Bareback ?

7 Feb 2008

Some of the adverts and profiles say they like bareback s.....
Assuming this is what I think it is then it means unprotected sex.
In these days of AIDs and STDs then presumably this is either highly irresponsible or is it just a polite way of saying the person is HIV positive ???
Sorry if I am a little new to all this and dont understand!

7 Feb 2008

Ads that say bareback put me right off and I read no further. I'm staggered that some people are prepared to play Russian Roulette but if it's their fantasy I suppose lust gets the better of them. dunno

7 Feb 2008

there are several strains of HIV. So contracting another strain would be a bigger problem for someone who was HIV+ already.
Some people prefer to have sex bareback, and as foolish as some people may find it it is their choice.
If you don't want to have sex with these people then it certainly is a quick way of narrowing down the choices for you.
welcome to the forum btw

7 Feb 2008

Like I've always said if you have a group of consenting adults who ALL want to perform bareback, let them be, but I wouldn't be meeting up with them.
I regularly donate blood, it would be horrific if someone got a dose of something from 'bareback fun'. And yes before anyone states the obvious I'm also checked out, but I'm extra careful because of donating.
Why in today's climate do people want to put their lives at risk?? Already we're seeing the speedy return of TB, these guys are playing with fire (IMO)

7 Feb 2008

Hi Messy, I would never do unprotected sex with someone other than my partner. (To answer your query)
However I am a little concerned on looking at your profile as to any safety measures you have in place confused

:
I mean, covering someone in custard must get very slippery and dangerous...........not to mention the cost of washing the sheets biggrin

Welcome to the nutty forum

7 Feb 2008

Quote by Mistress_39
Hi Messy, I would never do unprotected sex with someone other than my partner. (To answer your query)
However I am a little concerned on looking at your profile as to any safety measures you have in place :
I mean, covering someone in custard must get very slippery and dangerous...........not to mention the cost of washing the sheets
Welcome to the nutty forum

ooooo you wanna be careful with some things and condoms ....... the fats and oils can interfere with the spermicides in the condom and make the rubber break down effectivly making it bearback even when you think you are protected

7 Feb 2008

Ads that say bareback put me right off and I read no further. I'm staggered that some people are prepared to play Russian Roulette but if it's their fantasy I suppose lust gets the better of them.
have to say i agree with this :shock:
_________________

7 Feb 2008

Quote by Mistress_39
I mean, covering someone in custard must get very slippery and dangerous...........not to mention the cost of washing the sheets
Welcome to the nutty forum

Is the yellow or pink custard?? and do you have any photos?? :P :D

7 Feb 2008

oooooo not had pink custard in years ........ and who remembers white custard with choccie pud in school redface

7 Feb 2008

No I had pink custard with horrid pink sponge stuff yuk!
Sorry for hijack redface

7 Feb 2008

Quote by flower411
or is it just a polite way of saying the person is HIV positive ???

I`d never thought of it that way before !!
If you are already infected, then why bother ? It would explain why people do it :shock:
...
I would say that being infected is even more reason to protect yourself. Additional infections is the last thing such a person needs!

7 Feb 2008

Quote by Sara_2006
oooooo not had pink custard in years ........ and who remembers white custard with choccie pud in school

wasn't that blamange?? :scared: ewwww horrible stuff!

7 Feb 2008

Quote by flower411
or is it just a polite way of saying the person is HIV positive ???

I`d never thought of it that way before !!
If you are already infected, then why bother ? It would explain why people do it :shock:

OMG.... :shock:
Sorry but I think Splendid explained it better than I can do.....but there are different strains of HIV like common colds etc....the NHS direct site alone have a lot of information on this.... I really don't like the way that you imply that persons are knowingly passing on the infection evil

7 Feb 2008

The thing that puts me off MORE then bareback?
Having a conversation with a single guy who 'joked' - "if you really like the woman, lol

you make a hole in the condom! " :shock:

7 Feb 2008

how on earth do you get from 'prefers to have sex without condoms, cos let's face it, sex is much better without them, and we quite like cum and stuff', to it being a polite way of saying 'i have AIDS?' confused

i can see how one might lead to the other, but no, in answer to the question, i'm quite sure it means 'this is our sexual preference, that you can make your own mind up on' and it in no way relates to them making an admission about their T-Cell count, because advertising that would just be plain stupid? dunno

;)
:?
n x x x ;)

8 Feb 2008

Someone innocent somewhere is going to get hurt. I don't give a flying fuck if its an individuals choice or not its stupid crazy and unecessary. Regardless of other dieseses and problems etc etc that can rsult from cumming over someones mouth, face armpit. Jack russel terrier and in my case it's incurable chronic verbal gonorhea(sp?). Bare back sex makes no sense in swinging.
Oh thats apart from if its with consenting adults who are always alway honest and truthful about who they've slept with and when etc etc - Thats bollox. Someone somewhere will lie. And there will be somewhere a person crying and/or dying because of it. Prevention is better than cure. How many Doctors does it take to convince people. How many deaths?
It is my personal opinion but one that in this case i cannot see there being an arguement for it. You can argue stuff in front of it above it around it behind it and below it but you can not argue the act of bareback sex in swinging its wrong. So wrong.
It would be my wish for the site to ban the the rooms with titles of barebacking. I know it won't happen and i can only speak out in topics like this. But are we not supposed to be adults playing adult games/ well lets think like adults. Don't bareback!

8 Feb 2008

Is it the same people who talk about a 'nanny state' and Political correctness gone mad etc etc who are criticising the right of those who wish to go bareback. Shouldn't we manage our own choices because we are adults.
I chose who I have sex with and I chose when I have sex. Isn't that the point of swinging?
Who are any of us to judge how people lead their consenting sex lives ?
rolleyes

8 Feb 2008

Quote by splendid_
Is it the same people who talk about a 'nanny state' and Political correctness gone mad etc etc who are criticising the right of those who wish to go bareback. Shouldn't we manage our own choices because we are adults.
I chose who I have sex with and I chose when I have sex. Isn't that the point of swinging?
Who are any of us to judge how people lead their consenting sex lives ?

my thoughts exactly
(but i could not of said it as well as you redface

)

8 Feb 2008

Quote by Messy
Some of the adverts and profiles say they like bareback s.....
Assuming this is what I think it is then it means unprotected sex.
In these days of AIDs and STDs then presumably this is either highly irresponsible or is it just a polite way of saying the person is HIV positive ???
Sorry if I am a little new to all this and dont understand!

You may be a little new to swinging but im sure you understand that people do this inside and outside of swinging. Its nothing new, it is irresponsible but that is up to them.
Just because they go bareback it doesnt mean they have anything dodgy ( but they may do soon).
Louise x

8 Feb 2008

Its got nothing to do with nanny state or political correctness. Its got to do with innocent people being harmed. If it is assumed that i am one of those being politically correct in my stance against barebacking, then that surely is wrong. I would suggest that it is polically incorrect to take a hardline stance on something rather than just use the "each to his own" arguement. Which, in this instance I cant see as valid. The question of an "innocent third" party being harmed is not answered by the "each to his own" statement.

8 Feb 2008

Quote by Lost
Its got nothing to do with nanny state or political correctness. Its got to do with innocent people being harmed. If it is assumed that i am one of those being politically correct in my stance against barebacking, then that surely is wrong. I would suggest that it is polically incorrect to take a hardline stance on something rather than just use the "each to his own" arguement. Which, in this instance I cant see as valid. The question of an "innocent third" party being harmed is not answered by the "each to his own" statement.

Disclaimer.....I may be a little worse for wear......
Surely the innocent third party would need to be making the decision to take the risk too though? :undecided:

8 Feb 2008

Quote by winchwench
Its got nothing to do with nanny state or political correctness. Its got to do with innocent people being harmed. If it is assumed that i am one of those being politically correct in my stance against barebacking, then that surely is wrong. I would suggest that it is polically incorrect to take a hardline stance on something rather than just use the "each to his own" arguement. Which, in this instance I cant see as valid. The question of an "innocent third" party being harmed is not answered by the "each to his own" statement.

Disclaimer.....I may be a little worse for wear......
Surely the innocent third party would need to be making the decision to take the risk too though? :undecided:
no winchy..... get with the programme here. Swingers who swing with people who demandbareback instantly become innocent victims
People are no longer able to express free will when a bareback requesting person contacts them. They HAVE to have sex with them. rolleyes

Lets ban them all. Take away their rights. Revoke their membership. Demand higher fees. Have neon flashing adverts to warn the victims away. Let them have their own chatrooms... there are ways to prevent these disease ridden people from infecting those who are victims of their predatory barebacking....
phew I need a lie down after that vitriol. I shall go and rest on my moral high ground counting my condoms.

8 Feb 2008

I can remember when custard power used to come in assorted packs of six flavours from "Brown and Poulsons" - I liked the strawberry as a boy - happy days biggrin

Plim

8 Feb 2008

Quote by X_fanny_x
Is it the same people who talk about a 'nanny state' and Political correctness gone mad etc etc who are criticising the right of those who wish to go bareback. Shouldn't we manage our own choices because we are adults.
I chose who I have sex with and I chose when I have sex. Isn't that the point of swinging?
Who are any of us to judge how people lead their consenting sex lives ?

my thoughts exactly
(but i could not of said it as well as you redface

)
ye well said you two
although I couldnt have said it as good as you fanny xxx
for gods sakes people if people want to either use protection or not then its their choice

9 Feb 2008

I did state 'innocent third party', someone who has no knowledge to make an informed decision. As other threads in this forum have alluded to or directly considered the facts of swinging without a partner knowledge, we all know it goes on, don't we? Then in this case the unknowing partner would be an innocent third party.
I believe wholeheartedy/unconditionally in safe sex and the promotion of such. I fail to see good arguement in not arguing to that goal. It has nothing to do with being PC or nanny stateism. Its a case of coming down on thes side of what i think is right. And saying so.
If it could be that only swingers who wanted to bareback only swung confused

with others who did the same and there was no other people ever involved, then yeah, go for your lives. Because of course it would be their lives not someone elses. I fail to see such an honest swinging utopia and until such a thing exists I feel it is right to speak up against such acts. I will not turn a blind eye.

9 Feb 2008

wanted to stay away from this thread :eeek:
but had 1 too many rolleyes

:doh: so my thinking is what ever floats ya boat
just think people are forgetting that if u get hiv u aint going to be cured :shock:
so that 2 -10 - 20 mins of bareback fun best be the best sex u ever have :kick: cause it could cost u the 1 thing that we all value most>>> which is life.
think they should reshow the aids/hiv adds that where about in the 80's to jog peeps memorys of the bad old days :cry:

9 Feb 2008

Quote by Lost
I did state 'innocent third party', someone who has no knowledge to make an informed decision. As other threads in this forum have alluded to or directly considered the facts of swinging without a partner knowledge, we all know it goes on, don't we? Then in this case the unknowing partner would be an innocent third party.
I believe wholeheartedy/unconditionally in safe sex and the promotion of such. I fail to see good arguement in not arguing to that goal. It has nothing to do with being PC or nanny stateism. Its a case of coming down on thes side of what i think is right. And saying so.
If it could be that only swingers who wanted to bareback only swung with others who did the same and there was no other people ever involved, then yeah, go for your lives. Because of course it would be their lives not someone elses. I fail to see such an honest swinging utopia and until such a thing exists I feel it is right to speak up against such acts. I will not turn a blind eye.

I can kind of see where Lost is coming from (mmm now that's a sexy thought wink

)....
There could well be an innocent third party, picture the scene, two people about to have steamy sex, they realise they have no condoms but as they've known each other for a few years they are comfortable with each other so they carry on regardless, "we'll be ok we know each other inside out".
The next week one of that duo is with someone else and the situation is repeated...."don't worry you'll be fine, I've never had sex with ANYONE without protection..."
Yes, I realise it's a bit of a jackanory story, but believe me it happens!... I've been in that situation myself years ago and I stupidly went ahead. Luckily for me I was fine when tested afterwards. Others may not be so lucky and the honesty may well not come out.
I'm very much a believer in letting people be and I'm not advocating for ANYONE here but I'm just saying I can understand Lost's point on the innocent third party, it can and will happen.

9 Feb 2008

Hi Mar
are you saying people lie, that they do not have the same standard?
Too right they do!! Condoms, use them! It may be one's own responsibility to protect one's health, but there are those out there who will mislead one.
If you do not have a good reason not to use one use it. The cost is too high.
Having said that there is one person I do not use a condom with, my life partner. I know I am the only one she does not use a condom with.....do I know?

9 Feb 2008

Quote by
Hi Mar
are you saying people lie, that they do not have the same standard?
Too right they do!! Condoms, use them! It may be one's own responsibility to protect one's health, but there are those out there who will mislead one.
If you do not have a good reason not to use one use it. The cost is too high.
Having said that there is one person I do not use a condom with, my life partner. I know I am the only one she does not use a condom with.....do I know?

Hi hun, of course people lie, it's human nature we can't always trust someone's integrity as well as their history x

9 Feb 2008

I did state 'innocent third party', someone who has no knowledge to make an informed decision. As other threads in this forum have alluded to or directly considered the facts of swinging without a partner knowledge, we all know it goes on, don't we? Then in this case the unknowing partner would be an innocent third party.
I believe wholeheartedy/unconditionally in safe sex and the promotion of such. I fail to see good arguement in not arguing to that goal. It has nothing to do with being PC or nanny stateism. Its a case of coming down on thes side of what i think is right. And saying so.
If it could be that only swingers who wanted to bareback only swung confused

with others who did the same and there was no other people ever involved, then yeah, go for your lives. Because of course it would be their lives not someone elses. I fail to see such an honest swinging utopia and until such a thing exists I feel it is right to speak up against such acts. I will not turn a blind eye.
Fair point, and it was the obvious one I missed last night.......hence the "disclaimer" redface