and remember, lets be careful out there !!

24 Jun 2010

Hi,
I have just read an interesting article

I know it is a subject we all sometimes try not to think about, but lets try and have fun, but lets be safe smile

Andy

24 Jun 2010

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Did you read the comments at the bottom?! :giggle:

24 Jun 2010

Dirty 'old' people lol

24 Jun 2010

I do not know what is worse?
The article or the comments people have been writing ..

24 Jun 2010

I am one that strongly advocates safe sex and the use of condoms especially in a threesome or group sex situation. In will say in defense of the story it does highlight that it is important in a threesome or group sex situation to use a condom because the risk of STDS / STIS exist. Nonetheless I am not thrilled about how the media has picked on it and the story I see has been picked up by non-EU countries. What the media neglects to highlight the study is a historical study looking at infection rates in three town in Holland. This means the results are limited to Holland and depending on the cities may not even be representative of Holland.
There are several question that sits in the "back of my mind." First is if this was a historical study done by picking more cities would the rates for swingers be lower than using prostitutes or male on male contact in Holland? What are the rates for STDS / STIS for swingers in other European countries like the UK or Spain? Finally what is the reason for the higher incidence in this age group? Is this because people in the 40+ crowd view sexually transmitted infections as being something for younger people? Do they see using condoms as a way of preventing pregnancy and not preventing infections? Maybe there is a willingness to trust statements made and not protect against possible risks? In any event, without knowing how can the issue be addressed?

24 Jun 2010

Quote by yorkiesmurf
I am one that strongly advocates safe sex and the use of condoms especially in a threesome or group sex situation. In will say in defense of the story it does highlight that it is important in a threesome or group sex situation to use a condom because the risk of STDS / STIS exist. Nonetheless I am not thrilled about how the media has picked on it and the story I see has been picked up by non-EU countries. What the media neglects to highlight the study is a historical study looking at infection rates in three town in Holland. This means the results are limited to Holland and depending on the cities may not even be representative of Holland.
There are several question that sits in the "back of my mind." First is if this was a historical study done by picking more cities would the rates for swingers be lower than using prostitutes or male on male contact in Holland? What are the rates for STDS / STIS for swingers in other European countries like the UK or Spain? Finally what is the reason for the higher incidence in this age group? Is this because people in the 40+ crowd view sexually transmitted infections as being something for younger people? Do they see using condoms as a way of preventing pregnancy and not preventing infections? Maybe there is a willingness to trust statements made and not protect against possible risks? In any event, without knowing how can the issue be addressed?

Well I have to admit I am highly impressed with your conculsions of the report and its weaknesses...
Though I also have to say, maybe this should be a wake up call to all swingers, of any age to be aware of all the risks, to be aware of STIs, use of condoms and regularly Sexual health check ups.
About STIs :
Do not panic!! Remember most when caught early can be very easy treated

24 Jun 2010

Oh dear, a tabloid gets hold of a scientific research paper and publishes bollocks. No change there then.
"Out of just fewer than 9,000 consultations, one in nine patients, or 12 per cent, was a swinger aged around 43.
Overall, chlamydia and gonorrhoea infection rates were 10 per cent among straight people, 14 among gay men, 10.4 among swingers and just less than 5 per cent among women prostitutes."
The first figure is menaingless it has no comparitive figure for non swingers. The second set of figures means nothing either, presumably prostitutes like swingers and gay men go to clinics for regular screening being symptom free wheras those with a more conventional sexual activity do not.
Beggars belief it really does.

24 Jun 2010

this article was also in the mirror today and in yesterdays mirror it had an article that the over 45's sex drive was diminishing lol get some consistency in the stories guys please

24 Jun 2010

Well that's the Dutch for you!! Of course the British would never be that promiscuous. lol

25 Jun 2010

Well I would be proud to be over 45 and still swinging smile

30 Jul 2010

Quote by Islandcpl1
Over all the article is flawed, but maybe we should'nt dismiss the assurtion that irrisponsible swingers can and probably do spread STDs and STIs. And, perhaps party organisers, groups and web sites such as SH should play a more active roll in promoting safe sex?

I completely agree with this.
Personally, I think it is irresponsible that this site does not have an option to declare preferences for safe sex the way some gay contact sites do, ie. always; sometimes; negotiable; never.
They have profile choices on here for smoking and drinking, yet not for safe sex practises, which is surely more important and relevant?
I have a feeling that decision is based on financial concerns, as it may alienate paying punters
(....much like not having a workable ignore button on here wink

)
I have read threads on here where posters have been shouted down for saying those who choose to do bareback are making bad choices, and yet bareback gang bang threads are common, and no one really speaks up about the dangers of such activities.
Yeah sure, all for personal freedom of choice an all that, but where obvious and proven medical risk is significantly increased, is it not sensible to acknowledge and discuss that here of all places?
I appreciate there will always be a sleazy subculture who enjoy these high risk activities, but personally, for me it is the number one thing that puts me off the scene and playing more often.

30 Jul 2010

Is it just me or are there a whole load of blank posts kicking around? dunno

30 Jul 2010

Someones looking into it now.

30 Jul 2010

Quote by st3v3
Someones looking into it now.

Can't even blame Dawnie!! lol

30 Jul 2010

is this fixed yet?

30 Jul 2010

Yes

30 Jul 2010

Quote by demi
I have a feeling that decision is based on financial concerns, as it may alienate paying punters
(....much like not having a workable ignore button on here )

In all the years I have been here, i do not beleive that anyone has suggested that we include this as something that needs to be included in the profile settings, if they had then like all other suggestions we would of course try to find out the thoughts of the membership before making any decision, to make the assumption that all of our decisions are based upon financial concerns is a bit of a cheap shot, if you have something constructive to say feel free to say it.

Quote by Islandcpl1
And, perhaps party organisers, groups and web sites such as SH should play a more active roll in promoting safe sex?

Do you really believe that anyone on this site is unaware of the risks in not having safe sex?

31 Jul 2010

Quote by st3v3

I have a feeling that decision is based on financial concerns, as it may alienate paying punters
(....much like not having a workable ignore button on here )

In all the years I have been here, i do not beleive that anyone has suggested that we include this as something that needs to be included in the profile settings, if they had then like all other suggestions we would of course try to find out the thoughts of the membership before making any decision, to make the assumption that all of our decisions are based upon financial concerns is a bit of a cheap shot, if you have something constructive to say feel free to say it.
I am not the first to suggest it, I saw it on another post here first and repeated it as it had been ignored.
I feel this is a constructive thing to say, why are you so defensive about it?
If there are other more 'constructive' reasons not to have a block button or not to have the safe sex options listed, I cannot think what they would be, other than it would alienate certain people, which would of course reflect on membership revenue.

Quote by Islandcpl1
And, perhaps party organisers, groups and web sites such as SH should play a more active roll in promoting safe sex?

Quote by st3v3
Do you really believe that anyone on this site is unaware of the risks in not having safe sex?

Yes, absolutely, and I think it is naive and disingenuous to assume otherwise.
(erm, appears forum glitch is still not fixed!)

31 Jul 2010

oh come on what adult in todays society wouldnt know the risks of STD etc
i dont need a button to click to say i practise safe sex, it is something i tell all my potential partners and ask the same, i never go anywhere without a condom
im almost 45, blonde but not dim and dont need preaching to about safe sex, i find it quite offensive to suggest that a site such as this should be reminding consenting adults capable of making their own choices what they should and shouldnt do or keep harping on about being safe

31 Jul 2010

Quote by Trixie_D-Lish
oh come on what adult in todays society wouldnt know the risks of STD etc
i dont need a button to click to say i practise safe sex, it is something i tell all my potential partners and ask the same, i never go anywhere without a condom
im almost 45, blonde but not dim and dont need preaching to about safe sex, i find it quite offensive to suggest that a site such as this should be reminding consenting adults capable of making their own choices what they should and shouldnt do or keep harping on about being safe

which illustrates the original point of this thread, it is swingers over 45, who have shown the biggest increase in STI's as a group.
From messages I have had here and from reading some of the threads it is obvious plenty of adults either do not know, or do not care about the risks of unsafe sex.
Why shouldn't a site that advocates sexual freedom also set a responsible example?
Why have the buttons for smoking and drinking on the profiles if that info is deemed unnecessary by you?
It seems, every time someone makes a point on here about safe sex they get shouted down.

31 Jul 2010

I'm a little confused (doesn't take much)! The article at the top states this:

The Dutch study found swingers -- heterosexual couples who swap partners at organised gatherings -- have some of the highest rates of STIs, along with young heterosexuals and gay men.

So, what they're saying is that Dutch swingers have similar rates of STIs to young straight and gay people?
It went on to say:

Out of just fewer than 9,000 consultations, one in nine patients, or 12 per cent, was a swinger aged around 43.

So 12% of the people being tested were 43 y/o swingers? 88% were not?

Overall, chlamydia and gonorrhoea infection rates were 10 per cent among straight people, 14 among gay men, 10.4 among swingers and just less than 5 per cent among women prostitutes.

Swingers are 0.4% more likely to have an infection than "straight" ( confused

) people?

Partner-swappers accounted for 55 per cent of all STIs in patients over the age of 45.

And swingers are 5% more likely to have an STI than anyone else?
Have I missed the point somewhere? dunno

We all know the dangers of STI infection in the swinging arena but I suspect that 99% of those involved are aware of the risks, and take mitigating actions. In any demographic of this type, there will always be a small percentage who are oblivious to, or denying, the risks, which is probably why they end up in the STI clinic in the first place!
:doh: I just realised the article is from the Mail so it must be true! They *never* twist the stats to sell their papers do they? rolleyes

31 Jul 2010

Quote by demi
oh come on what adult in todays society wouldnt know the risks of STD etc
i dont need a button to click to say i practise safe sex, it is something i tell all my potential partners and ask the same, i never go anywhere without a condom
im almost 45, blonde but not dim and dont need preaching to about safe sex, i find it quite offensive to suggest that a site such as this should be reminding consenting adults capable of making their own choices what they should and shouldnt do or keep harping on about being safe

which illustrates the original point of this thread, it is swingers over 45, who have shown the biggest increase in STI's as a group.
From messages I have had here and from reading some of the threads it is obvious plenty of adults either do not know, or do not care about the risks of unsafe sex.
Why shouldn't a site that advocates sexual freedom also set a responsible example?
Why have the buttons for smoking and drinking on the profiles if that info is deemed unnecessary by you?
It seems, every time someone makes a point on here about safe sex they get shouted down.
think you missed my point entirely, i AGREE with and ONLY practise safe sex,as do most people ive met at my age, just that at my age i dont need someone belittling me by preaching the obvious and ive yet to meet someone who doesnt know about the risks, those that dont obviously missed sex ed at school, never watch tv, read media etc as it is often highlighted
there are some people who dont practice safe sex, doesnt mean they dont know the risks, thats their choice, i just wont be meeting them
i didnt say the information was uneccesary, people can tick boxes but doesnt necessarily mean anything, in my experience i met someone who stated on their profile they rarely smoked only to find when i met them they smoked like a chimney, just because a box is ticked doesnt mean its truthful, its better to chat to someone and talk about preferences
and what were those figures again, 39.4% of chlamydia & gonorrhoea infection rates were straight, gay, swingers or prostitutes who were the remaining 60.6%??? and if swingers are only 0.4% more likely to have the STI than straight then that is not statistically suggestive of swingers more likely practising unsafe sex

31 Jul 2010

Quote by Cubes
I'm a little confused (doesn't take much)! The article at the top states this:

Have I missed the point somewhere?
We all know the dangers of STI infection in the swinging arena but I suspect that 99% of those involved are aware of the risks, and take mitigating actions. In any demographic of this type, there will always be a small percentage who are oblivious to, or denying, the risks, which is probably why they end up in the STI clinic in the first place!
:doh: I just realised the article is from the Mail so it must be true! They *never* twist the stats to sell their papers do they?

Roll yer eyes all you want love, I am not going to pick apart the stats or the article, so here's another source it was picked up by the press worldwide, the research was originally published in the BMJ.
I discussed it with a sexual health advisor at my last GUM check up a couple of weeks ago, he said the over 45 group of swingers is a group that do not seem to think the risks apply to them, he asked me why I thought it was and said the scene needed more people to speak up about it.
Ticking a button will not protect anyone, we all know that, but it would save time, just as I don't bother getting into emails with smokers, I wouldn't want to waste my time corresponding with irresponsible dick dippers either.
Promoting safe sex is not preaching or belittling, or harping on(not to me it isn't), it is just being sensible and responsible considering what this site is about and we are all here to do.
I do not understand why this subject puts so many backs up here, bare or otherwise.

31 Jul 2010

Quote by demi
I feel this is a constructive thing to say, why are you so defensive about it?

True making suggestions are always constructive, making claims wrongly I should add about our motives is not and is indeed a good way to try to pit someones back up.

31 Jul 2010

Quote by demi
Roll yer eyes all you want love, I am not going to pick apart the stats or the article, so here's another source it was picked up by the press worldwide, the research was originally published in the BMJ.
I discussed it with a sexual health advisor at my last GUM check up a couple of weeks ago, he said the over 45 group of swingers is a group that do not seem to think the risks apply to them, he asked me why I thought it was and said the scene needed more people to speak up about it.
Ticking a button will not protect anyone, we all know that, but it would save time, just as I don't bother getting into emails with smokers, I wouldn't want to waste my time corresponding with irresponsible dick dippers either.
Promoting safe sex is not preaching or belittling, or harping on (not to me it isn't), it is just being sensible and responsible considering what this site is about and we are all here to do.
I do not understand why this subject puts so many backs up here, bare or otherwise.

I really wasn't asking you to pick apart the stats or the article - I just don't think anyone should take it on face value without first asking why the papers have picked up on it.
The additional reference you provided says much the same thing as the Mail's version - just with less emphasis on the scandal of it all.
We all know that more swingers and sex workers attend GUM clinics as a matter of course than any other area of the population. The research simply confirms that swingers (especially older ones) are taking a more responsible and pro-active attitude to their sexual health than other parts of society. Who would you rather have sex with? An aged swinger who has regular check-ups and takes action when something goes wrong, or a young heterosexual male who's idea of a good night out is 10 pints of lager and a knee-trembler in the alley behind the pub?
Perhaps an annual GUM visit should be made compulsory on the NHS. That way this kind of research would have a far wider basis to report on, and the people who attend voluntarily would no longer be in the majority or, I suspect, in the top list of those affected (infected?).
IMHO asking people to put a tick in a box on their profile will be worse than useless. If someone is an "irresponsible dick dipper" (I like that one! lol

) then they're never going to admit to it in public because it would effectively reduce their potential meets to near-zero.
And please understand that my back is not up over this subject (although I'm not keen on being called 'love'), I just believe that the research doesn't do justice to the vast majority of sensible people out there.

31 Jul 2010

Quote by st3v3

I feel this is a constructive thing to say, why are you so defensive about it?

True making suggestions are always constructive, making claims wrongly I should add about our motives is not and is indeed a good way to try to pit someones back up.
I wasn't 'making claims', I said I have a feeling about the reason.
There is no need to be defensive if my feeling is wrong, simply explain and put the facts out there.

31 Jul 2010

Quote by Cubes
I really wasn't asking you to pick apart the stats or the article - I just don't think anyone should take it on face value without first asking why the papers have picked up on it.
The additional reference you provided says much the same thing as the Mail's version - just with less emphasis on the scandal of it all.
We all know that more swingers and sex workers attend GUM clinics as a matter of course than any other area of the population. The research simply confirms that swingers (especially older ones) are taking a more responsible and pro-active attitude to their sexual health than other parts of society. Who would you rather have sex with? An aged swinger who has regular check-ups and takes action when something goes wrong, or a young heterosexual male who's idea of a good night out is 10 pints of lager and a knee-trembler in the alley behind the pub?

completely agree with this, no argument here.

Perhaps an annual GUM visit should be made compulsory on the NHS. That way this kind of research would have a far wider basis to report on, and the people who attend voluntarily would no longer be in the majority or, I suspect, in the top list of those affected (infected?).
IMHO asking people to put a tick in a box on their profile will be worse than useless. If someone is an "irresponsible dick dipper" (I like that one! ) then they're never going to admit to it in public because it would effectively reduce their potential meets to near-zero.

I am not so sure, I have seen many profiles who declare a preference for bareback and also have had memos from guys who are into it, plenty of people here are in the bareback gb groups, they are happy to have that out in public, and maybe they hope to meet similar people happy to go along with it?
I do always ask people I am considering meeting, and would say about 50% say they would if it was offered!

And please understand that my back is not up over this subject (although I'm not keen on being called 'love'), I just believe that the research doesn't do justice to the vast majority of sensible people out there.

I agree here too but the fact remains people here are behaving irresponsibly, it is all over the forums, so what is the big problem about people standing up and saying well, actually, any sane sensible person would not condone that activity?

31 Jul 2010

Quote by demi
I agree here too but the fact remains people here are behaving irresponsibly, it is all over the forums, so what is the big problem about people standing up and saying well, actually, any sane sensible person would not condone that activity?

I think we're singing from the same hymn sheet, just reading different verses. :thumbup:
I'm sure the vast majority of site members are of the same opinion, and would not be slow to support the view that anyone practising bareback sex needs their (physical and mental) marbles checked!
Yes, there are people who openly admit their predilection for bareback. But if you try to police/control it in any way they're likely to continue doing it but without the open admission.
Also (taking off the mod's hat for a minute) I don't think the site should support it as a profile choice because it couldn't be adequately substantiated, which may lead to dangerous consequences. Imagine for a moment that it was a profile option, and you met with someone on the strength of their "safe sex" status. If they turned out to be a drippy-dick-dipper and they passed on something really nasty to you, where would the site stand in law? Sorry, that's probably an extreme example, but I imagine there's a no-win/no-fee company out there willing to take it on! ;-)

31 Jul 2010

Quote by Cubes
I agree here too but the fact remains people here are behaving irresponsibly, it is all over the forums, so what is the big problem about people standing up and saying well, actually, any sane sensible person would not condone that activity?

I think we're singing from the same hymn sheet, just reading different verses. :thumbup:
I'm sure the vast majority of site members are of the same opinion, and would not be slow to support the view that anyone practising bareback sex needs their (physical and mental) marbles checked!
Yes, there are people who openly admit their predilection for bareback. But if you try to police/control it in any way they're likely to continue doing it but without the open admission.
Also (taking off the mod's hat for a minute) I don't think the site should support it as a profile choice because it couldn't be adequately substantiated, which may lead to dangerous consequences. Imagine for a moment that it was a profile option, and you met with someone on the strength of their "safe sex" status. If they turned out to be a drippy-dick-dipper and they passed on something really nasty to you, where would the site stand in law? Sorry, that's probably an extreme example, but I imagine there's a no-win/no-fee company out there willing to take it on! ;-)
Dunno about that, I know some gay sites have it and so do alt and adult friend finder as far as I can remember, (been a while since I looked in there!)
I doubt very much the site has any legal responsibility to the accuracy of the members profiles, (ha, would be a laugh and a half if it did though!) so I should think that is a rather extreme precaution to imagine it would be a good reason not to have the inclusion of safe sexual preference/ practise options on profiles.
The only reason I do not have it stated on mine in the text, is because I know blokes lie to fit in with what you are looking for, so I prefer to use guerilla tactics to find out!
But if everyone had to answer it as a multiple choice, it would make people make a choice and lay their cards on the table.
Yes they may still lie of course, but it is a starting point, what is wrong with that?

1 Aug 2010

Mod Hat off for this reply - this is MY own personal thoughts on this and not what the site does or does not think about bareback sex.

Quote by demi
The only reason I do not have it stated on mine in the text, is because I know blokes lie to fit in with what you are looking for, so I prefer to use guerilla tactics to find out!?

So having it as a site option would in fact, defeat your objective of using guerrilla tactics to get people to admit to you if they are into bareback or safe sex? Surely just being straight with people and saying safe sex only is a much more truthful and less deciptful way to be rather than try and catch people out?

Quote by demi
But if everyone had to answer it as a multiple choice, it would make people make a choice and lay their cards on the table.
Yes they may still lie of course, but it is a starting point, what is wrong with that?

Sorry Demi, but this totally contradicts everything you have said before. If you wont be honest and put it on your profile that you are only willing to play with condoms, why would anyone else be truthful and tick the option you are asking for?
I do know other sites use a safe sex option (tick list kind of thing) and I know that St3v3 has said it is something the site would look into, but at the end of the day, this is an adult site and adults are allowed to make their own decisions to use protection or otherwise. Who are you or I to say what they should and should not do?
We never play without condoms and would not play with anyone who we knew played bareback, but I do not have the right to tell others they should not do it. (I simply make a little note of their user name or put something in the Notes section on their profile never to even consider meeting them).
Each to their own, and we all have to make our own decisions about who we do or who we do not meet. The site is here to help people to arrange them, not to police what people should or should not do.