Bareback

ztoical

dublindude wrote: »

This is why (IMO anyway) most people in the world do not have protected sex.
)

It depends on the country and culture - islamic countries wouldn't but then you'd only be having sex to make a baby and for no other reason.

In alot of third world countries women are second class citizens and as such have little say. The church has also played a huge part by no encouraging the use of condoms and in alot of places the only people offering family planning is the church. In asia most of the cases of HIV and other disease has been in sex workers and alot of their clients are western business men coming to have sex without a condom because they can't get it at home. Goverments in number of these countries have made huge efforts in increase the use of condoms. In Sri Lanka female sex workers use female condoms and treat it like a sex toy, letting the men put it in so they get to thouch their vagina etc etc.

However in the western/first world I don't agree with your veiw...have you lived [and I mean lived not travelled on hoilday for a couple of days] in other western countries? Most europeans would be very meticulous about condom use and in canada and the states? very very meticulous. My last two boyfriends where canadian and american respectively and I can say they would never think of not using a condom. When I lived in the states it was very common for people not to give oral without a condom or dental dam, a concept that seems to really unusual here.

AARRRGH

ztoical wrote: »

Most europeans would be very meticulous about condom use and in canada and the states? very very meticulous.

I really, really, really don't think this is true. I have lots of friends who are into foreign women; none of them want to use condoms.

Honestly I think most people say "of course I use condoms!" but in private it's a different matter.

OK, we're going to start going around in circles.

I agree with you having unprotected sex can have consequences... but so can lots of things which DON'T get people all worried and guilty and emotional

L1011

dublindude wrote: »

I really, really, really don't think this is true. I have lots of friends who are into foreign women; none of them want to use condoms.

European *men* are very particular about it, not the women.

ztoical

dublindude wrote: »

I really, really, really don't think this is true. I have lots of friends who are into foreign women; none of them want to use condoms.

Honestly I think most people say "of course I use condoms!" but in private it's a different matter.

OK, we're going to start going around in circles.

I agree with you having unprotected sex can have consequences... but so can lots of things which DON'T get people all worried and guilty and emotional

we'll just have to agree to disagree. Having lived in holland and france I certainly saw high condom use but at the same time people there weren't as worried about it as most of them got tested very regularly. I had a friend contract hep B from an Italian who seemed very confused my friend hadn't had the jab againist it as it would be common in italy. The last canadian I was with told me the date of his last test and asked when I'd last been tested before we had sex - there is def a better awarness in other countries then there is here.

L1011

ztoical wrote: »

I had a friend contract hep B from an Italian who seemed very confused my friend hadn't had the jab againist it as it would be common in italy.

Aye, people getting the Hep A/Hep B vaccines is surprisingly rare here, I'd say even amongst homosexuals its not that common. A friend of mine was too embarrased to ask for it so pretended he was going on holiday somewhere where it was recommended - but ended up having to get about 4 other jabs too!

ztoical

dublindude wrote: »

I am just saying we have basic instinctual urges which override lots of higher level thoughts. Using a condom is not "natural" and goes against the basic purpose of sex. This is why (IMO anyway) most people in the world do not have protected sex.

basic purpose of sex is to make babies - therefore oral sex, anal sex, any type of fetish [BDSM, roleplay etc etc], gay sex etc etc all of these would be not natural as well? so its vanilla sex or nothing?

AARRRGH

ztoical wrote: »

basic purpose of sex is to make babies - therefore oral sex, anal sex, any type of fetish [BDSM, roleplay etc etc], gay sex etc etc all of these would be not natural as well? so its vanilla sex or nothing?

You aren't comparing apples with apples.

I am talking about sexual intercourse. Of course things like oral sex are about pleasure.

Bringing up gay sex is just absurd. I don't think you understand what I have been saying. Maybe I'm just communicating it poorly.

ztoical

dublindude wrote: »

Maybe I'm just communicating it poorly.

I guess so cus reading the following:

dublindude wrote: »

If the purpose of sex isn't to put semen into the vagina (and get the girl pregnant), what is the purpose of it?

dublindude wrote: »

You are looking at sex from a high level. I am looking at it from the basic, instinctual level. We can talk all we want about humans being clever and evolved etc., but nearly everything we do is motivated by some sort of basic instinct. There are loads of reading material on the web about this.

I'll give you a quick example - using your high level thinking, you don't want your partner to cheat because it's hurtful. On a basic level, it's because there's a risk he'll transfer his resources (emotional, protective, etc.) to another woman.

Your partner doesn't want you to cheat. On a high level it's because he will be hurt. On a basic level it's because he might have to raise someone else's baby.

So when it comes to sex, the basic reason we do it is to reproduce. That involves putting sperm in the vagina.

I really believe this is the reason so many people have unprotected sex.

it sure sounds like sex is only meant to be for making babies

and I don't think bringing gay sex up is absurd you've made a number of references to the point of sex being to put sperm in the vagina but what if there is no vagina?

AARRRGH

ztoical wrote: »

and I don't think bringing gay sex up is absurd you've made a number of references to the point of sex being to put sperm in the vagina but what if there is no vagina?

Surely if I am talking about a penis and vagina I am talking about sex between a man and woman?

Men don't have vaginas so I am not talking about two men having sex with each other (that's a different subject entirely.)

Nevyn

irishguy wrote: »

It definitely doesn't feel the same when using one, even my girlfriend thinks so. My girlfriend just uses the pill. A couple of doctors have said this is common practice in long term relationships and they have never heard of anyone getting pregnant just using the pill (correctly). Even women who have stopped using the pill and are trying for a child could take a couple of months to get pregnant (now i know this is'nt the pill alone)

I was on the pill and using condoms and got pregnant.
Statistically it improbable but it's not impossible.

Nevyn

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

I really think people on boards and in PI are overly paranoid about STDs...
I've had unprotected sex quite a few times. I don't carry condoms because I only seem to get laid a couple of times a year unless I have a girlfriend. Recently I was banging a chick and was drunk off my ass each time she came back to mine, having not got ANY for 8 months I really didn't give a sh*t about condoms or any of that and she didn't mention it so I assumed she was on the pill or whatever. Seriously... I'd like to know what percentage of people have STDs? It's probably less than 1%... what are the odds? 8 months with no sex and you expect me to worry about a 1 in a 100 chance of getting an STD? No Siree!!!

ROFL, it only takes 1 person.

Nevyn

dublindude wrote: »

That's not true. I just found this -



http://www.dublinaidsalliance.com/statistics.htm

So it looks like homosexual sex is sill a greater risk than heterosexual sex for Irish people.

Those statics are not the rate at which people are contracting HIV but the rate at which they are diagnosed and a person can easily go for years being HIV positive and not know.

AARRRGH

Thaedydal wrote: »

Those statics are not the rate at which people are contracting HIV but the rate at which they are diagnosed and a person can easily go for years being HIV positive and not know.

Sure, but they're the closest we've got to know what the infection rate is. Anything else is just guessing.

L1011

Thaedydal wrote: »

Those statics are not the rate at which people are contracting HIV but the rate at which they are diagnosed and a person can easily go for years being HIV positive and not know.

Indeed, and I still hold that heterosexuals are more likely to go long term undiagnosed, meaning the homosexual numbers seem higher in the short term.

Nevyn

MYOB wrote: »

Indeed, and I still hold that heterosexuals are more likely to go long term undiagnosed, meaning the homosexual numbers seem higher in the short term.

I have found that not to be the case.
That the gay community and other alternate sexuality communities are a lot
more well informed, aware and likely to take precautions and go and get tested
the straight guys who think it will never happen to them.

ztoical

I find when taking about STD testing with people, alot of straight men reply with "I'm not gay and I don't do drugs" as their reason for not getting tested.

Visting Out House [which is a resource center for the gay community based in dublin] I found that lesbians are great for going to get tested and they would be considered a low risk group, yet straight men and women find some sort of stigma attached to getting tested.

AARRRGH

Ireland certainly makes it very difficult to get tested though. I've been tested and it was a horrible experience. I had to take two days off work; one to wait all day in St. James's to get tested and another to wait all day in St. James's for my results.

Very inefficient system...

ztoical

dublindude wrote: »

Ireland certainly makes it very difficult to get tested though. I've been tested and it was a horrible experience. I had to take two days off work; one to wait all day in St. James's to get tested and another to wait all day in St. James's for my results.

Very inefficient system...

yes it is, try living down the country and trying to get tested - only around 50% of the countries GP's offer STD testing which is an awful number. Thou to look at it from the flip side, if theres no demand for it why would doctors offer it. I don't agree with that but it is how some people see it. I keep reading government reports recommending people get tested twice a year and then nothing about where they are going to be getting these tests.

L1011

Thaedydal wrote: »

I have found that not to be the case.
That the gay community and other alternate sexuality communities are a lot
more well informed, aware and likely to take precautions and go and get tested
the straight guys who think it will never happen to them.

Read what I said again, that was my point! Homosexuals are far, far more likely to get it detected early due to regular testing; a straight person will only find out when their GP refers them some years later because they've been constantly ill, for instance.

AARRRGH

I think part of the reason straight people don't worry so much about HIV etc. is because they've probably never known a straight person (or heard of a straight person!) getting HIV. Gay people on the other hand probably are aware of other gay people getting HIV.

(I have only ever known one person who was HIV+, and he was gay.)

L1011

dublindude wrote: »

I think part of the reason straight people don't worry so much about HIV etc. is because they've probably never known a straight person (or heard of a straight person!) getting HIV. Gay people on the other hand probably are aware of other gay people getting HIV.

(I have only ever known one person who was HIV+, and he was gay.)

I've never known anyone personally who had it, and generally you only know of famous people who have it when they die - Rock Hudson, Freddie Mercury, the bloke off Bosco, etc. And people don't die anywhere near as fast of it anymore...

But I do know straight people who've got chlamydia, syphilis, gonorrhoea, etc. And one gay person whose had syphilis.

AARRRGH

MYOB wrote: »

I've never known anyone personally who had it, and generally you only know of famous people who have it when they die - Rock Hudson, Freddie Mercury, the bloke off Bosco, etc. And people don't die anywhere near as fast of it anymore...

But I do know straight people who've got chlamydia, syphilis, gonorrhoea, etc. And one gay person whose had syphilis.

Yeah, I actually think focussing on the silent bacterial infections is more likely to get straight people to get tested then trying to scare them with HIV.

L1011

dublindude wrote: »

Yeah, I actually think focussing on the silent bacterial infections is more likely to get straight people to get tested then trying to scare them with HIV.

Possibly. Most of them give you enough notice to get them fixed (although possibly leave you infertile) before they kill you; but HIV is a definite death sentence if left too long - if caught early enough ARV tech is moving on long enough that you can last a long time.

Yer man from Frankie Goes To Hollywood was diagnosed in 1987, is still alive now; Freddie Mercury got about 5 years!

ztoical

dublindude wrote: »

Yeah, I actually think focussing on the silent bacterial infections is more likely to get straight people to get tested then trying to scare them with HIV.

I don't know how we got focusing on HIV - somewhere earlier in the thread someone brought it up about people over worrying about fatal STD's and I pointed out there's plenty of non-fatal ones that I still wouldn't want. Like my friend who got Hep B, didn't kill them but man what a pain it was for over 18 months.

I know several GP's were recently reporting a rise in the number of cases of both Herpes and genital warts [lots of lovely pictures in the irish medical journals] and a straight friend of mine got himself a dose of craps just before xmas.

AARRRGH

MYOB wrote: »

Yer man from Frankie Goes To Hollywood was diagnosed in 1987, is still alive now; Freddie Mercury got about 5 years!

Yeah but I can hear the straight people now: "Sure those two fellas we're gay. I've never heard of a straight fella with the virus."

Note: I'm straight

L1011

I thought Freddie Mercury's requirement was "two holes and a heartbeat", he wasn't gay per se

AARRRGH

OK, fair enough!

ztoical

dublindude wrote: »

Yeah but I can hear the straight people now: "Sure those two fellas we're gay. I've never heard of a straight fella with the virus."

Note: I'm straight

yes it is a sad state of affairs that after all these years that attitude is still held by alot of people. comes back to major improvements needed in education.

lilmissprincess

We did a course called the "RESPECT" project in 2nd/3rd year. I was a peer educator in Transtition year, basically four TYs/5th years teach a scripted course on use of contraception and why you should say no to sex until you are older and more mature.
The training for peer education was certainly an eyeopener....images of STIs on the screen just before lunch...
We were shown how to use a condom, the female condom(not how to use it though), the coil( looks amazingly painful) et al...

Da Bomber

lilmissprincess wrote: »

We did a course called the "RESPECT" project in 2nd/3rd year. I was a peer educator in Transtition year, basically four TYs/5th years teach a scripted course on use of contraception and why you should say no to sex until you are older and more mature.
The training for peer education was certainly an eyeopener....images of STIs on the screen just before lunch...
We were shown how to use a condom, the female condom(not how to use it though), the coil( looks amazingly painful) et al...

I did the same thing, those images were the most horrible thing i've ever seen in my life, definatly scarred me for life. They would almost turn you off sex. Almost.