Sex!!! Condom or bareback?
-
safe sex ever. With men and women of course
-
safe sex ever. With men and women of course
Define "safe" sex… It's a very relative term sadly.
If you are HIV+ and are on the meds and maintain an undetectable viral load, there has not been so much as one case where transmission has actually occurred, even with unprotected sex. For this reason, it is said that bareback sex under these conditions is "safe". Also, there are a lot of different assumptions around the concept of oral sex. hehe
-
Safe
I'm too cute to be catching anything
-
safe sex ever. With men and women of course
Define "safe" sex… It's a very relative term sadly.
If you are HIV+ and are on the meds and maintain an undetectable viral load, there has not been so much as one case where transmission has actually occurred, even with unprotected sex. For this reason, it is said that bareback sex under these conditions is "safe". Also, there are a lot of different assumptions around the concept of oral sex. hehe
HIV pill does not make you immune to other STDs.
-
with the one whom i love, trust and believe, it will always be bareback. that is because it is not just sex that we do, but we make love.
-
I prefer bareback, just if it safe.
-
Good, and LBC stands for?
lol…. your banner? is it me? lmao
anyway guys....
for a virgin...which one is good for the first time?
bareback or condom? -
nature is always the best. so you need to watch out for some nature boy(s) instead ;D
-
how can you spot a nature inflicted creature? easy!
if the guy fits the average taste… danger!
but if he's truly different... that's a good sign to relax.y'know, there are "followers" and those who are creating... it's your choice!
-
Having only had anal sex once since the plague years, it looks like it is going to happen again. Normally, the way I phrase my demand for safer sex is to say I have a rubber fetish. And I do like to see a hot load heavily weight down the reservoir with an abundance of ejaculate.
But it also seems to me that sex is more spontaneous and natural the old-fashioned way, with nothing interfering with skin on skin friction. The common view seems to be that condoms reduce pleasurable sensations at least on the person wearing one. But someone here said they could not tell the difference.
For those who have done it both ways, what is yr considered opinion? Less pleasure? Or not enough less to matter?
-
If it's someone you love without, someone random with.
Hey guyz
What's your practice on gay sex? With or without? Is it important for u?
My teenage years was in the 80's where most countries had informative social campaigns about AIDS and using condoms. So… I must say that I was brainwashed, since in 99% of my first encounters with guyz I used a condom. I let loose for a short period and i ended-up having gonorrhea in my bum. LOL. The occasions I had unprotected sex was when I was in a trusting relationship and we were tested. And yes.... I must say fucking/fucked without a condom is much more enjoyable.
So it is important for me (at the point of refusing anal penetration but doing the rest (kissing, oral stuff) :)).
I have a feeling that todays young people don't care much as I think promotion for STD prevention is not as it should be.
Cheers
-
I prefer without, but usually use a condom, but sometimes I get trashed and let guys do what they want then worry for 3 months until I can have a HIV test.
-
I prefer without, but usually use a condom, but sometimes I get trashed and let guys do what they want then worry for 3 months until I can have a HIV test.
Just a heads up on that. The "3 month" window is a suggested guideline because there are rare cases where seroconversion doesn't occur within 2 weeks. In a nut shell, the HIV virus must first overwhelm your immune system enough to make it start to produce the protein needed to formulate the anti-body[nb]P32 if memory serves me correctly, but don't quote me on that.[/nb] needed to defend itself against the virus. Most often, this actually happens within 2 weeks, however in the case of an elite controller[nb]One whose immune system possesses a natural ability to suppress the virus and maintain an undetectable viral load without the need for antiretroviral medication… Elite controllers are very rare, but do exist.[/nb] or a delayed progresser[nb]One whose immune system is naturally compatible with their HIV strain, thus making the progression of the virus itself take much more time than most people. Delayed progressers aren't rare, but they aren't exactly common either. They are however more common than an elite controller.[/nb] this process can be delayed by up to 3 months. In very rare instances, it is possible (though not likely) that an elite controller can avoid the seroconversion process for up to 6 months, however this is extremely rare.
In short, if you're really that worried about whether or not something happened, get a test 15 - 20 days after the time of exposure. Statistically speaking, if that test is negative, it's a 92% - 96% chance (depending on which study you go by) that the negative test result is actually negative. The reason that health professionals advise that this window is up to 90 days is because even when taking elite controllers and delayed progressors into account, statistics show that at 90 days, a negative test result is a 99.9% likelihood that it is actually negative, instead of the 92% - 96% statistical odds at 15 - 20 days.
These are but some of the more interesting things about the whole process that most health professionals generally do not tell people for various reasons. Hopefully this information should help to keep your mind a little more at ease during such 90 day windows.
-
Seriously, I live in Greece, and people here can be soooooo weird on that subject. Boys are like, without a condom it is better, and whenever I hear it I am like, seriously? And not only that, but they think only HIV is the most serious case, for they think the rest can be healed easy so no big deal. And I heard guys be like, U cannot be infected just from licking an infected vagina, and I was freaking out! Or another time I heard a something like, he looks healthy so I can have unprotected sex with him. But really now, it is better to have protected sex first for, u are about 98% sure that nothings gonna happen, so u are more relaxed to enjoy the sex, and second (that goes to straight people) u are sure u will not have a pregnant lady. It is that simple for me…
-
Boys are like, without a condom it is better, and whenever I hear it I am like, seriously?
Actually, I can understand that rational. This is often more so the case with the top instead of the bottom. It has to do with the slight change in the sensation of the friction when using a condom. Some people obviously are more sensitive to such things than others, but I do understand this one.
And not only that, but they think only HIV is the most serious case, for they think the rest can be healed easy so no big deal.
This thought is partially correct, but not completely actually. Despite popular belief, Hepatitis C is actually almost impossible to get from sexual intercourse alone. Aside from that, the other options to choose from do indeed all have a form of treatment available. What they do not realize is that in reality, the treatments for say Syphilis for example are not always effective on the first attempt. Granted, the success rate is something like 98%, but it's still not a guarantee. If untreated or if treated too late, Syphilis can cause multiple organ failure, insanity, or death. Realistically speaking, as long as you keep on top of testing and tend to such things quickly enough, the other alternatives can actually be dealt with. With HIV on the other hand, there is no cure, so once you have it, you'd better be prepared for a life long commitment that can potentially kill you. This doesn't mean that it's a great approach to have, but the reality of the matter is if you're taking proper care of getting tested regularly and following up, other STI's are minor by comparison.
And I heard guys be like, U cannot be infected just from licking an infected vagina, and I was freaking out!
Ummm… Sorry to burst your bubble, but the statistics from at least the last decade all show that there has been not one case of HIV transmission where the sole point of sexual contact has been oral sex. The only advisory to this would be if you involve a female partner during their menstruation cycle, thus causing the presence of large amounts of blood. This is partially because there is actually an enzyme found within saliva that has a natural ability to neutralize the HIV virus itself. The other basis is that while there is technically no scientific evidence that HIV is found within anal, vaginal, or ejaculative fluids, by the same token, there is no evidence that proves that it is not present either. There is however a great deal of scientific studies over the last 10 - 15 years now however that have all noticed a pattern of 0 cases of transmission from oral sex alone. Based on the scientific information and statistical data that does exist however, is it really all that crazy of a statement to make? Just sayin'...
-
I am not talking only over HIV, I meant other illnesses as well. Like herpes or other diseases as well. They believe the only thing that is serious is HIV. But maybe I am not as good at explaining these things in a foreign language.
-
haha :cheers:
-
Like herpes or other diseases as well.
Although not exactly desirable, Herpes doesn't have anywhere near the amount of complications and potential dangers that come with HIV. That being said though, I'd take HIV over Herpes any day of the week lol
-
In a long term relationship bareback otherwise I always use a condom
-
Condoms always!
