3 STD rates hit record high in the USA.

[+ BenjaminNicholas]

It's almost time to put this thread into Politics

[Monarchy79]

It's almost time to put this thread into Politics

?

[EZEtoGRU]

An easy way to look at it is sex positive is openess towards sex and more liberal and accepting, sex negative would be conservative and not open minded

 

LOL. What a complete load of crap. Amazing the lengths people will go to justify reckless behavior.

 

Sex Positive = selfish, stupid, reckless sex that increases the risk of most STI transmissions to all involved.

 

VS.

 

Sex Negative = Taking more precautions towards having safer sex in order to lower one's risk versus the above example.....and then being ridiculed for it. It's a more responsible approach and almost certainly leads to a lower rate of STI transmission.

 

Sex-positive proponents remind me of the prior proponents of sero-conversion parties of the early 2000's. Throw all caution to the wind and blast anyone that was still using condoms as being stupid. People are holding up PReP usage as an excuse to practice unsafe sex. Who cares if I get a whole battery of STI's and pass them on to countless other people in the interim.

 

PReP was initially designed to be used in conjunction with other safer sex practices.

 

Let's be honest here people and call a spade a spade.

[+ José Soplanucas]

Again, no apologies necessary.... I’m not offended nor am I sensitive... lol.

Let’s get into the points here.

You made some good ones that gives me a better understanding as to why we disagree here...

 

1.) I agree that 100% safety does not exist. But I will explain why I feel that putting on a condom is an act of safe sex. a. It involves placing a barrier over a body part that’s being inserted into another body part b. The intent is to guard fluids that may contain bacteria, infection, or antibodies from entering. c. It protects the skin that’s connecting during intercourse as well. its the equivalent of putting your hand into an oven mitt, before touching the skillet. I’ve used condoms during sex, and have used them with those who were HIV positive (and may not have known it). Some of those people are dead. I’m alive and HIV-free. Condoms were proven to be safe for me. Secondly. Through condom use, I have had successful test results for STDs as well. I have been blessed, but I contribute this to using condoms.

 

2.) wearing seatbelts doesn’t guarantee 100% prevention from a fatality, but that doesn’t mean that the use of seatbelts should be eliminated altogether.

 

Where I disagree with you is the idea that condoms are useless because they aren’t 100% safe (nothing in life is 1. please keep in mind that millions of people who used condoms before prep are free of HIV and other STDs... I’m one of those people. These facts can’t be refuted .

 

3.) I see no “shame” in your sex practices... I actually am impressed and entertained with your posts of your wild exploits, many of which are quite hot.

 

I actually speak out of concern... I am concerned when people are blinded by liberated actions, thinking that there is no consequence or side effect. Now if you said “hey, I like bareback sex, and I’m fine with the potential risks”, then I totally respect that.

But the idea that PrEP, is this wonder pill that eliminates the use of any other precautionary measure, is just as delusional.

 

Here’s my disconnect...

You can take a PrEP pill, and prevent HIV transmission...

 

I can slap on a condom and prevent transmission of HIV, HPV, Syphyllis, Gonorrhea, Chlymidia, and other numerous infections. So the idea that condoms are useless is false, I’m living proof of that.

 

Respectfuly, you and many like you keep missing the point. Look at the despairingly language you and others like you in this thread are using to refer to those of us bare backing.

 

When I call your stand prudish and puritanical I am not referring to your advocacy for the use of condoms. I am referring to your condemnation of those of us who do not follow your call.

[MrMattBig]

LOL. What a complete load of crap. Amazing the lengths people will go to justify reckless behavior.

 

Sex Positive = selfish, stupid, reckless sex that increases the risk of most STI transmissions to all involved.

 

VS.

 

Sex Negative = Taking more precautions towards having safer sex in order to lower one's risk versus the above example.....and then being ridiculed for it. It's a more responsible approach and almost certainly leads to a lower rate of STI transmission.

 

Sex-positive proponents remind me of the prior proponents of sero-conversion parties of the early 2000's. Throw all caution to the wind and blast anyone that was still using condoms as being stupid. People are holding up PReP usage as an excuse to practice unsafe sex. Who cares if I get a whole battery of STI's and pass them on to countless other people in the interim.

 

PReP was initially designed to be used in conjunction with other safer sex practices.

 

Let's be honest here people and call a spade a spade.

Sex positive does not, at all, have anything to do with safe practices.

Being open to having 3somes is sex positive.

Open to fetishes is sex positive.

Open to BDSM is sex positive.

Open to sex before marriage is sex positive.

Open to hiring escorts is sex positive.

Open to homosexual sex is sex positive as well.

Please get your head out of the sand.

[Monarchy79]

Respectfuly, you and many like you keep missing the point. Look at the despairingly language you and others like you in this thread are using to refer to those of us bare backing.

 

When I call your stand prudish and puritanical I am not referring to your advocacy for the use of condoms. I am referring to your condemnation of those of us who do not follow your call.

 

You still haven’t addressed my question. ☺️

which is, please explain to me how barebacking is considered a “safe sex” practice? That’s all I’m asking here.

[Monarchy79]

I

Sex positive does not, at all, have anything to do with safe practices.

Being open to having 3somes is sex positive.

Open to fetishes is sex positive.

Open to BDSM is sex positive.

Open to sex before marriage is sex positive.

Open to homosexual sex is sex positive as well.

Please get your head out of the sand.

 

I think you might be missing his point, which I think is that “sex positivity”, is used as a term to excuse sexual responsibility and accountability....

[+ José Soplanucas]

You still haven’t addressed my question. ☺️

which is, please explain to me how barebacking is considered a “safe sex” practice? That’s all I’m asking here.

 

Please, go back and read when I address the issue of no 100% safety.

[MrMattBig]

I

 

 

I think you might be missing his point, which I think is that “sex positivity”, is used as a term to excuse sexual responsibility and accountability....

I'm not missing his point at all.

I know what his point is.

But it's constructed around a false understanding of what sex positive actually means.

[+ José Soplanucas]

Sex positive does not, at all, have anything to do with safe practices.

Being open to having 3somes is sex positive.

Open to fetishes is sex positive.

Open to BDSM is sex positive.

Open to sex before marriage is sex positive.

Open to hiring escorts is sex positive.

Open to homosexual sex is sex positive as well.

Please get your head out of the sand.

 

The gap between both mindsets is real. Look at this thread.

[Monarchy79]

I'm not missing his point at all.

I know what his point is.

But it's constructed around a false understanding of what sex positive actually means.

 

 

I do hope you understand that many of the people who exude the behaviors he is describing in his posting would consider themselves to be sex positive.

[Monarchy79]

Please, go back and read when I address the issue of no 100% safety.

 

Here’s what you said:

 

“Let's put it this way, paraphrasing a friend. 100% safety does not exist; we all take different precautions as we all have different levels of risk taking. The thing is to set the limits that make you comfortable, and then trust and relax.

 

If you think that you practice safe sex because you use condoms, you are delusional. You are puritanical and judgmental when you shame those who do accept a higher risk taking than you do.”

 

Which didn’t answer my question (which is a simple one): Do you consider your sex practices to be safe sex? Yes or No?

 

I’ll go first to be clear:

I use condoms. I consider that to be a safe sex practice.

 

Your turn...

[MrMattBig]

I do hope you understand that many of the people who exude the behaviors he is describing in his posting would consider themselves to be sex positive.

I absolutely do.

It's unfortunate, and like I said I don't condone those types of behaviors, but I wish we would persecute them to the extend of the attitude on this thread is.

Because, like I said earlier, if someone is having "protected sex" with multiple partners and not getting tested for potentially years at a time, that is a huge issue as well.

I am having an issue with his stated definition of what sex positive is

 

"Sex Positive = selfish, stupid, reckless sex that increases the risk of most STI transmissions to all involved."

 

Being sex positive can include that attitude. No doubt about that.

But to say in essence that that is what it means and equals is ridiculous and reckless.

 

It's the same erroneous inference that leads to racism and bigotry.

[EZEtoGRU]

But it's constructed around a false understanding of what sex positive actually means.

 

Let's get real here. Sex positivity means many different things to many different people. It's kind of like the word "twink". If you ask 10 gay men what a "twink" is you'll likely get 10 different answers.

 

Case in point:

You think sex positive is this:

 

QUOTE

Sex positive does not, at all, have anything to do with safe practices.

Being open to having 3somes is sex positive.

Open to fetishes is sex positive.

Open to BDSM is sex positive.

Open to sex before marriage is sex positive.

Open to hiring escorts is sex positive.

Open to homosexual sex is sex positive as well.

UNQUOTE

 

Yet latbear4blk says this:

 

QUOTE

I am on PrEP, having lots of sex with no condoms (which is not unprotected sex, sex negative morons), and I think I am taking all the rational (to me) precautions. I would not say I am careless. Although I do not pretend to be the measurement for everyone else, I think I am representative of most PrEP users in this point.

UNQUOTE

 

He has established a clear link between sex positivity/negativity and safe/unsafe sex.

He believes that sex without condoms is not unprotected sex.

He believes sex negative people are morons.

He believes his behavior is representative of most PReP users. On this point I agree with him.

 

My point is that many PReP users have massaged the term "sex positive" into also meaning "I am positive about my decision to use PReP but not use condoms as I value my personal pleasure more than the possibility of my getting STI's and passing them onto my sex partners. I am open to taking more risky behavior when having sex and I feel good about it. I am sex positive"

 

This is real and it is a thing. You may not wish to see it but it's there and it is pervasive.

[MrMattBig]

Let's get real here. Sex positivity means many different things to many different people. It's kind of like the word "twink". If you ask 10 gay men what a "twink" is you'll likely get 10 different answers.

 

Case in point:

You think sex positive is this:

 

QUOTE

Sex positive does not, at all, have anything to do with safe practices.

Being open to having 3somes is sex positive.

Open to fetishes is sex positive.

Open to BDSM is sex positive.

Open to sex before marriage is sex positive.

Open to hiring escorts is sex positive.

Open to homosexual sex is sex positive as well.

UNQUOTE

 

Yet latbear4blk says this:

 

QUOTE

I am on PrEP, having lots of sex with no condoms (which is not unprotected sex, sex negative morons), and I think I am taking all the rational (to me) precautions. I would not say I am careless. Although I do not pretend to be the measurement for everyone else, I think I am representative of most PrEP users in this point.

UNQUOTE

 

He has established a clear link between sex positivity/negativity and safe/unsafe sex.

He believes that sex without condoms is not unprotected sex.

He believes sex negative people are morons.

He believes his behavior is representative of most PReP users. On this point I agree with him.

 

My point is that many PReP users have massaged the term "sex positive" into also meaning "I am positive about my decision to use PReP but not use condoms as I value my personal pleasure more than the possibility of my getting STI's and passing them onto my sex partners. I am open to taking more risky behavior when having sex and I feel good about it.

 

This is real and it is a thing. You may not wish to see it but it's there and it is pervasive.

In a way he is right and wrong though.

First, you are missing that he is referring to sex negative as how someone would view sex on prep without condoms as unprotected. Which he is right regarding the definition of unprotected. It is a layer of protection, obviously not at all effective against other STDs, but protective against HIV. Is it the safest or most protective....hell no. But by definition is is not fully unprotected either. He is slightly wrong in mentioning the sex negative moron part, but as proven here, it takes a not as open mind to see it's not as unprotected as it seems on the surface.

 

Regardless, I agree that condoms should still be used in conjunction with PreP. Plain and simple.

 

I absolutely see that the reckless justification you described is a thing.

 

I would just hope that if I would describe myself as sex positive on here, Twitter, or anywhere online, that you won't and wouldn't assume I am talking about condom and prep use.

Edited October 12, 2019 by MrMattBig

[Chad Constantine]

An easy way to look at it is sex positive is openess towards sex and more liberal and accepting, sex negative would be conservative and not open minded

 

Oh nooo I don't like that term probably because I would likely fall into the sex negative category. Lmao. Is there a term like sex neutrality? I think I like the sound of that better lol.

[Chad Constantine]

Super side bar, not to get into politics, but if we pushed to mandate a tax penalty for not being enrolled in healthcare coverage, why can't we also mandate some type of tax break incentive for meeting certain health obligations, such as more routine STD/sti screenings. It would take some burden off the healthcare system by preventing more issues instead of treating them after.

I believe this has been discussed before but got branded a fat tax so was shot down.

[EZEtoGRU]

I would just hope that if I would describe myself as sex positive on here, Twitter, or anywhere online, that you won't and wouldn't assume I am talking about condom and prep use.

I take no issue with the traditional meaning of sex positive. I am supportive of all the behaviors you described in your definition and I partake in several of them. However, I think that you are being naïve in believing that the definition you describe is the one that most people consider accurate in practice. You come off as an enabler of unsafe sex practices.

 

Let's not mince words. Taking PReP and having sex without condoms is not "safer sex". In transitioning from using condoms for anal intercourse to now using PReP and no condoms could in no way be considered "safe" because:

 

1. PReP was never designed to be used just by itself. It was always supposed to be used with condoms.

2. Whilst one reduces the liklihood of HIV transmission with PReP only, the likelihood of catching and spreading other STI's goes up substantially when not using condoms. How on earth can this not be considered "unsafe". Is using PReP safer than taking no precautions at all? Sure it is.....but to pretend that it is not still risky behavior is selfish, uninformed, and dangerous.

[MrMattBig]

I take no issue with the traditional meaning of sex positive. I am supportive of all the behaviors you described in your definition and I partake in several of them. However, I think that you are being naïve in believing that the definition you describe is the one that most people consider accurate in practice. You come off as an enabler of unsafe sex practices.

 

Let's not mince words. Taking PReP and having sex without condoms is not "safer sex". In transitioning from using condoms for anal intercourse to now using PReP and no condoms could in no way be considered "safe" because:

 

1. PReP was never designed to be used just by itself. It was always supposed to be used with condoms.

2. Whilst one reduces the liklihood of HIV transmission with PReP only, the likelihood of catching and spreading other STI's goes up substantially when not using condoms. How on earth can this not be considered "unsafe". Is using PReP safer than taking no precautions at all? Sure it is.....but to pretend that it is not still risky behavior is selfish, uninformed, and dangerous.

It's definitely not safe, but when it protects against something, the unprotected label doesn't fully apply either.

We are saying and agreeing to almost the same things. I am just being a stickler for the literal definition of what the word unprotected means regardless of what is being talked about.

I'm not a Grammer Nazi, but I am the same when it comes to proper word choice.

Sorry. ??

[EZEtoGRU]

It's definitely not safe, but when it protects against something, the unprotected label doesn't fully apply either.

We are saying and agreeing to almost the same things. I am just being a stickler for the literal definition of what the word unprotected means regardless of what is being talked about.

I'm not a Grammer Nazi, but I am the same when it comes to proper word choice.

Sorry. ??

In the end, it's all a word semantics game. Is PReP sex without condoms "safe", "unsafe", "safer", "protected", unprotected", "risky", "not risky"? It all depends on in relation to what. Participants of this behavior will argue that it is not unprotected sex to help themselves feel better about it. I wonder if their sex partner who caught gonorrhea from that sex encounter considers that he/she had protected/safer sex. I highly doubt it.

 

I'm done posting on this topic. I highly value your input on this forum as well as that of latbear4blk so I have no issue with either of you generally. I do believe that PReP sex without condoms is risky, selfish, and irresponsible. Call me sex positive or sex negative. I don't really care.

[Chad Constantine]

Is it just me but it just seems like these youngin's with their new-fangled colloquialisms changed sexual adventurist to sexual positive and sexually repressed to sexual negative.

[+ newatthis]

...Where I live, there are numerous resources for STD screenings, all free, and government-funded.

And there are resources for free healthcare coverage for the poor, and the homeless too.

...

You are lucky to live in such a place. My reading leads me to believe there are many places where access to free STD screenings, etc. is very limited or far away (not unlike abortion in some states).

 

And it's not just rural Mississippi. Ten years ago, in the major metropolitan area where I live, it was possible to get free, anonymous STD testing within a few minute's drive of my house. Nowadays the closest place is a clinic about a half-hour's drive away (and longer by public transit, which is the better option given the parking situation). My doctor can also order the testing, but I bet there are many closeted or semi-closeted guys out there who would avoid that. The time it takes to get to the clinic probably deters some people from being tested regularly.

[loremipsum]

Is it just me but it just seems like these youngin's with their new-fangled colloquialisms changed sexual adventurist to sexual positive and sexually repressed to sexual negative.

 

I’d say that “sexually-repressed” would be a misnomer for or falsely analogous to “sex-negative,” as being sex-negative entails the oppression of others and the pervasiveness of either obvious or subtle pernicious mentalities. And “sexual adventurist” is a noun rather than an adjective like “sex-positive,” referring to one person rather than an attitude and estimation of others’ sexual practices. I think your terms are more individual-focused, concerning how one views oneself or how one conducts oneself, whereas the newer colloquialisms address how society views certain sexual practices and the people attached to them, etc.

[+ José Soplanucas]

Here’s what you said:

 

“Let's put it this way, paraphrasing a friend. 100% safety does not exist; we all take different precautions as we all have different levels of risk taking. The thing is to set the limits that make you comfortable, and then trust and relax.

 

If you think that you practice safe sex because you use condoms, you are delusional. You are puritanical and judgmental when you shame those who do accept a higher risk taking than you do.”

 

Which didn’t answer my question (which is a simple one): Do you consider your sex practices to be safe sex? Yes or No?

 

I’ll go first to be clear:

I use condoms. I consider that to be a safe sex practice.

 

Your turn...

 

I am not going to repeat myself. All your questions have been already answered. You just do not want to see it, blinded by your own denial.

[Monarchy79]

I am not going to repeat myself. All your questions have been already answered. You just do not want to see it, blinded by your own denial.

 

Well another poster accurately gave me a better idea of your philosophy, so I totally understand you now:

 

Sex Positive: “You are positive about your decision to use PReP but not use condoms as you value your personal pleasure more than the possibility of your getting STI's and passing them onto your sex partners. You are open to taking more risky behavior when having sex and you feel good about it. You are sex positive"

 

No judgment on my part, just be clear on how you roll. ☺️??