Responsible sex and using condoms

Kotchanski

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Posts
2,850
Media
10
Likes
104
Points
193
Location
England (United Kingdom)
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Female
Oh I need to defend my blantently obvious OTT post made purely to convey my deep dislike of those who spread the life threatening joys of unprotected sex?

Those who support unprotected sex are the lowest of the low, they have no respect for their lives and more importantly, the lives of others.

Read my post as you will, anyone with half a brain will read it as it was intended. It seems those who can't/won't are nothing but pathetic morons who'll jump on anything they can to defend their "right" to spread HIV, Syphilis and countless other infections.

As an additional note, it would be wise to get to know me before you attempt to suggest my sex life is lacking, I have a very healthy sex life, and its safe too.
 

Big Dreamer

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Posts
912
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
Oh I need to defend my blantently obvious OTT post made purely to convey my deep dislike of those who spread the life threatening joys of unprotected sex?

Those who support unprotected sex are the lowest of the low, they have no respect for their lives and more importantly, the lives of others.

Read my post as you will, anyone with half a brain will read it as it was intended. It seems those who can't/won't are nothing but pathetic morons who'll jump on anything they can to defend their "right" to spread HIV, Syphilis and countless other infections.

As an additional note, it would be wise to get to know me before you attempt to suggest my sex life is lacking, I have a very healthy sex life, and its safe too.

Safe for you maybe. I'm the one with all the whip marks, bruises, and pulled muscles. :tongue:
 

Caelestis

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
87
Media
6
Likes
0
Points
151
Age
43
Location
England, UK
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Lets take a step back and re-review Kotchanski's original objections under the context of this particular thread and it's positioning on the internet.

This is the Large Penis Support Group, section The Healthy Penis.

There will be a number of people here who have certain diseases, like HIV. Any advocate of "barebacking" is not only against the purpose of the website, but specifically against the subject matter in this section. It can therefore be considered offensive and upsetting for those promoting a healthy penis and healthy sex to have to deal with immature comments promoting the spread of sexual disease. Yes, I consider comments about "barebacking" when not backed-up immediately with words to the effect of "when in a long term relationship" to be promoting the spread of sexual disease.

Taking Kotchanski's comments about banning, considering the the above, I believe such offensive and upsetting behaviour should be considered a warning or banning act, especially in this section.

You mention, Wingnut84, that maybe this forum isn't the place for you?

Toodle pip :)
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Alright, Caelestis, now you've done it. Now I have to give both you AND Kot a big wet sloppy unprotected kiss.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
*Wonders if I should tell DC where Kotch's mouth has just been.*

*Decides not to.*
umm hmmm... and that's a problem, why exactly? I know where her mouth has been... and it's still there.

Kot, honey, lick the balls while you're at it!

You BASTARDS!!! You're having a troll roast, and didn't invite me??? :eek:
:tongue::tongue::tongue:
You've already far exceeded your recommended daily allowance of trollbeque, young man. Tell you what, I'll save the hooves and make some pickled trolls feet for you.
 

wingnut84

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Posts
265
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
163
Location
SATX
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Wow. I don't know where to begin. Let me say this. Barebacking outside of an LTR is not necessarily "promoting the spread of disease." If I drive without a seatbelt, I'm not "promoting my death," but taking a risk that is more conducive to my death, just like barebacking is a risk more conducive to the spreading of disease but not a guarantee of its spread. Yes, there are those who bareback to catch/give disease but they are nowhere near in the same category as those who do it just to get off (however foolish even this may be). It's like the difference between purposefully ramming your car into a tree and driving while not wearing your seatbelt. There's a substantial difference, and for you guys to compare the second group to someone intentionally ramming their car into a school bus ("public health risk... tuberculosis... crowed bus or plane... bla bla bla) is beyond preposterous.

Long story short, some people like taking risks. These people do not necessarily harm anyone but themselves. Afraid of "mutated strains" or whatever? DON'T FUCK PEOPLE WHO ENGAGE IN RISKY BEHAVIOR!!! Problem solved. Grow up.
 

ganja4me

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Posts
1,276
Media
8
Likes
17
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
What about younger kids who don't realize how big of a risk they are taking. Some teens probably think that if it doesn't have huge bumps and puss leaking out of it then it is disease free. Then the person who does have it and may even know about it gives it to them and that naive kid just made the biggest mistake of their life. That's why condoms are encouraged because some kids don't realize how big of a risk they are taking and if they did they would probably be willing to always use a condom. I think there is may be more naive people with STD's than risk takers.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Long story short, some people like taking risks. These people do not necessarily harm anyone but themselves. Afraid of "mutated strains" or whatever? DON'T FUCK PEOPLE WHO ENGAGE IN RISKY BEHAVIOR!!! Problem solved. Grow up.
Long story short: I don't engage in those risky behaviors. Grow up. My analogy is certainly more appropriate than yours. If you choose not to wear a seatbelt, how does that involve another person in any way whatsoever? You cannot possibly be so dense as to believe that just because "some people like taking risks," that you should defend such behaviors. You cannot possibly be so dense as to believe that just because someone "likes" something, that gives them any special rights. Although when you make such assertions, I'm sure all the John W. Gacys of the world would tend to side with you.

Please troll, go away.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
What about younger kids who don't realize how big of a risk they are taking. Some teens probably think that if it doesn't have huge bumps and puss leaking out of it then it is disease free. Then the person who does have it and may even know about it gives it to them and that naive kid just made the biggest mistake of their life. That's why condoms are encouraged because some kids don't realize how big of a risk they are taking and if they did they would probably be willing to always use a condom. I think there is may be more naive people with STD's than risk takers.
I don't think wingnut realizes just how naive, uninformed, misinformed, gullible, and ignorant a HUGE segment of the population really is about sex and disease.

His promotion of a "do it if you want to" mindset is irresponsible (I wish I could think of a stronger word, but that's all that comes to mind at the moment.)
 

Onslow

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Posts
2,392
Media
0
Likes
40
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Wow. I don't know where to begin. Let me say this. Barebacking outside of an LTR is not necessarily "promoting the spread of disease." If I drive without a seatbelt, I'm not "promoting my death," but taking a risk that is more conducive to my death, just like barebacking is a risk more conducive to the spreading of disease but not a guarantee of its spread. Yes, there are those who bareback to catch/give disease but they are nowhere near in the same category as those who do it just to get off (however foolish even this may be). It's like the difference between purposefully ramming your car into a tree and driving while not wearing your seatbelt. There's a substantial difference, and for you guys to compare the second group to someone intentionally ramming their car into a school bus ("public health risk... tuberculosis... crowed bus or plane... bla bla bla) is beyond preposterous.

Long story short, some people like taking risks. These people do not necessarily harm anyone but themselves. Afraid of "mutated strains" or whatever? DON'T FUCK PEOPLE WHO ENGAGE IN RISKY BEHAVIOR!!! Problem solved. Grow up.
Newsflash--the risk the person takes is indeed a risk to others. If you somehow find someone who is willing to have sex withyou (if you don't speak it may happen for you yet Wignut) and they have been fucking or have been fucked by 80 to 100 different men and/or women and then you go dickie dipping or getting dickie dipped, then you are taking in any contaminates which may have been attached to your sex partner. You then go off and have sex with the 40 year old virgin down the road (apparently your cousin was saving herself for you) and you deoposit the same contaminates in her. She thought you were clean and heads off to do the leader of the town council. He transports the infectous disease to his mistress who brings it to her husband who then bequeaths it to the harlot he has been riding on Wednesday evenings who gives it to her bisexual boyfriend who then moves it over to another man--
So you see, that brief moment of freedom of bare sex which you mention does indeed involve risk for others.


As to your seatbelt analogy--(hey it was known I'd have a take on that too:smile: )--there you are motoring along on the vast roadway known as the Interstate. You despise seatbelts and aren't wearing one as the late model Datsun rolls up in back of you and hits your rear bumper. You turn to your friend in the next seat and say 'What the fucking hell was that?" The Datsun allows you a second to regain your composure and then rams into you harder. It is a hard hit and you are thrown forward and upwards and sideways. You bash your head into the glass of yhe car window and then lurch forward hitting your face on the steering wheel leaving you disoriented, you loose control of your vehicle. You spin around on the roadway, cross the median into oncoming traffic and into the pathway of a bus carrying 15 children on their way to Sea World. The bus is thrown off the overpass landing on a fuel truck which bursts into flame shooting flames up onto the overpass and weakening it. It collapses and just as rush hour has gotten under way. Several vehicles plummet downwards, injuring hundreds and killing several otheres--and all because you had not worn your seat belt. On the other side of the road you lay in the path of oncoming traffic and a motorcycle clips into you and the rider is ejected into the pathway of-- well, you get the idea--Risk towards ones self, always puts otheres at risk.
 

wingnut84

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Posts
265
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
163
Location
SATX
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Long story short: I don't engage in those risky behaviors. Grow up. My analogy is certainly more appropriate than yours. If you choose not to wear a seatbelt, how does that involve another person in any way whatsoever? You cannot possibly be so dense as to believe that just because "some people like taking risks," that you should defend such behaviors. You cannot possibly be so dense as to believe that just because someone "likes" something, that gives them any special rights. Although when you make such assertions, I'm sure all the John W. Gacys of the world would tend to side with you.

Please troll, go away.

Yes, I'm a troll because I'm saying things that you don't want to hear. That's exactly right. My point was WHAT TWO CONSENTING ADULTS CHOOSE TO DO WITH EACHOTHER IS THEIR BUSINESS ALONE. Yes, barebacking is risky. No, I don't recommend it, but comparing someone who merely enjoys raw sex to a serial killer is the height of intellectual dishonesty (or stupidity, which is it?).

"You cannot possibly be so dense as to believe that just because someone "likes" something, that gives them any special rights."

You seem to love the cock, amirite, battyboy? Do you deserve "special rights" or should you be forced to fuck vaginas like all the normal boys do?
 

wingnut84

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Posts
265
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
163
Location
SATX
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Newsflash--the risk the person takes is indeed a risk to others. If you somehow find someone who is willing to have sex withyou (if you don't speak it may happen for you yet Wignut) and they have been fucking or have been fucked by 80 to 100 different men and/or women and then you go dickie dipping or getting dickie dipped, then you are taking in any contaminates which may have been attached to your sex partner. You then go off and have sex with the 40 year old virgin down the road (apparently your cousin was saving herself for you) and you deoposit the same contaminates in her. She thought you were clean and heads off to do the leader of the town council. He transports the infectous disease to his mistress who brings it to her husband who then bequeaths it to the harlot he has been riding on Wednesday evenings who gives it to her bisexual boyfriend who then moves it over to another man--
So you see, that brief moment of freedom of bare sex which you mention does indeed involve risk for others.


As to your seatbelt analogy--(hey it was known I'd have a take on that too:smile: )--there you are motoring along on the vast roadway known as the Interstate. You despise seatbelts and aren't wearing one as the late model Datsun rolls up in back of you and hits your rear bumper. You turn to your friend in the next seat and say 'What the fucking hell was that?" The Datsun allows you a second to regain your composure and then rams into you harder. It is a hard hit and you are thrown forward and upwards and sideways. You bash your head into the glass of yhe car window and then lurch forward hitting your face on the steering wheel leaving you disoriented, you loose control of your vehicle. You spin around on the roadway, cross the median into oncoming traffic and into the pathway of a bus carrying 15 children on their way to Sea World. The bus is thrown off the overpass landing on a fuel truck which bursts into flame shooting flames up onto the overpass and weakening it. It collapses and just as rush hour has gotten under way. Several vehicles plummet downwards, injuring hundreds and killing several otheres--and all because you had not worn your seat belt. On the other side of the road you lay in the path of oncoming traffic and a motorcycle clips into you and the rider is ejected into the pathway of-- well, you get the idea--Risk towards ones self, always puts otheres at risk.

Your cute little allegory appears to indict infidelity and promiscuity far more than it does mere unprotected sex. If all the people in that town weren't cheating sluts then there wouldn't be a problem. In actuality, I don't have that much sympathy for any of them.

Look. PROMISCUOUS RAW SEX IS DANGEROUS!!! Are you all happy now? Do I get to turn in my troll card?

That said, it's more the "promiscuous" part than the "raw" part that is dangerous. Promiscuous sex is dangerous, period. Rubbers break. Some diseases are transmitted with or without an intact rubber. Someone who has protected promiscuous sex is at far more risk than someone who has raw sex with one or three or five NON-promiscuous partners whose status he/she knows.
 

wingnut84

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Posts
265
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
163
Location
SATX
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
What about younger kids who don't realize how big of a risk they are taking. Some teens probably think that if it doesn't have huge bumps and puss leaking out of it then it is disease free. Then the person who does have it and may even know about it gives it to them and that naive kid just made the biggest mistake of their life. That's why condoms are encouraged because some kids don't realize how big of a risk they are taking and if they did they would probably be willing to always use a condom. I think there is may be more naive people with STD's than risk takers.

At no time did I discourage proper sex education, nor did I encourage promiscuity. IOW, PEOPLE NEED TO BE EDUCATED AND RESPONSIBLE. Raw sex is not inherently irresponsible, although it often is (especially when combined with promiscuity), just like gun ownership is not inherently irresponsible, even if it sometimes is (*cough* Cheney... *cough*)

It does no good to speak of raw sex as intrinsically a negative thing as if it were opera music or Rachel Ray. It's only as irresponsible as its practitioner.
 

ganja4me

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Posts
1,276
Media
8
Likes
17
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Your cute little allegory appears to indict infidelity and promiscuity far more than it does mere unprotected sex. If all the people in that town weren't cheating sluts then there wouldn't be a problem. In actuality, I don't have that much sympathy for any of them.

Look. PROMISCUOUS RAW SEX IS DANGEROUS!!! Are you all happy now? Do I get to turn in my troll card?

That said, it's more the "promiscuous" part than the "raw" part that is dangerous. Promiscuous sex is dangerous, period. Rubbers break. Some diseases are transmitted with or without an intact rubber. Someone who has protected promiscuous sex is at far more risk than someone who has raw sex with one or three or five NON-promiscuous partners whose status he/she knows.

I don't agree because a lot of people who have unprotected sex only think they know their partners status is which they don't. I think it would be safer to use a condom and have sex with 10 different people than to not use a condom and have sex with 3 people.

 

ganja4me

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Posts
1,276
Media
8
Likes
17
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
At no time did I discourage proper sex education, nor did I encourage promiscuity. IOW, PEOPLE NEED TO BE EDUCATED AND RESPONSIBLE. Raw sex is not inherently irresponsible, although it often is (especially when combined with promiscuity), just like gun ownership is not inherently irresponsible, even if it sometimes is (*cough* Cheney... *cough*)

It does no good to speak of raw sex as intrinsically a negative thing as if it were opera music or Rachel Ray. It's only as irresponsible as its practitioner.

I was referring to your post about people who have unprotected sex doing it because they like the risk. I was saying there are probably far more people who caught STD's because they were naive and didn't realize the mistake they were making. That is why here at this site condom use is encouraged and unprotected sex is looked down upon. Unless both partners have been tested and are only going to be with each other and are ready to have a baby if it is a straight couple.