FabSwingers.com > Forums > Swingers Chat > Is safe sex 100% possible?
Is safe sex 100% possible?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"There was recently an interesting discussion on safe sex where people gave their views on whether or not they would go bareback, the use of condoms during sex and the importance of keeping clean and healthy. However, just how far do people take the idea of safe sex and is safe sex something that they practice for all forms of sexual activity and not just for vaginal intercourse. As we all know the more sexual partners you have the more chance there is of contracting an std and these diseases can be transmitted via other means such as oral sex, anal intercourse, rimming and even kissing. So how far do we go to keep ourselves safe? Are condoms used for oral and anal sex as well for intercourse and do people use latex barriers when having oral sex with a woman or during rimming? Is it possible to practise 100% safe sex when swinging or would that take away a lot of the fun? I know I haven’t addressed this question very well but I am interested in peoples views on such an important issue. ORAL SEX ON A VULVA Oral sex on a vulva is called cunnilingus. A slang term is "going down" on someone. This is a really low risk activity for HIV (the virus that causes AIDS). But cunnilingus puts you at significant risk for things that can be passed through skin-to-skin contact, like herpes. ORAL SEX ON A PENIS Oral sex on a penis, is called fellatio or a blow job. It is a lower risk activity for HIV transmission than is vaginal or anal sex, but it is a higher risk than cunnilingus. Oral sex on a penis also puts you at risk for infections like herpes and gonorrhoea even if the guy doesn’t ejaculate in the mouth. Some STDs (like chlamydia, gonorrhoea and HIV) are from bacteria or viruses transmitted in ejaculatory and pre-ejaculatory fluid. Others, like herpes, HPV and syphilis, are growing in the skin or just inside the opening of the penis and are transmitted when mucosal surfaces (such as the penis and mouth) come in contact with each other. ANALINGUS Analingus, or rimming, refers to using your mouth on a partner's anus. Analingus isn't generally a risk for HIV. However, it can expose you to a number of parasites and can put you at risk for hepatitis. KISSING It's possible to catch herpes just from kissing someone on the mouth. Experts believe the risk of catching HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) from kissing is low. But, if someone has a cut or sore in their mouth, there is a chance of infection during open-mouthed kissing." oh god my urge has gone ;( | |||
| |||
"Safe sex is very importrant... If we have folk over we have cushions on the floor.. padded headboards fluffy cuffs.. the whole nine yards.. " Thats just kinky sex lol, im liking you | |||
"Safe sex is very importrant... If we have folk over we have cushions on the floor.. padded headboards fluffy cuffs.. the whole nine yards.. " he he he trust you notts ...unfortunately while condom manufacturers are allowed a margin of failure without product recall there can not safe sex within swingers.However if you and your partner are totally 100% faithful and lock in to just have sex-xontact with each other having had clear test results it is 100% safe. As you know in the bareback thread the numbers from the govt were crunched and odds \risks calculated ..that being the case you have to take on the level of risk which is comfortable for you .Its why i personally never slag off barebackers ...they have looked at the odds-risks and decided for them its ok ...the same as people who have oral sex have decided that is ok for them too. | |||
 | |||
| |||
"Thats quite interesting PD. I have always wondered why some people insist on using a condom during intercourse for safe sex but then don't use 'protection' while having other potentially risky sex. " personally i never leave home without a roll ov clingfilm.... ooooh think thats on anuva thread sowwwwwry x | |||
| |||
"Thats quite interesting PD. I have always wondered why some people insist on using a condom during intercourse for safe sex but then don't use 'protection' while having other potentially risky sex. " Its just the odds isnt it ...condoms only make you 3-5 times safer ..depending on whether you believe the US govt statisitics or European Statistics . Choice of partner can make you up to 5000 times safer .So it is ,as the poster earlier said its about communication and about finding out as much as you can about the people you intend to swing with ...and deciding if they fit your level of risk. Its also about being honest with the people who contact you and not telling thme what you think they want to hear but just being honest . I do a 2 tier assessment based on verifications ,check the verifications and the verifications of the verifications anything what puts the risk factor up is enough for me personally to say no thanks and also within the group .Not perfect but hey anything that helps you make a choice has to be good. | |||
| |||
"Well...yeah...it's all about a level of risk you're willing to take...cause we think swinging by itself means we are taking lil bit of risk...and safe sex is a word...so can it be 100%...it can't...but it can be 99.99999%....knowing that you've done the best you could to prevent it...:D...however, a question to ponder...would you have sex with a person who has STD using condoms?" Well I would thank them for their honesty but would'nt play with them,even with a condom
| |||
| |||
"Well...yeah...it's all about a level of risk you're willing to take...cause we think swinging by itself means we are taking lil bit of risk...and safe sex is a word...so can it be 100%...it can't...but it can be 99.99999%....knowing that you've done the best you could to prevent it...:D...however, a question to ponder...would you have sex with a person who has STD using condoms?" Thats kinda the point lol.. Knowingly No way lol.. But assume everyone has in a way eh???? | |||
As long as we take all precautions needed and are as careful as we can be, then we can hopefully have a lotta fun
for quite some time.
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Well.. that all sounds ideal PD so how would you then assess someone with No verifications.. or even someone like us who choose not to post any?? Nothing but nothing is foolproof.. never has been never will be. And rich poor clean or scruffy can and do carry a risk.. but as said its all down each and every one of us to manage our own health.. We know even with a cold we wouldn't play let alone if we were unlucky enough to catch something nasty.. Also, condoms or not.. regular health screening is essential.. for ALL our sakes eh.. Its easy, its quick and you really have nothing to fear by popping in and then calling for your results.. No matter what name you choose to leave guys!! " well i said it wasnt ideal and if no verifications we would just be more careful ...you call it the way it is at the time ...also even the regular testing concept is flawed ..you can get an all clear but hiv may not attached yet and created the tell tale antibodies the only way you can get an all clear is a test ..then abstinencefor a minumum of 3 months then if the recheck is clear you are ...but for how long ....only for certain till your next meet unless you only stay with your tested partner . | |||
| |||
| |||
".and safe sex is a word...so can it be 100%...it can't...but it can be 99.99999%...." Sorry, but you are no where near if you are happy with unprotected oral as it seems almost all of us are. Unless you would like to offer some proof for those figures
The story about the AIDS club - maybe that is true but that woman should also predict the winners on most of horses and be rich by now as the odds of her being right are a lot better
xxx
J&R | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"that sounds more like an old wives tale, not saying it didn't happen it just sounds like something someone would make up. out of curiousity does anyone know if having sex with someone with HIV actually guarantees transmission, know its a silly question, but it does make you wonder as theres bound to be people out there who have and had a lucky escape." Wel the answer is no its not a guarantee that transmission will take place .The problem is the onset priod is so long so if your compromised ..like with hepatitus C you have a long testing period before you can definately say you are not ...there is lots of info on the terrence higgins trust if you want to know more . The good news is a cure is close and the active retrovirus treatment doen not mean the relatively quid move to aids it used to ..my daughter a biologist is currently working in a small way to help to bring the new Gel for women which prevents transmission....on the flip side certain forms of syphillis have become resistant to conventional antibiotics . | |||
xx
j&r | |||
| |||
"Was it Disraeli that said there are three kinds of lies ? Numbers can be made to support either side of almost any argument." true but when the fda in america lab tested 90 condoms and 39 failed it pays to listen lol | |||
| |||
".and safe sex is a word...so can it be 100%...it can't...but it can be 99.99999%.... " Well for us those are just numbers to signify closeness but impossibility to imperfection for people aiming to reach safe sex...:D...it's not a math forum..:D... | |||
"Thats quite interesting PD. I have always wondered why some people insist on using a condom during intercourse for safe sex but then don't use 'protection' while having other potentially risky sex. Its just the odds isnt it ...condoms only make you 3-5 times safer ..depending on whether you believe the US govt statisitics or European Statistics . Choice of partner can make you up to 5000 times safer .So it is ,as the poster earlier said its about communication and about finding out as much as you can about the people you intend to swing with ...and deciding if they fit your level of risk. Its also about being honest with the people who contact you and not telling thme what you think they want to hear but just being honest . I do a 2 tier assessment based on verifications ,check the verifications and the verifications of the verifications anything what puts the risk factor up is enough for me personally to say no thanks and also within the group .Not perfect but hey anything that helps you make a choice has to be good. " Good post,we do the same. XXXX | |||
"Well for us those are just numbers to signify closeness but impossibility to imperfection for people aiming to reach safe sex...:D...it's not a math forum..:D..." Used as a figure of speech, quite true
| |||
"Was it Disraeli that said there are three kinds of lies ? Numbers can be made to support either side of almost any argument. true but when the fda in america lab tested 90 condoms and 39 failed it pays to listen lol" You think ? So what are having - Fact ? Or opinion ? Your response includes both, but without distinction between the two, and seems more relevant to the argument of "for" and "against" the use of *some sort of protection* whereas gothica actually asked about how for people take the idea of safe sex, and whether or not 100% safe sex is possible - after giving some sample scenarios and what looks similar to a copy & paste from a sexual health type website. With that in mind . . . . . . No. I don't think 100% safe sex is possible. Within or outside swinging. We can though minimise, or at least reduce the risk(s) we take. Hopefully finding a balance between the impossible 100% and taking away (too much of) the fun referred to by gothica in his opening post. I put the dammiecock in a bag before burying it balls deep in anyone other than HLB. HLB will accept only the dammiecock in her without a bag. She very much prefers the cocks in her mouth sans rubber - NB *prefers* If I'm fortunate enough to have the choice, I'll change or remove the bag - depending where, and in who, the dammiecock is next going to play. One end of her double-dong-vibrator thing will be in a bag. 69+1 will always have HLB on top and me in her from behind, until such time as condoms stop tasting of rubber or mutated strawberries dipped in creosote. As for "statistics" . . . . well I think in this day and age it's a given that *some sort* of physical barrier between the clap carrying parts of our bodies will almost always provide a higher level of *some sort* protection than none at all. And finally Esther, as notts said - regular health checks/screening is an important, but sometimes overlooked part of . . . . . . . well - sexual health. Possibly far more important than statistics from FDA, in my opinion. dammie | |||
| |||
" As for "statistics" . . . . well I think in this day and age it's a given that *some sort* of physical barrier between the clap carrying parts of our bodies will almost always provide a higher level of *some sort* protection than none at all. dammie" Absolutely and we have never ever pretended or suggested otherwise - even on the recent bareback thread which perhaps you should read if you have not already. Our problem seems to be that most people think anyone in the swinging world who would consider some bareback fun with partners they choose to take that risk with, are either misinformed, or is just plain stupid. Very few seem at all seem able to accept the fact that some swingers take a real good hard look at the available information and do as much as they can to find out the *facts* rather than the fiction and the myth about what risks they take. If you enjoy unprotected oral (that's your nice warm moist mucous membranes in contact with someone else's 'clap-carrying' part of thier body) with swingers in the UK it is statistically speaking pretty damn safe. If you like to bareback with selected couples (different membranes and the same 'clap carrying' parts) you are *also* pretty damn safe (but have about a 5 -10 times greater risk than the unprotected oral only brigade) However that's 5 or 10 times bugger all which = not a lot actually 100% safe sex within swinging is most definitely not possible. If you tihng unprotected oral is about 99.9% safe then bareback is about 99.5% to 99% safe. Statistics in the UK prove it. But every time we try to get some facts into this and put the various risks into some sort of perspective we get shot down in flames. Opinions are more important than fact apparently, so honestly this is the last time we'll be posting on a thread of this topic (unless something real interesting changes things). xx J&R | |||
| |||
OKC
________________________________________
Post Sex Genital Washing
Toby Marotta is a friend of a friend and has graduate degrees in government and education from Harvard but has been spending the last 30 years challenging the powers-that-be who have been calling the shots on AIDS. Among other things it has forced him to become a de facto sexologist. But his credentials have equipped him to play their scientific game on a shared political turf.
His own chosen methodology is ethnography. But he is now assembling case studies and will soon be gathering data for statistics with which to respond to his own “scientific” studies.
Nigel O’Farrell and his associates at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Diseases have published the most detailed research about the utility of post-sex washing to keep men from getting STDS including HIV infections (the latter being the holy grail of funding and publicity for all sex-related research). But American scientists and policy-makers pay little attention to any but researchers who are rivals or allies funded by their National Institutes of Health.
Early in this new millennium the acknowledged leader in this unpopular field, venerable King K. Holmes, M.D., Ph.D., of the University of Washington, produced a pair of breakthrough scientific studies about the effectiveness of post-sex “bathing” keeping poor African men from getting HIV infections. He got his funding not through the National Institute of Health favored by the last 30 years of Republican rule, i.e., Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, but from another National Institute, for Child and Human Development, less favored by America’s conservative Republican Congresses and Presidents.
Now that Obama has been elected President and the Democrats have regained control of Congress, the political tide is turning. This latter institute has already called for proposals to do in-depth research on the effectiveness of post-sex penile washing vis-a-vis STDs including HIV/AIDS.
Both O’Farrell and Holmes have documented that the post-sex washing of penises, aka penile hygiene, reduces HIV infection rates of men who practice it. But neither has tackled women. Recently, however, Toby has managed to track down the first scientific research to do so. It’s a study of female Indonesian sex workers conducted by well-credentialed American women researchers. Like the O’Farrell and Holmes studies, it is vague about exactly how those studied washed their genitals after sex. But it documents statistically that their post-sex washing reduced their rates of HIV infections and other STDs. It was published in 2000 and has been officially ignored ever since.
For various reasons all of this new research makes do with generalities like “penile hygiene” and “bathing genitals.” Toby thinks that part of sex-related oppression is the refusal of Establishment figures and publications to discuss particulars, even if they use respectable sex-related terminology rather than subcultural and in-group slang.
His own goal now is to hasten leaps forward in this public-health and political realm by persuading articulate people to describe exactly how they go about washing after sex so that he can publish their accounts anonymously. Once he gets enough personal accounts to illustrate why he thinks properly washing intimate parts after engaging in sex is enough to prevent or at least greatly reduce the risk of getting and spreading all STDs including HIV/AIDS, he will set about obtaining statistics that bolster this case in the ways that mean so much to contemporary scientists.
What he needs right now are more case studies that illustrate exactly what effective post-sex washing requires.
He is looking for a handful of first-person accounts, from women as well as men who wash after sex, whether or not they use condoms, which describe exactly when, where, and how they go about this cleansing (e.g., at a sink, on a bidet, or in a shower stall or tub; with a freestanding hosed-in water-sprayer or a premoistened wipe; using cold or warm water, what kind of soap, applied where and left on for how long; with what kind of variations warranted by foreskins; followed by what kind of rinsing and drying?).
---------------------------------------------
See Blog for info FYI http://www.suzanneportnoy.com/2009/03/02/call-to-action/
| |||
| |||
| |||
"It would be interesting to know if that actually works lol but doing that with mens bits is fine as your bits are external..us women would have a bit more difficulty "yeah i know and to be honest the delicate ph would be disturbed .there is a product which kills all viruses and bacateria calle AQ+ it denies the bacteria the metals, it needs to grow and is good stuff but unfortunately not all bacteria is bad ....brilliant as a sex toy cleaner though | |||
| |||
"Re statistics: Having used statistics in my reports for years I have both a deep suspicion and a regard for them. But is important to remember that no matter what the odds are, there is no reason your number can’t be the first one up! 1/100 does not mean you have 99 free go’s! " And doesn't mean if you do it 200 times...you'll at least catch it or the method would fail two times..:D | |||
