The 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm'

[chy_girl]

*snip*

The truth is without casual sex there would be no spread of the disease.

It is because of casual sex that the disease spreads.

And not just AIDs ... all venereal diseases are transmitted in this way.

And the more frequent the contacts, and the more numerous the partners, the greater the chance of contracting something.

In what way does casual 'bdsm' minimize those odds when it engages in "No Strings Attached" encounters with multiple partners?

And crap like this is part of the reason that people who contract HIV are shunned.

Ok, asslicker... I'll write it slowly... blood transfusions, blood transfer due to accidents, tattooing, body piercing, and IV drug use are all ways of transmitting STDs/STIs. Half of the people I know with HIV contracted it through IV drug use. I knew a guy who contracted Hep C on vacation because he had a cut on his foot when he helped an injured and bleeding woman out of the pool.

So allow me to reiterate: You CAN contract STD's/STI's in ways other than sex. And just because you're in a committed, monogamous relationship does not mean that your partners last committed, monogamous partner didn't bring a present along from their last committed, monogamous relationship - or from a less than ethical tattoo artist. This is why the HIV Alliance and a hundred different community agencies advocates regular testing.

Seriously, take a Human Sexuality class before you start vomiting shit all over the forums. It's dangerous.

 

[BLoved]

And crap like this is part of the reason that people who contract HIV are shunned.

So we should encourage casual sex so that those who contract AIDs through that method don't feel "shunned"?

Despite your effort to distract from the risk run by those who engage in casual sex, the gay community was the group with the highest frequency of contracting AIDs thanks to the casual nature of their sexual relations.

Indeed, none of your examples would be valid if not for the fact AIDs was originally spread through the population through casual sex.

Indeed, you do a disservice to the public by pretending that casual sex had nothing to do with the spread of AIDs. Pretending that the disease just spontaneously erupted in various populations with no sexual contact required to spread the disease to the point where secondary infections could occur through blood transfusions, etc is irresponsible and self-serving.

The gay community learned through the deaths of so many members that ignoring the cause was no solution to the problem.

Casual sex was the reason it spread. Why won't you admit it?

 

[BLoved]

This is why the HIV Alliance and a hundred different community agencies advocates regular testing.

Testing today does nothing to ensure the person you screw tomorrow doesn't get it from the person you screw tonight.

Somehow, I just can't imagine everyone at a play party always attends with current test results in hand to show each person they hit on.

 

[BLoved]

Ok, asslicker... I'll write it slowly... blood transfusions

"Question: Can I get HIV by getting a blood transfusion?
Answer: The U.S. blood supply is among the safest in the world. Nearly all people infected with HIV through blood transfusions received those transfusions before 1985, the year HIV testing began for all donated blood."

--- http://aids.about.com/cs/hivtesting/f/bloodsupply.htm

Misinformation spread by casual players and their advocates only serves to lure in the gullible.

 

[chy_girl]

*snip*
Casual sex was the reason it spread. Why won't you admit it?

Because UNPROTECTED sex with an INFECTED PERSON is the way one contracts it sexually. And there is nothing to say that had everyone in the country been monogamous it wouldn't have taken hold through IV drug use.

It's pure ignorance to think that if your monogamous with someone it's the magic shield against contracting blood born diseases through other risky behaviors.

"Question: Can I get HIV by getting a blood transfusion?
Answer: The U.S. blood supply is among the safest in the world. Nearly all people infected with HIV through blood transfusions received those transfusions before 1985, the year HIV testing began for all donated blood."

--- http://aids.about.com/cs/hivtesting/f/bloodsupply.htm

Misinformation spread by casual players and their advocates only serves to lure in the gullible.

Right, especially since the "casual" community preaches safe sex and regular testing. They also preach about the use of sharps containers and latex gloves during needle play...

And you're still having trouble with the absolutes thing, huh? It does not say that the U.S. blood supply is THE safest, nor does it say that ALL people with transfusion infection happened before '85. Mistakes happen and some things just take time.

Besides, you live in Canada - not the U.S.

 

[WriterDom]

I agree with you, BIoved. On principle anyway. If we could get everyone to hold off on sex until about age 25 and then only within marriage it would solve a lot of problems with the least of them being AIDS but how practical is that? Sex is a strong urge, especially during the teen years. Kids figure out what their junk is for and want to use it. We do have freedom, at least in Canada and the US and free will.

I guess we could create a theocracy and invite the Taliban in to run things for us. Stone all the male homosexuals and publicly beat any female who fornicates. casual

But the fact remains that people have casual sex, people have affairs, people have serial monogamy and women show up for whatever reason at public play venues to get beat by strangers. The only thing your "Holier than thou" trolling is doing is getting yourself attention so I assume it's your goal.

I would like to warn people of a serious danger which unlike AIDS brings instant death. And it can happen to anyone regardless of the precautions they take. It can even happen to a British Princess and that's the danger of casual driving. It kills around 40,000 people a year in the USA alone. Every 15 minutes, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, someone dies from casual driving in the USA.

I know casual driving deaths has impacted my life since I can remember. A neighbor, a widow who was raising five kids was killed by casual driving. No fault of her own. Someone lost control on a curve and hit her head on killing her instantly. Three people from my high school experience were killed by causal driving. Two guys my same age and a girl a year younger. In separate accidents. But casual driving has been known to kill multiple people from just one accident.

Here in this state, the Georgia State Patrol predicts how many people will die every holiday weekend from causal driving. Sounds rather morbid but I guess they see it as a public safety issue. Usually it's around 20 for a holiday. That's a lot of unopened presents under the Christmas tree.

But yet we drive. Responsible people minimize the risks. We wear seatbelts. Stay within the speed limit. Don't do drugs or alcohol and then drive. But still it happens.

A lot of behaviors are risky but people still engage in them. Skydiving, most sports, riding a bike, riding a motorcycle. 43,000 people in America get hurt a year just taking a shower.

As far as risks go, I know several people here who cohabited with "true loves" from the internet and it ended very badly. It works for some but your chances are less than average and the average when you do everything right is around 50%.

Wear your seatbelt. Drive defensively. Don't become one of the 1000s of daily victims of casual driving worldwide.

Did you know that 16% of the US troop deaths in Iraq over the last 9 months were caused not by the enemy but by casual driving.

 

[intothewoods]

WTF is causal driving?

Sex outside of a closed relationship with disease free folks is risky. But I also think marrying as a virgin at age 19 is risky - we're just talking about different risks.

As far as bdsm groups go, I would not want to be a part of a group that did not support safer sex and dialogues about safer sex within the community.

 

[TypicalDeviant]

WTF is causal driving?

I believe he mean "casual" driving, and that shit is DEADLY.

 

[WriterDom]

WTF is causal driving?

Sex outside of a closed relationship with disease free folks is risky. But I also think marrying as a virgin at age 19 is risky - we're just talking about different risks.

As far as bdsm groups go, I would not want to be a part of a group that did not support safer sex and dialogues about safer sex within the community.

sorry wasn't wearing my glasses.

 

[TypicalDeviant]

sorry wasn't wearing my glasses.

The nerve! "Casual" glasses wearing is also DEADLY!

 

[Etoile]

Despite your effort to distract from the risk run by those who engage in casual sex, the gay community was the group with the highest frequency of contracting AIDs thanks to the casual nature of their sexual relations.

There is a huge difference between "casual sex" and "unprotected sex." The reason the disease spread in the gay community is because men were having large amounts of unprotected sex. Casual sex alone is not to blame, because men who wore condoms during hookups didn't get sick. Of course, condoms were not really used by gay men back then - no epidemic yet and you're not getting anybody pregnant - but I think it's a major misattribution to say that it was "casual sex" when really it was "unprotected casual sex."

And it's AIDS, dammit. Learn to acronym.

 

[TypicalDeviant]

And it's AIDS, dammit. Learn to acronym.

Oh, shush; he's trying to be helpful. He wants to give everyone AID.

 

[BLoved]

Because UNPROTECTED sex with an INFECTED PERSON is the way one contracts it sexually. And there is nothing to say that had everyone in the country been monogamous it wouldn't have taken hold through IV drug use.

It's pure ignorance to think that if your monogamous with someone it's the magic shield against contracting blood born diseases through other risky behaviors.

It is pure self-serving speculation to try and divert attention away from the fact that casual sex was responsible for the spread of AIDs in the gay community and that through this irresponsible behaviour casual bisexual players began passing it on to their monogamous partners.

http://www.avert.org/aids-history-86.htm

Right, especially since the "casual" community preaches safe sex and regular testing. They also preach about the use of sharps containers and latex gloves during needle play...

And irresponsible players "preaching" to irresponsible players results in 35,000+ new cases of AIDs in 2007.

Just as irresponsible players try to "preach" that AIDs is still being transmitted through blood transfusions when the blood supply has been clean since 1985.

And you're still having trouble with the absolutes thing, huh? It does not say that the U.S. blood supply is THE safest, nor does it say that ALL people with transfusion infection happened before '85. Mistakes happen and some things just take time.

Besides, you live in Canada - not the U.S.

We can see how 'concerned' the casual community is towards issues of safety and health from the way they've behaved in this discussion, and how you have tried to divert attention away from the greatest risk factor involved in contracting AIDs: casual sex with multiple partners.

Obviously members of the casual 'bdsm' community refuse to learn the lesson the gay community learned from the death of so many gays.

Clearly it is in the interests of irresponsible casual players to marginalize the risks so as not to lose opportunities to lure in unsuspecting victims.

The lack of ethical concern for others is obvious.

 

[BLoved]

There is a huge difference between "casual sex" and "unprotected sex." The reason the disease spread in the gay community is because men were having large amounts of unprotected sex. Casual sex alone is not to blame, because men who wore condoms during hookups didn't get sick. Of course, condoms were not really used by gay men back then - no epidemic yet and you're not getting anybody pregnant - but I think it's a major misattribution to say that it was "casual sex" when really it was "unprotected casual sex."

If not for casual sex, unprotected sex would not have been an issue.

The bottom line is AIDs was spread by irresponsible casual players more concerned with their next thrill than any safety concern ... not unlike the participants in this discussion.

Any safety concern that interferes with their thrill-seeking is ignored.

 

[BLoved]

As far as bdsm groups go, I would not want to be a part of a group that did not support safer sex and dialogues about safer sex within the community.

And so we find a lot of people who talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.

Thrill-seekers will ignore any safety concerns that interfere with their thrill-seeking.

Irresponsible players are irresponsible.

 

[intothewoods]

People practiced casual sex for a long time prior to AIDS. Unfortunately, people spread the disease like wildfire in the beginning because they didn't know what it was or how it spread.

It's not like casual sex was ever eliminated from the gay community -- they just started practicing safer sex, which made the number of new infected cases go way down.

 

[intothewoods]

And so we find a lot of people who talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.

Thrill-seekers will ignore any safety concerns that interfere with their thrill-seeking.

Irresponsible players are irresponsible.

I'm monogamous!

 

[BLoved]

I'm monogamous!

I'm referring to the tendency of high-risk groups to try to present themselves as low-risk because they "talk" about risk factors.

Talk doesn't lower the risk, especially when it is obvious through irresponsible behaviour that those who claim to "talk" don't listen.

 

[Ravenwind]

If not for casual sex, unprotected sex would not have been an issue.

The bottom line is AIDs was spread by irresponsible casual players more concerned with their next thrill than any safety concern ... not unlike the participants in this discussion.

Any safety concern that interferes with their thrill-seeking is ignored.

I'm jumping into the conversation a little on the late side... and this has probably already been said, but there's a lot of ways to get bloodborne and 'usually sexually-transmitted' diseases other than casual sex.

Where I lived during the late 80's-early 90's, there were a few incidents of people putting HIV-infected needles into pay phone change doors, and it wound up having people being very cautious about using pay phones for a while. Could someone who had gotten HIV in this manner blame 'casual sex' for it?

Likewise, I've been studying to apprentice as a tattooist/piercer, and I've learned just how easy it is for someone who isn't properly trained in handling biohazardous materials to transmit disease from one person to another. Can someone who gets tattooed by a scratcher, or gets a party-piercing with their friends using a safety pin... can that be blamed on 'casual sex'?

While I'd *like* to believe all blood-borne diseases could stop based on 100% maturity-to-death monogamy, if my dentist forgets to change the tip on his drill, I'm gonna catch whatever the last person has. ...and for the record, I have HSV-1 because my grandma gave me a kiss when I was a baby, and she got it from her mother. Should I blame that on casual sex in the late 1800's too? *ponders* Prostitutes aside, was there even casual sex in the Victorian era??

 

[intothewoods]

I'm referring to the tendency of high-risk groups to try to present themselves as low-risk because they "talk" about risk factors.

Talk doesn't lower the risk, especially when it is obvious through irresponsible behaviour that those who claim to "talk" don't listen.

Everyone has a different capacity for risk in their life. People go skiing, despite the risk, because life without that experience isn't worth it to them. You view sex outside of a monogamous relationship as too much risk, but others do not. You also feel free to denigrate life choices that don't fit into your narrow view of the world. I don't.

Let's be clear what we're talking about here. We were talking about the emotional risk of engaging in bdsm activities outside of a lifelong relationship. If we're talking about risky activities in terms of transmitting the HIV virus, then we're mostly talking about sexual acts. I mean, giving someone a handjob or performing oral sex on a woman is entirely different in terms of risk of transmission than PIV or anal sex. Blood play is a hell of a lot riskier than spanking, and really most s&m activities are not anywhere near as risky as sex. In terms of HIV. Obviously there are other things that can be spread at play parties, most commonly the cold and flu.

Safer sex is a way to mitigate risk, not eliminate it. That's why most people refer to "safer sex" rather than "safe sex." Do you really think bdsm groups present the activities involved to be akin to what takes place in a bowling league?

Again, don't take part, and continue to tell people that sex and bdsm outside of a loving relationship is dysfuctional. You are free to your opinions, but you aren't free to your misinformation.

 

[intothewoods]

This whole line of discussion is disingenuous. I find it hard to believe that the motivation is a heartfelt desire to see the end of the spread of HIV.

 

[LaRocha]

I'm jumping into the conversation a little on the late side... and this has probably already been said, but there's a lot of ways to get bloodborne and 'usually sexually-transmitted' diseases other than casual sex.

Where I lived during the late 80's-early 90's, there were a few incidents of people putting HIV-infected needles into pay phone change doors, and it wound up having people being very cautious about using pay phones for a while. Could someone who had gotten HIV in this manner blame 'casual sex' for it?

Likewise, I've been studying to apprentice as a tattooist/piercer, and I've learned just how easy it is for someone who isn't properly trained in handling biohazardous materials to transmit disease from one person to another. Can someone who gets tattooed by a scratcher, or gets a party-piercing with their friends using a safety pin... can that be blamed on 'casual sex'?

While I'd *like* to believe all blood-borne diseases could stop based on 100% maturity-to-death monogamy, if my dentist forgets to change the tip on his drill, I'm gonna catch whatever the last person has. ...and for the record, I have HSV-1 because my grandma gave me a kiss when I was a baby, and she got it from her mother. Should I blame that on casual sex in the late 1800's too? *ponders* Prostitutes aside, was there even casual sex in the Victorian era??

This is an Urban Legend. There's enough real information to debunk BLoved without having to rely on tales.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/mayhem/payphone.asp

 

[WriterDom]

Let me get this right.

A woman in two abusive relationships of note, one of them being familial.

Identifying, clear-headed, no doubt what Real Love is in three weeks or less.

No dysfunction here to take advantage of. Move along.

Found, no less, after he fought the "casual community" tooth and nail for two years. Rescues this broken princess from a cruel heartless casual Master. Heals her completely with three weeks of Robert Cognitive Love Therapy.

Now they live happily ever after. Except after three weeks, Robert shows up here for more. Perhaps looking for another damaged kitten to rescue. Or maybe he's on the level and just wants to rescue the bdsm community. He did, after all, buy a ticket in Toronto once.

Perhaps beloved can have her own name and voice here since Bloved seems to be here to stay.

 

[Homburg]

This whole line of discussion is disingenuous. I find it hard to believe that the motivation is a heartfelt desire to see the end of the spread of HIV.

This was my first thought as well.

 

[BLoved]

Let's be clear what we're talking about here.

Indeed.

The topic is "The 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm'". What we have witnessed in this discussion is three-fold:

1. there are no ethics when it comes to casual 'bdsm'.

2. players and their advocates, aware there are no ethics, have attempted to distract the reader from the fact there are no ethics when it comes to casual 'bdsm'.

3. the degree of immaturity and lack of self-restraint demonstrated by players and their advocates in public gives no reason to place any trust in those who practice or advocate casual 'bdsm'.

You are free to your opinions, but you aren't free to your misinformation.

~smile~

I invite the reader to review the discussion to determine for him or herself the truth of the above statements.