Responsible sex and using condoms

[wingnut84]

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.​

I'd far rather have raw sex with 3 of my good friends, even if I wasn't 100% sure of their status, than protected sex with 10 crackwhores. You guys are speaking in absolutes when things are relative

 

[ganja4me]

I'd far rather have raw sex with 3 of my good friends, even if I wasn't 100% sure of their status, than protected sex with 10 crackwhores. You guys are speaking in absolutes when things are relative

Nobody said anything about having sex with crackwhores but the fact is you never know who could be carrying a disease. whether it is a friend or stranger unless you have seen the test results you don't know. You have a better chance of not catching anything if you just wrap it up.

​

 

[wingnut84]

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.​

That's certainly the ideal, isn't it. I don't deny this. My point is that not all sex which doesn't fit all of these characteristics is akin to serial murder or indicitive of pathological indifference to others.

 

[DC_DEEP]

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.

You are getting there, but no, you don't get to turn in your troll card just yet.

How do you know the disease status of these one or three or five partners? Ask them? Oh, right, I get it... they are friends, and they look like fine upstanding citizens, so they must be negative, right? You have not taken any of my posts in context. Not once have I ever said "no one should ever have bareback sex, ever, with anyone." Every single one of my admonitions was in the context of sex with multiple partners (you do realize that "multiple partners" IS the definition of promiscuous?)

 

[Greekdick69]

I totally 2nd that DCDEEP, in my mind there is no point in trying to convince someone to have protected sex though. It's an extremely simple concept.

If that person likes to play his/her odds (as low as they might be, because the other person looks healthy) well then that is just how much that person values his/her health and ultimately life.

Would it kill them to use a condom? NO.
Would it kill them to not use a condom? Some of them are not here to post anymore or to tell us what the outcome was.

Simple!

I just don't see why some people think that out of the two choices, unprotected sex is the best one. Am I dumb?

Play safe always.

 

[DC_DEEP]

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?

I figured you would out yourself as a homophobic idiot. That's why in a previous post, I encouraged you to keep posting.

I totally 2nd that DCDEEP, in my mind there is no point in trying to convince someone to have protected sex though. It's an extremely simple concept.

If that person likes to play his/her odds (as low as they might be, because the other person looks healthy) well then that is just how much that person values his/her health and ultimately life.

Right. It isn't condom use that helps prevent disease, it's how someone looks. Cute, attractive, young women are incapable of contracting or transmitting any disease, barebacking or not Oh, and they are all virgins, even after they have had sex. Crackwhores all have every disease known to mankind, and you will catch all those diseases just by looking at them. No "nice" person has ever had a disease.

Would it kill them to use a condom? NO.
Would it kill them to not use a condom? Some of them are not here to post anymore or to tell us what the outcome was.

Simple!

I just don't see why some people think that out of the two choices, unprotected sex is the best one. Am I dumb?

Play safe always.

[irony]Yeah, you are dumb for saying "don't take chances." [/irony] I'm still trying to figure out why wingnut thought the seatbelt analogy made any sense. Perhaps I'm the dumb one if I think wearing a seatbelt only has impact on that one person, while having sex with another person has an impact on both of them.

 

[Kotchanski]

I'm still trying to figure out why wingnut thought the seatbelt analogy made any sense. Perhaps I'm the dumb one if I think wearing a seatbelt only has impact on that one person, while having sex with another person has an impact on both of them.

Not to be picky hon, but you forgot to mention the impact on future partners they might have before realising they might want to go and get tested. In all fairness, those not using condoms outside of long term relationships are unlikely to be getting themselves tested on a regular basis, even more unlikely to be waiting a reasonable amount of time between partners to allow for these tests to be accurate.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Kot and wingnut, let's be serious for a moment. It's easy for us to assume that everyone has the same level of sexual health awareness that we have, but that just is not the case.

If you read only just a few posts on this board over the course of a couple of months, you start to realize that there are WAY too many people out there in the general public who have an 18-year-old's sex drive combined with a 6-year-old's understanding of human sexuality. That's a horrible combination. Here's some sobering information about sexuality education in the USA. One section taken from SIECUS website (Sexuality and Information Education Council of the United States):


Sexuality education mandates.

• Nineteen states, including the District of Columbia, require schools to provide sexuality education. (DE, DC, GA, IL, IA, KS, KY, MD, MN, NV, NJ, NC, RI, SC, TN, UT, VT, WV, WY)
• Thirty-two states do not require schools to provide sexuality education. (AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, FL, HI, ID, IN, LA, ME, MA, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NH, NM, NY, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SD, TX, VA, WA, WI)31

Content requirements. Regarding sexuality education, content requirements for abstinence and contraception were examined. Many states also have mandates for the inclusion or prohibition of other information, such as information on puberty and sexual orientation.

• Of the 19 states that require schools to provide sexuality education, three (IL, KY, UT) require schools that teach sexuality education to teach abstinence but do not require that they teach about contraception.
• Of the 19 states that require schools to provide sexuality education, nine (DE, GA, NJ, NC, RI, SC, TN, VT, WV) require schools that teach abstinence to also teach about contraception.
• Of the 32 states that do not require schools to provide sexuality education, 11 (AL, AZ, CO, FL, IN, LA, MI, MS, OK, SD, TX) require that curricula, when taught, must include information about abstinence but not about contraception. Of those 11 states, six (AL, FL, IN, LA, MS, TX) require that curricula, when taught, must include abstinence-only-until-marriage education.
• Of the 32 states that do not require schools to provide sexuality education, five (CA, HI, MO, OR, VA) require that curricula, when taught, must provide information about abstinence and contraception. Of these five, three (CA, MO, VA) specify abstinence-only-until-marriage education.

STD/HIV education mandates.

• Thirty-six states, including the District of Columbia, require schools to provide STD, HIV, and/or AIDS education. (AL, CA, CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, MD, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, UT, VT, WA, WV, WI, WY)
• Fifteen states do not require schools to provide STD, HIV, and/or AIDS education. (AK, AZ, AR, CO, HI, ID, LA, ME, MA, MS, MT, NE, SD, TX, VA)

Content requirements. For STD and/or HIV/AIDS education, content requirements for abstinence and prevention methods were examined.

• Of the 36 states that require schools to provide STD, HIV, and/or AIDS education, two (IN, OH) require that such education also teach abstinence-only-until-marriage but do not require information about prevention methods.
• Of the 36 states that require schools to provide STD, HIV, and/or AIDS education, 24 (AL, CA, DE, FL, GA, IL, KY, MI, MN, MO, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, UT, VT, WA, WV) require that such education also teach about abstinence and methods of prevention. Of these 24 states, 12 (AL, CA, FL, GA, IL, MN, MO, NC, SC, TN, UT, WA) specify abstinence-only-until-marriage education.
• Of the 15 states that do not require schools to provide STD, HIV, and/or AIDS education, four (AZ, LA, MS, TX) require that such education also teach abstinence but not prevention methods. Of these four, three (LA, MS, and TX) specify abstinence-only-until-marriage.
• Of the 15 states that do not require schools to provide STD, HIV, and/or AIDS education, two (HI, VA) require that such programs, if taught, must also teach abstinence and methods of prevention. Virginia specifies abstinence-only-until-marriage.

I don't know about you, but I find these statistics to be dismal. Most of these kids aren't getting it at home, either. So where do the get information? The internet or not at all. Giving them the impression that "condoms are always optional" is not a good plan. I would much rather have an uninformed teen take my "always use a condom" statement out of context, rather than taking someone else's "there's no need to wear a condom if you don't want to, it's your choice" statement out of context.