FabSwingers.com > Forums > Swinging Support and Advice > How safe is sex with TS/TV

How safe is sex with TS/TV

Jump to: Newest in thread

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

As it speaks really? How safe is sex with 'male to male'..

Thoughts guys?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *rincess peachWoman over a year ago

shits creek

I'm assuming you're talking sti here, so I would suggest a condom, exactly the same as you would with a woman.

It's not like you're gonna get pregnant so I'm sure you wouldn't need the pill.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

From a HIV point of view

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *issyyourbadWoman over a year ago

Dorset

Exactly the same

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"From a HIV point of view "

Is this really a serious question

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *haneleviMan over a year ago

Kidderminster

"As it speaks really? How safe is sex with 'male to male'..

Thoughts guys?"

Never tried or crossed my mind to try.

I'd of thought safe though since it would just be anal, plus protection used man

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Part of me wants to go make popcorn.

The other, legally-trained part of me feels obliged to point a couple of things out.

TV and TS are vastly different things.

Neither of them have anything to do with sexuality, they are both gender issues.

The question you are asking *could* be construed as asking whether analysis sex is safe.......except that analysis sex can happen in a heterosexual relationship as well as a homosexual one. What you're asking is "is gay sex between two men safe", which is at high risk of inciting divisive feelings between different groups. What we in the legal profession call "discrimination".

Rather than stop there though, you twist it around to attack people on the basis of their gender; again, we call this "discrimination".

So you're discriminating against no less than TWO legally-protected attributes: sexually and gender.

Hopefully this comment will prompt the moderators to remove your post before it sparks a backlash.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *na WintersTV/TS over a year ago

woodford halse

Either, have sex with tested people of which you are sure they are clean.

Or, use a condom.

Just so you are aware, STIs aren't the sort of thing that gender affect that much. The chance of catching something is equal for both men and women.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ed wineMan over a year ago

Where the streets have no name

"As it speaks really? How safe is sex with 'male to male'..

Thoughts guys?"

Straight? You seem quite interested in male encounters...

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

And yes, my phone refuses to let me type "anal" and replaces it with "analysis", which makes my whole post seem comical.....

But hilarious typo aside, it's a serious point.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *na WintersTV/TS over a year ago

woodford halse

Tbh, the way which he asked the question, and considering the thread title actually says TV/TS, I took no offence to this, just an uninformed person whom has probably seen somebody he finds attractive and thought he'd ask, and no matter which way I look at it, I cannot see a problem with.

At least he is asking, would you prefer he just wing it, get unlucky on the first time and catch something.

Potentially also transferring it to others, he meets.

Ofcourse not.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *vgloryholebs16TV/TS over a year ago

Bristol.

Has the horse already bolted??

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Thank you very much, I seen so many 'lady boys' on here, and they all look so attractive, so it's better to learn first and ask others for advice, as I take my health seriously. It's nice to see your educated unlike others x

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *isandreTV/TS over a year ago

Durham

"As it speaks really? How safe is sex with 'male to male'..

Thoughts guys?"

While technically correct, it's so disappointing to be referred to as 'male'. Fucking HOURS (and fortunes) I spend each time trying not to look male. Grrr!

OP, are you asking if we generally engage in unprotected promiscuous sex in the same way a lot of gay men on the scene did back in the 70's in the days before HIV?

We are generally all aware of the perils so we are no better and no worse than everyone else.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Sorry that's why I 'inverted' it a lot of your look better than women haha, no I'm just curious and like want to facts and figures etc. And just how safe it is, what are the dos and don't s? X

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *na WintersTV/TS over a year ago

woodford halse

I agree with previous, being called/described as male infuriates me.

But ultimately, it is the truth, and it's something I have come to accept, until the time arises that I can do something about it that is.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes there is a statistically proven higher risk of contracting HIV by having sex with a gay man than say a woman.

If that man is wearing lipstick and/or a dress, neither of those reduces that risk.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"From a HIV point of view "

The exact same has anal with a woman.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *na WintersTV/TS over a year ago

woodford halse

"Yes there is a statistically proven higher risk of contracting HIV by having sex with a gay man than say a woman.

If that man is wearing lipstick and/or a dress, neither of those reduces that risk."

If by statistically higher, you mean, more men have HIV than women, then yes.

But the chance of contracting HIV by having sex with a sexually active man, is equal to that of having sex with a sexually active woman, 50/50....

If you know they don't have HIV, the chance is 0%

If you don't know if they have HIV, the chance doesn't matter, wear a condom!

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Part of me wants to go make popcorn.

The other, legally-trained part of me feels obliged to point a couple of things out.

TV and TS are vastly different things.

Neither of them have anything to do with sexuality, they are both gender issues.

Rather than stop there though, you twist it around to attack people on the basis of their gender; again, we call this "discrimination".

So you're discriminating against no less than TWO legally-protected attributes: sexually and gender.

Hopefully this comment will prompt the moderators to remove your post before it sparks a backlash. "

The legally trained part of you is terriblely trained then he's not carried out any discrimination.

Statistically its hard to say as data is limited.

Gay, bi and trans communties tend to have higher rates of hiv as a % part of this is due to increased risk from anal, part is the reduced use of protection.

However you're on a swingers site where again data is very limited but even heterosexual sex here carrys much more risk than in the "normal world"

Use protection though and even with a HIV positive partner infection chance drops to almost nothing.

Best thing is make sure yourself and your partners are reguarly tested.

Most clinics that over finger prick instant hiv tests will let you take them together infront of eafh other.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Yes there is a statistically proven higher risk of contracting HIV by having sex with a gay man than say a woman.

If that man is wearing lipstick and/or a dress, neither of those reduces that risk."

No there is a statistically higher chance of a gay man having hiv.

The risk of transmision for penetrative anal is the same.

Unless the op is wanting to bottom to a tv or ts or man then the risk is orders of magnitude higher.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Part of me wants to go make popcorn.

The other, legally-trained part of me feels obliged to point a couple of things out.

TV and TS are vastly different things.

Neither of them have anything to do with sexuality, they are both gender issues.

Rather than stop there though, you twist it around to attack people on the basis of their gender; again, we call this "discrimination".

So you're discriminating against no less than TWO legally-protected attributes: sexually and gender.

Hopefully this comment will prompt the moderators to remove your post before it sparks a backlash. "
No discrimination as far as I see.???

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Yes there is a statistically proven higher risk of contracting HIV by having sex with a gay man than say a woman.

If that man is wearing lipstick and/or a dress, neither of those reduces that risk.

If by statistically higher, you mean, more men have HIV than women, then yes.

But the chance of contracting HIV by having sex with a sexually active man, is equal to that of having sex with a sexually active woman, 50/50....

If you know they don't have HIV, the chance is 0%

If you don't know if they have HIV, the chance doesn't matter, wear a condom!

What the fuck is up with this oddball delusion?? The chances of you contracting HIV rise significantly whilst engaging in sexual activity with a gay man. And thats coming from someone who is bisexual. Its not "bigoted", its just the truth. Seriously, some of you people...only god knows

Do you have any remote grasp of statistics? 50/50? Considering there are more sexually active gay/bisexual men with hepatitis/HIV it stands to reason that if you're having sex with multiple gay/bisexual men then your chances of contracting these diseases increase. Safe sex obviously prevent this.

And yes, TV's have a higher incidence of STD's.

I think this is EXACTLY why swingers really DO contribute to the increased STD rates happening. A lot of them are patently goddamn deluded. Its as if people think STDs somehow dont exist once you reach 40.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *xplicitlyricsMan over a year ago

south dublin

"Yes there is a statistically proven higher risk of contracting HIV by having sex with a gay man than say a woman.

If that man is wearing lipstick and/or a dress, neither of those reduces that risk.

If by statistically higher, you mean, more men have HIV than women, then yes.

But the chance of contracting HIV by having sex with a sexually active man, is equal to that of having sex with a sexually active woman, 50/50....

If you know they don't have HIV, the chance is 0%

If you don't know if they have HIV, the chance doesn't matter, wear a condom!

Actually men are a lot less likely to contract HIV from a female who is HIV+ than if you receive from a man who is HIV+.

Receiving anal is the easiest way to transfer the virus (for men or women) receiving vaginally is the next easiest, after that its penetrating vaginally.

And its not discriminatory to be aware of the fact that some groups are, unfortunately, suffering from a higher incident rate of HIV. Nor being aware of what the risks are of each type of sex. Knowing and understanding the risks is the best way to minimise the spread and being able to talk about it reduces the stigma attached to it.

All that said: wear a condom unless youre in a relationship where you only have unprotected sex with each other and youve both been tested.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *na WintersTV/TS over a year ago

woodford halse

"Yes there is a statistically proven higher risk of contracting HIV by having sex with a gay man than say a woman.

If that man is wearing lipstick and/or a dress, neither of those reduces that risk.

If by statistically higher, you mean, more men have HIV than women, then yes.

But the chance of contracting HIV by having sex with a sexually active man, is equal to that of having sex with a sexually active woman, 50/50....

If you know they don't have HIV, the chance is 0%

If you don't know if they have HIV, the chance doesn't matter, wear a condom!

And yes, TV's have a higher incidence of STD's.

Do I understand statistics, you obviously have issue understanding English though. Not once did I deny that more men have HIV than women, I simply stated that the chance of you contracting HIV from a male, is no higher than a female.

When you have unprotected sex with a person of questionable promiscuity, you either catch something, or you don't.

50/50....

You don't come out of that situation saying "well, I played the odds, and I only got chlamydia"

You say, "I got lucky, lets be more careful from now on"

Also, OFCOURSE having sex with multiple partners will increase the risk of meeting somebody 'positive', but that's the same no matter the gender, the CHANCE is still 50/50, they either have HIV and you're fucked, or they don't, and you're probably still fucked, but the good kind.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Yes there is a statistically proven higher risk of contracting HIV by having sex with a gay man than say a woman.

If that man is wearing lipstick and/or a dress, neither of those reduces that risk.

If by statistically higher, you mean, more men have HIV than women, then yes.

But the chance of contracting HIV by having sex with a sexually active man, is equal to that of having sex with a sexually active woman, 50/50....

If you know they don't have HIV, the chance is 0%

If you don't know if they have HIV, the chance doesn't matter, wear a condom!

And yes, TV's have a higher incidence of STD's.

When you have unprotected sex with a person of questionable promiscuity, you either catch something, or you don't.

50/50....

You don't come out of that situation saying "well, I played the odds, and I only got chlamydia"

You say, "I got lucky, lets be more careful from now on"

Actually yes it is. Your chances of contraccting HIV from an infected male ARE higher than from an infected female. This is what I said, a flagrant disregard for biological fact. Men are much better at transmitting sexual diseases than women are.

And no, the chance IS NOT 50/50. Condoms do not make one completely susceptible to contracting STDs though the risk is significantly reduced. And no, its the NOT the same no matter the gender, among gay men the incidence of HIV (one of the few STD which can actually kill you) is much higher. Promiscuous gay men are more likely to be infected than promiscuous women.

Your logic is so braindead it boggles the mind and its the same logic that would make me absolutely paranoid to ever considering playing with someone who shared similar views. Its very likely that if you're that unenlightened towards the risks of STD's then you're probably a lot more reckless too.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *evilsAdvocate72Woman over a year ago

East

You don't have to be promiscuous to contract an STI, you just have to meet the wrong person.

Also I thought Transvestites were men who like to wear women's clothing, some are straight, some are gay and some are bisexual.

Transgender on the other hand is a man trapped in a woman's body or vice versa.

Why label them together?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *emmabTV/TS over a year ago

Leicestershire

"And no, its the NOT the same no matter the gender, among gay men the incidence of HIV (one of the few STD which can actually kill you) is much higher"

HIV is now considered a chronic illness now as retroviral drugs are so good that a HIV positive person would be expected to live a full life if they where to stick to the drugs correctly. Also your status become undetectable as far as viral load is concerned and some experts consider that to be non infectious.

But in answer to question, from my point of view you original question in regard to the sexual safety of trans gender people is insulting as it assumes that the have a higher incidence of HIV than non trans people. But you fancy the because the conform to your stereo type of what females should look like.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Just shaking my head...... wow just wow

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *rightonsteveMan over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

"As it speaks really? How safe is sex with 'male to male'..

Thoughts guys?"

Really dangerous if it's like balanced on a cliff edge or something.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *hampagneAfterpartyCouple over a year ago

theSuperfreak sums up my thoughts exactly.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *andj91Couple over a year ago

Glasgow

It doesn't matter who it is, you could catch HIV or anything else from anyone whether they are male, female, CD, TV, ts, gay, straight, hi, anal or vaginal....

Just make sure your being safe and not meeting 'dirty' people.

However statistically your more likely to get it from someone with 'male' parts rather than a female with a vagina.

Moral of the story use a condom and check they are clean if concerned

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Suggest you go down to your local NHS sexual health clinic. They will provide you with information relevant to any interests you might have, and they'll test you at the same time.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If yiur having sex with a t v make sure it's unplugged before sticking anything in it and you should be fine

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *andj91Couple over a year ago

Glasgow

"If yiur having sex with a t v make sure it's unplugged before sticking anything in it and you should be fine

Hahaha could be an electrifying experience!

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *olden_Road_to_SamarkandMan over a year ago

London & North Wessex Downs

You're sadly spot on. As someone that has worked extensively in the area of STDs, at a relatively senior level, I can vouch for the accuracy of these sad but true statistics. You merely need to look at some of the photos people upload onto profiles to see extensive evidence of STDs. As they used to say on Hill Street Blues 'Be careful out there'!

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *fcdTV/TS over a year ago

Southend

"HIV is now considered a chronic illness now as retroviral drugs are so good"
There's still a significant minority of people who don't respond to these so this isn't strictly true.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If yiur having sex with a t v make sure it's unplugged before sticking anything in it and you should be fine

Hahaha could be an electrifying experience! "

lol I never thought of that

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *he Queen of TartsWoman over a year ago
Forum Mod

My Own Little World

How safe is anal sex with anyone?

Does how they dress make them more susceptible to STIs?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *na WintersTV/TS over a year ago

woodford halse

"Yes there is a statistically proven higher risk of contracting HIV by having sex with a gay man than say a woman.

If that man is wearing lipstick and/or a dress, neither of those reduces that risk.

If by statistically higher, you mean, more men have HIV than women, then yes.

But the chance of contracting HIV by having sex with a sexually active man, is equal to that of having sex with a sexually active woman, 50/50....

If you know they don't have HIV, the chance is 0%

If you don't know if they have HIV, the chance doesn't matter, wear a condom!

And yes, TV's have a higher incidence of STD's.

When you have unprotected sex with a person of questionable promiscuity, you either catch something, or you don't.

50/50....

You don't come out of that situation saying "well, I played the odds, and I only got chlamydia"

You say, "I got lucky, lets be more careful from now on"

This is almost offensive!

Me, the person who advocated condoms from the start of this thread, a lot more reckless.

Firstly, condoms never make you "completely susceptible" to anything, in fact, they actually work the other way, they make you less susceptible.

Secondly, the chances of contraction differ depending on whom has the disease, and what position they fill.

From what I have read, the approximate odds of catching are as follows.

Poz top is 1:70 if he cums inside and 1:154 if not.

Poz bottom is 1:909 if he is circumcised, and 1:161 if not, granted they're not facts, it's an approximation given the difficulty in actually makin. This sort of statistical analysis.

As for your utter rudeness, well, poor social skills?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *inkyChrissy99TV/TS over a year ago

Bristol

Tbh if you call them a man for starters.... Very unsafe... Your guard best be good

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ommenhimCouple over a year ago

wigan

"Part of me wants to go make popcorn.

The other, legally-trained part of me feels obliged to point a couple of things out.

TV and TS are vastly different things.

Neither of them have anything to do with sexuality, they are both gender issues.

Rather than stop there though, you twist it around to attack people on the basis of their gender; again, we call this "discrimination".

So you're discriminating against no less than TWO legally-protected attributes: sexually and gender.

Hopefully this comment will prompt the moderators to remove your post before it sparks a backlash. "

Are you good at making popcorn?

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 19/01/17 13:42:59]

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"From a HIV point of view "

Same level of risk as Gay sex; the frock doesn't change a damn thing

I hope you knew that already

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *ELLONS AND CREAMWoman over a year ago

stourbridge area

A guy having anal with another guy .... high risk

And if your having anal or vaginal sex with a women still high risk ...... theres always a risk ....

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I've only been on the the forums for a short while, and think this has to be the worse thread I've seen.

The amount is prejudice and down right rudeness is unbelievable.

What a ridiculous question !!!!

I'm fuming at some of your replies.

IF YOU PRACTICE UNSAFE SEX, DOESN'T MATTER WHO YOU ARE.

MAN, WOMAN, STRAIGHT, GAY, LESBIANS, BISEXUAL, TRANSVESTITE, TRANSSEXUAL AND ANYTHING IN BETWEEN.

NONE OF YOU ARE IMMUNED !!!

JUST LOOK AT THE THOUSANDS DYING IN AFRICA AND REST OF THE WORLD THEY CAN'T ALL BE GAY.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Part of me wants to go make popcorn.

The other, legally-trained part of me feels obliged to point a couple of things out.

TV and TS are vastly different things.

Neither of them have anything to do with sexuality, they are both gender issues.

Rather than stop there though, you twist it around to attack people on the basis of their gender; again, we call this "discrimination".

So you're discriminating against no less than TWO legally-protected attributes: sexually and gender.

Hopefully this comment will prompt the moderators to remove your post before it sparks a backlash. "

I'm sorry I have to step in and put my oar in.

I'm a middle aged, white male and even I know the difference between "Discrimination" And "Attacked". You can't accidentally attack a person, it's done deliberately. When you accidentally kill someone, it's not called murder. Intent is the key here. If you feel the OP is a Troll and deliberately antagonistic in his question, then say so and be done with it.

Ignorance on the other hand can be forgiven and treated.

With that in mind OP. Anal sex, unprotected is the most high risk form of sex if you are concerned about the risk of HIV. Simply because the risk of tears and rope to the skin for either partner (according to the military lectures and information on leaflets in my local GUM clinic. Having said that, HIV, antibiotics resistant gonorrhea, Syphilis, Herpes and all manner of nasty shit can be passed almost as easily through oral and vaginally sex.

So whether you're fucking or being fucked be a man, woman or whatever the person you're having sex with defines themselves as... I'd leave the wrapper on, or wait till you trust each other enough to take that risk.

I've noticed a lot of I'm this, I'm that, you know nothing about me, I'm unique, how dare you judge me till you've walked in my shoes, holier than thou posts lately. OK you've gone through some gender issues? Guess what? Those aren't the only issues in the world? If the forums are to be believed, every man on FAB is a closet homosexuality. I spoke to a lady recently who was in a wheelchair, I hadn't noticed from her pictures, as I'd only glanced, after she had contacted me. When I asked if this was indeed the case, in what I felt to be a friendly way. I got quite a negative response and a telling off for having the nerve to ask! If she'd have taken a breath and simply said "Yes". She may have got to know me well enough, that for me it all depends on the person and chemistry. She assumed I was ignorant and treated me as such, in actual fact, her own ignorance was exposed and made me not want to reply.

Instead of getting your knickers in a twist and dishing out the isms and ists everytime you feel personally insulted by an outstanding display of ignorance. You have the luxury of ignoring it, safe in the knowledge that most people accept you for who you are. Or, even better, educate others. Why let it bother you, no harm was intended.

I'm guessing the only reason the OP asked is he's probably a little concerned as he's heard some rumours and still finds himself wanting to have sex with someone he views as a woman with a cock! He's hardly a trans-ist (probably wrong, totally politically incorrect and non-inclusive term I made up as I wrote).

OP - Maybe you need to brush up on your people skills and learn a little bit about sexual health (go to Gum clinic for direct, honest answers, don't trust anyone if you're not sure). And if you're planning on meeting up with anyone Trans, I suggest you quickly define what level on the spectrum of gender AND sexuality they view themselves and how they would like you to view them. Because I disagree with the post I'm quoting. TS/TV mean different things to different people, regardless of law, biology, philosophy or personal preference.

Rant over, don't take it personally. I may have quoted you, but it's in response to a build up of negative posts and yours has got the brunt of my mind

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *inkyChrissy99TV/TS over a year ago

Bristol

Wow, this thread has gone mental

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"As it speaks really? How safe is sex with 'male to male'..

Thoughts guys?"

Thoughts ? Seriously OP ?

If you have concerns the place for advise has to be your local Sexual Health/GUM clinic

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *mmmMaybeCouple over a year ago

West Wales

"Yes there is a statistically proven higher risk of contracting HIV by having sex with a gay man than say a woman.

If that man is wearing lipstick and/or a dress, neither of those reduces that risk.

If by statistically higher, you mean, more men have HIV than women, then yes.

But the chance of contracting HIV by having sex with a sexually active man, is equal to that of having sex with a sexually active woman, 50/50....

If you know they don't have HIV, the chance is 0%

If you don't know if they have HIV, the chance doesn't matter, wear a condom!

And yes, TV's have a higher incidence of STD's.

When you have unprotected sex with a person of questionable promiscuity, you either catch something, or you don't.

50/50....

You don't come out of that situation saying "well, I played the odds, and I only got chlamydia"

You say, "I got lucky, lets be more careful from now on"

Am I missing something? Yes its 50/50 yes/no whether someone has something but that isn't the risk. Its the pool you choose from where the higher risk is. Say for instance in biguys/gay/TV etc. it's 2/10 of each group carrying something & 1/10 for straight guys. Pick a straight guy to play risk is 10%, pick another group its 20%.

That's how you measure risk surely not 50/50 whether an individual has something or not.

Oh and did I not read somewhere that the slowest reduction in HIV is in heterosexual males? Doubtless the % is probably less than the other groups, but the fact if true that it is lowering slower rather says straight guys haven't quite got the message when those playing more leftfield have.

Just wear a condom & do the best to keep yourself safe whoever you choose to play with

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

This is almost offensive!

Me, the person who advocated condoms from the start of this thread, a lot more reckless.

Firstly, condoms never make you "completely susceptible" to anything, in fact, they actually work the other way, they make you less susceptible.

Secondly, the chances of contraction differ depending on whom has the disease, and what position they fill.

From what I have read, the approximate odds of catching are as follows.

Poz top is 1:70 if he cums inside and 1:154 if not.

Poz bottom is 1:909 if he is circumcised, and 1:161 if not, granted they're not facts, it's an approximation given the difficulty in actually makin. This sort of statistical analysis.

As for your utter rudeness, well, poor social skills?"

LOL how did I know you would say my comments are "offensive".

You're also sitting here, with a straight face, trying to pretend that STD rates are somehow the same among LGBT communities and heterosexuals.

This is what has MASSIVELY put me off that entire community in general. ALOT of it is made up of liberal supported delusion and recklessness.

If someone told me that they would be more concerned about catching HIV from an African man like myself. I would agree. BECAUSE ITS TRUE.

And my comments on condoms was a typo. Yes, condoms do not make one completely devoid of possibility of becoming infected and thus it only supports my point. Do you know what the incidence of catching HIV among women is? 1:10000. Clearly a significant difference.

The vast, VAST majority of those newly infected with HIV are those from the LGBT community.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *tace 309TV/TS over a year ago

durham

"From a HIV point of view

Same level of risk as Gay sex; the frock doesn't change a damn thing

I hope you knew that already"
yes the frock doesn't change anything man wearing one or woman wearing one.I'd recommend wearing a condom with whoever your dipping your wick with.its not about which sex has the higher risk.a risk is a risk no matter what and anything with a risk factor above 0.0000001% is a risk too high .play safe at all times

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Africa.. A lot of that has to do with cultures,like the one in some tribes who have holy men.. Who travel from village to village, taking all the young women's virginity before they are allowed to marry! No condoms, cum inside etc. Some in full knowledge they have HIV!!!

Gender shouldn't be an issue, but it is. On the whole I'd say men are more promiscuous than women. Amongst themselves men are equally promiscuous and increasing there own chances the more people they have sex with. I guess therefore the most likely gender to pass HIV on, is the promiscuous, bisexual man. These are rough statistics accepted by most people with an ounce of common sense and eyes.

Get all uppity about it gay, bi, Trans discrimination.. In reality, all I'm saying is bag it up, take care of yourself and statistics, facts or isms aside.. Your risk drops massively in sex... But I guess you'll receive a bj unprotected... Which makes all of this one big unfunny joke really.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *layfullsamMan over a year ago

Solihull

"If yiur having sex with a t v make sure it's unplugged before sticking anything in it and you should be fine

Hahaha could be an electrifying experience!

lol I never thought of that

And definitely don't have sex with a widescreen tv, have one of those buggers fall on you and you're buggered(excuse the pun)

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *obyn GravesTV/TS over a year ago

1127 walnut avenue

I'd say it's pretty safe.. unless your married... and your wife finds out.. then it could be life threatening

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

This is almost offensive!

Me, the person who advocated condoms from the start of this thread, a lot more reckless.

Firstly, condoms never make you "completely susceptible" to anything, in fact, they actually work the other way, they make you less susceptible.

Secondly, the chances of contraction differ depending on whom has the disease, and what position they fill.

From what I have read, the approximate odds of catching are as follows.

Poz top is 1:70 if he cums inside and 1:154 if not.

Poz bottom is 1:909 if he is circumcised, and 1:161 if not, granted they're not facts, it's an approximation given the difficulty in actually makin. This sort of statistical analysis.

As for your utter rudeness, well, poor social skills?

LOL how did I know you would say my comments are "offensive".

You're also sitting here, with a straight face, trying to pretend that STD rates are somehow the same among LGBT communities and heterosexuals.

This is what has MASSIVELY put me off that entire community in general. ALOT of it is made up of liberal supported delusion and recklessness.

If someone told me that they would be more concerned about catching HIV from an African man like myself. I would agree. BECAUSE ITS TRUE.

Yes, it's true - if you look at ACTUAL statistics ans scientific papers, African males and men who have sex with men are by far the highest risk groups identified, for sti and even antibiotic resistant sti eg:

"It is argued that in comparison with heterosexuals, high-risk MSM (hrMSM) have a higher prevalence of oro-penile, oro-rectal and anal sex which facilitates an enhanced mixing of the pharyngeal, rectal and penile microbiomes. In addition, hrMSM have an increased number of sexual partners per unit time and an increased prevalence of sexual relationships overlapping in time. The increased ?ux of microbio-mes between different body habitats between sexual partners, in combination with the increased con-nectivity of the sexual network, serve to create a novel high-risk MSM sexual ecosystem with important consequences for the genesis and spread of antibiotic resistance"

Reading that you can see all of this could quite easily apply to active swingers too, so it is not lost on me that all of us could be in a high risk group, and I think it better if we are all well aware of that possibility!!!

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *arehamMan over a year ago

handforth

No difference between anyone else?.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

This is almost offensive!

Me, the person who advocated condoms from the start of this thread, a lot more reckless.

Firstly, condoms never make you "completely susceptible" to anything, in fact, they actually work the other way, they make you less susceptible.

Secondly, the chances of contraction differ depending on whom has the disease, and what position they fill.

From what I have read, the approximate odds of catching are as follows.

Poz top is 1:70 if he cums inside and 1:154 if not.

Poz bottom is 1:909 if he is circumcised, and 1:161 if not, granted they're not facts, it's an approximation given the difficulty in actually makin. This sort of statistical analysis.

As for your utter rudeness, well, poor social skills?

LOL how did I know you would say my comments are "offensive".

You're also sitting here, with a straight face, trying to pretend that STD rates are somehow the same among LGBT communities and heterosexuals.

This is what has MASSIVELY put me off that entire community in general. ALOT of it is made up of liberal supported delusion and recklessness.

If someone told me that they would be more concerned about catching HIV from an African man like myself. I would agree. BECAUSE ITS TRUE.

Exactly so long as we're all as safe as we can be. I don't see why you're all bickering about the risk difference between each group is minimal by comparison.

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *mmmMaybeCouple over a year ago

West Wales

"I'd say it's pretty safe.. unless your married... and your wife finds out.. then it could be life threatening

Much safer to play with one & your wife

Reply privately (thread closed by moderator)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"Part of me wants to go make popcorn.

The other, legally-trained part of me feels obliged to point a couple of things out.

TV and TS are vastly different things.

Neither of them have anything to do with sexuality, they are both gender issues.

Rather than stop there though, you twist it around to attack people on the basis of their gender; again, we call this "discrimination".

So you're discriminating against no less than TWO legally-protected attributes: sexually and gender.

Hopefully this comment will prompt the moderators to remove your post before it sparks a backlash. "

All I can say is that the legal 'training' is terrible in this country

Discrimination is when someone in a protected category is treated less favourably than the comparator

TV/TS can potentially be covered by three protected categories:

1) Gender (legally recognised genders are male or female; in this instance, I think the question asked was about males; the comparator would be 'female')

2) Sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc; in this case, homosexual sex was being discussed; the comparator would be heterosexual)

3) Gender reassignment (possible category as it is not necessary for someone to have changed their genitalia before being recognised is their true gender; the comparator would be cis-gender people)

Nobody forced (1) to have sex with another male resulting in (2) homosexual sex. (3) Nobody is forcing them not to have sex just as cis-gender people do

Anal sex is the riskiest form of sex. It remains risky whether it is between two men or a man and a woman. Heterosexual couples may engage in anal sex as part of penetrative sex, but Gay men and TV/TS always do engage in anal sex as part of penetrative sex. Anyone care to comment as to this is the case