Responsible sex and using condoms

[wingnut84]

I guess it just bugged me that you thought that, even if she was being serious (which I thought) my initial response wasn't warranted. Assuming that she was joking, then I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch. Actually, I'm not going to do that either way... whatever.

 

[MCC]

Not wanting to reignite a smoldering topic, but, surely "safe" is relative, and unprotected sex (as in unprotected against STDs) can still be safe if you are both clean; unsullied virgins for instance... it is wrong to say there is an inherent failing in having unprotected sex.

The essential point that I believe is being made is that people are perhaps not aware of the true risk they are taking, and that is probably true, but this is to do with how people rationalise risk taking behavior.

Unprotected sex is just one thing in many that *may* be risky. Participating in promiscuous unprotected sex is just worsening the odds of you coming out unscathed.

 

[ganja4me]

Not wanting to reignite a smoldering topic, but, surely "safe" is relative, and unprotected sex (as in unprotected against STDs) can still be safe if you are both clean; unsullied virgins for instance... it is wrong to say there is an inherent failing in having unprotected sex.

The essential point that I believe is being made is that people are perhaps not aware of the true risk they are taking, and that is probably true, but this is to do with how people rationalise risk taking behavior.

Unprotected sex is just one thing in many that *may* be risky. Participating in promiscuous unprotected sex is just worsening the odds of you coming out unscathed.

Right and you can't always be sure that the girl is truthfully a virgin. Or if she caught something from oral with someone else but is still a virgin. Also, you can't be sure you won't be getting her pregnant. It's really too much risk if you are not smart about it and truly ready for the responsibility if she does in fact become pregnant. I'm using a condom unless we have both been tested and I am ready for a kid.
​

 

[DaveyR]

FFS it must be obvious to man and beast that Kotch was exaggerating purely to display the degree of feeling on this subject. Can you picture her dressed in stalking gear hunting barebackers.

Unfortunately this sort over reaction from people takes the emphasis away from the important subject matter.

 

[wingnut84]

Also, you can't be sure you won't be getting her pregnant
.​

​

That's why you just fuck her in the ass. :tongue:

 

[DC_DEEP]

Ban someone for putting raw sex in anything other than an unqualified negative light? Fascist much? Shit, by the way you're talking, it sounds like you're frustrated and need ANY sex, unprotected or not. Maybe smoke a joint, too. Either way, you need to LIGHTEN THE FUCK UP.

This is not the first thread in which you needed to lighten the fuck up. My ancient brain may be failing, but I seem to recall that you very vigorously defend the barebackers in every thread where the subject comes up. If I have you confused with someone else, my apologies. If not, you will find that those of us in "the risk-reduction" camp outnumber you and will call you out. Every time.

Well, if she was being facetious, I apologize. But it was extremely difficult to detect that from her post. As for her being a mod, if she's going to get upset over me telling it like it is (assuming she was being serious) then I'm not sure I want to be on this forum.

If you are going to consistently defend irresponsible behavior, that's perhaps not a bad idea.

Oh, hell guys. Speak to us any way you want.

But what wingnut has just been given an example of is that when you speak to anyone it should be done with a degree of intelligence. If it isn't, other people will be happy to point that fact out to you.

Shit, here I've been wasting all my time burning the fat of the lamb and flinging dove's blood to appease you moderators. I even put tassels on the corners of my jockstrap. You mean you aren't all goddessessesses?

Sounds like you need some herbage yourself, "ganja"boy. It was offensive because the thought that someone expressing their preference for a (admittedly risky) certain type of sex was something to condemn and/or ban them for. Anyway, I think the young lady in question is an adult and is capable of speaking for herself, so I kindly ask you to step back.

Well, how 'bout this? Some of us find the barebacking advocates to be offensive.

Every single one of us who are condom advocates make the concession to monogamous relationships. That's a given. What we are denouncing is condomless sex with multiple partners.

Not wanting to reignite a smoldering topic, but, surely "safe" is relative, and unprotected sex (as in unprotected against STDs) can still be safe if you are both clean; unsullied virgins for instance... it is wrong to say there is an inherent failing in having unprotected sex.

The essential point that I believe is being made is that people are perhaps not aware of the true risk they are taking, and that is probably true, but this is to do with how people rationalise risk taking behavior.

Unprotected sex is just one thing in many that *may* be risky. Participating in promiscuous unprotected sex is just worsening the odds of you coming out unscathed.

In the context of my paragraph above, no, it is not wrong to say there is an inherent failing in having unprotected sex. Again, those of us who advocate minimizing risk acknowledge that condoms are not a 100% guarantee - but 98% is better than 0%. We also acknowledge the difference between knowing your status & your exclusive partner's status, and having casual sex. We get it.

I have railed on this point in many other threads, and I will rail on it again here - if you want to go hang gliding, you are taking a risk. But you are only taking that risk for yourself. More power to you. When you are having sex, and taking risks, you aren't the only person involved. Every single time a person either transmits or contracts a sexually transmittable disease, it becomes a public health problem. Please do a bit of research on the causes, effects, and implications of antibiotic-resistant infections. It's a huge public health problem, and it affects us all, whether we catch the diseases or not.

 

[wingnut84]

Um... sorry, bro. This is the first thread I've even READ on this forum about barebacking, let alone in which I defended barebackers. And I wouldn't even say I was defending them, just saying they shouldn't be BANNED for "advocating" it. (Although it appears Kotchybaby was joking[?])

"Well, how 'bout this? Some of us find the barebacking advocates to be offensive."

Not that I consider myself an "advocate," but assuming they're not insulting or condemning people who choose safer sex, why do you care so much? Yes, they're putting themselves at risk, and you could make the argument that they're "public health" risks (although that's another discussion altogether), but ultimately it's their choice and you have to respect that regardless of your personal preferences. You can counsel people on the virtues of safe sex all you want, but when you cross over into condemnation (except maybe for "bug-chasers" or the "people" who knowingly infect other people), you need to MYOB and STFU.

 

[Big Dreamer]

Um... sorry, bro. This is the first thread I've even READ on this forum about barebacking, let alone in which I defended barebackers. And I wouldn't even say I was defending them, just saying they shouldn't be BANNED for "advocating" it. (Although it appears Kotchybaby was joking[?])

"Well, how 'bout this? Some of us find the barebacking advocates to be offensive."

Not that I consider myself an "advocate," but assuming they're not insulting or condemning people who choose safer sex, why do you care so much? Yes, they're putting themselves at risk, and you could make the argument that they're "public health" risks (although that's another discussion altogether), but ultimately it's their choice and you have to respect that regardless of your personal preferences. You can counsel people on the virtues of safe sex all you want, but when you cross over into condemnation (except maybe for "bug-chasers" or the "people" who knowingly infect other people), you need to MYOB and STFU.

Why is that 'another discussion altogether'?? This is the entire point that DC is making. As diseases spread from person to person (through irresponsible sexual behaviour) they have a tendency over a rather short time frame to mutate in a way that makes them drug resistant. Suddenly antibiotics that were essential for treating a variety of conditions are removed from the market because they have been rendered impotent by the mutation of STD's. This isn't fantasyland, or 50 years down the road even..... it's happening presently.

 

[Onslow]

FFS it must be obvious to man and beast that Kotch was exaggerating purely to display the degree of feeling on this subject. Can you picture her dressed in stalking gear hunting barebackers.

It's an image I'd be willing to pay big bucks to see--why are you titillating us with such imagery at this early hour?

Unfortunately this sort over reaction from people takes the emphasis away from the important subject matter.

Yes, that it does.

Speaking from a personal point of view (or would this be categorized as experience? Yup--experience). So, speaking from personal experience--I went through a rather regrettable phase a while back where I engaged in unprotected sex. The fact that I was fairly blitzed and hating of myself are the major reasons for it. Let's focus on the hating part--unprotected sex (especially with strangers) is clearly more than just pleasure. There's a strong element of self hatred and probably at least a general hatred of the person who is being used for sex. As I said, I regret what I did for those monthes and am grateful that the tests keep returning as negative telling me that I am uninfected by any of those nasty and deadly things floating around out there. Not everyone is so fortunate, so why risk it?

 

[wingnut84]

Why is that 'another discussion altogether'?? This is the entire point that DC is making. As diseases spread from person to person (through irresponsible sexual behaviour) they have a tendency over a rather short time frame to mutate in a way that makes them drug resistant. Suddenly antibiotics that were essential for treating a variety of conditions are removed from the market because they have been rendered impotent by the mutation of STD's. This isn't fantasyland, or 50 years down the road even..... it's happening presently.

I said it was another discussion because it was rather tangential to the topic at hand. But to address you points: yes, I'm aware of all this. I'm just saying that someone who has consensual unprotected sex isn't on the same moral plane as a serial killer, another "public health risk"... not even close. Their unwise decisions will only affect YOU if you choose to engage in the same behavior. IOW, while raw sex is a public health risk, it's really only so to the pool of individuals who engage in it, so if you don't, then you have no business CONDEMNING these people (again, it's still your perogative to try and advise these folks respectfully.)

 

[Big Dreamer]

I said it was another discussion because it was rather tangential to the topic at hand. But to address you points: yes, I'm aware of all this. I'm just saying that someone who has consensual unprotected sex isn't on the same moral plane as a serial killer, another "public health risk"... not even close. Their unwise decisions will only affect YOU if you choose to engage in the same behavior. IOW, while raw sex is a public health risk, it's really only so to the pool of individuals who engage in it, so if you don't, then you have no business CONDEMNING these people (again, it's still your perogative to try and advise these folks respectfully.)

So when MY tax dollars go to help foot the bill for people who get these diseases and can't pay for the treatment, it's not my problem?

 

[wingnut84]

So when MY tax dollars go to help foot the bill for people who get these diseases and can't pay for the treatment, it's not my problem?

If we didn't have our system of socialized medicine which takes away the incentives for responsible behavior, this wouldn't be an issue. Write your Congressthugs.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Um... sorry, bro. This is the first thread I've even READ on this forum about barebacking, let alone in which I defended barebackers. And I wouldn't even say I was defending them, just saying they shouldn't be BANNED for "advocating" it. (Although it appears Kotchybaby was joking[?])

"Well, how 'bout this? Some of us find the barebacking advocates to be offensive."

Not that I consider myself an "advocate," but assuming they're not insulting or condemning people who choose safer sex, why do you care so much? Yes, they're putting themselves at risk, and you could make the argument that they're "public health" risks (although that's another discussion altogether), but ultimately it's their choice and you have to respect that regardless of your personal preferences. You can counsel people on the virtues of safe sex all you want, but when you cross over into condemnation (except maybe for "bug-chasers" or the "people" who knowingly infect other people), you need to MYOB and STFU.

So, I did have you confused with someone else. Big fucking deal. My previous apology is rescinded. You need to mind your own business and shut the fuck up, you moron. The public health issue is NOT another discussion - otherwise, there would be no need for condoms. Why do I care so much? Because I am fucking sick and tired of preventable diseases continuing to be spread. Just because I have not been infected that does not mean I have not been affected. And anyone who has unprotected promiscuous sex IS a bug-chaser or gift-giver. That's pretty damned simple.

I said it was another discussion because it was rather tangential to the topic at hand. But to address you points: yes, I'm aware of all this. I'm just saying that someone who has consensual unprotected sex isn't on the same moral plane as a serial killer, another "public health risk"... not even close. Their unwise decisions will only affect YOU if you choose to engage in the same behavior. IOW, while raw sex is a public health risk, it's really only so to the pool of individuals who engage in it, so if you don't, then you have no business CONDEMNING these people (again, it's still your perogative to try and advise these folks respectfully.)

You don't have a clue what "tangential" means, do you? The whole issue of condoms is predicated upon the concept of disease prevention or transmission. Therefore, discussions of disease transmission are not tangential. And you are flat-out wrong. Indiscriminate barebackers, even if consensual, ARE affecting other people besides themselves and their sex partners.

I have no more love for adamant barebackers than I would for anyone with active tuberculosis who chooses to get on an airplane or crowded subway and cough their germs all over everyone else.

 

[Gillette]

Wignut84 has been a charmer elsewhere as well.

http://www.lpsg.org/897589-post14.html

tick, tick, tick.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Wignut84 has been a charmer elsewhere as well.

http://www.lpsg.org/897589-post14.html

tick, tick, tick.

Ah, thanks Gillette! You are razor-sharp!

And now the truth comes out. I'll fire up the coals, you get the troll-beque sauce... Deal?

 

[B_horribleperson]

how come people get so upset about stuff they read on the INTERNET

and it doesnt matter if you use a condom or not cuz we all know that anything that happens to you is cuz thats what GOD wants.

 

[DaveyR]

Wignut84 has been a charmer elsewhere as well.

http://www.lpsg.org/897589-post14.html

tick, tick, tick.

Brilliant thanks Gillette. I wonder if he becomes a little less vocal :wink:

 

[DC_DEEP]

No, Davey, he's going to defend this post:

http://www.lpsg.org/898335-post1.html

Pay special attention to the first two paragraphs, then add two plus two... and keep in mind, this is "his business", no one else's.

 

[wingnut84]

So, I did have you confused with someone else. Big fucking deal. My previous apology is rescinded. You need to mind your own business and shut the fuck up, you moron. The public health issue is NOT another discussion - otherwise, there would be no need for condoms. Why do I care so much? Because I am fucking sick and tired of preventable diseases continuing to be spread. Just because I have not been infected that does not mean I have not been affected. And anyone who has unprotected promiscuous sex IS a bug-chaser or gift-giver. That's pretty damned simple.
You don't have a clue what "tangential" means, do you? The whole issue of condoms is predicated upon the concept of disease prevention or transmission. Therefore, discussions of disease transmission are not tangential. And you are flat-out wrong. Indiscriminate barebackers, even if consensual, ARE affecting other people besides themselves and their sex partners.

I have no more love for adamant barebackers than I would for anyone with active tuberculosis who chooses to get on an airplane or crowded subway and cough their germs all over everyone else.

Did your Valium scrip run out or did you just not get any cock this morning?

The fact that you would compare consenting barebackers to TB infected people who cough in crowded areas speaks volumes.

I'm going to bed, I've read enough digital diarrhea for one night.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Did your Valium scrip run out or did you just not get any cock this morning?

The fact that you would compare consenting barebackers to TB infected people who cough in crowded areas speaks volumes.

I'm going to bed, I've read enough digital diarrhea for one night.

Keep posting, I am really enjoying watching you reveal your true stupidity.

By the way, 11 a. m. is not generally considered "night," but please, do go to bed.