 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's called leaving the choice up to whoever he's meeting."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's called leaving the choice up to whoever he's meeting."
How else did you think it worked? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's called leaving the choice up to whoever he's meeting." Ok, so it's more the person saying what they are open to rather than a preference. That makes sense. Cheers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I understand the confusion. We were raised at a time we feared sex and gay sex in particular as a potential cause of a terminal illness. The only safe sex was masturbation. For sex with another person condoms were required. We have moved to a new era where using PrEP +/- DoxyPEP we can have sex protected by medicine. Barrier protection using condoms is not the only way to have sex while reducing the risks associated with transmission of infection. It is a judgement call as to whether you view medicinally safer sex as sufficiently safe for you or whether you feel barrier-protected safer sex is what you need. But remember others may make a different decision about their beliefs and what is right for them. " Thanks. That's pretty useful for a newbie. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How does that work exactly?" I think it signals the profile-owner is open to sex with and without a condom. Both carry risks, and PPE is available to mitigate the risks of both. The only "safe sex" is abstention. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
masturbation it is
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How does that work exactly? I think it signals the profile-owner is open to sex with and without a condom. Both carry risks, and PPE is available to mitigate the risks of both. The only "safe sex" is abstention. " The only safe sex is masturbation. Abstention is an option but would not be considered by most as safe sex (as no sex happens). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I understand the confusion. We were raised at a time we feared sex and gay sex in particular as a potential cause of a terminal illness. The only safe sex was masturbation. For sex with another person condoms were required. We have moved to a new era where using PrEP +/- DoxyPEP we can have sex protected by medicine. Barrier protection using condoms is not the only way to have sex while reducing the risks associated with transmission of infection. It is a judgement call as to whether you view medicinally safer sex as sufficiently safe for you or whether you feel barrier-protected safer sex is what you need. But remember others may make a different decision about their beliefs and what is right for them. " This is very well put, but I do think we need to state that as amazing as medicines are, they only protect against very specific risks and that barrier methods may still need to be considered. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do think the term "safe sex" is outdated - it stems from a different era when condoms were considered your only protection. That is no longer true. Maybe time to overhaul the tags? " You could but “relatively safe sex” is rather a handful and very pedantic. Anyone using this site should be aware of the risks of sexual contact and they should also know that condoms and PREP etc give a degree of protection. Every day we take risks statistically the biggest risk most of us take is driving or being a passenger in a car. If you drive to meet someone o this site you are far more likely to get killed or injured in a car accident than you are to contact HIV if your using PREP correctly | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is TaSP? It is hard to keep up these days. lol" "Treatment as Prevention" - it means someone is HIV+and taking meds to eliminate the risk of transmission | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If I go onto the Romeo site, for example, under the options for sexual activity, the choices of tag are: - Safe - Let's Talk - Condom - PrEP - PrEP and condom - TaSP I removed the tags relating to sexual practices from my own profile because it was clear from numerous threads on here how much prejudicial thinking exists around the existing choice of tags. " Very true about prejudices. Interesting they choose not to have u=u as a tag, but let's talk instead. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I understand the confusion. We were raised at a time we feared sex and gay sex in particular as a potential cause of a terminal illness. The only safe sex was masturbation. For sex with another person condoms were required. We have moved to a new era where using PrEP +/- DoxyPEP we can have sex protected by medicine. Barrier protection using condoms is not the only way to have sex while reducing the risks associated with transmission of infection. It is a judgement call as to whether you view medicinally safer sex as sufficiently safe for you or whether you feel barrier-protected safer sex is what you need. But remember others may make a different decision about their beliefs and what is right for them. This is very well put, but I do think we need to state that as amazing as medicines are, they only protect against very specific risks and that barrier methods may still need to be considered." . And also bare in in mind some of these drugs in certain cases can cause serious health issues such as liver failure etc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How does that work exactly?" I say safe only on my profile, that is my choice anyone looking at my profile and wants to hook up with me can see that is my choice. BB is not totally off the play list butt is only with someone I know and trust | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And also bare in in mind some of these drugs in certain cases can cause serious health issues such as liver failure etc" The very low risk of side-effects is preferable to catching HIV | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"HIV is not the only risk." It's the one that's always terrified me. A virus you cannot rid yourself of. One that used to lead to slow lingering death. I always thought condoms would be protect me. It was my golden rule for any top. Until I was admitted to hospital and diagnosed with syphillis. I realised condoms did not provide sufficient protection. Now I am in the care of the NHS and get excellent protection against HIV as a matter of routine. Their testing regime picks up any other infection before it harms my health. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How does that work exactly?" It's like saying you like the chicken and the beef | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How does that work exactly? It's like saying you like the chicken and the beef " ...but I like beef and pork  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How does that work exactly? It's like saying you like the chicken and the beef " Careful you'll upset the vegans. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How does that work exactly? It's like saying you like the chicken and the beef Careful you'll upset the vegans. "I’m vegetarian but as long as your dietary preferences don’t involve sex it should be OK thanks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I put both on my profile as I am happy with both and, even though I prefer BB, I never try to persuade guys to go BB….. interestingly I have had a few guys, who only have safe listed on their profiles, ask if they can fuck me BB……I suspect that some guys are hesitant about admitting a like for BB publicly." Happens a lot to me, too. They say people won’t meet them if they put BB on their profile. So those saying they won’t meet men with BB on their profiles isn’t the safety net they think it is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I understand the confusion. We were raised at a time we feared sex and gay sex in particular as a potential cause of a terminal illness. The only safe sex was masturbation. For sex with another person condoms were required. We have moved to a new era where using PrEP +/- DoxyPEP we can have sex protected by medicine. Barrier protection using condoms is not the only way to have sex while reducing the risks associated with transmission of infection. It is a judgement call as to whether you view medicinally safer sex as sufficiently safe for you or whether you feel barrier-protected safer sex is what you need. But remember others may make a different decision about their beliefs and what is right for them. " So true but times have changed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"HIV is not the only risk. It's the one that's always terrified me. A virus you cannot rid yourself of. One that used to lead to slow lingering death. I always thought condoms would be protect me. It was my golden rule for any top. Until I was admitted to hospital and diagnosed with syphillis. I realised condoms did not provide sufficient protection. Now I am in the care of the NHS and get excellent protection against HIV as a matter of routine. Their testing regime picks up any other infection before it harms my health. " How frequent are the tests, will 'a meeting' the day before register ?? 'Catch' something (anything) the day after a test - How long are you 'at risk of transmitting' before next test ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"HIV is not the only risk. It's the one that's always terrified me. A virus you cannot rid yourself of. One that used to lead to slow lingering death. I always thought condoms would be protect me. It was my golden rule for any top. Until I was admitted to hospital and diagnosed with syphillis. I realised condoms did not provide sufficient protection. Now I am in the care of the NHS and get excellent protection against HIV as a matter of routine. Their testing regime picks up any other infection before it harms my health. How frequent are the tests, will 'a meeting' the day before register ?? 'Catch' something (anything) the day after a test - How long are you 'at risk of transmitting' before next test ?" I'm tested for everything every 3 months. The latency period for infections varies. I could have sex the day before a test, yes, and nothing would show the next day, but an infection would be picked up at the next 3-month interval. Unless I detect symptoms myself and go for a test out of sequence. I have tested positive in the 3-monthly cycle for gonorrhea and chlamydia, and had no symptoms so it came as a surprise. I also tested positive for Hep C but after investigation that turned out to be a rogue result. When you are sexually active with more than one partner, testing routinely is really important. My next one is next week. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"HIV is not the only risk. It's the one that's always terrified me. A virus you cannot rid yourself of. One that used to lead to slow lingering death. I always thought condoms would be protect me. It was my golden rule for any top. Until I was admitted to hospital and diagnosed with syphillis. I realised condoms did not provide sufficient protection. Now I am in the care of the NHS and get excellent protection against HIV as a matter of routine. Their testing regime picks up any other infection before it harms my health. " But does it pick anything up before it can possibly harm anyone else? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I had sex tonight with a foreign student at the university. Tomorrow, I hope my young English friend comes to stay and we have sex. Don't judge people for being sexually active. Judge them on what steps they take to protect their health. I protect mine. The NHS keeps me safe from HIV, and in return I present myself every 3 months for testing for bacterial STIs. What steps do you take to protect your health? I discovered to my cost that condoms alone do not." I was not judging, simply asking and raising my doubts about the reliability of the system - which you've pretty much confirmed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am not responsible for your sexual health, love. You are. I look after mine. Do you?" Oh I see. You don’t insist on safe sex because you have regular checks but the contradiction there is that you need regular checks. So to you looking after your sexual health is having regular checks. By your definition if YOU have an STI (which you will later find by having a check) then it’s your partner’s responsibility not to catch it. Very responsible. (Not) Also hypocritical. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I So to you looking after your sexual health is having regular checks. " You are starting to get this | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My sexual practices are safe, love. Are yours?" Definitely. But after sex with 2 people in 2 nights (and then how often?) you still only get tested every 3 months. If you happen to be unlucky how many could your actions (and the knock on effect) infect in those 3 months? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How do you keep yourself safe?" Regular, but few and trusted partners. Plus safe practices. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How do you keep yourself safe? Regular, but few and trusted partners. Plus safe practices. " How do you know you are not picking up infections? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" … By your definition if YOU have an STI (which you will later find by having a check) then it’s your partner’s responsibility not to catch it… " That’s exactly correct. People can take responsibility over their own actions not those of someone else. Is the second party a completely passive agent who can’t take any sexual health precautions themselves..?! You’re yet another judgmental on here who believes only the way you go about sexual health is the correct way. These threads are so tedious. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My sexual practices are safe, love. Are yours? Definitely. But after sex with 2 people in 2 nights (and then how often?) you still only get tested every 3 months. If you happen to be unlucky how many could your actions (and the knock on effect) infect in those 3 months?" My actions? You are back to judging people because they are sexually active. Do I judge the person who might have infected me? No I do not. It is just a risk you take when having sex. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" … By your definition if YOU have an STI (which you will later find by having a check) then it’s your partner’s responsibility not to catch it… That’s exactly correct. People can take responsibility over their own actions not those of someone else. Is the second party a completely passive agent who can’t take any sexual health precautions themselves..?! You’re yet another judgmental on here who believes only the way you go about sexual health is the correct way. These threads are so tedious. " I am not being judgemental. I am simply pointing out that having multiple partners and then checking yourself is NOT a safe practice. It is also not looking after your own sexual health. Putting yourself in harms way because you can later be treated but in the meantime putting others at risk is not safe. (For the individual or their partners.) You are either misunderstanding my point or deliberately not wanting to. If these threads are so tedious why do you bother taking part? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My sexual practices are safe, love. Are yours? Definitely. But after sex with 2 people in 2 nights (and then how often?) you still only get tested every 3 months. If you happen to be unlucky how many could your actions (and the knock on effect) infect in those 3 months? My actions? You are back to judging people because they are sexually active. Do I judge the person who might have infected me? No I do not. It is just a risk you take when having sex. " You can be “sexually active” with just one partner or with a select and trusted few. That is massively different to having multiple partners who may also have multiple (different) partners. (Some may call that promiscuous rather than simply “active”) No one is being judged for being sexually active. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My sexual practices are safe, love. Are yours? Definitely. But after sex with 2 people in 2 nights (and then how often?) you still only get tested every 3 months. If you happen to be unlucky how many could your actions (and the knock on effect) infect in those 3 months? My actions? You are back to judging people because they are sexually active. Do I judge the person who might have infected me? No I do not. It is just a risk you take when having sex. You can be “sexually active” with just one partner or with a select and trusted few. That is massively different to having multiple partners who may also have multiple (different) partners. (Some may call that promiscuous rather than simply “active”) No one is being judged for being sexually active. " Love, you are married, you have multiple sexual partners and by the sounds of it you never get tested yourself. So less of the sanctimony please. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is very well put, but I do think we need to state that as amazing as medicines are, they only protect against very specific risks and that barrier methods may still need to be considered.. And also bare in in mind some of these drugs in certain cases can cause serious health issues such as liver failure etc" There are some side effects of every drug. Liver failure has a serious impact on a person but neither of the two forms of PrEP have been shown to cause it. Fatty liver has been seen rarely in people who take Truvada. If one’s research went no further than the second paragraph of Wikipedia, you might think there were concerns about liver enlargement. Reading the cited reference will allay such concerns; patients with chronic hepatitis caused by Hepatitis B Virus and who had an undiagnosed HIV infection but who took PrEP thinking they were preventing themselves from becoming infected had enlarged livers. They also had HIV and enlarged livers. And they had HBV and enlarged livers. You can also say they had HBV and HIV and enlarged livers. There is no mention of liver failure. Assuming that it is the Truvada that caused the liver to enlarged and neglecting to note the potential impact of the two commonest causes of viral liver swelling is somewhat burying the headline. And just so we can all be assured, the advice to prescribers that goes with this citation is that you should not start someone on PrEP without checking their HIV status, you should monitor health medically and via labs frequently and you should monitor people known to have HBV or HIV and treat them. None of this is to reduce the impact of liver failure on those with liver failure. But it is not true to say or to imply that going to your local Sexual Health Service in the UK or elsewhere and walking out with PrEP is in effect putting you the Liver Transplant List. All drugs have side effects. We have to be careful in prescribing and careful in monitoring for adverse impacts. That is how the system has been set up. Let’s not worry people or put people off a good preventative care path. Just remember - as Sara reminded us of - the real risk to the livers of sexually active gay men is getting HIV. If you have an unknown and untreated HIV infection, liver failure is a real risk. So get tested, get treated if you need it, and get on the prevention strategy best suited to you before you get laid. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t write the above to minimise it criticise contributors who worry about any of this. But it is important to address potential misconceptions about safety of healthcare. My only criticisms of individuals will continue to be a) of those who judge other’s behaviour because they feel it falls short of their own moral code as if they themselves are morally superior and b) of those who do not test frequently while therefore putting themselves and others at risk. It is curious how often it is the same persons who fit into a) and b). " Extremely well expressed, sir. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t write the above to minimise it criticise contributors who worry about any of this. But it is important to address potential misconceptions about safety of healthcare. My only criticisms of individuals will continue to be a) of those who judge other’s behaviour because they feel it falls short of their own moral code as if they themselves are morally superior and b) of those who do not test frequently while therefore putting themselves and others at risk. It is curious how often it is the same persons who fit into a) and b). " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How does that work exactly?" Safe sex until you really know and trust someone...and they know and trust you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My sexual practices are safe, love. Are yours? Definitely. But after sex with 2 people in 2 nights (and then how often?) you still only get tested every 3 months. If you happen to be unlucky how many could your actions (and the knock on effect) infect in those 3 months? My actions? You are back to judging people because they are sexually active. Do I judge the person who might have infected me? No I do not. It is just a risk you take when having sex. You can be “sexually active” with just one partner or with a select and trusted few. That is massively different to having multiple partners who may also have multiple (different) partners. (Some may call that promiscuous rather than simply “active”) No one is being judged for being sexually active. Love, you are married, you have multiple sexual partners and by the sounds of it you never get tested yourself. So less of the sanctimony please. " Wrong on both counts. So less of the know it all assumptions please. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Love, you are married, you have multiple sexual partners and by the sounds of it you never get tested yourself. So less of the sanctimony please. Wrong on both counts. So less of the know it all assumptions please." Your own profile states you are married. You stated above that you have regular sex with "few and trusted partners". When asked how you protect YOUR health, testing for STIs was not your answer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Love, you are married, you have multiple sexual partners and by the sounds of it you never get tested yourself. So less of the sanctimony please. Wrong on both counts. So less of the know it all assumptions please. Your own profile states you are married. You stated above that you have regular sex with "few and trusted partners". When asked how you protect YOUR health, testing for STIs was not your answer. " Few is actually just 2. Your assumption of multiple is incorrect I didn’t specifically say I test but I do. Again your assumption is incorrect. Testing does not provide protection. It discovers whether protection has been successful and allows you to attempt a cure. In the meantime your “protection by testing” may have put others at risk since as you yourself said condoms (the use of which you say is their choice or not) don’t always work. As I said, let’s have fewer know it all assumptions and now also maybe less of your own sanctimony. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You appear to be saying that engaging in casual sex is an irresponsible thing to do. Are you sure you are on the correct site? " Another assumption? And now you are questioning my decision to use this site. Hardly your place and rather presumptuous of you. I’ve had enough of this (and you) now. Perhaps you should practice the ultimate safe sex and Go Fuck Yourself! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" … By your definition if YOU have an STI (which you will later find by having a check) then it’s your partner’s responsibility not to catch it… That’s exactly correct. People can take responsibility over their own actions not those of someone else. Is the second party a completely passive agent who can’t take any sexual health precautions themselves..?! You’re yet another judgmental on here who believes only the way you go about sexual health is the correct way. These threads are so tedious. I am not being judgemental. I am simply pointing out that having multiple partners and then checking yourself is NOT a safe practice. It is also not looking after your own sexual health. Putting yourself in harms way because you can later be treated but in the meantime putting others at risk is not safe. (For the individual or their partners.) You are either misunderstanding my point or deliberately not wanting to. If these threads are so tedious why do you bother taking part?" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" … By your definition if YOU have an STI (which you will later find by having a check) then it’s your partner’s responsibility not to catch it… That’s exactly correct. People can take responsibility over their own actions not those of someone else. Is the second party a completely passive agent who can’t take any sexual health precautions themselves..?! You’re yet another judgmental on here who believes only the way you go about sexual health is the correct way. These threads are so tedious. I am not being judgemental. I am simply pointing out that having multiple partners and then checking yourself is NOT a safe practice. It is also not looking after your own sexual health. Putting yourself in harms way because you can later be treated but in the meantime putting others at risk is not safe. (For the individual or their partners.) You are either misunderstanding my point or deliberately not wanting to. If these threads are so tedious why do you bother taking part?" The reason I bother to take part is to counter judgmental prigs such as yourself. Your profile even chooses to make the statement that you are “clean”, thus intimating those others not acting exactly like yourself are unclean. That’s always a telling giveaway: the holier-than-thou “I’m clean” brigade… Your tendentious argument above still sees one party as a completely passive agent in their sexual health who has to be protected by someone else. This is because this is the common argument used by many a married cheat. They can’t tell a (often, though not exclusively, woman) partner that they are playing about and so get paranoid that their male partners are “clean” in order that their cheating remains hidden… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do think the term "safe sex" is outdated - it stems from a different era when condoms were considered your only protection. That is no longer true. Maybe time to overhaul the tags? You could but “relatively safe sex” is rather a handful and very pedantic. Anyone using this site should be aware of the risks of sexual contact and they should also know that condoms and PREP etc give a degree of protection. Every day we take risks statistically the biggest risk most of us take is driving or being a passenger in a car. If you drive to meet someone o this site you are far more likely to get killed or injured in a car accident than you are to contact HIV if your using PREP correctly " Are there any stats to support your opinion? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The reason I bother to take part is to counter judgmental prigs such as yourself. Your profile even chooses to make the statement that you are “clean”, thus intimating those others not acting exactly like yourself are unclean. That’s always a telling giveaway: the holier-than-thou “I’m clean” brigade… Your tendentious argument above still sees one party as a completely passive agent in their sexual health who has to be protected by someone else. This is because this is the common argument used by many a married cheat. They can’t tell a (often, though not exclusively, woman) partner that they are playing about and so get paranoid that their male partners are “clean” in order that their cheating remains hidden… "
It bothers me how sharing your experience of sexual health on here can become a target for personal criticism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How does that work exactly?" It's called meeting and seeing a regular trusted friend who you initially practiced safe sex with, then built up trust, friendship and proved both safe then enjoyed bare back only seeing each other, or a specific group who are all proven safe | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The reason I bother to take part is to counter judgmental prigs such as yourself. Your profile even chooses to make the statement that you are “clean”, thus intimating those others not acting exactly like yourself are unclean. That’s always a telling giveaway: the holier-than-thou “I’m clean” brigade… Your tendentious argument above still sees one party as a completely passive agent in their sexual health who has to be protected by someone else. This is because this is the common argument used by many a married cheat. They can’t tell a (often, though not exclusively, woman) partner that they are playing about and so get paranoid that their male partners are “clean” in order that their cheating remains hidden…
It bothers me how sharing your experience of sexual health on here can become a target for personal criticism."Says the person who resorted to insults. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apart from other stds which are on the rise as people don't use condoms" Or alternatively, because the number of people being tested has risen greatly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
