Condoms

7 Apr 2005

Quote by piercedJon
I would say that most people while initially starting a relationship using condoms anfter a while when the relationship is progreassing decide not to use them, or laps into non-use if one is steralised or on a contraceptive... this does not however say that one or the other, or even both, has/have a non-symptomatic sti (as they are now called)
The problem is a visit to the clinic is a time consuming business (up to 8 hours with a drop in, up to 2 with an apointment) and then takes up to 1-2 weeks for a sti positive, and 3-6 weeks if you are in the clear; most dont contact if you are negative for the tested sti's but i personally feel they should contact both ways so no one falls thougth the gaps by say a delayed result or a mix up.

I wonder how many people on here could honestly say that they have been tested in the last 3 months and genuinly know they are free of all the tested sti's?

Very few, I'm sure. It's occurred to me to get tested but I've had so few partners, and all have been long(ish)-term and themselves have had little previous, that it's just not seemed to be an issue. My current GF was with her hubby for 20-odd years before me, and my previous GF had also been monogamous for many years (and yes, I believe them both ;-)).
However, if you go dogging and/or swinging then I'd have thought condoms were absolutely mandatory, and it would never occur to me to do either unwrapped. Even if I were willling to take the risk to myself, it would be highly irresponsible for me to risk my GF or any future partner, and neither would I ask any swinger/dogger kind enough to have sex with me to take any sort of risk. I'm pretty sure I'm clean from STDs because of my history, but she wouldn't, and I certainly wouldn't expect her to just take my word for it.
I can understand oral sex without johnnies, as although there's a risk of herpes and similar you're unlikely to contract anything seriously damaging through giving a blowjob. HIV is an issue if you've got any broken skin in your mouth, perhaps a burst gumboil or somesuch, but if the buccal lining is intact then AFAIK the mucus membrane will be an impermeable barrier to the HIV virus. (Any health professionals care to comment on this?) Plus I wouldn't fancy giving a blow job (which I might do one day) to someone wrapped in plastic, no matter what bloody flavour it is - if I ever do so I'd want to feel and taste the cum and appreciate the flesh, not have the taste of latex in my mouth.
But for any other kind of penetrative sex in this community, johnnies are an absolute must. Even if you don't believe in them, you'll not get a shag if you don't use them, so that's an incentive in itself.
As for a cock being too big, well I have always thought that they should come in sizes, although knowing men's egos these would have to be Large, SuperLarge, Goliath and OhMyGod ;-). I've found most to be ok for my measly 7", although Gossamer are a bit small and tend to ride off under pressure. Trojans I believe are marked with size, so perhaps yer man could try them. I'm sure there will be some to fit - I've seen porn flicks with Lexington Steele, who has the biggest dick I have *ever* seen on screen, and he occasionally wears johnnies.
Just my 2 Euro's worth...
Nice post, Jon, BTW.
Mr Licks

7 Apr 2005

I was thinking about starting a discussion about this as it's been on my mind following a recent (very lucky) night where I ended up with 3 ladies. I was using a condom, but noticed that the ladies - who were not partners - were sharing dildos 'bareback' fingering each other and all of us were having oral sex. I saw a documentary where an American hooker was insisting on using not only condoms, but dental dams & latex gloves and all were being changed between partners.
During group sessions we all go from orifice to orifice with various appendages & toys, but all too often a guy will stick on 1 rubber until he cums in it. I have never been asked to use a dental dam (not even by women who insisted on me wearing a rubber whilst they gave head). The dangers of cross-infection are apparent and since, as I understand it, one of the most at-risk activities for a hetero male is going down it seems that there's a lot of hypocrisy about what is 'safe' sex. As mentioned earlier there is no such thing; only safer sex.
Be honest about the things I've mentioned - especially those who have been quite vehement in their opinions of those who go bareback. When was the last time you insisted condoms be changed when partners are? Or when moving from vaginal to anal penetration since cross-infection is highly possible then? Have you put a condom on a dildo? Do you protect your partners when they're performing cunnilungus on you? Have you worn gloves? Would you do any of them?
My guess would be 'no' in most cases. Most of us probably never even thought about manual stimulation as a risk, but everyone shouts 'condom' because we all fall for the hype about the safe sex message which is, at best, incomplete. Certainly there will be those who say something's better than nothing and I agree, but think about it the next time your playing as couples or at an orgy. you might be surprised by how many risks you're taking already.

7 Apr 2005

I could not purchase one that was big enough to fit me

Have you ever tried a bin bag.. well the council do say that they are strong durable and never split :shock: :shock: confused

:?

:lol: :lol: wink

:wink:

7 Apr 2005

Quote by freckledbird

I totally agree and I salute you Sir, you talk a lot of sense, if everyone was as considerate as you there wouldn't be any need to worry about catching STDs.

But everyone isn't that considerate, so people DO need to worry about catching STD's, so everyone should use condoms, yet you're objecting????
Not true Frecklebird, where did you get the notion that I don't use condoms?
What I said was that I don't like using condoms, it is not the same as riding bareback, but I do use them.
O. K.

7 Apr 2005

Quote by Debbiewebs
I could not purchase one that was big enough to fit me

Have you ever tried a bin bag.. well the council do say that they are strong durable and never split :shock: :shock: confused

:?

:lol: :lol: wink

:wink:
Ha Ha. it is not THAT big Debbie. rotflmao

7 Apr 2005

Quote by targaid
The dangers of cross-infection are apparent and since, as I understand it, one of the most at-risk activities for a hetero male is going down

Really?? What risk does the man face? I ask this in all naivety, because I've always thought that cunnilingus was about the safest, or least unsafe, form of sex you can have. It's certainly my favourite, hence my crass handle ;-)

it seems that there's a lot of hypocrisy about what is 'safe' sex. As mentioned earlier there is no such thing; only safer sex.

True enough, and a point worth repeating. Or perhaps 'less unsafe sex', but that doesn't quite trip off the tongue as does 'safe sex'. As has been pointed out earlier, sex is inherently risky, physically and emotionally, but that's one of it's attractions. The only question to ask is: how much risk is justified?

Be honest about the things I've mentioned - especially those who have been quite vehement in their opinions of those who go bareback. When was the last time you insisted condoms be changed when partners are? Or when moving from vaginal to anal penetration since cross-infection is highly possible then? Have you put a condom on a dildo? Do you protect your partners when they're performing cunnilungus on you? Have you worn gloves? Would you do any of them?

Well, I wouldn't have thought most of those would be particularly risky. Anal to vaginal is a common problem which can certainly spread rectal bugs to the vagina and be unpleasant for the woman, and should be avoided (despite all this puerile ass-to-mouth-to-cunt stuff in modern porn), but are the others real issues? Is there a significant probability of infection being transmitted via latex or dildo?

My guess would be 'no' in most cases. Most of us probably never even thought about manual stimulation as a risk, but everyone shouts 'condom' because we all fall for the hype about the safe sex message which is, at best, incomplete. Certainly there will be those who say something's better than nothing and I agree, but think about it the next time your playing as couples or at an orgy. you might be surprised by how many risks you're taking already.

Yes, but you are avoiding the most lethal risk of all, which is HIV. It was only after HIV was recognised as an epidemic in the 80s that condoms (a word which was never, AFAIK, used before then in ordinary speech) were promoted on the grounds of sexual health rather than contraception. To my mind, HIV is an altogether greater and deadlier risk than catching the clap, bad as 'traditional' STDs can be.
Still, good points well made.
Mr Licks

7 Apr 2005

Quote by JudyTV
Of course using a condom is not a guarantee to safety but a pedestrian crossing isn't a guarantee that you wont get hit by a car either. But statistically it is plain that you are more likely to get hit not on one than on one. Air bags and safety belts in cars come into the same brackets.
Personally I am glad he made his post for many reasons:-
1) It has provoked a good healthy debate (until he himself resorted to verbally abuse someone)
2) it shows due to the objections to his post that many of us here promote safe (or safer) sex.
3) Up to a point It shows us who is pro safe and who is not and allows the for sight to avoid certain people at parties or active events. I wont go near a bareback rider regarding penetrative sex..
4) It is generally informative and educational.
5) These condom debates, of which we have had many in the past, also give us the opportunity to gain other personal information about each other that is not directly related to safe sex. Its amazing what shows through in peoples individual makeup in these topics. All very important information when deciding who to play with or in this case not play with for all sorts of reasons.
Personally I welcome this type of topic / debate. While I could never agree with OK or his thinking because it beggars belief in my own opinion and reasoning, it does however allow us the opportunity to hear other opinions. What we must always try not to do is interfere with a persons choice. Threads like this may not change peoples strong inherent opinions or choices directly but it informs us of the general opinion of others and offers us information in case we do want to make alternative choices.
Judy

Thank you Judy, you are very fair and open minded, I think some members misunderstood me, I said that I don't like using condoms, not that I don't use them.
O. K.

7 Apr 2005

Quote by O. K.
I could not purchase one that was big enough to fit me

Have you ever tried a bin bag.. well the council do say that they are strong durable and never split :shock: :shock: confused

:?

:lol: :lol: wink

:wink:
Ha Ha. it is not THAT big Debbie. rotflmao

:doh: now look what you have done..killed me fantasizing now rolleyes

:roll: :cry: :cry: :wink: :wink:

7 Apr 2005

Quote by targaid
The dangers of cross-infection are apparent and since, as I understand it, one of the most at-risk activities for a hetero male is going down

Quote by MrLickingham
Really?? What risk does the man face? I ask this in all naivety, because I've always thought that cunnilingus was about the safest, or least unsafe, form of sex you can have. It's certainly my favourite, hence my crass handle ;-)

Well theres herpes for starters?

7 Apr 2005

My thoughts on this:
Using condoms or dental dams for Oral is something I have no interest in doing either as a giver or receiver. The risks of catching HIV from Oral sex are incrediably small and using protection in my opinion makes the whole process pointless - I would simply rather not bother. I do carry condoms which I use for penetrative sex with casual partners, and I can't say this spoils the sensation for me although I can't say they add to the moment!
One thing I would ask all the people jumping on the band-wagon of telling everyone how safe they are and how stupid anyone who ever has any sexual contact without protection -
Do any of you smoke? Do any of you drive a large amount of car mileage? Do any of you enjoy a good session of drink at the weekend?
Statistically the risks associated with Heavy Drinking, Smoking, and Road accidents are much higher than those associated with STDs.
There a lot of people within the swinging & dogging scene in general as well as on this site who have regular bareback sex with multiple casual partners - all these people are not idiots! Many have weighed up the risks and decided the odds are acceptable to them.
The important thing should be that each person takes responsibility for their own actions - if you've decided to always use condoms then what other people do is irrelevant provided you always make sure everyone you play with respects your preferences. If you don't want to use condoms then provided your partners are all ok with that then there is no problem.
At the end of the day everyone is adult and makes their own choice either to use protection or not and anyone who is not happy with the choice made by a prospective partner can just say no thankyou and walk away.
Roger the Dragon cool

7 Apr 2005

Everything in life has a risk, the aim is to manage and minimise those risks. Like you said, everyone has a right to choose, and I'm not going to disagree.
But its how you set about doing things. You gave some examples about driving. Driving migh mileage alone won't necessarily lead to fatality. But driving wrecklessly, or while drunk can almost guarantee an incident. So its about your attitude that matters more here.
Those who bareback on a regular basis will realise that all it takes is for one of them in the swinging group to have HIV, within time they will all get it. It would just be a matter of time.

7 Apr 2005

Quote by JudyTV

Just to make it plain and clear, I only ever indulge in safe sex.

Relax Judy, this is a classic example of a wind-up merchant. I have seen dozens of them scattered across various forums. What they do is make posts to wind people up. Then they back track abit and try to twist what some have said to try and support themself. Just as your posts have been used to try and show support for him.
The aim is to get regular posters to disagree by attempting to create two or more groups of different views. Usually though, most people see through this. Unfortunatey them guys who pull these stunts don't realise this and stay sat in front of their PCs thinking they have got us fooled.
Just look at his first post, how does a dick too big for a condom end up with a condom coming off? Bullshit or what?

7 Apr 2005

Quote by veejay
Everything in life has a risk, the aim is to manage and minimise those risks. Like you said, everyone has a right to choose, and I'm not going to disagree.

I'm not sure I would agree that minimising risks is everyones aim in life - it may be yours but some people find the risks increase their enjoyment.

Quote by veejay
But its how you set about doing things. You gave some examples about driving. Driving migh mileage alone won't necessarily lead to fatality. But driving wrecklessly, or while drunk can almost guarantee an incident. So its about your attitude that matters more here.

The point I was trying to make (Badly I'll admit biggrin

) was that if you drive a lot your risks of dying or being injured in a car accident become reasonably high - however safe you drive you cannot prevent an accident caused by someone else.

Quote by veejay
Those who bareback on a regular basis will realise that all it takes is for one of them in the swinging group to have HIV, within time they will all get it. It would just be a matter of time.

True to a certain extent however ordinary consensual vaginal intercourse has a relatively low transmission rate (between 2% and 4% for HIV) therefore it would be a very long period of time before the disease spread through a group of people.
Roger the Dragon cool

BTW - not trying to pick at you post just trying to expand on the point I was making .

7 Apr 2005

Quote by JudyTV
As we debate this issue people are coming off aircraft at airports all over the UK as we speak who are infected with HIV and Aids.

and before we blame the imigrants for it, that also includes the bareback tourists in Asia etc. Just because its not the UK doesn't mean it wont happen. Its like saying you wont get pregnant.
BB

7 Apr 2005

Quote by JudyTV
Its the spreading of infection in general and HIV in particular that the UK and other countries are fighting to control. As we debate this issue people are coming off aircraft at airports all over the UK as we speak who are infected with HIV and Aids. Those of us who recklessly ignore the government and Medical experts warnings and information regarding safe sex are increasing the chances of their children and their grandchildren of being infected with a number of STDs. People are dieing in their thousands worldwide due to this devastating human infection. We in this country are potentially killing the children of tomorrow by disregarding simple advise.

I'm going to have to disagree with this paragraph I'm afraid Judy - you give the impression that people who don't practise safer sex are putting the lives of the population in general at a greater risk.
I don't see this as the case - they may be at greater risk themselves but as HIV cannot be caught by casual contact my life is only at an increased risk if I decide to have unprotected sex with them.
Aids and HIV will only spread amongst people who don't choose to practise safer sex - this is not a risk to the rest of the population.
BTW - I am confused by your logic and in no way dsirespect your choice to only practise safer sex.
Roger the Dragon cool

7 Apr 2005

Quote by JudyTV
Sorry to disagree with you Roger but if you don't practice safe sex and pick up HIV and then pass it on to someone else then yes your children are in danger of being infected by others who have been infected by your original neglect, simple as that. We have no idea who are children will eventual sleep with
Judy
True in a sense but if I had HIV and someone caught it from me it would be because they had chosen not to practise safer sex - they have the choice regardless of whether I have anything that is contagious. So do my children and grandchildren and if they are in danger it will because of the decisions they make.
The people who have unprotected sex are not a danger to the people who only ever have protected sex.
Roger the Dragon

7 Apr 2005

Quote by rogerthedragon
True to a certain extent however ordinary consensual vaginal intercourse has a relatively low transmission rate (between 2% and 4% for HIV) therefore it would be a very long period of time before the disease spread through a group of people.
Roger the Dragon
BTW - not trying to pick at you post just trying to expand on the point I was making .

This is O.k, just some different views. But if you think about the 2-4% and the numbers of people having sex in general (I know the newbies will say that nobody here ever has sex biggrin

) then that can translate into an awfully large number of people at risk in the U.K.
The reason that HIV hasn't spread more is precisely because of the large number of people who are responsible to be protected. e.g I'll give you the example of immunisation. For each disease, there will be a percentage of the population needing to be immunised (called "herd immunisation") to prevent outbreak. Similarly, there needs to be high enough numbers of people practising safer sex to try and keep the HIV problem from spiralling out of control. This will still mean that HIV will be around, but the numbers will be under some contol. I assure you, that if more people started barebacking, we could see exponential growth in the HIV infection rates. This is a situation where it is better to nip it in the bud, rather than letting it go out of control.

7 Apr 2005

Quote by JudyTV
Its the spreading of infection in general and HIV in particular that the UK and other countries are fighting to control. As we debate this issue people are coming off aircraft at airports all over the UK as we speak who are infected with HIV and Aids. Those of us who recklessly ignore the government and Medical experts warnings and information regarding safe sex are increasing the chances of their children and their grandchildren of being infected with a number of STDs. People are dieing in their thousands worldwide due to this devastating human infection. We in this country are potentially killing the children of tomorrow by disregarding simple advise.

Quote by rogerthedragon
I'm going to have to disagree with this paragraph I'm afraid Judy - you give the impression that people who don't practise safer sex are putting the lives of the population in general at a greater risk.

In a literal way, I agree with what Judy said about putting your chldren at risk by barebacking. I know this is an extreme example, but have you considered the implications for children born to mothers with HIV?
These kids are as good as born with death sentence, yet had committed no crime. They will probably not reach late their 20's at best? Every year, there are hundreds of babies born in this country alone to mothers with HIV. The situation in African countries is too tragic to fully contemplate.
No offence to you Roger and this isn't aimed at you. But it troubles me that people in other countries die because nobody told them any better/helped them with protection. Yet there are people here who have been told, yet for some reason that still baffles me are willing to risk themself, and find that they arent going to be around for long. I know that African people may not necessarily be your problem or concern, but its something to think about.
Speaking of helping people, rather than bombing Iraqis with artillery, wouldnt money have been better spent on bombing the Africans with condoms and leaflets? Maybe even the odd bag of grain? Something else to think about. rolleyes

7 Apr 2005

Quote by JudyTV
If every one of us practiced safe sex then the UK Aids problem would or could be under control but probably not eradicated completely. Not sure if I have explained this adequately but I'm sure most people will get the point. We really cant go on like we are doing.

An infection like HIV only spreads through intimate sources so can in fact be close to eradicated. Diseases like smallpox which was far more infectious has been eradicated. With stringent screening of blood/organs and safe sexual practices, then within 2-3 generation you could have a situation where all the infected people have passed away and left the population free of HIV. This is something which could be achieved, but I doubt it will.

7 Apr 2005

Quote by veejay
If every one of us practiced safe sex then the UK Aids problem would or could be under control but probably not eradicated completely. Not sure if I have explained this adequately but I'm sure most people will get the point. We really cant go on like we are doing.

An infection like HIV only spreads through intimate sources so can in fact be close to eradicated. Diseases like smallpox which was far more infectious has been eradicated. With stringent screening of blood/organs and safe sexual practices, then within 2-3 generation you could have a situation where all the infected people have passed away and left the population free of HIV. This is something which could be achieved, but I doubt it will.
Instead of it "slowly dying out" HIV is getting more and more deadly. Last month a new, stronger more virulent strain was discovered in a man in New York City. This strain of HIV is resistent to the current drug therapy treatements and the development to AIDS occurs more rapidly. you can read more here:

7 Apr 2005

Quote by ockysweeties
Instead of it "slowly dying out" HIV is getting more and more deadly. Last month a new, stronger more virulent strain was discovered in a man in New York City. This strain of HIV is resistent to the current drug therapy treatements and the development to AIDS occurs more rapidly. you can read more here:

Even more reason to stop/control it while you are able to.
As time and generations of the virus come along, there will be a greater number of chances for mutation of the virus. So with each new person being newly infected, they could end up a vius which has come about through greater mutation.
Think about how long HIV has been around. 30, 40 or at most possible 50 years? Look at how far it has spread. I know air travel etc has contributed but still it is a pandemic which we have no real cure for. Yes drugs may reduce your viral load, but sooner or later it will kill you. Anti-retrovirals only buy you some extra time (a decade or two?)

7 Apr 2005

Quote by O. K.

I totally agree and I salute you Sir, you talk a lot of sense, if everyone was as considerate as you there wouldn't be any need to worry about catching STDs.

But everyone isn't that considerate, so people DO need to worry about catching STD's, so everyone should use condoms, yet you're objecting????
Not true Frecklebird, where did you get the notion that I don't use condoms?
What I said was that I don't like using condoms, it is not the same as riding bareback, but I do use them.
O. K.
I got the notion from your initial post:

Quote by OK
Does everyone use these abominations? in the old days, my ex-wife and I tried condoms, but we never able to get on with them, as they were painfull to her due to wrinkling and I could not purchase one that was big enough to fit me, plus they always came off during intercourse. Personally, I have always preferred sex without the discomfort of a rubber and my ex- liked to ride it bareback.

It would appear, reading back through the thread, that I am not alone in thinking that.
The words I've made bold, say thatin the pastyou tried them but didn't like them. You refer to your use of them in the past tense and don't ever mention that you now use them. I haven't said you don't use them, I said you objected to using them (which you do).
Like Judy's said, it just looks as if you're back pedalling now, as so many people have seen this as a negative post and there are many people who have read this who would steer well clear of you. Basically you've shot yourself in the foot and you'd be better letting this one drop because you're not doing yourself any favours. Just my opinion.

8 Apr 2005

I am a newbie here, and just wanted to say how glad I am that there is so much knowledge here.
I was a bit concerned before joining the site, as all my knowledge of swinging was the scaremongering NOTW and other tabloid stories. So I find it a great relief to find important subjects like this discussed openly and there to be such a wealth of knowledge and common-sense on the subject and not just 'pub talk'.
I am aware that within the gay community this subject is taken seriously, but am happy to find it so amongst what seems the majority of the hetro community too.
Thanks for such an interesting discussion and as they used to say on Hill Street Blues
'lets be careful out there' (Or should that be, lets be careful IN there lol

)

8 Apr 2005

In the past, Mars and I always used to use these abominations, personally we have always preferred sex without, now I prefer to ride him bareback. wink

That said, after 18 years and three kids, I feel safe enough not to use protection with him, and I suspect the excitement encountered in a swinging situation would far outweigh any loss of sensation with others. To be honest, I can't even remember what a dressed cock feels like inside!
Venusxxx

8 Apr 2005

Quote by ockysweeties
If every one of us practiced safe sex then the UK Aids problem would or could be under control but probably not eradicated completely. Not sure if I have explained this adequately but I'm sure most people will get the point. We really cant go on like we are doing.

An infection like HIV only spreads through intimate sources so can in fact be close to eradicated. Diseases like smallpox which was far more infectious has been eradicated. With stringent screening of blood/organs and safe sexual practices, then within 2-3 generation you could have a situation where all the infected people have passed away and left the population free of HIV. This is something which could be achieved, but I doubt it will.
Instead of it "slowly dying out" HIV is getting more and more deadly. Last month a new, stronger more virulent strain was discovered in a man in New York City. This strain of HIV is resistent to the current drug therapy treatements and the development to AIDS occurs more rapidly. you can read more here:
I for one don't like the sound of this, and although this won't be a popular theory, I still feel it is a valid one. What I'm talking about is a massive quarantine program. There must be a way of doing this in a way that is humane and doesn't degrade those who to all intense and purpose are already in the shit. This being the 21st century, and with all the technology, there must be a way of mass screening, and there must be a way to quarantine without causing misery. I dare say the only thing that stops our wonderful politicians from contemplating this is money, lets face it, we have wars to fight and other countries to invade!

8 Apr 2005

The UN Human Rights Act 1948 would not allow that to happen.

8 Apr 2005

Quote by beebeep
The UN Human Rights Act 1948 would not allow that to happen.

I understand this, and am in no way trying to upset anyone here. But human rights? It is a basic human right to allow a deadly and incurable disease to spread and mutate, and in effect infect the next generation.
And lets face it, the United Nations have been ignored in the past. Like when there is a war for oil for instance.

8 Apr 2005

Quote by BrightonGeezer
If every one of us practiced safe sex then the UK Aids problem would or could be under control but probably not eradicated completely. Not sure if I have explained this adequately but I'm sure most people will get the point. We really cant go on like we are doing.

An infection like HIV only spreads through intimate sources so can in fact be close to eradicated. Diseases like smallpox which was far more infectious has been eradicated. With stringent screening of blood/organs and safe sexual practices, then within 2-3 generation you could have a situation where all the infected people have passed away and left the population free of HIV. This is something which could be achieved, but I doubt it will.
Instead of it "slowly dying out" HIV is getting more and more deadly. Last month a new, stronger more virulent strain was discovered in a man in New York City. This strain of HIV is resistent to the current drug therapy treatements and the development to AIDS occurs more rapidly. you can read more here:
I for one don't like the sound of this, and although this won't be a popular theory, I still feel it is a valid one. What I'm talking about is a massive quarantine program. There must be a way of doing this in a way that is humane and doesn't degrade those who to all intense and purpose are already in the shit. This being the 21st century, and with all the technology, there must be a way of mass screening, and there must be a way to quarantine without causing misery. I dare say the only thing that stops our wonderful politicians from contemplating this is money, lets face it, we have wars to fight and other countries to invade!
If it could be done humanely, then it sounds like something I find acceptable. Like you said, "human rights" are ignored left right and centre when it suits govts. While the UN is just a sham, doesnt have any teeth or powers anyway.
Anybody who would object to such measures is very short-sighted or selfish. And what do you think will happen if the HIV was to ever cross with something like the common cold virus to produce a super HIV virus? We could potentially be in a situation where you could get HIV from just being in the same room as someone infected. Its well known that this process occurs in bacteria, but if it were to happen in virus? :shock:
Then we'd all be in the sh1t and the whole world will have to go into quarantine.

8 Apr 2005

Having only just got my citizenship a month ago, I am not too well-read on what the UK STI and HIV treatment plans are like, or health education to discourage infected persons from treating their illnesses lightly and not protecting themselves or telling their sexual partners.
The U.S. sexual health education system is dismal and people in their 20's and younger, even when the know they have HIV, are not using condoms and no one knows what to do to punish these people, and yes anything like quarrentine or making them wear a badge is illegal and a human rights violation.
I know I've mentioned him before, but Dan Savage - Sexual Advice Columnist, addressed this issue here

8 Apr 2005

As far as I can tell, OKwas just talking about his sexual experiences with his wife. They tried using condoms, they did not enjoy them and he is just wondering how others cope with their use. He has nowhere said that he is not using them NOW or will not be using them in the future if the opportunity for a sexual encounter were to arise.
As for the lucky member who went with 3girlsand noted their sharingof dildoeswithout using fresh condoms on them, he is right - that is very risky and stupid. And of course if asked most people will say that they do not consider oral sex without a barrier to be risky but we know it is and it is just a case of playing russian roulette. Who is the bullet going to hit? On this basis alone I would not trust any partner, no matter how much I loved him and how long we had been together, because in the heat of things it is possible to forget to take precautions, as in people's mind the risk of getting infected via oral sex is minimal and not worth considering.
I still recall with fear the time I had sex with my ex. We used gloves and condoms but he let me give him a BJ without a condom. Knowing that he is very meticulous about not having unprotected sex, I felt safe to do so. However, minutes after we were done and upon casual conversation, he revealled that he took no protection with his current g/f because - wait for it! - she was sterilised and there was no need. rolleyes

I reminded him the risk of catching STDs and he laughed telling me she works at a hospital and is safe. I argued that hospitals do not screen people for STDs, especially office workers and pointed out that his logic was flawed. He stuck up his lips and said that he trusted her 100% and I had no reason to worry and I should drop the subject. Maybe a month later or so he rang me very upset to say that he had been fixing up her PC and came upon pics of her having unprotected sex with various males and females. The pics were only a few months old. So much for trust, eh?