Bisexual bareback ethics with them girls

[bbboyfucker]

So, Bi here and always felt like girls are not an active part of the "game" as we guys are, meaning, they're not a main crowd for bareback discussion-boards, nor are they game for the risk of HIV and other STD's that consequently might stem from the practice itself.

While they are aware and probably educated for "appropriate" sexual practices, they do practice bareback sex at times, but I still feel a duty to protect them and be the one to mandate the use of condoms, especially as I'm not aware of my status at any minute (very sexually active individual here).

Please share your thoughts and habits.

A picture of me to get your attention 🙂

[Barebacker831]

Pussy is meant to be filled with cum and I always require we fuck raw. They give in most of the time. It also helps I’m married to a female so their guard is lowered 😈

[hntnhole]

I can't even remember the last time I "made out" with a girl.  Had to have been in high school though ... 

[NWUSHorny]

I always suit up if I have sex with a woman even if she is getting gangbanged at an adult venue, but at this point it has more to do with not creating an unexpected child than STD transmission. I did have bareback sex with several women I was in a relationship with, but the most recent was almost 20 years ago when I was playing mostly safe with men.

[PG1961Canada]

I play regularly with three couples.  We started a 'food club'.  We take turns moving the hosting venue from house to house and everyone brings food to share.  It's a great time and we have all become friends.  Everyone is bi... the women and the men.

I had a vasectomy 35 years ago, and so pregnancy isn't a concern.  Of the three couples, one couple always suits up.  He suits up to fuck any chick or guy.  She requests a suit up if she is getting fucked.

The other two couples? 

Couple 2: Lynn loves cum.  She is a gusher as well, so when you eat her pussy or ass and she cums... she soaks you.  Quite often, you are getting a mixture of her juices and whoever has already planted a load of cum in her pussy.  Her husband is mostly top (but likes to suck cock).  When he tops, he fucks raw and actually generates almost TWO loads.  His precum load is pretty huge and his actual cum load is massive. He loves watching me load up his wife and then I eat her out while he fucks me... and loads me up.  The guy from Couple 3 LOVES to eat cum from ANY hole... so he is always there to clean up.

Couple 3: As I mentioned, he is bi and is a total bottom with another guy.  He enjoys getting fucked raw and she is a gorgeous, strawberry blond 'pig'.  She loves to eat cum from his ass.  She loves rough sex.  She loves it up the ass more than in her cunt, but I have been part of a double team who has done her pussy/ass at the same time.  She gets loaded up and sits on her husband's face and makes him eat her clean.  Invariably, he makes her cum and she is also a squirter.

So.. in this example.... three different couples - 1 wrapped and 2 raw.   I really like the wrapped couple, but I just stick to oral with both of them so I don't have to deal with the condoms.  They are cool folks - it is just their choice.  The other two couples are totally into swapping cum from ANY hole... and that is more the kind of piggy sex I enjoy.

There are lots of options!  It's best to talk about it in advance so you know what you are dealing with and nobody gets anxious.  But... those women are out there.... a lot of them are very happily married... because they are there with hubby when he is fucking a guy or getting fucked.  I love these guys!

[Barebacker831]

On 9/27/2022 at 3:14 PM, NWUSHorny said:

I always suit up if I have sex with a woman even if she is getting gangbanged at an adult venue, but at this point it has more to do with not creating an unexpected child than STD transmission. I did have bareback sex with several women I was in a relationship with, but the most recent was almost 20 years ago when I was playing mostly safe with men.

Why not get snipped then so you can enjoy barebacking that pussy? Nothing is better than a warm wet pussy wrapped around your bare cock

[ErosWired]

HIV risk is not a “game”.

It’s a serious hazard inherent to bareback sexual intercourse, and although the majority of cases are among men who have sex with men, approximately 20% of HIV+ persons are female. Women can both contract and spread HIV.

A bisexual man’s ethical responsibility toward a woman he fucks bareback is - or ought to be - precisely the same as that toward any man he fucks bareback: That is, to ensure that the partner is fully aware of his status and the risk involved, an to ensure that he has taken every measure that he can take to prevent himself from spreading the disease. The gender is immaterial - you’re dealing with another human life.

On 9/27/2022 at 1:09 PM, Barebacker831 said:

Pussy is meant to be filled with cum and I always require we fuck raw. They give in most of the time. It also helps I’m married to a female so their guard is lowered 😈

What this basically says is, ‘Who gives a shit about the ethics - they’re women.’ 

 

51 minutes ago, Barebacker831 said:

Why not get snipped then so you can enjoy barebacking that pussy? Nothing is better than a warm wet pussy wrapped around your bare cock

How does this address the OP’s question about the ethics of putting a woman at risk of HIV? (Hint: It doesn’t.)

[Guest]

I think that most women enjoy anal Fucking after they are introduced to it 

[Barebacker831]

11 hours ago, ErosWired said:

HIV risk is not a “game”.

It’s a serious hazard inherent to bareback sexual intercourse, and although the majority of cases are among men who have sex with men, approximately 20% of HIV+ persons are female. Women can both contract and spread HIV.

A bisexual man’s ethical responsibility toward a woman he fucks bareback is - or ought to be - precisely the same as that toward any man he fucks bareback: That is, to ensure that the partner is fully aware of his status and the risk involved, an to ensure that he has taken every measure that he can take to prevent himself from spreading the disease. The gender is immaterial - you’re dealing with another human life.

What this basically says is, ‘Who gives a shit about the ethics - they’re women.’ 

 

How does this address the OP’s question about the ethics of putting a woman at risk of HIV? (Hint: It doesn’t.)

Getting snipped was in response to the quote saying it was to prevent pregnancy.

[Poz50something]

  On 9/27/2022 at 1:09 PM, Barebacker831 said:

Pussy is meant to be filled with cum and I always require we fuck raw. They give in most of the time. It also helps I’m married to a female so their guard is lowered 😈

ErosWired said, What this basically says is, ‘Who gives a shit about the ethics - they’re women.’ 

 

No moral sermon here, just facts - since we are dealing with barebacking, the realistic possibility of  transmitting STDs, especially HIV, is ever present. Where I live, in Québec, Canadian law applies. The Supreme Court of Canada, in 2012 in R. v Mabior ruled that "If there is no realistic possibility of transmission of HIV, failure to disclose that one has HIV will not constitute fraud vitiating consent to sexual relations" (R. v. Mabior, 2012 SCC 47, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 584).  What constitutes no realistic possibility in the eyes of the Supreme Court of Canada? It is a low viral load, AND consistent use of condoms with the sexual act. So, does vaginal sex without a condom constitute a transmittable sexual act? Yes.....If the partner is HIV-, cool, no harm done, but there are other STDs. For us HIV+ people, the standard of a low viral load AND consistent condom use is something we will want to bear in mind, unless we bareback with other poz pigs. 

 

[ErosWired]

9 hours ago, Poz50something said:

  On 9/27/2022 at 1:09 PM, Barebacker831 said:

Pussy is meant to be filled with cum and I always require we fuck raw. They give in most of the time. It also helps I’m married to a female so their guard is lowered 😈

ErosWired said, What this basically says is, ‘Who gives a shit about the ethics - they’re women.’ 

 

No moral sermon here, just facts - since we are dealing with barebacking, the realistic possibility of  transmitting STDs, especially HIV, is ever present. Where I live, in Québec, Canadian law applies. The Supreme Court of Canada, in 2012 in R. v Mabior ruled that "If there is no realistic possibility of transmission of HIV, failure to disclose that one has HIV will not constitute fraud vitiating consent to sexual relations" (R. v. Mabior, 2012 SCC 47, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 584).  What constitutes no realistic possibility in the eyes of the Supreme Court of Canada? It is a low viral load, AND consistent use of condoms with the sexual act. So, does vaginal sex without a condom constitute a transmittable sexual act? Yes.....If the partner is HIV-, cool, no harm done, but there are other STDs. For us HIV+ people, the standard of a low viral load AND consistent condom use is something we will want to bear in mind, unless we bareback with other poz pigs. 

 

Are you saying that in Canada the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that the standard of ‘no realistic possibility’ of transmission requires the use of a condom regardless of how low the viral load is? Because the currently accepted medical consensus is that a person with a durably undetectable viral load - that is, a viral load below 20 - is not capable of transmitting the virus to another person even without a condom. Therefore, if the Canadian standard requires a condom to achieve ‘no realistic possibility’, it is at odds with accepted science.

[Poz50something]

ErosWired : yes, that IS EXACTLY what I am saying - the SC of Canada has stated exactly that. The standard is strict - condom PLUS low viral load in order to not have to declare your HIV status to all sex partners. The appellant in this case, Mabior was jailed for 14 years even though he was taking tritherapy. I think that his sex partners being underage exacerbated his sentence. I would also look at your state or district appellate court to see how progressive it is on HIV disclosure as well.  The case was decided in 2012, so unless there is someone willing to put himself or herself through the ringer, I doubt we'll get an update on the law anytime soon. 

[BootmanLA]

5 hours ago, Poz50something said:

ErosWired : yes, that IS EXACTLY what I am saying - the SC of Canada has stated exactly that. The standard is strict - condom PLUS low viral load in order to not have to declare your HIV status to all sex partners. The appellant in this case, Mabior was jailed for 14 years even though he was taking tritherapy. I think that his sex partners being underage exacerbated his sentence. I would also look at your state or district appellate court to see how progressive it is on HIV disclosure as well.  The case was decided in 2012, so unless there is someone willing to put himself or herself through the ringer, I doubt we'll get an update on the law anytime soon. 

It's true that the case was decided in 2012, but HIV understanding has advanced considerably since then, with U=U messaging becoming ubiquitous. It's not unreasonable to think that a future case, perhaps not even that far in the future, might hold otherwise.

In fact, in that very case, the Supreme Court of Canada noted, immediately after acknowledging that undetectable+condom = no realistic possibility of infection, so it couldn't qualify as assault, that

"This general proposition does not preclude the common law from adapting to future advances in treatment and to circumstances where risk factors other than those considered in this case are at play."

It's especially important to note that the decision says "the common law" - that is, decisions made by judges, based on the facts of cases at hand, etc. Common law, unlike statutory law, doesn't require changes enacted by the legislature; it requires changes recognized by judges. And that means if, in a future case, a judge is convinced that the scientific evidence is that unprotected sex with someone who is undetectable does not present a realistic possibility of infection, he can so recognize, and unless overturned on appeal, that decision can enter the common law - covered under the "advances in treatment" rubric cited by the SCC. 

[verslut]

I live in America where heterosexual STD transmission is becoming way too common. So I don't do bareback hookups with women anymore to protect myself. But if I'm in a relationship with a woman I try to bareback as much as possible.