Condom or No Condom

dis·ser·ta·tion
/?dis?r'taSH(?)n/
noun
a long essay on a particular subject, especially one written as a requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy degree.

So you are going for the insult tactic. How cute.

"Normal, well-adjusted, people will take it as given that risk within the LS can't realistically be reduced to zero."

Cliche much? Speak in contradictions much? Do you know how to speak with thought instead of joining phrases you have heard others speak?

Normal and the LS is comical. Hell, so is well-adjusted. Society would state that people in the LS are far from normal. Most would also state that we are not well-adjusted.

I started this conversation with a line and I still stand by it. If condoms give you peace of mind, nothing else matters. That is the qualified version. The quantified version is where you are starting to speak about. That is where you are, at best, playing semantics.

Please . . . think this through logically.

Is the STD limited to the shaft and head of a penis for a male?

Is the STD limited to the vaginal canal for a female?

Is it 100% of the shaft and 100% of the vaginal canal?

Are we talking bacteria based or virus based STIs?

A long time ago I posed a question to someone. You could watch their head spin and smoke while they tried to answer the question. Here, let me pull that question back out :)

You are married. You and your wife have condom-free sex all the time. You have been doing this for X years. You meet another couple. They have spousal sex sans condoms as well. They have been that way for 10 years. The four of you decide to fuck each other. Where did the disease come into the picture? Was it hanging out in the air, waiting for the swap, and then attacking?

In 2002 we got gono. We were using condoms. All the shit that we had been raised on: condoms = safe sex was destroyed. How'd we get this if we were wearing condoms? We soon learned that the phrase safe sex was a marketing term. It was not a reality term. I dove into data. I dove into research. I have watched the CDC change what it states depending upon who is in the WH on this subject. I watched when Jr had the WH and it pushed hard with the safe sex line. You had to dig deeper to get the truth. I saw when Obama came in and it was lifted to be 'can reduce.' It has stayed the same since.

I will stand on my soap box and state the same thing over and over. If you think that condoms protect you from getting anything you are incorrect. Condoms, are incredible at stopping the transmission of HIV. Beyond that, nothing much. There is one study that is often cited regarding condoms. IIRC it was done in the 90s and used a prostitution house in Africa. The study has been questioned because of the conclusions it came to and how it was reported. IIRC it was something along the line of the transmission without condoms was .005% and with condoms it was .002%. The authors touted that condoms were 250% more effective than not using.

I will also ask people to not stigmatize STIs. It is not a scarlet letter. It is not a death sentence. When we got gono, I had no idea what the treatment was. In fact, if I were to ask anyone on these forums if they know, they probably do not. I was given a Z-pack. Yup, the same antibiotics that you take for a cold. BOOM. I was cured in two days, but suggested to abstain for five.

I also suggest that people look at what the porn industry does. This, to me, is the greatest lab on sti's there can be. They self regulate so much because billions are on the line. Look at what they test for and what they do not. Look at what stops production. In essence, you learn the WHY.

Now, will you question the usage of an 'extensive' STD panel?

I still stand by my comment. READ. Don't let marketers dictate your knowledge. The facts are out there. IMO, you are more apt to leave a party with a cold than a STD.

It was in that liminal space of time between EA's huffs of glue and continuing to smash their keyboard.

Normal, well-adjusted, people will take it as given that risk within the LS can't realistically be reduced to zero.

I must have missed where Over said condoms are 100% safe. how far back was that?

@Overeducated

Uhh . . .

Yeah.

Reading is fundamental. You might want to change your name to the subject you are overeducated on.

"This is something you imagined in order to rock about spastically on your little hobby horse."

Cute. You know you have nothing when that is your opening response. I suggest you just go with the 'peace of mind' aspect to condoms.

"The CDC is quite clear that condoms are effective at lowering the risk of contracting a variety of diseases. I also encourage others to check out the CDC (the condom effectiveness fact sheet is particularly useful), if not just to confirm how error ridden your tantrum was."

Here, let me HELP. This is the link to it.
cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/brief.html#:~:text=Consistent%20and%20correct%20use%20of,absolute%20protection%20against%20any%20STD.

And AGAIN, as I stated. " Now with that said, if you think condoms are 100% effective in stopping STDs you are mistaken." Because this is the OPENING lines of that link.

"Consistent and correct use of latex condoms reduces the risk of sexually transmitted disease (STD) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission. However, condom use cannot provide absolute protection against any STD."

Damn, that 'however' sentence proves my point. Perhaps the word that you really should have used: mitigate would have been better.

"Also, doing a web search for viruses semen would be useful." Sure, do that. THEN FRIGGIN READ. You are trying so hard to stay with emotion instead of logic or data that you are ignoring the reading. ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC5652425/ That is probably what you quickly saw. Read the article, then read the other studies. The detection of a virus in a man's semen does not mean it is transmitted.

Out of curiosity, is your next response where you admit you were error ridden in your response?

" Now with that said, if you think condoms are 100% effective in stopping STDs you are mistaken."

This is something you imagined in order to rock about spastically on your little hobby horse.

The CDC is quite clear that condoms are effective at lowering the risk of contracting a variety of diseases. I also encourage others to check out the CDC (the condom effectiveness fact sheet is particularly useful), if not just to confirm how error ridden your tantrum was.

Also, doing a web search for viruses semen would be useful.

I am 100% having fun here with the name of the previous poster.

Your comment does not sound overly educated.

Let me start this post off with a very simple statement.

If condoms give you peace of mind nothing else matters.

Now with that said, if you think condoms are 100% effective in stopping STDs you are mistaken. Condoms have one single role: Capturing male ejaculate. The only disease you can get from that is HIV and as some would say, pregnancy.

I would strongly suggest that people become overly educated on this matter. Go to the CDC and read and learn.

Unless you are going to do an extensive STD panel and sexual history talk with every potential partner, forgoing condoms seems needlessly risky to us.

Totally depends on the couple.

Its really funny you asked this because I was talking about this the other day with someone.

It was a guy here in South Carolina about 10 years ago. A white gentleman who was obsessed with black/white interracial sex and porn. I met him with this really good looking blonde female. They were really nice but I knew something was just off. He preferred I went bare back with her. My gut just told me something was up and I wore a condom.

Sure enough I saw the woman in a Facebook saying she was single. I messaged her. She told me she was an escort/prostitute that guy had hired her to pose as his wife. He just wanted to watch.

So it totally depends on the couple

No condoms. Pregnancy risk cuckolding only.

Condoms and rattle snakes are two things we don't fuck with.

Bare

If I'm with someone new - definitely condom. Once comfort and trust is there - bareback for sure. I will say mixing in a condom now and then can certainly stretch things out with some loss of sensation which can be a lot of fun. Can always take it off to cum wherever.

I prefer bareback myself but am ok with condoms. Definitely not the same though.

I’m just the opposite. Bareback is like sensory overload for me. Maybe because my wife and I used condoms exclusively for over 20 years for birth control. I last way longer with a condom on, and I’ve never had any problem getting or keeping an erection while wearing one.

With a new partner, I’d definitely use a condom for PIV/PIA until I knew them well enough to trust them bareback.

The age old question for those of us who practice recreational sex. I prefer no condom, since my medical records are alway up to date, however, if I have to wear one the first couple of times I will - but whenever I've worn one my performance is not the same as when I go bareback!