorithms be damned I doubt this stuff can be expressed by a formula.

 

All this might sound as if I'm slamming other peoples' strategies or dismissing that any strategy can be effective, I'm not. I know there are people that most always goe bareback that only use screening and have not used a condom since the '70s. They might not be as active as some but perhaps be thought of as about half to three quarters of the spectrum.

 

But it can be that when the person you're sure of is out of sight and they travel often, they are doing things you don't know about. You just have to look at the information you have to go by and take your best SWAG to fill in the gaps.

 

There's a good deal of chance in everyone's preferred method. I usually only drag this out into the light when there's three groups or four as the most effective is the "all of the above" strategy but you have people advocating testing or condoms or screening looking down their noses at the others.

 

The reality is there's a lot of variables and the official version of anything like this tends to get "dumbed down" because most people can't absorb all of it in a sitting and people with an agenda in pushing one method or other omit info contrary to their favorite bias. If your only tool is a hammer everything looks like a nail. So testing or now the meds may be pushed as "the" solution but even all together aren't for sure.

 

Look at the parentage effectiveness for condoms for contraceptive use of pregnancy... something like 63% by some studies. Yet if yo use them correctly it's really about 99%. The difference is human error. Similar situation with the pill, about 98-99%, unless there's an antibiotic being used for unrelated reasons most people tend to forget that antibiotics refuce the effectiveness of the pill as does not tasking it at the same time every day, which is more of an issue for some women than others for some reason they may not even understand and perhaps just know the statistics,

 

Might not seem relevant until you consider that it's the exact same issue as forgetting about incubation period being a potential weak link in the testing model of prevention.

 

But yet that is probably more than anything that made HIV the problem it is, the length of the incubation period, which was an issue before there was even a test. If people had been dropping within a week like many other viral infections they would have been able to quarantine

 

We can tend to misinterpret the statistics as well, what would you think if I were to say that the approx 33% fatalities in traffic are caused by drunk drivers, then turn ir around to say that we should be requiring people to drink and drive since the other 66% of deaths were caused by sober drivers? Most would probably see tha error yet there will probably be an attorney at some point what will recognize that the planets are in alignment and argue that and win, just because he can.

 

I hope I haven't caused someone a brain reset all weekend since this is ?Friday. I'm used to it as this stuff happens in my skull all the time, LOL but anyone that read that to the end sees the whole prevention model in this case HIV in a different light.