Bareback Exposure

"Condoms are HIGHLY effective against pregnancy.

Condoms are HIGHLY effective against HIV.

Condoms are really close to useless for protection from HPV/HSV/Gono/Chla/Syph"

Absolutely! We have met several couples who have acted like the use of condoms is some kind of magic talisman against any and all forms of sexually transmitted bugs yet will begin the session with all kinds of behavior that makes the use of a condom for actual sex to be a bit silly in retrospect. It amounted to sexual security theater.

Now if your use of condoms during sex is to prevent pregnancy I can totally understand that position but for the couples in question, pregnancy wasn't a concern. If you're concerned about HIV, again I understand but HIV is not prevalent in the heterosexual population and in the swinging community in general.

As others have stated, no one is suggesting throwing caution to the wind but for most people the perception of risk associated with bareback exposure doesn't match up well to reality. Vetting of your partners by getting to know them first before you jump into bed and not playing with bi men goes a long way to keep you safer in the bedroom than believing that a condom will prevent STI's cause that's what the TV told me.

Bottom line can be summed up as such. If you feel reasonably confidant that the people you're having sex with aren't fucking everything else that moves, aren't engaging in activities that could bring in HIV and if pregnancy isn't a concern then having unprotected sex isn't as big of a risk as many would have you believe.

@Scarlett

"Where we seem to differ is that we think that condoms are somewhat helpful against pregnancy , some venereal diseases, HPV or HSV to some degree and AIDS (which I think is unusual among swingers)."

That is correct with a caveat.

Condoms are HIGHLY effective against pregnancy.

Condoms are HIGHLY effective against HIV.

Condoms are really close to useless for protection from HPV/HSV/Gono/Chla/Syph.

That last statement is where we differ. Yours is in opinion based on what? Mine is a fact based upon tons of research that is on the CDC/NIH/NHS sites. This is why I agree with you discussion is wonderful. I just wish people would be cynical, not believe what you or I write and read for themselves. Read the studies that have been done. Read the studies. There is one study that was done ~25 years ago that is cited by the condom crowd. IIRC it showed a 5% decrease in STI passing by using condoms. In other words, it showed that condoms were 5% more effective than not. That study was debunked and it was shown that (1) it is near impossible to determine effectiveness (2) it would be a LOT less than 5%. I am trying to remember what they thought the effectiveness gain was, but IIRC, it was ~2 x 10^-9. In other words, yes, it is more effective, but to the point it is 2 in one million. It has been over20 years since I did all this research and I have basically stuck my head into the CDC site every now and then to see if things change.

But see, you are also still ignoring the reality. Here you are saying that Aids is rare. Do you realize that as far as the population goes, Aids is more prevalent than cervical cancer diagnoses? If you get to the hetero ONLY transmission of AIDs per year, does cervical become higher. Again, from memory, ~8800 new Aids cases per year versus 12k cases for cervical cancer per year. The problem with that information is that the aids number is strictly known as heterosexual sex. The cervical cancer number includes smoking. Yes, IIRC smoking can cause cervical cancer! So again . . . is cervical cancer the highest concern?

Thank you for your post, Eroticamazon. It is good to discuss this. Of course, type 3 of HPV cannot morph into type 16. I did not say it could. Maybe you inferred it from something that I said.

I think we agree that many people think that they are practicing safe sex by wearing condoms. However, as you correctly pointed out, there are other means of transmission than just intercourse.

Where we seem to differ is that we think that condoms are somewhat helpful against pregnancy , some venereal diseases, HPV or HSV to some degree and AIDS (which I think is unusual among swingers).

I think it’s healthy to have open discussions so that people can make informed decisions.

@Scarlet

"But I think a lot of swingers minimize the health hazards. All I can say is condoms are better than no condoms, if you are under 45, get vaccinated for HPV."

Three sentences from you, one is somewhat subjective, one is your opinion that can be dispelled with facts and the other is a great statement.

I actually think your first sentence is off. I think a lot of people think that condoms will protect them from any and all STIs. I think they believe is a super duper barrier that protects them. That is farthest from the truth and that ties into your second sentence.

HPV and HSV is NOT localized to the shaft of a penis or the inner walls of a vagina. As you seem to be fixated on HPV, here is a statement from NIH. "The route of HPV transmission is primarily through skin-to-skin or skin-to-mucosa contact. Sexual transmission is the most documented, but there have been studies suggesting non-sexual courses. The horizontal transfer of HPV includes fomites, fingers, and mouth, skin contact (other than sexual)."

Now, the condom mathematically will do more than not have it (by probability), but we are now in the probability range of winning the lottery 6 times in a row with a condom to 5 times in a row without a condom. Condoms are basically ineffective as a means to protect you from HSV or HPV. That is the factual statement backed up by research taken from NIH/CDC/NHS. Again, this is a reason why the porn industry does NOT test for HPV/HSV.

The last sentence, I am all for. I agree that if given the opportunity to protect from HPV with the three doses, do it.

Now there is something that you stated that is incorrect. The strain of HPV can not change. You can't have strain 3 and then somehow it morphs into strain 16.

Please . . . take the time to read and educate yourself. All of this information is readily available at the CDC/NIH and NHS websites. I am just regurgitating what they have written.

Scarlet - Didn't mean to imply that one should completely throw caution to the wind. While we are quite capable of being able to fullfil just about any fansasy we want, things like filling the Mrs with multiple loads of cum are among the fantasies that will remain fantasies for us.

I do get it though. My current and ex-wife very much liked the feeling of a throbbing cock followed by the warm internal sensation of cum. It is visually erotic to see cum leaking out from any of a woman's orifices. It's not something we'd actually follow through with, but I certainly get the appeal of it.

That still leaves a LOT of fun things on the table, such as orgies/groupsex/gangbangs. We just limit things to me being the only one that penetrates and cums inside the Mrs without a condom.

I am not saying condoms are highly effective against HPV and HSV. And thankfully people under 45 can be vaccinated against HPV. And I know there is no male test for HPV (other than warts-then you’re positive).

But I think a lot of swingers minimize the health hazards. All I can say is condoms are better than no condoms, if you are under 45, get vaccinated for HPV.

Even if your HPV doesn’t develop into cervical cancer, one will worry that it will. We have several female friends who had pre-cervical cancer surgical procedures. Leep and hysterectomies. Not pleasant. If you’ve ducked a bullet, consider yourself lucky. Condoms have to help somewhat and get vaxxed if you can.

Scarlet - Sometimes there's no easy way to tell because both HSV and HPV can have no symptoms in some people. As far as I know, there really isn't an HPV test for men.

Also, if people are playing like that at this party, they are likely playing like that elsewhere too.

Rcop, do you know if HPV or HSV was transmitted at your parties? People often don’t discuss it.

we hosted 6 to 8 couples and 6 single males in a bareback orgy with everyone in the same room,everyone got hooked and we had 1 a month.

Sums?
Lovrrboy, how many people recover without meds? So far 98+% recover from covid with no vaccine or meds. Ive never heard of someone with HIV or Aids getting zero treatment and then bang HIV or AIDS negative

I looked over my post and in my other forum post, never have i mentioned that " NO TREATMENT " mean you have a chance of recovery! 100% will turn to stages of on slot aids by cd4 count below 200 n other illness takes over or cancer.
But many that had aids n the art treatments for ether resistant strains got the person undetectable, and if the illness and cd4 count raises above 200 aids is not a factor.
Btw hiv+ undetectable durable make you unable to infect other with fluids transfer, blood iv and needles use has not been researched results not done.
See your std specialist for up to date information and risk assessment.

Seems to us that safe play for most is just all for not, except for protecting against pregnancy. Just think a lot are not quite educated on subject. If you are only going to have intercourse sure. But believe most are having oral as well. If not using condoms and dental dams for oral also, then what's the point. We do use them a lot with others, just would rather not. Know it is -gambling. We go ofn the thought, if you won't lick it don't stick it.

Sexy, I would tend to agree, and boy that sure sounds fun!

So we are a couple that likes to play bareback with select couples. We always carry condoms and are prepared to use them with couples we do not know/couples that require them. And we agree that when properly used and for straight up penetration they can be very effective. However, we have had several great encounters with couples that require condoms. Couples that really like to play. Meaning several rounds spread out over an entire evening. Lots of kissing, licking, sucking and fucking. Swapping back and forth between partners. Of course we were bare with our own partner and a new condom every time we we switched back. But both girls sucked both cocks all throughout the evening, as well as all 4 of us licked pussy. Both girls were squirters and everything was drenched. The bed, our bodies even our hair. Add to the fact the girls are sharing toys with no condom, juices were swapped throughout the night. It just seems that at that point condoms are pretty useless. It’s like putting on a rain coat, doing a cannon ball into the deep end of the pool, and thinking your gonna stay dry. Or in the covid era, putting on a mask and letting your nose hang out. Just saying. We wanna be safe, and we always play by others rules, but there comes a time in play where things get messy and it really becomes pointless. And for us, messy fun is the best fun.

A bi-sexual guy posting this; that is FUNNY.

You keep touting the 98% as if it is a fact.

It is not.

BY NO metric, even the ones TOUTED by the tin foil crowd are at the 98%. You may have 98% that recover, but you do not have 98% that do not need ANY medication.

Hiv positive is way different then what you all refer to as AIDS is diagnosed when a person gets certain infections (called opportunistic infections) or cancers, or their CD4 count is fewer than 200 cells per cubic millimeter of blood, or aids wasting syndrome.
Before ART medications were introduced, in the mid-1990s, people with HIV could develop AIDS in just a few years. But now that’s changed. Today, many HIV-positive people who get started on ART quickly, before the disease is advanced, can expect to live about as long as someone without HIV, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
If the illess is cured or cancer in remission or CD4 count above 200 then the Aids is reduced.
Art Treatments have made this like any chronic illness, as well as U=U Undetectable equals uninfectious
Also please, you must know untreated people unknowingly spreading is the way to catch it. To infect you have to have hi viral load not being hiv+ undetectable durable. Even cdc has this same policy.

Being undetectable you can not spread it at all. ART Treatment regiments keep all safe. Live long life, normal.
There will be laws repealed from being stigmatized by hiv+ undetectable as still unsafe.
All should consult with a true medical professional.

Hope all are safe n prayers for all.

"then recovering to not have aids?"

Technically, zero. However, that is the FALSE equiv.

You can easily get to the point with HIV that you can't transmit to anyone.

You don't get HIV from your family, friends, co-workers unless you have sex or share needles or rub open wounds.

You don't get HIV from doorknobs, sneezes, coughs, hugs, handshakes, keyboards, forks, glasses, and as thousand other things. Share these with covid-19 carriers, not so lucky.

No comparison.

Other mild side effects of having Coronavirus are strokes, heart attacks, and organ shut-down.

Death = death

There is no false equiv at all.

You are judging risk. You are stating that I will protect myself from a sexual act that has LESS deaths per year than CV19 and you will not protect yourself from CV19.

Here are the numbers. There is a range of deaths per year from HIV. It ranges from low to high 30k. So let's make it 40k a year. Less than 20% per year are from heterosexual encounters. That means no m-m and no iv drug usage. That means that ~8400 people die per year from HIV. HMM. Wrap that willy.

And to think that there is NO consequences for CV19 is also a fallacy. Those that get hospitalization do not just suddenly return with no other issues. There are cases of renal failure, amputations, memory issues, etc.

So again . . . no false equiv on this end.

And the irony.

@Sum

Go back to the Covid thread. USE YOUR math.

Now compare the chances of getting HIV without using a condom.

Hmm. One you want to be rambo, the other you say 'better safe than sorry.'

Hmm.

Well, condoms protect you from HIV and pregnancy, yes.... BUT, the second you perform oral on someone without a condom/dental dam, the HIV part goes right out the window. The mouth is a mucous membrane just like the vagina or ass... We have always been perplexed by some people's selective use of condoms. Especially the women who insist you you a condom to fuck them (assuming they are fixed and can't become pregnant) because of disease, but will gladly suck your dick without a condom. Also, women who insist on the condom for fucking, but will gladly eat your girl's pussy for hours... Spoiler alert, I've been in that pussy bareback for years, and IF I had something, she'd definitely have it too, and so would you after eating her, LOL. We don't mean to sound cavalier about STIs... we test and try to vet our play partners, as we definitely don't want anything, but we also understand that recreational sex with multiple partners has it's risks. We are 100% condom only in a situation where the female and male fucking are both not fixed, but for situations where one or both are fixed, we are going bareback most of the time. I just can't handle the hypocrisy of a situation where a woman tells me to wear a condom (for STI prevention) but then wants me or my girl to eat her pussy or wants to suck my dick without a condom. Someone needs to revisit high school health class :D

Keep rolling the dice til you crap out...

I never pulled out of my ex. When we started the LS the third time she was with the same guy she looked at me in the middle of fucking him and asked if he could take the condom off. That turned me on beyond belief and i happily aggreed as long as she swallowed his load. (We didnt know if she could get pregnant of not.) Watching a massive bare bbc and then looking at me with a mouth full of cum was one of the best experiences ever. Had we known she couldnt get pregnant, id have loved to see her filled with cum.

We usually discuss it at some point. But we have reputation for going bare Have done it more since we have been married. Hubby must use rubber as he is not fixed yet. But he rarely plays with other ladies as he enjoys cleaning cum from me and I love it. Always have

FUD stands for Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. It is used as a technique scare people into doing something. As I stated, I just think you were heavy on the fear side of that with your rant and 'kinda' mislead people. There is also a big difference between being verbose and leaving out information. By definition, verbose is the usage of more words than necessary. And as I mentioned, I think you left some words out.

There is a common use of FUD by marketers, by religious bodies, by salespeople. Right now, in our US society, due to the fact that we are still a puritanical country, there is a lot of FUD regarding sex. Numbers tend to bring sunlight and thus clarity to the FUD.

More people will die because of drinking too many sodas than will from cervical cancer. More people will die in a car than will from cervical cancer. These are just numbers, there is no bias in them. Yet, people, and I am not saying you, will go on a crusade to do with anything negative about sex. Hell, you and I live this daily just by being in this lifestyle. For every one person you find that will accept this deviant lifestyle, there are probably at least 10 that find it abhorrent. So when you come out and try to single out single males, as some sort of parasite carrying group just because they can't test, I will see that as a FUD statement. As I mentioned, the test is NOT there for ANY male, regardless of their race, their marital status, their economic status, the school they went to, the size of their penis, their weight or their age.