Bareback Exposure

LMFAO~

OMG thats a good one seduction.....

Well turn down your AC seduction roflmmfao....

Hot?

Lol shelikes,i was going to ask the same??? lmao... All i know is we likes our bareback fucking lol..

let the condom people and the cleanies play with each other.

WTF is a cleanie?

DanaZ Im sure you like us,have no problem finding bareback players.We are meeting new cpls who bareback all the time. We and i am sure yourself dont just fuck anybody. We know the ppl we fuck very well. People try to say theres no difrence between bareback and condom sex,BULL SHIT thers a big difrence. Another thing that just blows our minds,,is that woman will suck a dick play with a dick and pussy,but when its time to fuck they insist on a rubber,WTF you are just as much at risk sucking a bare dick..

justus, i joined this site to find 'em.

we are definitely cleanies... The only person I will have sex with bareback is my guy. We also do not play with known barebackers. This is just our preference. I am on the pill and not afraid of getting pregnant but I am just not trusting of other people taking care of themselves.

DanaZ, we hope it didn't come across as judging, cause it wasn't meant to be. kinda wishing you played with a condom to be honest, you are sexy !

DanaZ we here ya. we are bareback only and the good thing is that there is alot of cpls who are the same...

LOL, I'm a cleanie.

GF & ME there's a good match for everybody. i'm not saying that your way is wrong--it's just not for me. i know i'm unusual but i can't help being the way i am.

as hot as it would be, we wont even think about it. its just risky and we are very selfish when it comes to our health

too bad DanaZ, we would have loved to get you in bed.

This is why we avoid almost all single female profiles.

i'm bareback only. if a guy is afraid to fuck me i don't want him inside of me and i don't even want to know him. let the condom people and the cleanies play with each other.

We've never been to a bareback party, but have gone bareback with our favorite couples plenty of times.

If you are joining a bareback group to make lists of couples not to play with, then obviously, there are other "undercover" group members doing the same thing to each other. So while you make your must-avoid lists, you are also getting cootie-listed by others doing the same thing you are.

It also shows a lack of trust in condoms.

We're not into the whole team thing. We don't favor big parties, only those with close friends. We don't do steroids. We enjoy bodies in their natural state.

There seems to be a lot of negative energy directed at barebackers for increasing the overall risk to the rest of swingers. When we speak about taking responsibility yourself for your risk in swinging we mean really taking responsibility. That doesn't include attempts to blame others for those risks.

Barebacking happens in swinging, that's a reality. Most of us bareback with our own partners, so the humaness of barebacking should be understandable. Accepting the risks of swinging means accepting those risks as they are in the real world you play in, not in some fantasy perfect world.

We all have our fantasies about a much better world. And we too have to remind ourselves that fantasy is fantasy and reality is what is. Complaining about others increasing risks seems to us a shifting of responsibility for those risks. If only others would do as we feel they SHOULD do, the world would be a better place. Yes indeed!

Our fantasy is if only people would face reality and take full responsiblity, the world would be... So you can see even we have trouble accepting our own advice! :)

My medical background with others in the medical field know that the infection of HIV in married swinging couples is almost non existant. Now let me explain that remark before I get pounced on.
The couples that maybe exposed to HIV are those who expose themselves to closet bi sexual men who engae in anal unprotected sex. The other category is the IV drug user. Now here are some realistic ways to look at this. You will never know who is bi sexual in a male if he is on the down low. ( closet guy)... Even that bi guy is careful for he is married. The drug user with a needle in a married couple is also a very rare situation with swinging couples. So the reaction to bareback opposition is bull when a couple says we practice safe sex really doesnt. If you research this through medical channels as well as lifestyle channels you won't find a married couple in that situation. If you have eyes and see a clean couple then I think you can assume and rightfully know they are clean and d/d free. These remarks come founded by 2 couples where three out of the 4 are doctors and they go bareback. Going back 30 years when aids was a factor but unkown facts were not available I can see one being super careful . Also included in that 30 years catagory are the people who used to shoot up with needles . if you were in your 20's then and now you are in your 40's and fiftys now then you are the lucky ones with out risk. most of the late 40's and 50's now were never exposed to that as in contrast to those who are now in their late 20's and late 30's . we are in our late 50's and always looked for that couple who is in our age group . They did and do what we still do today. Go slow don't go to clubs and then follow the crowd late at night to a party of strangers. We have been enjoying this life style for over 15 years and never even caught a cold from going bare back. OK, now all of you can jump on me....lol !

Dand.. "The major point we're driving at is to take responsibility for your own risk taking rather than focusing on blaming others for increasing your risks. Your risks are your risks. If you can't take responsibility and ownership for your own risk taking, then what are you doing swinging?"

I agree..

I think when you swing the responsibility falls in your own court. If you chose to use the number of peoples certs, or groups they belong to determine whether they are safe for you to play with that is great! But, keep in mind not all bareback couples accept certs or indicate that they go bareback.

I get the sense that many people have their underwear in bunch for two reasons lack of control of how people view bareback and/or their sense of right that some couples are infecting their pool of potential players by not play their way-- at their level of risk . hmmm

There are many risk factors in swinging, bareback being only one of them. And please, because we argue a point doesn't mean we engage in the action we are discussing. We do engage in bareback with ourselves, something virtually universal among the swinging community and risk free unless one in a partnership is not being honest. So dishonesty is large risk factor.

One of the larger risk factors , rarely discussed, is number of partners. This is especially pertinent in STD's other than HIV, such as herpes and HPV. Number of partners may be as large a risk to the community as barebacking. If you play with ten times as many partners as those who don't go to parties, who don't swing every weekend, who use swinging as a rare delight, you increase your own risk and those of the community by your logic ten times over the occasional swinger.

As Mischief has pointed out, even without penetration there are risk factors rarely paid much attention, such as multiple hands sliding within multiple women without being careful as to cleanliness or which hands. This is of course accentuated during parties or playing with multiple couples.

The major point we're driving at is to take responsibility for your own risk taking rather than focusing on blaming others for increasing your risks. Your risks are your risks. If you can't take responsibility and ownership for your own risk taking, then what are you doing swinging?

Beaches:

It's always nice to see a thinking person.

"nd where are people getting their numerical facts from? Just last year, according to a paper cited in ScienceDaily, US researchers calculated that on average, straight couples who have unprotected sex with five new partners annually (with NO anal sex) would face levels of HIV infection comparable with gay men, which in the DC area had reached 3 in 100 by 2006"

This is where statistics don't always allow for a clear picture. What population was studied? Inner city folks of color have a much higher potential of getting HIV. This is due to IVDA (IV drug abuse) amongst other factors like a history of being in prison.

These numbers do not apply to me. I'm not down and dirty in SE Washington DC. I would be interested in the reference.

Heterosexuals are simply generally not at as high of risk as that. The reason I believe this? Because of the populations I have treated over the years. My take. That would mean I would be infected and I'm not. Condoms were not always part of my ritual. Now I'm known for my safer sex kits. ;)

Mischief

Comparing bareback sex to drunk driving is apples to oranges as we've pointed out before. First deaths directly from driving are about double the number of deaths from HIV here in the US. Second you can protect yourself completely from HIV by having sex only with your spouse, assuming your spouse is completely truthful with you. And third you can dramatically limit your exposure to HIV in swinging by using condoms.

If a drunk driver hits you, your only protection is luck, seat belts, and the airbags. Swinging, the risk is very small you'll ever meet an HIV infected person who doesn't know it. You have the choice swinging to screen out people who bareback; you don't have the choice driving to screen out drunk drivers. If you do meet someone infected, and you use condoms, your chance of contracting that infection is very small. If you meet a drunk driver head on, your chance of dying there and then is significant. If you do manage to contract HIV, unlikely as that is, remaining alive is far, far more likely.

The bottom line is that in having sex the chance of getting HIV can be rendered virtually non-existant, depending on your choices. If you drive, your chances of a drunk driver hitting you head on is not rendered non-existant depending on choice.

Science is a progressive approach to the best information, and studies often disagree strongly. Why? Because each study is done differently, no two are exactly the same, and fine details in the how of the study can make dramatic differences in the result. That is why many studies are needed before anything approaching a clear picture emerges.

In the case of actual transmittance figures for HIV studies are few and far between. We posted one when where the figure arrived at was one in 200 actual acts of intercourse. We welcome your post of another study.

Does "...straight couples who have unprotected sex with five new partners annually (with NO anal sex) would face levels of HIV infection comparable with gay men, which in the DC area had reached 3 in 100 by 2006." mean that the study concluded that five instances of unprotected sex in the DC area create a three in one hundred chance of contracting HIV? We'd be interested in more detail.