FabSwingers.com > Forums > Swingers Chat > Site for bareback play
Site for bareback play
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
So before anyone starts bashing those that choose to play bare, this is purely a theoretical question and not intended to get anyone's back up.
Does anyone feel that that it would be a good idea if Fabs had a sister site that purely catered for those who play bare.
I appreciate that Fabs promotes safe fun but for the record I feel it might be a good idea . Oh and before anyone starts sending insulting reply or messages to us, it is me Jez not the wife asking this.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It happens so there is absolutely no point in getting sanctimonious about it.
It has been requested many times that bareback should be listed as an option in the likes list.
If you are a fan fine and if you are not it will give you a clearer idea of who you might wish to avoid. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There's no need
people that enjoy it will do it
people that don't won't
there's plenty types of each variety of people on here to find each other suffieciently
I'm personally for safer sex and have no trouble meeting people that play that way, I've seen bareback profiles that have a enough verifications to suggest they don't have trouble meeting either |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There's no need
people that enjoy it will do it
people that don't won't
there's plenty types of each variety of people on here to find each other suffieciently
I'm personally for safer sex and have no trouble meeting people that play that way, I've seen bareback profiles that have a enough verifications to suggest they don't have trouble meeting either "
Not sure I totally agree with you there. No offence.
Bareback is one of these marmite issues. Either loved or hated but identifying barebackers easily is actually pretty hit or miss.
Personally we are not remotely interested in meeting guys into cross dressing but they can easily identified from likes list even if they don't post photos.
That is not possible with people who bareback. Posted bareback photos simply don't explain the full context. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There's no need
people that enjoy it will do it
people that don't won't
there's plenty types of each variety of people on here to find each other suffieciently
I'm personally for safer sex and have no trouble meeting people that play that way, I've seen bareback profiles that have a enough verifications to suggest they don't have trouble meeting either
Not sure I totally agree with you there. No offence.
Bareback is one of these marmite issues. Either loved or hated but identifying barebackers easily is actually pretty hit or miss.
Personally we are not remotely interested in meeting guys into cross dressing but they can easily identified from likes list even if they don't post photos.
That is not possible with people who bareback. Posted bareback photos simply don't explain the full context."
In my experience A quick conversation usually clarifies matters
Wether you bareback or play safer if you take responsibility for playing the way you desire playmates are easily found.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So before anyone starts bashing those that choose to play bare, this is purely a theoretical question and not intended to get anyone's back up.
Does anyone feel that that it would be a good idea if Fabs had a sister site that purely catered for those who play bare.
I appreciate that Fabs promotes safe fun but for the record I feel it might be a good idea . Oh and before anyone starts sending insulting reply or messages to us, it is me Jez not the wife asking this. "
Well, you could have a site for people who want sex with people of a certain skin colour, eye colour or those who like having their arses smacked with haddock. But it is not going to have broad appeal, is it? Not really worth the investment. I don't think that it would feature on Dragons Den. I might be wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So before anyone starts bashing those that choose to play bare, this is purely a theoretical question and not intended to get anyone's back up.
Does anyone feel that that it would be a good idea if Fabs had a sister site that purely catered for those who play bare.
I appreciate that Fabs promotes safe fun but for the record I feel it might be a good idea . Oh and before anyone starts sending insulting reply or messages to us, it is me Jez not the wife asking this.
Well, you could have a site for people who want sex with people of a certain skin colour, eye colour or those who like having their arses smacked with haddock. But it is not going to have broad appeal, is it? Not really worth the investment. I don't think that it would feature on Dragons Den. I might be wrong."
Exactly but expanding the likes list on the other hand is no biggie. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So before anyone starts bashing those that choose to play bare, this is purely a theoretical question and not intended to get anyone's back up.
Does anyone feel that that it would be a good idea if Fabs had a sister site that purely catered for those who play bare.
I appreciate that Fabs promotes safe fun but for the record I feel it might be a good idea . Oh and before anyone starts sending insulting reply or messages to us, it is me Jez not the wife asking this.
Well, you could have a site for people who want sex with people of a certain skin colour, eye colour or those who like having their arses smacked with haddock. But it is not going to have broad appeal, is it? Not really worth the investment. I don't think that it would feature on Dragons Den. I might be wrong.
Exactly but expanding the likes list on the other hand is no biggie."
The option is essentially there if you exhibit safe sex check the safe Sex box if you bareback then don't tick the box
Simple
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think this is a great idea......
We should also have one for cheating singles also 
So the bareback and cheating police have 2 new venues to ply their trade. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It worries me enormously that people think avoiding picture proved barebackers will improve their safety
The only way to ensure your safety is to assume everyone is a barebacker and either not be a swinger altogether or use a condom |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think this is a great idea......
We should also have one for cheating singles also
So the bareback and cheating police have 2 new venues to ply their trade. "
How about if you have a box to tick if you're a bareback lover, cheating husband who's 'straight' but secretly meets bi men and TV/TSs
That would really get people excited! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It worries me enormously that people think avoiding picture proved barebackers will improve their safety
The only way to ensure your safety is to assume everyone is a barebacker and either not be a swinger altogether or use a condom "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It sounds like a great idea. But only if we banish all those on here who list safe sex as a "like" and then have pictures of themselves engaging in unsafe sex."
What if the unsafe sex is with their partner or spouse, surely that is allowed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hortieWoman
over a year ago
Northampton |
"It worries me enormously that people think avoiding picture proved barebackers will improve their safety
The only way to ensure your safety is to assume everyone is a barebacker and either not be a swinger altogether or use a condom "
Well said that man! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"It worries me enormously that people think avoiding picture proved barebackers will improve their safety
The only way to ensure your safety is to assume everyone is a barebacker and either not be a swinger altogether or use a condom "
So if you assume they are a barebacker, then wear a condom. But if you know that they are not a barebacker, then its ok to fuck them without a condom? 
I can't help feeling that there is something wrong with your logic! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
I think that people can only worry about their own health and safer sex practices, to try an worry about other people's practices when you have no control over it at all, seems to me a complete waste of time and energy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It worries me enormously that people think avoiding picture proved barebackers will improve their safety
The only way to ensure your safety is to assume everyone is a barebacker and either not be a swinger altogether or use a condom
So if you assume they are a barebacker, then wear a condom. But if you know that they are not a barebacker, then its ok to fuck them without a condom?
I can't help feeling that there is something wrong with your logic! "
You think you can ever 'know' that someone has never barebacked?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"It worries me enormously that people think avoiding picture proved barebackers will improve their safety
The only way to ensure your safety is to assume everyone is a barebacker and either not be a swinger altogether or use a condom
So if you assume they are a barebacker, then wear a condom. But if you know that they are not a barebacker, then its ok to fuck them without a condom?
I can't help feeling that there is something wrong with your logic!
You think you can ever 'know' that someone has never barebacked?
"
It's your failed logic not mine! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well, you could have a site for people who want sex with people of a certain skin colour, eye colour or those who like having their arses smacked with haddock. But it is not going to have broad appeal, is it? Not really worth the investment. I don't think that it would feature on Dragons Den. I might be wrong."
Skin colour etc. preferences won't give you an STD. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"It worries me enormously that people think avoiding picture proved barebackers will improve their safety
The only way to ensure your safety is to assume everyone is a barebacker and either not be a swinger altogether or use a condom
So if you assume they are a barebacker, then wear a condom. But if you know that they are not a barebacker, then its ok to fuck them without a condom?
I can't help feeling that there is something wrong with your logic!
You think you can ever 'know' that someone has never barebacked?
It's your failed logic not mine! "
You say if you assume they bareback, then use a condom. Which implies that if you think they Don't bareback, then you can fuck without a condom, which would then make them someone who barebacks!!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Well, you could have a site for people who want sex with people of a certain skin colour, eye colour or those who like having their arses smacked with haddock. But it is not going to have broad appeal, is it? Not really worth the investment. I don't think that it would feature on Dragons Den. I might be wrong.
Skin colour etc. preferences won't give you an STD."
Neither will bareback sex with someone who doesn't have an STD. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It worries me enormously that people think avoiding picture proved barebackers will improve their safety
The only way to ensure your safety is to assume everyone is a barebacker and either not be a swinger altogether or use a condom
So if you assume they are a barebacker, then wear a condom. But if you know that they are not a barebacker, then its ok to fuck them without a condom?
I can't help feeling that there is something wrong with your logic! "
It's this logic that I'm struggling to follow. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It worries me enormously that people think avoiding picture proved barebackers will improve their safety
The only way to ensure your safety is to assume everyone is a barebacker and either not be a swinger altogether or use a condom
So if you assume they are a barebacker, then wear a condom. But if you know that they are not a barebacker, then its ok to fuck them without a condom?
I can't help feeling that there is something wrong with your logic!
You think you can ever 'know' that someone has never barebacked?
It's your failed logic not mine!
You say if you assume they bareback, then use a condom. Which implies that if you think they Don't bareback, then you can fuck without a condom, which would then make them someone who barebacks!!!!"
I don't see where that was implied |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"It worries me enormously that people think avoiding picture proved barebackers will improve their safety
The only way to ensure your safety is to assume everyone is a barebacker and either not be a swinger altogether or use a condom
So if you assume they are a barebacker, then wear a condom. But if you know that they are not a barebacker, then its ok to fuck them without a condom?
I can't help feeling that there is something wrong with your logic!
You think you can ever 'know' that someone has never barebacked?
It's your failed logic not mine!
You say if you assume they bareback, then use a condom. Which implies that if you think they Don't bareback, then you can fuck without a condom, which would then make them someone who barebacks!!!!
I don't see where that was implied "
Because he linked the wearing of a condom, with assuming that the other person plays bareback. He didn't simply say always wear a condom. Which, to me, implies that if there isn't an assumption of them playing bareback, that you dont need to wear a condom. Does that make sense? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It worries me enormously that people think avoiding picture proved barebackers will improve their safety
The only way to ensure your safety is to assume everyone is a barebacker and either not be a swinger altogether or use a condom
So if you assume they are a barebacker, then wear a condom. But if you know that they are not a barebacker, then its ok to fuck them without a condom?
I can't help feeling that there is something wrong with your logic!
You think you can ever 'know' that someone has never barebacked?
It's your failed logic not mine!
You say if you assume they bareback, then use a condom. Which implies that if you think they Don't bareback, then you can fuck without a condom, which would then make them someone who barebacks!!!!
I don't see where that was implied
Because he linked the wearing of a condom, with assuming that the other person plays bareback. He didn't simply say always wear a condom. Which, to me, implies that if there isn't an assumption of them playing bareback, that you dont need to wear a condom. Does that make sense? "
I see what you're saying but it I don't think it was intended that way at all, you've just chose to over analyse it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It worries me enormously that people think avoiding picture proved barebackers will improve their safety
The only way to ensure your safety is to assume everyone is a barebacker and either not be a swinger altogether or use a condom
So if you assume they are a barebacker, then wear a condom. But if you know that they are not a barebacker, then its ok to fuck them without a condom?
I can't help feeling that there is something wrong with your logic!
You think you can ever 'know' that someone has never barebacked?
It's your failed logic not mine!
You say if you assume they bareback, then use a condom. Which implies that if you think they Don't bareback, then you can fuck without a condom, which would then make them someone who barebacks!!!!
I don't see where that was implied
Because he linked the wearing of a condom, with assuming that the other person plays bareback. He didn't simply say always wear a condom. Which, to me, implies that if there isn't an assumption of them playing bareback, that you dont need to wear a condom. Does that make sense? "
Well considering he said assume everyone barebacks I'd say it's safe to infer that he meant wear a condom with everyone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It worries me enormously that people think avoiding picture proved barebackers will improve their safety
The only way to ensure your safety is to assume everyone is a barebacker and either not be a swinger altogether or use a condom
So if you assume they are a barebacker, then wear a condom. But if you know that they are not a barebacker, then its ok to fuck them without a condom?
I can't help feeling that there is something wrong with your logic!
You think you can ever 'know' that someone has never barebacked?
It's your failed logic not mine!
You say if you assume they bareback, then use a condom. Which implies that if you think they Don't bareback, then you can fuck without a condom, which would then make them someone who barebacks!!!!"
No you're makin an assumption which then leads to a false argument, that only becomes a false logic if I accept your assumption, which I don't
I was saying you can't know someone has never barebacked, and indeed you should swing on the assumption everyone has and take your own precautions accordingly not worry about whether anyone has pictures they have or haven't, that shouldn't alter your assumptions and what you do |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Skin colour etc. preferences won't give you an STD.
Neither will bareback sex with someone who doesn't have an STD.
But there is no way to know."
I totally agree with people playing however they want to. We play safe, apart from with each other. I just think that people who don't play safe, shouldn't be demonised.
In terms of knowing or not, there is a way to know. Go to a clinic and get tested. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It worries me enormously that people think avoiding picture proved barebackers will improve their safety
The only way to ensure your safety is to assume everyone is a barebacker and either not be a swinger altogether or use a condom
So if you assume they are a barebacker, then wear a condom. But if you know that they are not a barebacker, then its ok to fuck them without a condom?
I can't help feeling that there is something wrong with your logic!
You think you can ever 'know' that someone has never barebacked?
It's your failed logic not mine!
You say if you assume they bareback, then use a condom. Which implies that if you think they Don't bareback, then you can fuck without a condom, which would then make them someone who barebacks!!!!"
Great point |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It worries me enormously that people think avoiding picture proved barebackers will improve their safety
The only way to ensure your safety is to assume everyone is a barebacker and either not be a swinger altogether or use a condom
So if you assume they are a barebacker, then wear a condom. But if you know that they are not a barebacker, then its ok to fuck them without a condom?
I can't help feeling that there is something wrong with your logic!
You think you can ever 'know' that someone has never barebacked?
It's your failed logic not mine!
You say if you assume they bareback, then use a condom. Which implies that if you think they Don't bareback, then you can fuck without a condom, which would then make them someone who barebacks!!!!
No you're makin an assumption which then leads to a false argument, that only becomes a false logic if I accept your assumption, which I don't
I was saying you can't know someone has never barebacked, and indeed you should swing on the assumption everyone has and take your own precautions accordingly not worry about whether anyone has pictures they have or haven't, that shouldn't alter your assumptions and what you do "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"It worries me enormously that people think avoiding picture proved barebackers will improve their safety
The only way to ensure your safety is to assume everyone is a barebacker and either not be a swinger altogether or use a condom
So if you assume they are a barebacker, then wear a condom. But if you know that they are not a barebacker, then its ok to fuck them without a condom?
I can't help feeling that there is something wrong with your logic!
You think you can ever 'know' that someone has never barebacked?
It's your failed logic not mine!
You say if you assume they bareback, then use a condom. Which implies that if you think they Don't bareback, then you can fuck without a condom, which would then make them someone who barebacks!!!!
I don't see where that was implied
Because he linked the wearing of a condom, with assuming that the other person plays bareback. He didn't simply say always wear a condom. Which, to me, implies that if there isn't an assumption of them playing bareback, that you dont need to wear a condom. Does that make sense?
I see what you're saying but it I don't think it was intended that way at all, you've just chose to over analyse it "
Its just the way I read it  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It worries me enormously that people think avoiding picture proved barebackers will improve their safety
The only way to ensure your safety is to assume everyone is a barebacker and either not be a swinger altogether or use a condom
So if you assume they are a barebacker, then wear a condom. But if you know that they are not a barebacker, then its ok to fuck them without a condom?
I can't help feeling that there is something wrong with your logic!
You think you can ever 'know' that someone has never barebacked?
It's your failed logic not mine!
You say if you assume they bareback, then use a condom. Which implies that if you think they Don't bareback, then you can fuck without a condom, which would then make them someone who barebacks!!!!
I don't see where that was implied
Because he linked the wearing of a condom, with assuming that the other person plays bareback. He didn't simply say always wear a condom. Which, to me, implies that if there isn't an assumption of them playing bareback, that you dont need to wear a condom. Does that make sense?
I see what you're saying but it I don't think it was intended that way at all, you've just chose to over analyse it
Its just the way I read it "
And that's fine. It's no different to the fact I've read what you said and it's my opinion you've over analysed it so no need to at me really is there? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Skin colour etc. preferences won't give you an STD.
Neither will bareback sex with someone who doesn't have an STD.
But there is no way to know.
I totally agree with people playing however they want to. We play safe, apart from with each other. I just think that people who don't play safe, shouldn't be demonised.
In terms of knowing or not, there is a way to know. Go to a clinic and get tested. "
I agree with not demonising completely, I really am not upset in any way shape or form if someone attends bareback gangbangs weekly or lives as a nun!
Swinging carries a risk, I accept that and it's completely my job to take my own precautions and not worry about what anyone else has or hasn't done |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *htcMan
over a year ago
MK |
It should be listed in the Interests, they do it on there Fabguys, site, bareback is a option, so there is no reason why it shouldn't be listed on Fabswingers. It makes perfect sense to have the option here, those who avoid and those who are looking for that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Blimey! Anyone else confused
We would always play safe as prefer to stay heathy and not get riddled! X "
You could still catch something you're only playing safer than those who bareback. If you don't want to get riddled best to abstain completely because you never know what could happen otherwise.
Sex, safer or not, still carries a risk either way it's up to you to calculqte what level of risk you are will to take and play accordingly
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It should be listed in the Interests, they do it on there Fabguys, site, bareback is a option, so there is no reason why it shouldn't be listed on Fabswingers. It makes perfect sense to have the option here, those who avoid and those who are looking for that."
Is fab guys sponsored by lovehoney the same as this site is? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If ur going to play bareback they have to b very trustworthy r at least know their history. I was with one lady n she hated condoms but I was not with any one else . But I wear condoms with every one now . I know it feels better bareback but for safety first I wear a condom now . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"oh, never liked lovehoney, kinda costy upto other sites, adblock blocked them so never noticed ads, but shouldnt effect them the sponsors even if they list bareback. "
It would if they were a site that can't be seen to condone unsafe sex I'm anyway which most sites like love honey are, so by fab introducing a bareback option they could be seen to be condoning it and hence loose sponsorship from a company that doesn't and doesn't want their reputation tarred, so bye bye sponsors, if no other sponsors step up, bye bye free site |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"oh, never liked lovehoney, kinda costy upto other sites, adblock blocked them so never noticed ads, but shouldnt effect them the sponsors even if they list bareback.
It would if they were a site that can't be seen to condone unsafe sex I'm anyway which most sites like love honey are, so by fab introducing a bareback option they could be seen to be condoning it and hence loose sponsorship from a company that doesn't and doesn't want their reputation tarred, so bye bye sponsors, if no other sponsors step up, bye bye free site "
It not really a sponsorship arrangement, I assume that fab want a good deal for their users, which makes fab more attractive. Lovehoney want more traffic to their site and more people buying stuff from them, fab has access to thousand of horny people, so its mutually beneficial to both sides. Like if you join a union and they offer you cheap car insurance etc.
Lovehoney are a sex positive company (well it appears to be) why would they be concerned about what consenting adults do? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Skin colour etc. preferences won't give you an STD.
Neither will bareback sex with someone who doesn't have an STD.
But there is no way to know.
I totally agree with people playing however they want to. We play safe, apart from with each other. I just think that people who don't play safe, shouldn't be demonised.
In terms of knowing or not, there is a way to know. Go to a clinic and get tested. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"oh, never liked lovehoney, kinda costy upto other sites, adblock blocked them so never noticed ads, but shouldnt effect them the sponsors even if they list bareback.
It would if they were a site that can't be seen to condone unsafe sex I'm anyway which most sites like love honey are, so by fab introducing a bareback option they could be seen to be condoning it and hence loose sponsorship from a company that doesn't and doesn't want their reputation tarred, so bye bye sponsors, if no other sponsors step up, bye bye free site
It not really a sponsorship arrangement, I assume that fab want a good deal for their users, which makes fab more attractive. Lovehoney want more traffic to their site and more people buying stuff from them, fab has access to thousand of horny people, so its mutually beneficial to both sides. Like if you join a union and they offer you cheap car insurance etc.
Lovehoney are a sex positive company (well it appears to be) why would they be concerned about what consenting adults do? "
They do have to be seen to be promoting safe sex practices, in the same way clubs do, even if it's simply by only having condoms on sale |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"oh, never liked lovehoney, kinda costy upto other sites, adblock blocked them so never noticed ads, but shouldnt effect them the sponsors even if they list bareback.
It would if they were a site that can't be seen to condone unsafe sex I'm anyway which most sites like love honey are, so by fab introducing a bareback option they could be seen to be condoning it and hence loose sponsorship from a company that doesn't and doesn't want their reputation tarred, so bye bye sponsors, if no other sponsors step up, bye bye free site
It not really a sponsorship arrangement, I assume that fab want a good deal for their users, which makes fab more attractive. Lovehoney want more traffic to their site and more people buying stuff from them, fab has access to thousand of horny people, so its mutually beneficial to both sides. Like if you join a union and they offer you cheap car insurance etc.
Lovehoney are a sex positive company (well it appears to be) why would they be concerned about what consenting adults do?
They do have to be seen to be promoting safe sex practices, in the same way clubs do, even if it's simply by only having condoms on sale"
They sell condoms because some people who are having sex want or need condoms, and sex is what Lovehoney is about. I dont think they do it because they believe everyone should be using condoms every time they have sex, or because they have to be seen to be pushing this agenda. Who is it that Lovehoney and clubs have to prove this too? I have seen lots of couples having sex in clubs and never seen a member of staff tap them on the shoulder and ask them to put a condom on.
My wife and I have been married for 6 years, we have no need or desire to wear condoms when we have sex. Many people on fab have children, I can only assume that at least some of them, if not most of them were planned. So why would a couple who is trying for a baby need condoms? Do you think Lovehoney woule refuse to sell to them because they are not practising safe sex? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"oh, never liked lovehoney, kinda costy upto other sites, adblock blocked them so never noticed ads, but shouldnt effect them the sponsors even if they list bareback.
It would if they were a site that can't be seen to condone unsafe sex I'm anyway which most sites like love honey are, so by fab introducing a bareback option they could be seen to be condoning it and hence loose sponsorship from a company that doesn't and doesn't want their reputation tarred, so bye bye sponsors, if no other sponsors step up, bye bye free site
It not really a sponsorship arrangement, I assume that fab want a good deal for their users, which makes fab more attractive. Lovehoney want more traffic to their site and more people buying stuff from them, fab has access to thousand of horny people, so its mutually beneficial to both sides. Like if you join a union and they offer you cheap car insurance etc.
Lovehoney are a sex positive company (well it appears to be) why would they be concerned about what consenting adults do?
They do have to be seen to be promoting safe sex practices, in the same way clubs do, even if it's simply by only having condoms on sale
They sell condoms because some people who are having sex want or need condoms, and sex is what Lovehoney is about. I dont think they do it because they believe everyone should be using condoms every time they have sex, or because they have to be seen to be pushing this agenda. Who is it that Lovehoney and clubs have to prove this too? I have seen lots of couples having sex in clubs and never seen a member of staff tap them on the shoulder and ask them to put a condom on.
My wife and I have been married for 6 years, we have no need or desire to wear condoms when we have sex. Many people on fab have children, I can only assume that at least some of them, if not most of them were planned. So why would a couple who is trying for a baby need condoms? Do you think Lovehoney woule refuse to sell to them because they are not practising safe sex? "
Oh FFS they don't have to force people to do it but merely need to be seen to promote it by making it a visual presence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
So why does it need to be one or the other. Is it to difficult to put a safe sex notice into the banner and add a bareback option to the likes.
Frankly however I am not hugely convinced any site sponsor like Lovehoney are that fussed and in any case their financial contribution will be miniscule compared to members subscription.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Oh FFS they don't have to force people to do it but merely need to be seen to promote it by making it a visual presence.
Need to be seen by whom? "
I'll be honest I'm Not entirely sure but its to do with the similar way that the government require schools to educate and promote safe sex practices, are teachers telling kids they must use condoms? no they are saying this is what you need to know do as you wish with the information, in the same way that By lovehoney having condoms to purchase, are not saying you must buy and use them, they are merely saying we have them available buy and use them if you wish.
It's a positive image - just good business sense
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So why does it need to be one or the other. Is it to difficult to put a safe sex notice into the banner and add a bareback option to the likes.
Frankly however I am not hugely convinced any site sponsor like Lovehoney are that fussed and in any case their financial contribution will be miniscule compared to members subscription.
"
As I've said the bareback option is available - just don't tick safe sex |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I play either way. I ask wen I'm messaged if they bb or safe. They usually say safe. I Reply wit I prefer to Bb that's wen they say ok. These r people that have safe sex only on there profile. Go figure. I get off on hate mail if ur thinking of being rude to me  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oghunter33Woman
over a year ago
on the hill NordWest of |
A bareback option in the interest list is useless, assuming that most people wouldn't be upfront with it anyway.
The same applies to the 'safe sex' one. There's loads of people having 'safe sex' ticked and practice the opposite.
Only a fool believes everything that's written on a profile. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *arry247Couple
over a year ago
Wakefield |
"So before anyone starts bashing those that choose to play bare, this is purely a theoretical question and not intended to get anyone's back up.
Does anyone feel that that it would be a good idea if Fabs had a sister site that purely catered for those who play bare.
I appreciate that Fabs promotes safe fun but for the record I feel it might be a good idea . Oh and before anyone starts sending insulting reply or messages to us, it is me Jez not the wife asking this. "
There is no such thing as safe sex.
People who believe they practice safe sex are deceiving themselves.
Condoms only allow safer sex not safe sex. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
without doubt this as caused a few ripples - we are all adults and capable of making decisions in life including if we chose if we do or don't "wrap up" when having sex - in my own personal opinion, I think a lot is to do with the trust you build up my with you sex partner and whilst that's not a guarantee, its a good starting point |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
People don't like safe sex really they just practice it. And the people who prattle on about it are often the "worst offenders" perhaps trying to purge some guilt.
It makes sense to have a bareback like. Not everyone is going to tick it but it makes it easier to filter out (or in) the people that do.
I for one don't believe anyone who claims to never had bareback, like jimp said its all a matter of context. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
When we first joined fab we didn't have safe sex listed as an interest. This was because we thought to list it as an interest was to suggest that you got turn on by it, perhaps a condom fetish or something. Someone pointed out the error of our ways and we changed it, but other people might read it like us when setting up their profile.
We use condoms when we play, but they are not an "interest" as such. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Safety above everything I would say ??"
Do you drive, drink, ever eat sausages or bacon?
Ever let your BMI slip outside the normal range
Not defending bareback gengbangs or anything like that but if you preach safety above everything then that has to extend through all facets of your life |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The fact is that I have had bareback sex here with people who put "safe sex" on their profiles.
If you are so paranoid about the consequences of having sex, completely abstain from it. That is actually the only real safe sex there is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *olarfoxMan
over a year ago
North Cambs |
You can argue that as long as you yourself always insist on safe sex then your activities will be relatively risk free regardless of what any of the people you decide to play with normally do. This said, rightly or wrongly, I worry about the risk of STDs from activities like oral (even kissing) if I know that the person I am playing with usually barebacks everyone else they meet...even more so if into bareback gangbangs etc... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"So before anyone starts bashing those that choose to play bare, this is purely a theoretical question and not intended to get anyone's back up.
Does anyone feel that that it would be a good idea if Fabs had a sister site that purely catered for those who play bare.
I appreciate that Fabs promotes safe fun but for the record I feel it might be a good idea . Oh and before anyone starts sending insulting reply or messages to us, it is me Jez not the wife asking this. "
I think it would be too niche to be financially viable.
Maybe making bareback an interest so people could search for it would work. And it would ensure people were fully informed about potential meets' preferences. Those that would openly admit it, that is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I play either way. I ask wen I'm messaged if they bb or safe. They usually say safe. I Reply wit I prefer to Bb that's wen they say ok. These r people that have safe sex only on there profile. Go figure. I get off on hate mail if ur thinking of being rude to me "
We play bareback and it is surprising how many who say safe only will play bareback
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Interestingly people go on about barebackers but for those people like us who go safe do you all give oral stimulation before proceeding with intercourse ? if this is to protect against std then you can still get std through oral so those who like and give oral before intercourse what's the logic in protection if you give oral beforehand , just asking |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"Interestingly people go on about barebackers but for those people like us who go safe do you all give oral stimulation before proceeding with intercourse ? if this is to protect against std then you can still get std through oral so those who like and give oral before intercourse what's the logic in protection if you give oral beforehand , just asking "
There's much less risk from oral. It's about risk assessment and weighing up how much risk you're willing to take. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *olarfoxMan
over a year ago
North Cambs |
"Interestingly people go on about barebackers but for those people like us who go safe do you all give oral stimulation before proceeding with intercourse ? if this is to protect against std then you can still get std through oral so those who like and give oral before intercourse what's the logic in protection if you give oral beforehand , just asking "
As I mentioned earlier, I think the fear is that the risk of orally transmitted disease is elevated if playing with people who usually don't bother to practise safe sex....at least this is my feeling.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I am lead to believe there is an equally risk in catch std through oral than having unprotected intercourse and for some who meeting people who have gone bareback before should maybe ask the question beforehand so they know the possibly risks they are taking |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *olarfoxMan
over a year ago
North Cambs |
"I am lead to believe there is an equally risk in catch std through oral than having unprotected intercourse and for some who meeting people who have gone bareback before should maybe ask the question beforehand so they know the possibly risks they are taking "
My concern is simply that transmission of all stds is more prevalent when playing bb, so if indulging in oral activities with people who generally play like this (even if insisting on condoms for intercourse), so the risk of catching something transmitted orally will be far higher.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
