How safe is safe enough?
Marc Pederson
anyone else's lifestyle, I personally choose to be monogomous.
Unfortunately, I am currently going through a divorce and not yet
involved in any new relationships.
I have decided that the concept of "safe sex" is just as ridiculous as
safe driving, flying, walking, and just plain living. The only people
who are totally safe are in residence at the local cemetary. Certainly,
one can be foolish when engaging in sexual activity just in any other
activity. Reckless promiscuity and engaging the services of prostitutes
are, IMHO, foolish activities. For me, sex is such a personal and
intimate experience, I could never have "casual" sex with someone whom I
did not trust implicitely.
The ridiculous notion of using "mouth dams" (yuck!) and other such
devices assumes that sex is something that should be taken lightly. If
I can't trust that my partner is free from STDs beyond any REASONABLE
doubt, then I am not interested in making love with her.
I am planning on getting a vasectomy (sp?) in a month or so, so the
risk of possible pregnancy will never be an issue for me. Thus, I see
no reason to EVER use a condom. If I don't feel reasonably safe having
sex with a potential partner, then I won't have sex. Conversely, if a
woman whom I'm serious about asks me to wear a condom, I will
respectfully suggest that since she is not able to trust the FACT that I
am free of STDs, then she is not ready to have sex with me and we should
wait until that trust is built up even more.
I will never use a condom, mouth dam, wet suit, lead-plated armor, or
space suit to have sex because, for me, it reduces sex to it's clinical
elements. Yes, maybe I am taking a risk, but it is a calculated risk
that is no different from the other risks that we take in life. For me,
quality of life is as important as quantity of life.
Angi Long
>Do you know of any statistics (sources please) about transmission
>rates? I am a computer scientist, I like numbers. I want to see
>something like "oral sex with a men who is HIV+ has 40% chance of
>transmission, oral sex with a women has 30% chance of transmission".
The problem is that these probabilities can't really be *known*.
When somebody comes up HIV+, they may know definitely what person
it came from, but they won't know what *action* passed the virus.
>We are very careful about our partners. Most of our partners have
>been tested and are negative, but occasionally they will come "in
Tested for HIV only, or also for other diseases?
>of that person is. A number of STD's do not exhibit any symptoms on
>some people, so a person could have a STD and not know about it for
>years.
One thing you can do is to have yourself tested routinely for
curable STDs, so that even if you catch one and it goes symptom-
less in you, it's unlikely to go on long enough to cause you
sterility or other serious problems.
Mark Evans
: I am a "lurker" in this newsgroup, and though I'm not judgmental about
: Unfortunately, I am currently going through a divorce and not yet
: involved in any new relationships.
: I have decided that the concept of "safe sex" is just as ridiculous as
: safe driving, flying, walking, and just plain living. The only people
: who are totally safe are in residence at the local cemetary. Certainly,
: one can be foolish when engaging in sexual activity just in any other
: activity. Reckless promiscuity and engaging the services of prostitutes
: are, IMHO, foolish activities. For me, sex is such a personal and
: intimate experience, I could never have "casual" sex with someone whom I
: did not trust implicitely.
What is to stop you being foolish and reckless with someone who you do
trust implicitely?
Stef Jones
Marc Pederson <pede...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I am a "lurker" in this newsgroup, and though I'm not judgmental about
>
> I have decided that the concept of "safe sex" is just as ridiculous as
>Reckless promiscuity and engaging the services of prostitutes
>are, IMHO, foolish activities. [...]
> The ridiculous notion of using "mouth dams" (yuck!) [...]
>Conversely, if a
>woman whom I'm serious about asks me to wear a condom, I will
>respectfully suggest that since she is not able to trust the FACT that I
>am free of STDs, then she is not ready to have sex with me [...]
People who claim not to be judgemental about others' lifestyles and then
make half a dozen judgemental comments about others' lifestyles are very
puzzling to me. Why do they bother to claim they're not judgemental?
I do commend you on deciding to have a vasectomy, and I have no doubt
that unless you require intelligence in a partner, you'll find women who
are foolish enough to believe that because you're a certain kind of
person, you're free of STDs, and who will allow you to maintain your
precious latex virginity.
However, anyone who is knowledgeable about medicine will realize that your
claim to know you're STD free is bullshit. You simply can't know whether
you are STD free because STDs can be transmitted in ways other than sex
and because many STDs are difficult to detect. 60%-80% of people have HPV,
but it can be tested for in men only thorugh a microscopic examination of
the penis and testicles after they have been wiped with vinegar. You can
get hepatitis by eating contaminated food (and someone with hepatitis
might not know they have it when they go to work in the restaurant that day).
-- Stef
rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty
st...@netcom.com
Does "anal retentive" have a hyphen?
Marc Pederson
>
>In article <3f1rfe$o...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
>Marc Pederson <pede...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> I am a "lurker" in this newsgroup, and though I'm not judgmental
about
>>anyone else's lifestyle [...]
>>
>> I have decided that the concept of "safe sex" is just as ridiculous
as
>>safe driving, flying, walking, and just plain living. [...]
>
>>Reckless promiscuity and engaging the services of prostitutes
>>are, IMHO, foolish activities. [...]
>
>> The ridiculous notion of using "mouth dams" (yuck!) [...]
>
>>Conversely, if a
>>woman whom I'm serious about asks me to wear a condom, I will
>>respectfully suggest that since she is not able to trust the FACT that
I
>>am free of STDs, then she is not ready to have sex with me [...]
>
>People who claim not to be judgemental about others' lifestyles and
then
>make half a dozen judgemental comments about others' lifestyles are
very
>puzzling to me. Why do they bother to claim they're not judgemental?
No, Stef, I'm not attempting to be "judgmental." I was only
expressing my viewpoints and feelings about this subject. I'm not
implying that someone else's practices are, in some way, "incorrect."
>I do commend you on deciding to have a vasectomy, and I have no doubt
>that unless you require intelligence in a partner, you'll find women
who
>are foolish enough to believe that because you're a certain kind of
>person, you're free of STDs, and who will allow you to maintain your
>precious latex virginity.
I do not understand your logic, Stef. Are you saying that a person
should feel committed to the latex lifestyle ad infinitum, even in a
commited monogomous relationship? If not, then at what point should one
decide that they trust their partner enough to dispose of the rubber
items? Wouldn't you say that even at that point, a person is taking a
calculated risk that either their partner might contract a non-sexually
transmitted STD or they might fool around, thus breaching the precious
trust?
The obvious conclusion is that unless one is willing to settle for the
mediocre quality sexual experience that latex offers forever, then he or
she must be willing to take *some* risks.
My point is that I would rather wait for the non-latex sexual
relationship later down the road when the trust has developed then to go
for it sooner with all of the barriers. This is simply a personal
choice.
>However, anyone who is knowledgeable about medicine will realize that
your
>claim to know you're STD free is bullshit. You simply can't know
whether
>you are STD free because STDs can be transmitted in ways other than sex
>and because many STDs are difficult to detect.
So then at what point would it be safe to do away with the latex in a
relationship? When is it ever 100 percent "safe"? The best we can hope
for, other then to resign one's self to an eternity in a latex prison,
is "reasonable" assurance of safety. Again, isn't that what you do
whenever you drive a car or ride a bus?
>60%-80% of people have HPV,
>but it can be tested for in men only thorugh a microscopic examination
of
>the penis and testicles after they have been wiped with vinegar.
How about bleu cheese dressing? Or ranch? (Sorry, I had to break up this
inherently serious subject with a little, albeit bad, humor)
>You can
>get hepatitis by eating contaminated food (and someone with hepatitis
>might not know they have it when they go to work in the restaurant that
day).
>
Again, does this mean that, in your view, even people in commited,
monogomous relationships should go through all of the latex rituals
forever?
S. E. Stansfield
In a previous article, pede...@ix.netcom.com (Marc Pederson) says:
>In <stefD2A...@netcom.com> st...@netcom.com (Stef Jones) writes:
>
>
> The obvious conclusion is that unless one is willing to settle for the
>mediocre quality sexual experience that latex offers forever, then he or
>she must be willing to take *some* risks.
>
You also said that you've never *tried* latex. SO how do you know that
latex sex is "mediocre". Sex isn't about the contact of mucus
membranes. It is all about how you treat your partner.
> My point is that I would rather wait for the non-latex sexual
>relationship later down the road when the trust has developed then to go
>for it sooner with all of the barriers. This is simply a personal
>choice.
>
HOw long do you wait?
To me, the amount of understanding required for the kind of trust
necesary for non-latex sex takes years to develop. It also requires
extensive medical testing.
>>However, anyone who is knowledgeable about medicine will realize that
>your
>>claim to know you're STD free is bullshit. You simply can't know
>whether
>>you are STD free because STDs can be transmitted in ways other than sex
>>and because many STDs are difficult to detect.
>
> So then at what point would it be safe to do away with the latex in a
>relationship? When is it ever 100 percent "safe"? The best we can hope
>for, other then to resign one's self to an eternity in a latex prison,
>is "reasonable" assurance of safety. Again, isn't that what you do
>whenever you drive a car or ride a bus?
>
The latex does decrease the probabilities. LIke driving with your
lights on, it improves your chances slightly.
I'm not sure it's *ever* 100%, but there are ways to be reasonably sure.
ON the other hand, (playing devil's advocate, for a moment) you could
die from a runaway bus tomorrow.
>>60%-80% of people have HPV,
>>but it can be tested for in men only thorugh a microscopic examination
>of
>>the penis and testicles after they have been wiped with vinegar.
>
>How about bleu cheese dressing? Or ranch? (Sorry, I had to break up this
>inherently serious subject with a little, albeit bad, humor)
>
>>You can
>>get hepatitis by eating contaminated food (and someone with hepatitis
>>might not know they have it when they go to work in the restaurant that
>day).
>>
> Again, does this mean that, in your view, even people in commited,
>monogomous relationships should go through all of the latex rituals
>forever?
>
I'm not in favor of this. At some point, it *is* appropriate, but
certainly not for quite a while, to forgo them.
I have to say that I do have one personal problem with latex. I can't
*stand* the taste of it. Fortunately, oral sex seems to be the least
risky. (I *did* see a bubble gum flavored dental dam once, but IOM that
would be even worse. THere are some flavors that just can't be
duplicated....)
--
Love doesn't subtract, it multiplies.
-- Lazarus Long
Karen Kay
: Sex isn't about the contact of mucus
: membranes. It is all about how you treat your partner.
VERY well said.
: I'm not in favor of this. At some point, it *is* appropriate, but
: certainly not for quite a while, to forgo them.
Okay, I'll admit it. I've had latex-free sex w/in recent memory. It was
with someone with whom I had a committed relationship. I hadn't had sex
with anyone in eleven years. He had only ever had one partner, with whom
he used condoms, and that was two years before I met him. We felt it was
still risky, but that the risk was small enough we were willing to take
it. The desire to have 'naked' sex was primarily mine, because I
remembered it fondly from The Old Days (late 60's, early 70's). But there
wasn't that much difference. And sex without condoms is a heck of a lot
messier. So we went back to condoms. And I don't see me leaping into
unprotected sex with anyone else anytime soon.
: (I *did* see a bubble gum flavored dental dam once, but IOM that
: would be even worse. THere are some flavors that just can't be
: duplicated....)
A friend and I are talking about marketing a line of garlic-flavored
condoms and dams.:)
Karen
kar...@netcom.com
Jennifer Lynn Dailey-O'Cain
> I do not understand your logic, Stef. Are you saying that a person
>should feel committed to the latex lifestyle ad infinitum, even in a
>commited monogomous relationship? If not, then at what point should one
>decide that they trust their partner enough to dispose of the rubber
>items?
Hmm. Good point. How about ... after all involved partners have
undergone tests for all known sexually transmitted diseases, and have
agreed to be (at least for the time being) sexually exclusive?
That (to me) sounds better than just simple "trust".
--
Jennie Dailey-O'Cain | "Wie schwarz-braun ist die Haselnuss?
jenn...@umich.edu | Wer sagt, dass ich sie schlucken muss?"
University of Michigan |
Germanic Linguistics | -- Heinz Rudolf Kunze
Carl Lambert
belong here... :)
In article <061305Z...@anon.penet.fi> an17...@anon.penet.fi writes:
>
>I have really enjoyed others stories of showing off their wives, or watching
>them
>have sex with other men. This has been my ultimate thrill for a long time,
>and on
>several occasions, my wife has indulged me. I would have her wear short
>skirts with no underwear, for example, and take her shopping for shoes.
>Watching the salesmen get a glimpse of her shaved pussy up her skirt turns me
>on to no end. We have also frequented nude beaches many times, and although
>on the surface we are a typical naturist couple, I love watching men stare at
>my wife as she walks by them. We often fantasize together about her with
>another man, and twice in the past two years, our fantasies have come true.
>I'll relate the most recent experience now. This story is absolutely true;
>only the names have been changed to protect the guilty :-)
.....
>One last thing (really this time :-). This experience involved some VERY
>heavy emotional releases. Kind of like the car commericials: "Professional
>driver on test track. Do not attempt this at home." A couple really has to
>have their act together to embark on this kind of behavior. One should never
>be coerced into this in any way, shape, or form. Reality rarely plays out as
>perfectly as the fantasy, so despite what you read in these newsgroups or
>Penthouse, be prepared for a variable experience. As they say, your mileage
>may vary.
I am in a position similar to yours. I've been married with my wife for
almost 4 four years and we are sharing everything. Really everything! She
was pretty shy when we began going out together and sex with others was out
of question. We have talked about it a lot and it appears that she couldn't
stand the idea of me prefering the skin of another woman to hers, or prefe-
ring another woman pussy taste. She is a bit jealous. But we have been able
to talk about it and this was a very good beginning. On the opposite, I am
not the jealous kind. I would be if she was to see a man during months with-
out telling me. But I wouldn't be if she was to ask me the authorisation to
do it with a guy. (I have never though this could happen, sincerely.) I
remember what happend the first time I told I wouldn't mind if she'd like to
suck another cock or being licked by another man. She started crying, telling
me that I was not really loving her, that I was not attached to her. How
false!! I wouldn't want to live my life with another girl than her and I
wouldn't want to have children with someone else than her. I don't know but
it makes hard to imagine a cock (other than mine) in her sweet mouth, thrusting
through her innocent looking face. Making her more sexy?! More horny?!
I think that there is a lot of factors that make this exciting for me. First,
it's not too frequent to have a woman to accept to have sex with another man
than her husband. (Willingly) The situation makes things look hornier. If
she wasn't with me, going with another guy would be normal. But since she is
with me (married), the idea of going with another male is like a forbidden
fruit. A "not suppose to happen" thing. Which excites me! As I said, she
has always considered that sex and love was only to be "unseperatable". So
how could I have imagine her with another man? I could not.
A few weeks ago, she went to restaurant with a workmate. Mario. He came her
once for buying her old Mac Plus. (She didn't need it anymore since she has
completed her Master in french studies and she hates computers anyways...)
It was suppose to be a friendly diner... And it was! But Mario told her he
was heavily attracted to her, since the first day she began working with him.
("YEAH! All right!", I said to myself. It was about time someone else than me
tell her that she was a very charming woman. Being her husband, she has some
problems beleiving me when I tell her she has great feet, great eyes, a beau-
tiful smile and lovely childish face. Even if she is 24, people sometimes
think that she is even not 18! In fact, she has a baby face. A innocent
looking face with soft eyes and big cheeks.) And Mario was emptying his bag!
From seven to eleven in the evening, he told her the effect she was having on
him. When she came back to home, she told me everything and she was having a
megasmile on her face. She was of course very flattered and she knew she was
having him at her feet. The only problem was "What to do with it!". For the
next few days, she was only thinking about all the things he told her. (He is
not working at that place anymore.) But back to that night. We were in bed,
talking about it. She told me that they've talked about their fantasies.
And that she told him that one of "our" fantasies was to make love next to our
two friends. Just looking, no swapping. BZZZZZ! Sorry, dear. "This is
suppose to be my fantasy, not yours. You don't like it, don't you!?" I was
thrilled. She answered me "I have thought about it. I think I'd like to do
it." (What a way to go, man!!) I was speechless and my mouth was dried. She
then added "I could even do a concession." "Why a concession? What kind of
concession?" "I'd do Julie and she could do me." (Game over, you tilted the
balls!!) Gosh, gosh, gosh! My sweet wife licking at Julie's pussy. How neat
this would be. But then "But you don't have to do any concession." A pause.
"I think that's what I want. You and Carl might look but not touch. And you
don't do anything with Julie and I don't do anything with Carl." Isn't every
men fantasy to have the chance to look at two women fondling, loving, sucking
each other? Wow! When it's your wife... Of course, it has not happend yet
but it will during the current year, I'm sure. I don't mind if I don't suck
Julie's pussy. I don't mind if she doesn't suck my cock. See her licking her
is my wildest fantasy and it will happen, I'm almost sure. (Julie and Carl
are both fantasyzing on us. I know because I talk about sex a lot with Julie.
I once told her that my wife was thinking she was not sexy or seductive. And
Julie replied "UH?! Get me here and I'll show her." You should have seen the
look on her face. Boy, she wants her. I did the mailman. I told Caroline
that Julie was having fantasies on her (after asking the permission to Julie to
tell her... she didn't want me to say a word about it at the beginning but I
told her that Caroline would like to know that and it wouldn't change their
relationship, so she agreed). She was surprised, of course. But she was not
disgussed at all. She even said "I might let her do me". Now I haven't told
Julie that Caroline is willing to try sex with her, in front of us, men. I'll
let Caroline do this when she will be ready. We have planned a "massage night"
for this week-end and no sex is at the program. From there, Caroline will
decide if she wants to take another step forward. I won't push on her.
And there is still Mario. I told her to try whatever she wants with him, but
no kiss on the mouth and no lovemaking. Oral sex is okay, masturbation, etc.
The only problem I see from here is that HE is really obsessed by her. I know
she can have sexual relations with him without loving him. But I don't know
about him. She will have to make it clear that this is only an experience.
(Yesterday, she told me she was affraid that he could feel as being used. So
I replied that he would certainly be happy to be used that way.) Now, the
weirdest part of this is that while she may have sex with him, she won't let
me have sex with any other girl that her because she is still jealous. And
well I tell her "So you can have sex with another man and I can't do it with
a girl, that's it!", she replies "Yes because I'm jealous and you're not!"
;) (I'm serious about that one!) I think I'll let her do what she wants, as
long as she keeps telling me how their relationship is going. Perhaps she
will let me have sex with a girl I know?! Perhaps she will accept to have me
and Mario working on her at the same time? (She just said "It would be so
bizarre. You two are complete opposite from each other..." She is still
thinking about it, I hope!) The only bugging thing is that she is not in any
kind of urge to do anything with Julie or Mario while I think about this a lot
of times every day. I'll let the time do its job. It's all I can do.
P.S. I'd like to hear about people who have tried doing it with other persons
while seriously engaged. I'd like to know what was the emotional feeling of
having done it afterward. Of course, every relationship is unique but if I
can get some hints... and it's always fun to know what other persons have been
through. - Jayzer - (lam...@math.uqam.ca)
BTW, if this msg looks fucked up, it's because I'm not Carl. I'm only using
his account. :)
BIG P.S.: Sorry for all those ^M^M^M... The text was prepared in advance...
and, somehow, herited from extra characters while transmited from my computer
to my local site.
Bob Mulroy
Mark,
My lab is right off the Pulmonary Care unit of a large University
Hospital. Ten years ago, that nursing unit was fully utilized by pneumonia,
COPD and influenza patients. Now, about half of the patents are end-stage
AIDS/ARC. They have a woderful program here; support groups, nutrition,
chemotherapy, pastoral care, and family involvement in the dying process.
I recommend it to anybody with HIV in their future.
I have to tell you, I avoid most of these folks. Not because they're
dying, I've seen about 100 or so people die from soft tissue carcinomae.
(that'll keep you awake nights!) Not because they are prostitutes, IV drug
abusers, or "party folk", those people usually don't live long enough
to come to a university program. I avoid them because they're mostly kids
like you, -they all thought they were safe.
I'm not trying to maudlin, they were all as sure as you are, and they
all rolled down to the morgue in they blue cart.
Think about it.
Dear old Bob, Advisor and Patron Saint of all Infotech Weinoids..
A fulltime momdad. ___________Vote for me in '96________________
Speak the truth, and wear your Kevlar.
paul whiteley
: No, Stef, I'm not attempting to be "judgmental." I was only
: implying that someone else's practices are, in some way, "incorrect."
: . . .The obvious conclusion is that unless one is willing to settle for the
: mediocre quality sexual experience that latex offers forever, then he or
: she must be willing to take *some* risks.
: My point is that I would rather wait for the non-latex sexual
: relationship later down the road when the trust has developed then to go
: for it sooner with all of the barriers. This is simply a personal choice.
One of the things that makes me uncomfortable with Marc's statements, is
the tension between his "personal choice" to renounce latex, and the
reasons he gives to do so, which seem to be ontological--statements about
how the world _is_. So that in the world according to Marc, sex with latex
_is_ mediocre; this first denies the experience of the many people who find
that sex can be just as good, or better, with latex, and secondly I don't
see how anyone who has always already rejected latex as an option, is in
any position to say whether sex with latex would be mediocre even for them,
except on a conceptual and hypothetical level.
Also, I don't see how this oft-invoked issue of "trust" has much to do
with the decision to reject latex--trust has not been known to cure
transmissible diseases already present, nor has it been known to make
people much more resistant to new diseases to which they are exposed.
Trust may be relevant to the question of whether people have actually
taken the tests they say they have, and received the results they say they
have, and perhaps to whether people admit to certain opportunities for
transmission of diseases subsequent to testing, but trust itself will not
make one any less susceptible to contagion, nor any better-informed of what
one might be carrying.
: I do not understand your logic, Stef. Are you saying that a person
: should feel committed to the latex lifestyle ad infinitum, even in a
: commited monogomous relationship? If not, then at what point should one
: decide that they trust their partner enough to dispose of the rubber
: items? Wouldn't you say that even at that point, a person is taking a
: calculated risk that either their partner might contract a non-sexually
: transmitted STD or they might fool around, thus breaching the precious
: trust?
While it should be clear that I have no problems, aesthetically or
practically, with the latex lifestyle in permanence, let me also say
that I personally relate to the concept of calculated risk--of course
safer sex too involves calculated risk--and perhaps surprisingly that I
can imagine circumstances in which partners might want to forgo, even
in the long term, safer sex practises among them, even though this
generally squicks me. Nevertheless, I recognize that people can choose if
they wish to SHARE DISEASES among them, and I can even see a certain
nobility in the gesture. But this is a very different thing from Marc's
notion of trust, where a partner seems to be trusting another partner to be
and remain disease-free, which is a) a task which is not for humans to
achieve and b) a very good set-up for emotional blackmail and manipulation.
paul whiteley
anarcho-syndicalist at large
Bob Mulroy
[smip]
> I do not understand your logic, Stef. Are you saying that a person
> should feel committed to the latex lifestyle ad infinitum, even in a
> commited monogomous relationship?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(hang on)
> The obvious conclusion is that unless one is willing to settle for the
> mediocre quality sexual experience that latex offers forever, then he or
> she must be willing to take *some* risks.
I wouldn't say that 'doms or dams make anything mediocre. It's
who's wearing them. And if you don't like latex, there's the new synthetics.
[smip smip!]
> Again, does this mean that, in your view, even people in commited
^^^^^^^^
> monogomous relationships should go through all of the latex rituals
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> forever?
There's that bloody term again! Why is such a committed monogamist
lurking this group?
I BELIEVED that I had been in TWO CMR's, and I'd still be in the first
one if I had the only vote in the damned thing! Listen kid, take it from
an asshole who's survived unscathed; GO get a mess 'o condoms! Most guys
don't have enough blood to fill both heads at the same time, and I'm starting
to wonder if you have enough for the one between your shoulders.
Sheesh! (I told you this would happen)
Marc Pederson
Lynn Dailey-O'Cain) writes:
>
>Marc Pederson <pede...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> I do not understand your logic, Stef. Are you saying that a person
>>should feel committed to the latex lifestyle ad infinitum, even in a
>>commited monogomous relationship? If not, then at what point should
one
>>decide that they trust their partner enough to dispose of the rubber
>>items?
>
>Hmm. Good point. How about ... after all involved partners have
>undergone tests for all known sexually transmitted diseases, and have
>agreed to be (at least for the time being) sexually exclusive?
>
>That (to me) sounds better than just simple "trust".
>
I agree that tests should be taken to preclude someone from unknowingly
transmitting something. Of coures, if you subsequently rely on an
agreement of sexual exclusivity, doesn't "trust" have to enter the
picture? Certainly, such agreements are only as good as the credibility
of the parties entering into them.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Marc Pederson <pede...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> No, Stef, I'm not attempting to be "judgmental." I was only
>expressing my viewpoints and feelings about this subject. I'm not
>implying that someone else's practices are, in some way, "incorrect."
[ . . .]
> The obvious conclusion is that unless one is willing to settle for the
>mediocre quality sexual experience that latex offers forever, then he or
>she must be willing to take *some* risks.
Your use of the word "is" in the second paragraph definitely implies
judgmentalism. If you want to avoid certain labels, learn to write more
clearly.
FYI, for some people (including me), condoms make sex *better* --
particularly when compared with the alternatives.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous kinky vanilla queer het
"First one back from the bathroom gets to be the bottom."
Mark Evans
: Also, I don't see how this oft-invoked issue of "trust" has much to do
: with the decision to reject latex--trust has not been known to cure
: transmissible diseases already present, nor has it been known to make
: people much more resistant to new diseases to which they are exposed.
Trust is, however, a factor in people taking foolish risks.
: Trust may be relevant to the question of whether people have actually
Stef Jones
Marc Pederson <pede...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <stefD2A...@netcom.com> st...@netcom.com (Stef Jones) writes:
>>I do commend you on deciding to have a vasectomy, and I have no doubt
>>that unless you require intelligence in a partner, you'll find women
>who
>>are foolish enough to believe that because you're a certain kind of
>>person, you're free of STDs, and who will allow you to maintain your
>>precious latex virginity.
> I do not understand your logic, Stef. Are you saying that a person
>should feel committed to the latex lifestyle ad infinitum, even in a
>commited monogomous relationship? If not, then at what point should one
>decide that they trust their partner enough to dispose of the rubber
>items?
My point is, it's not entirely an issue of trusting *your partner*. Your
partner could be the most chaste person in the known universe and could
*still* have an STD, acquired from restaurant food.
The point at which one says "OK I'll take the risk" should be based on
knowing the risks, not on knowing the person.
I sometimes have non-latex sex with my partner, but I don't stick my
tongue up his ass without a barrier. Even the most inexperienced virgin,
even the most trustworthy and truthful person, has bacteria there that
don't belong in my upper alimentary canal.
> The obvious conclusion is that unless one is willing to settle for the
>mediocre quality sexual experience that latex offers forever, then he or
>she must be willing to take *some* risks.
I don't agree that using latex has to mean a "mediocre quality" sexual
experience. To me, the quality of a sexual experience has much more to do
with my relationship with the person than with the presence or absence of
latex.
Many people have difficulty with condoms at first, but with experience and
experimentation with the many varieties available, that can be resolved.
(I am not saying you should do this; I'm just mentioning a fact.)
I agree that in order to do non-latex sex, one must always take some
risks. My quarrel with you is that I do not think risk and trust are
related. If you trust someone, that does not necessarily mean there is
less risk involved having non-latex sex with them.
>>60%-80% of people have HPV,
>>but it can be tested for in men only thorugh a microscopic examination
>of
>>the penis and testicles after they have been wiped with vinegar.
>
>How about bleu cheese dressing? Or ranch?
:-) If you want to examine bleu cheese dressing under a microscope, be my
guest. *shudder*
-- Stef
rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty
st...@netcom.com
Love is a matter of chemistry, but sex is a matter of
physics.
Lynn
>In article <3f1rfe$o...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
>Marc Pederson <pede...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> I am a "lurker" in this newsgroup, and though I'm not judgmental about
>>anyone else's lifestyle [...]
[The rest of Marc Pederson's judgemental ranting deleted for a lot of
obvious reasons.]
>People who claim not to be judgemental about others' lifestyles and then
>make half a dozen judgemental comments about others' lifestyles are very
>puzzling to me. Why do they bother to claim they're not judgemental?
I am sure many, many possible motives exists for an demonstrated
behavior. This particular behavior seems to be most often motivated
by a desire to give the speakers judgemetns more of a feel of fact
rather than opinion.
What is surprising to me is the imlication that the speaker *knows*
the statements following that opening are judgemental.
Lynn (trust me. I am an expert at this behavior. :)
Stef Jones
S. E. Stansfield <se...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>I have to say that I do have one personal problem with latex. I can't
>*stand* the taste of it.
There are now polyurethane condoms, and plastic wrap works reasonably well
for oral sex protection.
>(I *did* see a bubble gum flavored dental dam once, but IOM that
>would be even worse. THere are some flavors that just can't be
>duplicated....)
But wouldn't it be great if you could blow bubbles with it!
-- Stef
rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty
st...@netcom.com
Objects in condom are larger than they appear. --AR
Stef Jones
Jennifer Lynn Dailey-O'Cain <gr...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu> wrote:
>How about ... after all involved partners have
>undergone tests for all known sexually transmitted diseases, and have
>agreed to be (at least for the time being) sexually exclusive?
Things to keep in mind if you go that route:
--What do you do if one or more of the partners tests positive for a
disease?
--Some STDs can be transmitted in ways other than sex, so being sexually
exclusive is not sufficient to avoid all STD infection.
-- Stef
rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty
st...@netcom.com
I'm as confused as a baby in a topless bar.
Stef Jones
Yusuf Pisan <y-p...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>It looks like there are no statistics on transmission rates, so the
>closest thing I have found this is this "Spcetrum of risk" chart
Note that your chart describes the risk of contracting HIV *only*. Other
STDs have different risks of transmission. For example, "oral-anal
intercourse" involves a high risk of e. coli infection.
>High Risk | | Receptive anal intercourse
> | | Insertive anal intercourse
> | | Receptive vaginal intercourse
> | | Insertive vaginal intercourse
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | | Oral sex on a man with ejaculation
> | | Oral sex on a man without ejaculation
> | | Oral Sex on a woman
> | | Oral-anal intercourse
>Low | | Intimite kissing
>Risk | | Casual kissing
> | | Touching, massage
>No | | Masturbation
>Risk |__| Talking, fantasy
>
>
>This pamphlet is provided by American College Health Association,
>P.O. Box 28937, Baltimore, MD 21240; phone (410)-859-1500
-- Stef
rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty
st...@netcom.com
i met a womyn from kentucky while i was in new orleans
this summer who found out that i am a vegetarian...she said: "i'm a
kittitarian." she eats pussy-cats..... ha ha ha ha ha... so much for
bi/lesbian/dyke/byke.... we're all KITTITARIANS!!! --katie
Elise Matthesen
> I am a "lurker" in this newsgroup, and though I'm not judgmental about
>anyone else's lifestyle, I personally choose to be monogomous.
> I have decided that the concept of "safe sex" is just as ridiculous as
>safe driving, flying, walking, and just plain living.
Hmmm. You may be correct, but you don't mind if I decide not to fly with
you, do you? :-)
> The ridiculous notion of using "mouth dams" (yuck!) and other such
>devices assumes that sex is something that should be taken lightly. If
>I can't trust that my partner is free from STDs beyond any REASONABLE
>doubt, then I am not interested in making love with her.
Your second statement is a statement of your own choices and comfort
levels and accepted risks, and I can't (and wouldn't) quarrel with you
about what your preferences are. Good for you for figuring them out, and
may they serve you and your beloved ones well.
Your first statement is, in my opinion, utter hogwash as far as any
factual content. I speak from personal experience; do you? If so, I'd be
open to hearing what has given you such a rotten opinion of latex and the
other tools and techniques of safer sex, and I'll bet other people would
be too.
And how did you get from "mouth dams" (you mean dental dams, right? I
much prefer saran wrap, as dental dams are *much* thicker than condoms
and not made for, um, sensitivity) to "taking sex lightly"? In fact,
there's a pile of beliefs in there that I find most puzzling. (Like,
f'rinstance, what's wrong exactly with taking sex lightly?)
> I am planning on getting a vasectomy (sp?) in a month or so, so the
>risk of possible pregnancy will never be an issue for me. Thus, I see
>no reason to EVER use a condom. If I don't feel reasonably safe having
>sex with a potential partner, then I won't have sex. Conversely, if a
>woman whom I'm serious about asks me to wear a condom, I will
>respectfully suggest that since she is not able to trust the FACT that I
>am free of STDs, then she is not ready to have sex with me and we should
>wait until that trust is built up even more.
I'd never get that far along in the discussions with you, but if you
couldn't see the wisdom of wearing a condom to protect yourself against
my herpes, I'd choose not to sleep with you on the grounds that I wasn't
comfortable with your risk-assessment skills.
Unsafe sex is no proof of love, to me. YMMV.
> I will never use a condom, mouth dam, wet suit, lead-plated armor, or
>space suit to have sex because, for me, it reduces sex to it's clinical
>elements. Yes, maybe I am taking a risk, but it is a calculated risk
>that is no different from the other risks that we take in life. For me,
>quality of life is as important as quantity of life.
Again, that's your decision, made according to your values. I hope it
works out well for you. For reasons I'm willing to discuss if asked, I've
made very different decisions, and I'm pretty happy with how they've
worked so far.
Elise,
bemused by the ideas of wet suits and lead-plated armor,
and wondering if we're back on a.s.b. yet, Toto.....
--
"Some, without investigating the idea deeply enough, have assumed that
this means that morally anything goes, that there is no code of ethics,
and that whatever happens happens; but poly means `several,' not `any.'"
- Thomas Moore
Bob Mulroy
Persons of the committee, I move that Mr. Pederson be ordered to
set his modem to 300 baud for an entire month. Further I call for a vote.
Dear old Bob, Advisor and Patron Saint of all Infotech Weinoids..
A fulltime momdad. _______Would anybody like some guppys?________________
Elf Sternberg
pede...@ix.netcom.com (Marc Pederson) writes:
> I have decided that the concept of "safe sex" is just as ridiculous as
>safe driving, flying, walking, and just plain living. The only people
>who are totally safe are in residence at the local cemetary. Certainly,
>one can be foolish when engaging in sexual activity just in any other
>activity. Reckless promiscuity and engaging the services of prostitutes
>are, IMHO, foolish activities. For me, sex is such a personal and
>intimate experience, I could never have "casual" sex with someone whom I
>did not trust implicitely.
And herein is your major mistake, Marc, for you are not
attempting to trust a person, you are attempting to trust an
insidious virus (and many of its ilk) whom neither you nor your
partner have any negotiation power with whatsoever.
The idea that you're "trusting" someone in this case is
absurd. The only trust you can reasonably imbue another person with
is the trust that they will not do something humanly stupid or
dangerous-- and viri are not human, and you cannot ever trust them to
be present or absent.
> The ridiculous notion of using "mouth dams" (yuck!) and other such
>devices assumes that sex is something that should be taken lightly.
Not at all. Sex can be something to be taken lightly, or it
can be done in all seriousness and intensity, and in either case
latex should be the course of choice until there are cures for
everything or until you've both been so thoroughly tested that
there's no question of risk in any event.
Sex is about two human beings being intimate and vulnerable
with their bodies and their feelings-- it should not cover a line
that, to me, sounds a lot like the high school "You wouldn't ask me
to wear one of those things if you loved me."
> I will never use a condom, mouth dam, wet suit, lead-plated armor, or
>space suit to have sex because, for me, it reduces sex to it's clinical
>elements.
So does using a diaphragm or a condom for birth control, I
guess. It's all in how you look at it. SEX HAS CONSEQUENCES is
probably one of the most important lessons of the 20th Century-- pity
we had to relearn it in so harsh a manner-- and if you're not
prepared to face those consequences, well...
They say that the statistics are not good for heterosexuals
these days. I've never met a statistic before, Mike. I'd hate for
you to become one.
Elf !!!
--
--
e...@halcyon.com Another victim of involuntary performance art.
Public key available http://www.halcyon.com/elf/elf_sternberg.html
heather e blair
>This is a response to Marc Pederson (pede...@ix.netcom.com). I know it
>looks like flamebait, but sometimes the fish just goes for the bait, alright?
This worm looks good!
>: If
>: I can't trust that my partner is free from STDs beyond any REASONABLE
>: doubt, then I am not interested in making love with her.
How do you make sure? Tests? Detailed sexual histories? As others
have said, many STDs like herpes and warts are very common, often
asymptomatic, and difficult or expensive to test for.
>: I am planning on getting a vasectomy (sp?) in a month or so, so the
>: risk of possible pregnancy will never be an issue for me. Thus, I see
>: no reason to EVER use a condom. If I don't feel reasonably safe having
>: sex with a potential partner, then I won't have sex. Conversely, if a
>: woman whom I'm serious about asks me to wear a condom, I will
>: respectfully suggest that since she is not able to trust the FACT that I
>: am free of STDs, then she is not ready to have sex with me and we should
>: wait until that trust is built up even more.
Count me out as a possible partner. Whenever somebody looks mean and
fierce and yells, "trust me!!!!", I can't trust them. That sounds to
me like somebody trying to take advantage of me. I don't know much
about vasectomies, but my impression is that the man has to wait
about six months or so, (and have lots of ejaculations during this time)
in order to make sure his semen is cleared of sperm. No condoms for
you during this time?
Plus, I need to have sex with a person in order to build up my trust
in them as a sex partner. Trust is created by being with somebody
and seeing how they handle the day-to-day. I could never jump from
a non-sexual relationship to a "I trust everything about you" sexual
one with nothing in between.
>You ask these partners to trust the FACT? Do you document it with test
>results, from before and again well into a period of abstention on your
>part, or is this a case where the supplicant must humbly BELIEVE in order
>to achieve the SALVATION of your intimate PRESENCE? Do you even know
>whether you are a carrier, say, of chlamydia or a hepatitis strain?
>Are you even going to bother documenting your immanent vasectomy?
>I'm not saying trust and communicative intimacy are or should be
>unimportant in relationships, but this sounds to me like superstitious
>and prejudiced nonsense, with underlying assumptions from another planet,
>and I don't mind saying so.
I wouldn't trust him.
--
- Heather Blair h4...@midway.uchicago.edu
heather e blair
>S. E. Stansfield (se...@po.CWRU.Edu) wrote:
>Okay, I'll admit it. I've had latex-free sex w/in recent memory. It was
>with someone with whom I had a committed relationship. I hadn't had sex
>with anyone in eleven years. He had only ever had one partner, with whom
>he used condoms, and that was two years before I met him. We felt it was
>still risky, but that the risk was small enough we were willing to take
>it. The desire to have 'naked' sex was primarily mine, because I
>remembered it fondly from The Old Days (late 60's, early 70's). But there
>wasn't that much difference. And sex without condoms is a heck of a lot
>messier. So we went back to condoms. And I don't see me leaping into
>unprotected sex with anyone else anytime soon.
Condoms (with non-oxynol) are actually my preferred birth control.
No fuss, no muss, no difficult installations, no pills you forget
to take, no hormones. They don't take away from the pleasure of
... er ... that kind of sex for me. I admit I don't like the taste
of latex, but am trying to use it some while I'm having all this
icky dental work done. :-/
>A friend and I are talking about marketing a line of garlic-flavored
>condoms and dams.:)
Definitely sexier than mint, although mint is pleasant.
Bob Mulroy
smiling guy who was always saying
"Trust me."
Karen Kay
: Condoms (with non-oxynol) are actually my preferred birth control.
: No fuss, no muss, no difficult installations, no pills you forget
: to take, no hormones.
I take birth control pills for the purpose of regulating my hormones. (A
lot of women in their 40's do.) I've been taking them about 3 years and I
*love* them--I've had no side effects. Not at all like the 70's. I'm not
sure I'd trust condoms for primary birth control, though. The only place I
know where they've always been the primary method is Japan, and abortions
are very common there. I also have a fair number of friends who are proof
of condom failure.
Karen
kar...@netcom.com
John E. Clark
+Ultimately, any kind of open relationship is *potentially* unsafe, if
+only because you begin to deal with an ever-increasing number of partners
+in many cases, as you trace the sexual history back.
+
+I think, outside of abstinence and monogamy, polyfidelity is your safest bet.
Let see if that 'logic' holds up to another critical factor, travel.
Since most 'diseases' have been know to have been transported by human
movement, we should make a 'moral' code which limits or prohibits
travel. Only 'state' or 'religious' sanctioned travel should be
allowed.
We should define 'mono-travelers', persons who travel to at most one
site outside their birthplace, and specially defined 'poly-travelers'
who may visit several places, but we shall especially abhore those
promiscuous travelers who will go to anywhere, and even drink the
water.
Maybe we can have 'country-travel-fastings', were with a little
ceremony, one can forever make a commitment to a certain travel
destination.
John E. Clark
+A friend and I are talking about marketing a line of garlic-flavored
+condoms and dams.:)
What new ideas in linguine pesto....or is that just to keep the vampires
away?
j. webb
* And herein is your major mistake, Marc, for you are not
*attempting to trust a person, you are attempting to trust an
*insidious virus (and many of its ilk) whom neither you nor your
*partner have any negotiation power with whatsoever.
* The idea that you're "trusting" someone in this case is
*absurd. The only trust you can reasonably imbue another person with
*is the trust that they will not do something humanly stupid or
*dangerous-- and viri are not human, and you cannot ever trust them to
*be present or absent.
Hear hear! Very well put. :)
stimps (violating the "me too" code again...)
--
)\._.,--....,'``.
sti...@kazoo.wimsey.bc.ca /, _.. \ _\ (`.
*-* `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
the cat offers itself.
Stef Jones
John E. Clark <syn...@nic.cerf.net> wrote:
>We should define 'mono-travelers', persons who travel to at most one
>site outside their birthplace, and specially defined 'poly-travelers'
>who may visit several places, but we shall especially abhore those
>promiscuous travelers who will go to anywhere, and even drink the
>water.
*giggle*
>Maybe we can have 'country-travel-fastings', were with a little
>ceremony, one can forever make a commitment to a certain travel
>destination.
Those are called "time-shares."
-- Stef
rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty
st...@netcom.com
Where am I going, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
d...@shadowplay.com
The best clinical advice I have been able to find says that if you want
to do unprotected sex with a new partner, get tested for AIDS, syphilis,
etc, wait 18 months and have no unprotected sex in that time period, and
then get tested again. At that point, unprotected sex may be OK assuming
both partners agree to be monogamous or both agree to use safer sex
practices with other partners. Having gone through the two tests, 18
months apart, trust becomes an issue. Unprotected sex before completing
the testing period is high risk, regardless of trust.
And Marc, if you ever get to Seattle, we'll show you how much fun you
can have with latex, and introduce you to plenty of folks who feel that
they can get their bonding and intimacy needs met extraordinarily well
through latex mediated sex. (If it is latex that is a problem for you,
there are other barriers in both male and female condoms, saran wrap,
etc that work well.
What follows is the exchange between marc and Mary Anne, which maybe
you've seen before...
IP>In <1995Jan14....@midway.uchicago.edu> mo...@quads.uchicago.edu
IP>(Kateri/Mary Anne) writes:
IP>>
IP>>In article <3f1rfe$o...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> pede...@ix.netcom.com
IP>(Marc Pederson) writes:
IP>>
IP>>> The ridiculous notion of using "mouth dams" (yuck!) and other such
IP>>>devices assumes that sex is something that should be taken lightly.
IP>If
IP>>>I can't trust that my partner is free from STDs beyond any REASONABLE
IP>>>doubt, then I am not interested in making love with her.
IP>>>
IP>>> I am planning on getting a vasectomy (sp?) in a month or so, so the
IP>>>risk of possible pregnancy will never be an issue for me. Thus, I see
IP>>>no reason to EVER use a condom. If I don't feel reasonably safe
IP>having
IP>>>sex with a potential partner, then I won't have sex. Conversely, if a
IP>>>woman whom I'm serious about asks me to wear a condom, I will
IP>>>respectfully suggest that since she is not able to trust the FACT that
IP>I
IP>>>am free of STDs, then she is not ready to have sex with me and we
IP>should
IP>>>wait until that trust is built up even more.
IP>>
IP>>I sincerely hope no woman (or man)[YUCK!!] is ever stupid enough to
IP>sleep with
IP>>for as long as you keep up these practices/beliefs. It's people like
IP>>you who are spreading AIDS, and frankly, I find your ignorance and
IP>>self-satisfaction appalling.
IP>>
IP>> - Mary Anne
IP>You still don't get it, Mary Anne. I am not promiscuous. I'm not even
IP>polyamorous. Do we not agree that "unprotected" sex is ok in a
IP>committed, monogomous relationship? If so, then would we not also agree
IP>that the step from "protected" to "unprotected" must involve a degree of
IP>trust in one's partner's honesty about whether or not they will, in
IP>fact, remain monogomous and have disclosed any relevant information
IP>about their sexual history? And given the fact that "trust" does enter
IP>the picture at some point, does this not involve some form of calculated
IP>risk?
IP>All I am saying is that I would rather wait the length of time necessary
IP>to be in a monogomous and commited relationship before I am sexually
IP>involved with a person, instead of "testing the waters" with latex
IP>barriers at a sooner part of the relationship.
IP>Please don't condemn me for this, since I can't see how my approach is
IP>any different than people who go from:
IP>dates--->sex w/latex--->commitment--->sex w/o latex
IP>In fact, I believe that my approach is much safer and more responsible
IP>than people who believe that a piece of latex is a carte blanche for
IP>irresponsible behavior.
IP>
IP>I do agree that people who practice casual, promiscuous, unprotected sex
IP>are an extreme danger to themselves and others. But there comes a point
IP>when we must accept some degree of small risk if we are ever able to
IP>enjoy life to its fullest.
IP> Marc
--
************** ShadowPlay BBS - (206) 706-0992 ****************
Cyberspace with an EDGE!
Karen Kay
: In article <karenkD2...@netcom.com> kar...@netcom.com (Karen Kay) writes:
: +A friend and I are talking about marketing a line of garlic-flavored
: +condoms and dams.:)
: What new ideas in linguine pesto....or is that just to keep the vampires
: away?
:) Linguine indeed. I was listening to the radio the other day, and
someone was talking about sex education in schools--using a condom and a
cucumber. I was really distraught--not at the idea of teaching how to put
a condom on, but I can see this whole generation of women *doomed* to
disappointment in the real thing because they used cucumbers in school....
The reason for the garlic flavor is that you could use the real flavor--I
hate articificial flavors, and I hate the taste of latex.
Karen
kar...@netcom.com
Elise Matthesen
> The obvious conclusion is that unless one is willing to settle for the
>mediocre quality sexual experience that latex offers forever, then he or
>she must be willing to take *some* risks.
Your Sexual Experience Clearly Varies.
"mediocre"? Excuse me while I go laugh uproariously. I mean, it might
be mediocre where you are, but things seem to work pretty well where I
am. (Oh, ask the neighbors. Soundproofing is never adequate.)
Look, just because you don't know how to make sex-with-latex better than
mediocre, don't assume that this is always how it is.
> So then at what point would it be safe to do away with the latex in a
>relationship? When is it ever 100 percent "safe"? The best we can hope
>for, other then to resign one's self to an eternity in a latex prison,
>is "reasonable" assurance of safety. Again, isn't that what you do
>whenever you drive a car or ride a bus?
"Latex prison"? No, *you're* not judgemental or biased at all.....
D'you mind if I borrow that for use as a title? I can think of a *great*
smut novel outline....
I make choices about reasonable risk all the time. I have one partner
with whom I sometimes practice sex that isn't safer sex, i.e. we do fluid
exchange. That's something we have discussed and to which we both
consent. On the other hand (or other appendage), we do latex any time
there's a particular level of risk of herpes transmission. This partner
and I have a commitment that explicitly includes sharing certain levels
of epidemiological risk, and we have agreements for how we handle risk in
other relationships. To put it crassly, we only do safer sex outside
this particular dyad, and we do safer-or-unsafe-sex within the dyad as
conditions indicate only because we have made a "one flesh" commitment in
terms of those risks. It's not a commitment to be taken lightly, for us;
nor would other perfectly reasonable human beings come to the same
decisions we have made, necessarily.
I guess what I find so irritating about your postings is that it seems
you have not bothered (or been able to) learn the safer sex skills that I
feel are standard tools in the toolkit for Good Lovers, and as I type
this I realize that's a huge value judgement too.
Live your life how you will, and give 'em opportunity for informed
consent. Please, though, don't make "consenting to unsafe sex" a test of
love, okay? A lot of people are desperate enough to do that, and I'd
really like to have a year without deaths from being too desperate, or
too cool, or too heterosexual, or too unpoor, or too white, or too
*whatever* to need to learn about safer sex, ok?
Elise,
wondering where meddling ends and where community begins
heather e blair
So far the barrier methods have worked just fine for me -- 20 years,
almost! But you're right to point out that there have been substantial
improvements in birth control pills since the 70s. I'm 36 now, and
I remember as a teenager being told that women over 35 couldn't take
the Pill. One question, though, how do you remember to take it
at the same time every day? I have the darndest time remembering
to take any kind of medication, and would prefer to put off the
beeping pillbox until my life depends on it.
Martin Schafer
>
>In article <3fbktg$j...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
>Marc Pederson <pede...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>You still don't get it, Mary Anne. I am not promiscuous. I'm not even
>
>No. It's not commitment or monogamy that makes it OK to have unprotected
>sex. It's being free of STDs that your partner wants to avoid, and being
>unable to get pregnant or make someone pregnant.
Unless you want to make a child together. For that matter,
if pregnancy is what you're worried about, there are many
forms of birth control (many of them superior to a condom
in terms of birth control) that would still constitute
"unprotected" sex, as the term is usually used.
Any closed pool of sexual intimates that were satisfied with
each other's certainty of being disease free, and dealt with the
birth control issue, could reasonably choose to forgo condoms
(or other latex barriers). The bigger the pool, the bigger the
risk of someone being wrong, or dishonest. I wouldn't want to
risk it with more than about four.
>
>If you have an STD that your partner doesn't want to catch, or if your
>partner does, then you can be committed and monogamous all you want, but
>you should still do protected sex. Likewise, if you can make your partner
>pregnant. (Vasectomies reverse themselves in some nontrivial percentage of
>the cases.)
>
What do you mean by a non-trivial percentage? I'm sure it's less than
10% and I'd be very surprised if it was much above 1%. Condoms fail
at least that often. There is no perfect surety other than abstinence
(and Mary seems to have had a problem with that).
I'll tell you my "some people are just meant to get pregnant" story.
The woman involved told this to Reen. After she and her husband had
their fourth child, they decided that was enough. She had a tubal
ligation. After they had a fifth child, she had another tubal ligation.
After their sixth child he had a vasectomy and she had another tubal.
She was currently pregnant with their seventh child.
Martin
d...@shadowplay.com
Well said, Elf...
Dr Z
Stranahan
It's *not* a matter of life and death, but if I'm not good about taking it
every day, I'll be sick for the entire week I don't take the pills. That's
a pretty powerful motivator.
----------------------
Well, Kathy was on the pill for a while, but did not like how it affected
her body. So she changed to the sponge about three years ago.
We're now the proud parents of a two year old son.
After that bit of fun, she's on Norplant. She prefers the bionic thing by
quite a bit...
***************************
** Lee Stranahan **
** NewTek, Inc **
** **
** Life is short, **
** but wide. **
*****************************
fairest one
have been warned. :E
Elise Matthesen (el...@soils.umn.edu) wrote:
[snip]
: Live your life how you will, and give 'em opportunity for informed
: consent. Please, though, don't make "consenting to unsafe sex" a test of
: love, okay? A lot of people are desperate enough to do that, and I'd
: really like to have a year without deaths from being too desperate, or
: too cool, or too heterosexual, or too unpoor, or too white, or too
: *whatever* to need to learn about safer sex, ok?
This *really* hits home for me right now. I know someone who is
convinced* that zie is allergic to latex. I keep telling zir that IMHO,
there's a good chance that zie is allergic to nonoxynol-9, and won't zie
please please please check that out. (Hell, I'll lend zie some Wet to
smear on one hand, and a latex glove to wear on the other, and we can
find out for *sure*.)
Zie won't. Unprotected sex is "the only thing I have to give", says zie.
And between zie and zie's partners, they are not using any *other* form
of birth control (prayer does not count; thank you) either.
It alternately makes me want to cry and scream.
As Juan mentioned at the last mpls poly coffee gettogether, I think that
the low rate of HIV and other sexually transmitted nasties in the mn
faanish community is *sheer luck*.
: Elise,
: wondering where meddling ends and where community begins
If you figure that one out, mind helping me figure out if there's a way
(and if there is, what it is) to try and talk this person out of trying
to commit slow suicide this way? Zie isn't listening when I talk, and it
hurts so badly to just watch.
betsy.
--
we get a little further from perfection/each year on the road
i think that's called character/i think that's just the way it goes
better to be dusty than to be polished/like some store window mannequin
touch me where i'm rusty/let me stain your hands
--ani difranco, imperfectly
Karen Kay
: After that bit of fun, she's on Norplant. She prefers the bionic thing by
: quite a bit...
If birth control were my primary concern, I'd be on Norplant, too. My
doctor had it, was a great fan, and did a show and tell for me.
Karen
kar...@netcom.com
John Chao
>I'll tell you my "some people are just meant to get pregnant" story.
>The woman involved told this to Reen. After she and her husband had
>their fourth child, they decided that was enough. She had a tubal
>ligation. After they had a fifth child, she had another tubal ligation.
>After their sixth child he had a vasectomy and she had another tubal.
>She was currently pregnant with their seventh child.
Hmmm... do any of them show evidence of halos?
--------- ------- -------- -------------- -------- ---
-- ch...@ee.udel.edu --- ---- another citizen of the zeroth --
------ - john chao ------ world for gaean actualization -
------------------ ------------------------ ------- -------------
Debbie Notkin
> As Juan mentioned at the last mpls poly coffee gettogether, I think that
> the low rate of HIV and other sexually transmitted nasties in the mn
> faanish community is *sheer luck*.
Gosh, I'd think that too, except that it replicates over most of the
fannish poly (or just promiscuous) communitities I've known in the last
twenty years. In my own life, I've encountered one case of the crabs in
my sexual circle (never got to me). Among my friends, the incidences aren't
much higher. Of the few AIDS cases in fandom, every one I know about came
out of either the gay community or the transfusion circuit, and *none* seem
to have transmitted within the community.
If it's luck, it's remarkable luck. If it's good sense, it's remarkable good
sense. WHatever it is, I hope it lasts.
Debbie
d.no...@genie.geis.com
Bernadette Bosky
>In article <quinet.41...@wimsey.com>,
>Thomas Quine <qui...@wimsey.com> wrote:
>
>>I would like to point out in connection with this discussion that it seems
>>likely that monogamy and virgin marriage as a cultural norm evolved in human
>>society as a defense against venereal disease.
>
>I expect not. People had little understanding of disease and how it spread
>until the 18th century. Female monogamy and virgin marriage probably have
>more to do with maintaining a patrilineal family (i.e,, they attempt to
>assure the fathership of all the children born in the marriage).
>
No no no no, Stef! People had little understanding of *the
microorganisms that cause disease* until the 18th century. That is not
the same thing at all! I'm not sure how far back awareness of the
transmission of venereal diseases goes (though I found Thomas' post very
interesting, and it did get me thinking...), but you look at Renaissance
plays, and there is *no* doubt that they knew; and I *think* I recall
references to catching VD from whores in classical poetry. Actually,
people noticed a lot of facts about disease transmission before they knew
the actual process involving microorganisms, just as people knew what
causes pregnancy a long time before they worked out details of egg &
sperm. (In fact, the idea of the human egg was sketchy at best in
European science through the 16th, maybe 17th century!) I don't think
humans could have survived as well as they/we did if knowledge of what to
do & avoid, regarding contagion, depended on scientific knowledge of germs
and viruses!
This message brought to you courtesy of my
history-of-science-and-medicine work regarding Sir Thomas Browne....
Bernadette Bosky
Bernadette Bosky
>
>I agree that in order to do non-latex sex, one must always take some
>risks. My quarrel with you is that I do not think risk and trust are
>related. If you trust someone, that does not necessarily mean there is
>less risk involved having non-latex sex with them.
>
But as I believe Jennie pointed out, trust does mean that you
probably have a more accurate idea of what the risks involved are (or
aren't), especially if y'all get tested.
On the other hand, you make an excellent point about the
advantages of latex in some situations (such as rimming) no matter
what--one that can't be repeated too much.
Still, with many diseases, I think trust does make a big
difference in being able to rationally assess what the degree of risk is,
which is a necessary first step in deciding whether it is an acceptable
risk or not.
Bernadette Bosky
Bernadette Bosky
fairest one <kall...@winternet.com> wrote:
>Zie won't. Unprotected sex is "the only thing I have to give", says zie.
>
>And between zie and zie's partners, they are not using any *other* form
>of birth control (prayer does not count; thank you) either.
>If you figure that one out, mind helping me figure out if there's a way
>(and if there is, what it is) to try and talk this person out of trying
>to commit slow suicide this way? Zie isn't listening when I talk, and it
>hurts so badly to just watch.
>
if I were in your shoes I would think seriously about getting this
person's permission to arrange a dinner or coffeeklatsch (sp?) with this
person, a person with AIDS, and/or a man or woman (or couple) who has had
to deal with unwanted pregnancy (of course, this would depend on you
finding people like that who were willing to do this, too). Or maybe try
to get people like that to write letters to your friend.
This still strikes me as meddling, but it would be *consentual*
meddling (or it wouldn't happen), it is clearly for a good cause, and it
has a snowball's chance in hell of doing something, which (alas) I think
more talk from you alone probably doesn't. If your friend wouldn't go
for such a talk, though, she wouldn't. Sigh.
I sympathize with you regarding this tough situation. It does
sound as though, tough as it is, you are handling it very sanely.
Bernadette Bosky
Bernadette Bosky
Elf Sternberg <e...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>
> So does using a diaphragm or a condom for birth control, I
>guess. It's all in how you look at it. SEX HAS CONSEQUENCES is
>probably one of the most important lessons of the 20th Century-- pity
>we had to relearn it in so harsh a manner-- and if you're not
>prepared to face those consequences, well...
>
(mainly but not entirely on the 17th century) that when people talk about
incurable and fatal STDs as though this was a new thing, I'm just
astounded. Actually, the view that sex without consequences is
natural--even a right--is this short historico-cultural anomoly,
characterizing an incredibly short window--at most from the 1940s to the
early 1980s, and in some ways only *two decades*, from the Pill to AIDs.
Just the tiniest *blip* on the radar-screen of human experience. And we
all act like that *blip* is how nature really is, and needing to take
precautions for sex is "wrong." An understandable, but really naive view,
it seems to me.
Bernadette Bosky
Bernadette Bosky
>
>Since most 'diseases' have been know to have been transported by human
>movement, we should make a 'moral' code which limits or prohibits
>travel. Only 'state' or 'religious' sanctioned travel should be
>allowed.
I get the point of your satire, and I think I even agree, but--
Having recently read *The Hot Zone* (highly recommended, but not for the
faint-hearted!!!), I am inevitably reminded of that book's point that the
quick and easy travel of the modern world *does* make for a lot more
spread of disease. It's rather frightening, actually. I don't think we
could put the genie back in the bottle, even if we wanted to, but it's
something to think about. (Believe me, read the book and you won't be
able to *stop* thinking about it--for days, even weeks!)
Bernadette Bosky
sonny hays-eberts
Pedro) wrote:
> It isn't called "safer sex" for nothing. The term "safe sex" is inaccurate.
> What it is about is *reducing* risk. We make decisions to *reduce* our
> risk every day when we wear seatbelts while drinving, wear helmets while
> motorcycling, wear eye protection while using power tools, pre-flight
> a Cessna 152 we are going to fly, or brush our teeth.
you are correct. i might add that the problem here is that most people
suffer from very poor risk perception (see slovic, macgregor, and much more
in the field of risk analysis). the most common example - deaths from
automobile travel are far higher than for air travel (in terms of both
causualties and casualties per mile traveled, or just about any other way
of looking at it, cars are far riskier than planes). yet, because air
accidents are spectacular, they are front page news. no matter that the day
after labor day the thousands of deaths on the highways are buried in the
back. peoples perceptions of risk in this case are skewed by the media.
there is of course more that plays to this, but the end result is that *in
general* people do not evaluate risk well at all, and even worse, we
generally feel strongly to the contrary about our own abilities to do so.
oddly, at least according to darwin, it's a neat system of sorts. it kind
of cleans up after itself, sotospeak. :) those that are very bad at it tend
to die, even in our modern society. while we're not running from sabre
tooth tigers anymore, there's still aids, drunken driving, making bad
decisions in the wilderness or any number of other risky activities that
are happy to remove the chaff from the cycle without prejudice.
and that's as close to any sort of 'natural' argument anybody'll get from
me here. :)
[snip]
--
albert einstein nailed space-time
but the wild thing had him stumped
al baby, two and two make five and a quarter
that's why people fall in love
-- t. dolby
sonny hays-eberts
ebe...@oregon.uoregon.edu
John E. Clark
+I would like to point out in connection with this discussion that it seems
+likely that monogamy and virgin marriage as a cultural norm evolved in human
+society as a defense against venereal disease.
With reasoning like this, the jewish prohibition on various 'foods'
is clearly the 'reason' they survived for so long as a distinct group.
However, on closer inspection, people seem to 'survive' independent
(within wide limits) of what they eat. In fact, it is the 'prohibition'
and the group identification of 'distinctness' associated with
the prohibition, and the desire to maintain the distinction, that
maintained group identity.
A closer 'inspection' will show that most foods on the 'prohibited'
list happen to be foods which the sea people of ancient Palistine
ate. For which there are also many prohibitions on behavior which
these people also exhibited. So, the dietary and behavior laws are
predominantly 'for distinction and identification' rather than some
fundamental 'goodness'.
In similar reasoning, 'monogamy' on the part of women, and 'polygyny'
on the part of men, could possibly be a 'distinguishing'
characteristic to be contrasted with some more ancient form of
relationship.
But in particular 'monogamy' for both partners was always used by
Greek and Roman writers to distinguish, and give an air of superority
to their system, from 'the East'. Very often the 'East' is used as
an icon of indolence, wasted wealth, and in general is given a
'feminine character'. This is constrasted with the 'mighty' manliness
of the Greek and Roman 'hero', who would never be caught willingly
with a harem. And the idea of one man, investing in the nurturing of
another man's offspring, was unthinkable....
To see how progeny retained the 'type' of the father, one only need
to look at the number of mythical stories which have the infant male
child of the 'king' exposed, and the lowly 'shephard' upon finding
the child, sees the child as 'royal' without any further note. I.e.
class was an 'inheritable' attribute. The only group to even hint
at 'polyandry' was in Sparta. But then, even for their 'manliness'
spartans seem to have retained more 'matriarchal' features than did
the more northern greeks. But this was rumored to be on the order of
'for the betterment of the breed', rather than 'for love'.
Donn F. Pedro
: I am a "lurker" in this newsgroup, and though I'm not judgmental about
: anyone else's lifestyle, I personally choose to be monogomous.
: Unfortunately, I am currently going through a divorce and not yet
: involved in any new relationships.
: I have decided that the concept of "safe sex" is just as ridiculous as
: safe driving, flying, walking, and just plain living.
It isn't called "safer sex" for nothing. The term "safe sex" is inaccurate.
What it is about is *reducing* risk. We make decisions to *reduce* our
risk every day when we wear seatbelts while drinving, wear helmets while
motorcycling, wear eye protection while using power tools, pre-flight
a Cessna 152 we are going to fly, or brush our teeth.
: The only people
: who are totally safe are in residence at the local cemetary.
*Duh*. It is about reducing your risk, not protecting yourself from
living.
: Certainly,
: one can be foolish when engaging in sexual activity just in any other
: activity. Reckless promiscuity and engaging the services of prostitutes
: are, IMHO, foolish activities.
Please, oh non-judgemental one, define "recless", "promiscuity", and
"foolish" in the context in which you use them.
:For me, sex is such a personal and
: intimate experience, I could never have "casual" sex with someone whom I
: did not trust implicitely.
Please, oh non-judgemental one, define "casual" and "trust" in the context
in which you use them.
: The ridiculous notion of using "mouth dams" (yuck!) and other such
: devices assumes that sex is something that should be taken lightly. If
: I can't trust that my partner is free from STDs beyond any REASONABLE
: doubt, then I am not interested in making love with her.
Actually, it means that we take our safety, and the safety of our
lovers very seriously. Very seriously indeed. It also means that
we understand that human beings (including you) rationalize away
risk to get what they want -- often.
: I am planning on getting a vasectomy (sp?) in a month or so, so the
: risk of possible pregnancy will never be an issue for me. Thus, I see
: no reason to EVER use a condom.
Then keep your weenie away from me and mine, if you please. Actually,
anyone I know wouldn't have you without a condom, so your possible partners
have just been narrowed down.
I feel sorry for anyone who has to put up with your particular brand of
sexual blackmail: "no condom or no sex."
Sure, it's their choice but I see you mortgaging your partners safety
for your pleasure.
: If I don't feel reasonably safe having
: sex with a potential partner, then I won't have sex.
Well, how do you 'feel' safe? Can you tell by looking at them?
Do you give them a survey. Do you *judge* whether they are 'clean'
or not?
: Conversely, if a
: woman whom I'm serious about asks me to wear a condom, I will
: respectfully suggest that since she is not able to trust the FACT that I
: am free of STDs, then she is not ready to have sex with me and we should
: wait until that trust is built up even more.
And I hope that you are told to go jump off a bridge.
: I will never use a condom, mouth dam, wet suit, lead-plated armor, or
: space suit to have sex because, for me, it reduces sex to it's clinical
: elements.
I hope, for your potential partners sake, that you don't get laid
often.
: Yes, maybe I am taking a risk, but it is a calculated risk
: that is no different from the other risks that we take in life. For me,
: quality of life is as important as quantity of life.
No, you are putting *others* at risk for the sake of your own selfish
pleasure.
Donn Pedro ....................................dfp...@uswnvg.com
Karl Allen
*Quotes from previous articles about trust, latex, and STD's deleted*
>Yeah, right. Then the next night she goes to "comfort an old
>friend who's like a brother, really" -- and a week after that
>you break out with herpes on your dick. "Trust?" Gimme a break.
>And considering the _emotional_ price of a "long-term committed
>relationship" - not to mention the mortgage et al. - you're
>better off just paying for it.
Wouldn't that depend on how much you're paying? I mean, $2 a pound is
one thing, but in some areas it goes as high as $3.50 or $4 a pound,
and that's just way too high. None of this, of course, considers
the installment plans so popular these days, or the growing
mail-order business. (Personally, though, I'd rather pay the extra
to get it fresh). Or aren't we talking about steaks?
>Besides, hey, rubbers slow me down. I've been known to hump for
>about an hour (through a couple asthma attacks!) and then just
>roll off out of pity for her. I just love diaphram jelly!
Have you tried it on English muffins? Grape flavor on French toast
is my personal fave-rave. It is a bit fattening, though.
Why all this talk of food, anyway? Or did I, perhaps, miss the point
yet again?
I remain,
K
Mark Evans
: Marc Pederson (pede...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: : Certainly,
: : one can be foolish when engaging in sexual activity just in any other
: : activity. Reckless promiscuity and engaging the services of prostitutes
: : are, IMHO, foolish activities.
: Please, oh non-judgemental one, define "recless", "promiscuity", and
: "foolish" in the context in which you use them.
Reckless is an adjective, thus it is perfectly possible to have safe,
non-reckless or any other type of promiscuity. Also certain types of
monogamous relationships and marriages appear not disimilar to
prostitution. (N.B. I would define risk to include abuse, finacial
exploitation as well STD's)
: : The ridiculous notion of using "mouth dams" (yuck!) and other such
: : devices assumes that sex is something that should be taken lightly. If
: : I can't trust that my partner is free from STDs beyond any REASONABLE
: : doubt, then I am not interested in making love with her.
: Actually, it means that we take our safety, and the safety of our
: lovers very seriously. Very seriously indeed. It also means that
: we understand that human beings (including you) rationalize away
: risk to get what they want -- often.
: : I am planning on getting a vasectomy (sp?) in a month or so, so the
: : risk of possible pregnancy will never be an issue for me. Thus, I see
: : no reason to EVER use a condom.
: Then keep your weenie away from me and mine, if you please. Actually,
: anyone I know wouldn't have you without a condom, so your possible partners
: have just been narrowed down.
I would say someone with a vascetomy has no reason NOT to wear a condom,
becuase the only time some one has any good reason not to is when they
are trying to create children, if they cannot do this, then no reason.
: I feel sorry for anyone who has to put up with your particular brand of
: sexual blackmail: "no condom or no sex."
If people were sensible they would not have to, i.e. there is little need
to ask someone to do something they are doing already.
: : Conversely, if a
: : woman whom I'm serious about asks me to wear a condom, I will
: : respectfully suggest that since she is not able to trust the FACT that I
: : am free of STDs, then she is not ready to have sex with me and we should
: : wait until that trust is built up even more.
: And I hope that you are told to go jump off a bridge.
Hope he dosn't, then he would impose on whoever had to clean up the mess.
paul whiteley
to make it a bit more accessible. This may be a different thread . . .
Huffing and puffing, and lacking restraint, I posted:
: >I think I'll leave the discussion there, rather than going on a rant about
: >how snotty and judgemental you are, how you look down on most people, and
: >how your looking down on some of the people closest to you doesn't make you
: >look any less arrogantly elitist. No, I don't have the time to flame.
To which John Chao (ch...@stimpy.eecis.udel.edu) with moderation replied:
: When i was a kid, i used to stand by myself at the bus stop instead of
: with the other kids (mainly because i'm an introvert, and introverts
: are usually targets for the malice of other kids). I was amazed one day
: when someone told me that all the kids thought i was stuck up because
: i didn't interact with them. I was feeling sort of left out and outcastish,
: and then i find out they think i'm leaving *them* out or something.
: I suppose there's no way to really communicate that saying "i'm different
: than 99% of people in fundamental ways" is not the same as saying "i'm
: special and better than 99% of people", so i won't try. But you
: might be able to convince yourself of that.
If there were one generalization I would make about alt.poly contributors,
and believe it or not I don't make such generalizations lightly, it would be
that many (or most) alt.poly contributors have had very strongly the
experience "i'm different than 99% of people in fundamental ways", and for
many (or most) of us these experiences have not been primarily about poly.
There are, however, many different ways of living with this feeling, and I
must admit that I lack patience with certain of them, especially when I
encounter people who think that no-one else, or no-one else they know, or
even very few people they know, also have that feeling, strongly, and often.
In other words, I think the experience that "i'm different than 99% of
people in fundamental ways" is more widespread than many people who have
this experience believe.
: I guess i could list my
: many failings and ways in which some of that 99% is inferior to many
: other people, at least the stuff that's not to embarrassing. But i doubt
: that is of public interest here.
In fact, I think it would be amusing and informative for alt.poly contributors
to share these experiences, at least the ones that are not too, too painful,
but I'm certainly not going to start. And I think this would only illustrate
my point above, with the addition that some of the topics or contexts for
these experiences will tend to converge, but others will diverge widely.
To return to the discussion about safer sex, I think it is tendentially
elitist, snotty, judgemental, and just plain dangerous to convert these
experiences of personal difference into a reason why one need not practise
sex safely. This is what I think you do, John, when you say of unsafe sex:
: For the general public this is probably not a good idea: there are
: *no* (conscious) lies in my relationships; i would not get sexually
: involved with anyone unless i was first very deeply personally involved
: with them -- knowing their past, knowing they were completely honest,
: knowing *them* on a very deep level. The average person doesn't have
: this sort of relationship.
Here I question your knowledge of the "average person". There are people
who have sex without deep personal involvement, and there are people who
don't. I don't think one group can be identified as "average" and the other
not, and I don't think this axis correlates very well with the experience
of oneself as different from 99% of other people, or any other measure of
"uniqueness" or "distinctiveness" of people. And even this deep honesty
and commitment only makes sense of unsafe sex among disease-free people,
for as long as they remain disease-free, and even then it's a bad habit IMO.
: The point: the average person (maybe 95%? lots) would be better off
: with the consensus advice of latex, as long as they didn't use
: barriers as an excuse to have unsafe sex.
No, anyone without an allergy is better off with latex, as long as it
does not become an excuse for irresponsibility. OK? It is this "average
person" discourse that is troublesome, and not because you have any
universal delusions of grandeur, but because you are saying that you
don't need normal precautions in an area where they particularly matter.
: But people in my relationships would not cheat. (I can see the responses
: coming already... but it's true. I ain't a typical person, and the people
: i get involved with ain't typical.)
Well, I don't think you're "typical" or "average" either, but that isn't
the issue--and "it can't happen to me" is dangerous thinking. Generalities
aside, I know you believe that you and your partners are all endowed
with most unusually deep honesty; I would only submit that honesty, and
personality in general, may be more complex than you presently believe
them to be. And even if people remain "fidelis", there are still diseases
acquired other ways, and people may want to re-open the fidelity agreement.
paul whiteley
anarcho-syndicalist at large
John Chao
>This is a different tack from my other reply to John's post, and I wanted
>to make it a bit more accessible. This may be a different thread . . .
I've rethreaded to fit the bit i'll respond to.
>If there were one generalization I would make about alt.poly contributors,
>and believe it or not I don't make such generalizations lightly, it would be
>that many (or most) alt.poly contributors have had very strongly the
>experience "i'm different than 99% of people in fundamental ways", and for
>many (or most) of us these experiences have not been primarily about poly.
Perhaps that is part of the reason why this group is the only discussion
group i read. With 10,000+ newgroups, i'd think there'd be some place
where people similar to me would congregate, but perhaps having each
be this.specific.topic.only destroys that possibility. I'm much more
interested in everything than i am in anything.
>There are, however, many different ways of living with this feeling, and I
>must admit that I lack patience with certain of them, especially when I
>encounter people who think that no-one else, or no-one else they know, or
>even very few people they know, also have that feeling, strongly, and often.
>In other words, I think the experience that "i'm different than 99% of
>people in fundamental ways" is more widespread than many people who have
>this experience believe.
I have data to back up my claim (see part of my previous posting about
IQ/face remembering, for example), but of course there are many ways in
which i'm very similar to most people. The one defining statement i can
make about me is that i can't come up with a defining statement about me,
which may be related to Taoism and the Nature of the Universe in large
subtle ways but i gotta go.
>: I guess i could list my
>: many failings and ways in which some of that 99% is inferior to many
>: other people, at least the stuff that's not to embarrassing. But i doubt
>: that is of public interest here.
>
>In fact, I think it would be amusing and informative for alt.poly contributors
listed a few in prev. posting... mental differences don't bother me, but
physical ones often do. Some mental ones too, perhaps. Depends on the
audience. I usually dread any new relationship because i feel compelled
to bring it all out at the start and that's very difficult.
>to share these experiences, at least the ones that are not too, too painful,
>but I'm certainly not going to start. And I think this would only illustrate
>my point above, with the addition that some of the topics or contexts for
>these experiences will tend to converge, but others will diverge widely.
...
>Here I question your knowledge of the "average person". There are people
>who have sex without deep personal involvement, and there are people who
>don't. I don't think one group can be identified as "average" and the other
>not, and I don't think this axis correlates very well with the experience
average floabwop. [For lack of a better word or phrase]. A distinction needs
to be made between deep personal involvement and intimately knowing someone.
>of oneself as different from 99% of other people, or any other measure of
>"uniqueness" or "distinctiveness" of people. And even this deep honesty
>: The point: the average person (maybe 95%? lots) would be better off
>: with the consensus advice of latex, as long as they didn't use
>: barriers as an excuse to have unsafe sex.
>No, anyone without an allergy is better off with latex, as long as it
>does not become an excuse for irresponsibility. OK? It is this "average
I would add more than "without an allergy", but in general my wording
was sloppy. ((I need a polythreaded newsreader.))
>acquired other ways, and people may want to re-open the fidelity agreement.
What do you mean by reopen? Cheating--wouldn't happen with me.
Adding partner(s) of their own with my consent--not likely to be an issue.
Adding partner(s) involved with both of us--possible, but at that
point it wouldn't be much different than me becoming newly involved
with a single individual, and i've spoken about that. As i get older
...never mind.
-jc
[two hours after sitting down for a 1 minute check of the local weather
group, our hero is off to his pressing engagement with equations.]
Cappy Harrison
Pedro) wrote:
> If you want Smurfs, stop by soc.bi but I don't have to be 'nice' to
> someone like that.
Hey hey hey. Not everyone on soc.bi is a Smurf.
*giggle* *fluff* *bounce*
<Stop that, Cappy!! *slap* >
Actually, I suspect that the originator of this thread would have been
treated much worse on soc.bi than he was treated here...
-----------------------------------------------------
Cappy Harrison -- biqueerpolyfluffydyke.
khar...@sas.upenn.edu
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Mary Malmros <mal...@id.wing.net> wrote:
>Stef Jones (st...@netcom.com) wrote:
>:
>: Get zir a box of the new Avanti condoms made out of polyurethane, and a
>: box of Saran Wrap. Then you'll see whether zie is allergic to latex or
>: allergic to the ideas of barriers, period.
>
>AAAGH! Stef! Goddess! Please, please, PLEASE tell me where I can get
>some of these!!!
In our region (SF Bay Area), they're freely available in drugstores. If
you can't find them, send e-mail to blow...@netcom.com, a fine purveyor
of many *interesting* sex products. I can also dig up the address for
Good Vibrations if you want.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous kinky vanilla queer het
"First one back from the bathroom gets to be the bottom."
sonny hays-eberts
(Stephen Michael Schumacher) wrote:
>
> I appreciated John Chao's forthright posts in this thread, and I'm kind of
> shocked by the volume and vituperance of the flames he's been attracting.
new to the net, eh? this is downright mild compared to many other groups,
esp. the rec.sport.x domain. :)
[snip]
> Given the manifold uncertainties, the self-righteousness and religious
> fervour of the know-it-all condom-thumpers is astounding. All we've really
> got here are individuals using their own best judgments, and I'd prefer more
> respect for honest people's varying thinking processes.
respect is *earned*, not given freely. mr. chao's writing style is abusive,
seems aimed more at making style points than conveying ideas (see comment
on stef's .sig), and is not received favorably, at least at this end. and
i've not got a vested interest in this topic, my relationships are closed;
so i'm hardly a know-it-all condom-thumper. although i find your used of a
blatent ad hominem attack (twisting the analogy from bibles to condoms is
worth a style point) slightly charming. :)
> Nobody's got a monopoly on the truth here.
no, but *how* one conveys their own brand of truth goes a great way to how
it is received.
Loren Davidson
>pwhi...@superior.carleton.ca (paul whiteley) writes:
>>Well, if you "agree with the general idea originally put forth" then you
>>are well on your way to Making Enemies and Infuriating People on alt.poly,
>What i posted was reasonable, if people wish to become infuriated then
>that's their problem. If alt.poly disagrees with me, i did invite comments.
Hmmm...I hear a "definition game" here... We all play them. The tune goes
something like "I'm being reasonable; you're not". Or, "I stand firm on my
principles; you're stubborn."
Of course you think you're being reasonable, John. Everyone does. I'm sure
Hitler thought he was very reasonable.
But you might do better in some company by realizing that everyone *else* in
the world thinks that *they* are reasonable.
And taking the attitude that if people become upset by what you say it's
"their problem", you are showing what appears to be quite a bit of arrogance
and insensitivity. I hope that's not what you meant, because I believe that
this group really welcomes people who are willing to show sensitivity for
other points of view, and I really hope that you have that sort of sensitivity.
Why does everything have to be "either-or"? "Either you agree with me or
you've got problems." Sounds a lot like "Either you're monogamous or you're
cheating"... Most points of view have a middle ground somewhere...
_________________________________________________________
Loren Davidson
l...@beauty.batnet.com
http://www.batnet.com/beauty/lmd.html
This document made from 100% recycled electrons.
Angi Long
>: One question, though, how do you remember to take it
>: at the same time every day?
>indicated that taking the pills at the same time was not an issue. I have
>to buy new pills today, so I can check the insert. (I read it when I
Mine say that it is important (for maximum effectiveness) to take
them at the same time every day, but the hormone balance is such
that even missing a day is not a significant risk. I just make
it part of my regular bedtime routine, and keep my pill case with
my contact case. I CAN'T forget to take my contact out before
bed, so I remember to take my pill, too.
Steve Pope
>>therefore be argued that it is appropriate to suggest
>>that people with more than one partner use latex or similar
>>barriers for activity outside of a single relationship,
>>since this is the level of safety which, if adhered to
>>in the aggregate, would put an end to the HIV epidemic.
>
>Behaviors other than sex, such as sharing needles, are also
>spreading HIV pretty vigorously.
Good point.
S.
Donn F. Pedro
: Stef Jones (st...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : Get zir a box of the new Avanti condoms made out of polyurethane, and a
: : box of Saran Wrap. Then you'll see whether zie is allergic to latex or
: : allergic to the ideas of barriers, period.
: AAAGH! Stef! Goddess! Please, please, PLEASE tell me where I can get
: some of these!!!
One word of caution. We know of two instances (both first time use)
of the Avanti where the condom was discovered broken. No wonder
it felt so good. :-)
Both instances were 'gentle' sessions (no head banging against the
headboard stuff). One was with us and the other was a friend.
Use caution.
Donn Pedro ....................................dfp...@uswnvg.com
Ann Renee Kist
Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner. I thought of ignoring it, but
decided it needed reply, just as my system crashed for the third time
this month. I hate Windows. Linux, I'm coming home.
Michael Sullivan (m...@panix.com) wrote:
: In article <3g2r6f$4...@pandora.enet.net>,
: Ann Renee Kist <re...@pandora.enet.net> wrote:
: >Really uncalled for name calling. Bigotry is prejudice based on immutable
: >conditions, not behaviors. Prejudice against people who don't use safer
: There's a dichotomy I wouldn't be too sure about.
: Try these on for size:
: All those goddamned faggots ass-fucking is the reason we got aids
: in the first place.
: Gays(lesbians) are just fine as long they don't go around fucking
: men(women)
: Bigotry? or prejudice against "behaviors"?
: I'm not ready to say that bigotry can *only* exist in reference to
: immutable conditions. Is it bigotry to hate fat people? If there were a
: safe effective operation to remove fat? or make one's skin white?
: Too many questions for my taste. The important distinction for me is
: whether the behavior in question can affect anyone else -- in particular
: non-consenting anyone elses.
: I still judge people who smoke to some extent -- they affect *my* health.
: the same is potentially true of people who practice unsafe sex.
: Although, personally, I don't see a big problem with choosing to forego
: condoms within a tested, fidelitous union. Personal decision, methinks.
: Michael
: --
: "Congratulations kid! You've outdone yourself. You've reinvented the wheel!"
: --From "The Hudsucker Proxy" Michael Sullivan: m...@pcnet.com
First, let me say that I agree with your definition. I wrote hastily,
late at night, and didn't express myself clearly. My apologies, if
anyone's philosophical or societal views suffered major shifts, due
to my error.
What I was trying to say was that calling that particular exchange on
safer sex "bigotry" was hyperbole on John's part and dilutes the meaning
of the word. The rest of my post, which was cut, was an attempt to cool
some of the hotter flames being fired here.
So, imagine my surprise and dismay, when a self admitted POMPOUS JERK
decides to flame ME, in truly gross fashion. Michael, if you want to
lecture me take it to Email, or better yet killfile me.
Renee, who's really tired of out of context quoting.
ABBBWWAA!!!!
ly...@shadowplay.com
*** Have you ever tried to get a piece of Saran Wrap to *stop*
*** clinging to itself for long enough to spread it over the area
*** in question?
These are the kinds of questions that convince me that I'm the only
living user of safer sex on a regular basis. It's not that hard REALLY.
And the kind of clinginess that makes plastic wrap effective for
leftovers is irrelevant for pussywrapping. Here, let me just shuck my
drawers and show you how it's done... SEE? Not a problem, both hands
free, go for it.
Sheesh.
Sorry, this newsgroup somehow sneaked back onto my scan and I'll take it
off again right now.
Love,
Lydia
--
************** ShadowPlay BBS - (206) 706-0992 ****************
Cyberspace with an EDGE!
Mary Malmros
: In article <3gb07t$e...@news1.WING.NET>, mal...@id.wing.net (Mary Malmros)
: wrote:
: > Mean Green Dancing Machine (aa...@netcom.com) wrote:
: > : In article <3g3e11$7...@news1.wing.net>,
: > : Mary Malmros <mal...@id.wing.net> wrote:
: > : >Stef Jones (st...@netcom.com) wrote:
: > : >:
: > : >: Get zir a box of the new Avanti condoms made out of polyurethane, and a
: > : >: box of Saran Wrap. Then you'll see whether zie is allergic to latex or
: > : >: allergic to the ideas of barriers, period.
: > : >
: > : >AAAGH! Stef! Goddess! Please, please, PLEASE tell me where I can get
: > : >some of these!!!
: >
: > : In our region (SF Bay Area), they're freely available in drugstores. If
: > : you can't find them, send e-mail to blow...@netcom.com, a fine purveyor
: > : of many *interesting* sex products. I can also dig up the address for
: > : Good Vibrations if you want.
: >
: > And for that information, Aahz, you get an authentic New York bagel.
: >
: > Course, it'll be like a rock once you get it...
: Good Vibrations' e-mail address is:
...and Good Vibrations does not have the Avanti condom. I called.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mary Malmros Very Small Being mal...@id.wing.net
Who needs viruses when you've got fear?
- Geoff Ryman
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Ann Renee Kist <re...@pandora.enet.net> wrote:
>
>Renee, who's really tired of out of context quoting.
Just in case it wasn't obvious, this *is* Usenet.
Donn F. Pedro
: dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro) wrote:
: : : Stef Jones (st...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : : : Get zir a box of the new Avanti condoms made out of polyurethane, and a
: : One word of caution. We know of two instances (both first time use)
: : of the Avanti where the condom was discovered broken. No wonder
: : it felt so good. :-)
: and I can think of several sessions where latex broke...... one was the
: first time ever, and scared us off for ages...... don't leap to blame
: the technology -
Uh .. I didn't leap. I related the experience of *two* different couples,
both very experineced in using latex and other safer sex methods.
I made no judgements at all.
Do what you will with our experience, but don't see a leap of
blame where none existed.
: my experience suggests user error -
Does it now?
: be careful out
: there
I think I said that.
Donn Pedro ....................................dfp...@uswnvg.com