Poll: Would You Participate in Group Sex? (mature)

[Nieroshai]

While I agree with you, I have a strong feeling you're going to be flamed and/or trolled shortly if you haven't been already. I've noticed that the more thoughtful and practical a post, the more liikely it is to be hated.

I'm probably pretty safe. I'm pretty sure most people realize that this is the same thing you're going to hear from doctors, psychologists, and social workers who have to deal with the fallout of it.

I've never heard a doctor, a psychologist or a social worker say anything of the sort. Correct protection, yes certainly, but that is not at all difficult to achieve if you are sensible and in control of your own body. There are many, many contraceptive methods available especially for women: condoms, female condoms, diaphragms, The Pill, patches, injections, implants, dental dams etc. etc. and so forth.

What did you think I said?

Granted, they would be fools to say there's such a thing as a foolproof contraceptive - you can research any one and see that accidents happen. Nor would anyone worth their PhD suggest that group sex is as safe as the alternative, it takes only a basic understanding of biology to realize that that what's involved in that exchange is an exponentially greater risk.

However, there's a difference between that and saying you'd better not use contraceptives - that kind of foolishness is something I'd expect out of the Catholic church [http://www.lisashea.com/lisabase/aboutme/birthcontrol.html], but not from me, nor from a health professional. No, by all means, use contraceptives if you get involved in group sex. Technically speaking, it'd be prudent to use more than usual.

Also, since when does the pill prevent STDs? Pregnancy yes, but not STDs.

 

[geldonyetich]

While I agree with you, I have a strong feeling you're going to be flamed and/or trolled shortly if you haven't been already. I've noticed that the more thoughtful and practical a post, the more liikely it is to be hated.

I'm probably pretty safe. I'm pretty sure most people realize that this is the same thing you're going to hear from doctors, psychologists, and social workers who have to deal with the fallout of it.

I've never heard a doctor, a psychologist or a social worker say anything of the sort. Correct protection, yes certainly, but that is not at all difficult to achieve if you are sensible and in control of your own body. There are many, many contraceptive methods available especially for women: condoms, female condoms, diaphragms, The Pill, patches, injections, implants, dental dams etc. etc. and so forth.

What did you think I said?

Granted, they would be fools to say there's such a thing as a foolproof contraceptive - you can research any one and see that accidents happen. Nor would anyone worth their PhD suggest that group sex is as safe as the alternative, it takes only a basic understanding of biology to realize that that what's involved in that exchange is an exponentially greater risk.

However, there's a difference between that and saying you'd better not use contraceptives - that kind of foolishness is something I'd expect out of the Catholic church [http://www.lisashea.com/lisabase/aboutme/birthcontrol.html], but not from me, nor from a health professional. No, by all means, use contraceptives if you get involved in group sex. Technically speaking, it'd be prudent to use more than usual.

Also, since when does the pill prevent STDs? Pregnancy yes, but not STDs.

We were discussing both STDs and pregnancy, so this was intended to be implied.

But lets build on that. Group sex introduces an interesting consideration I wanted to broach: it breaks standard contraception measures by using them as they were not originally intended to be.

For example, if you wear a condom, dental dam, or diaphragm in a one-on-one interaction, you're much safer than you would be without (although you can sometimes get infected anyway). This is because they're designed to be a barrier between you and your partner.

However, unless you remove and replace that contraceptive every time you switch partners, the cells you collect on the outer edge of that contraceptive would nonetheless conduct the cells you picked up from one partner to another. In other words, they were never intended to be a barrier between those two partners, only a barrier between you and each individual partner.

I get the feeling not a lot of people would want to do that because it'd be a bother while in the heat of the moment, and it'd rather expensive to build up a small pile of contraceptives in short order like that.

 

[thedevilscousin]

In my case, if my girlfriend would not excist and condoms were available. Yes, in a heartbeat.

Actually more so if all the other participants were female, lol.

 

[ajh93]

i'm a firm believer in the "3 is a crowd" saying...

 

[Ellen of Kitten]

Also female, and answered yes. I would need to know and trust at LEAST one person there, and would prefer no strangers (as in strangers to everyone involved) in the mix.

And protection, of course.

That was the case for me. Knew two participants, and protection was a must. No one wants junk-germs.

You understand protection would be useless unless you stopped to change in-between every single act. The outside of the condom (or other form of protection) would still have bodily fluids on it transferring with each successive act.

I don't know why you'd assume people wouldn't be smart with their protection.

 

[Ellen of Kitten]

This topic has really blown up! I took off for a date last night, and come back to... to this! Wow!

 

[Nieroshai]

While I agree with you, I have a strong feeling you're going to be flamed and/or trolled shortly if you haven't been already. I've noticed that the more thoughtful and practical a post, the more liikely it is to be hated.

I'm probably pretty safe. I'm pretty sure most people realize that this is the same thing you're going to hear from doctors, psychologists, and social workers who have to deal with the fallout of it.

I've never heard a doctor, a psychologist or a social worker say anything of the sort. Correct protection, yes certainly, but that is not at all difficult to achieve if you are sensible and in control of your own body. There are many, many contraceptive methods available especially for women: condoms, female condoms, diaphragms, The Pill, patches, injections, implants, dental dams etc. etc. and so forth.

What did you think I said?

Granted, they would be fools to say there's such a thing as a foolproof contraceptive - you can research any one and see that accidents happen. Nor would anyone worth their PhD suggest that group sex is as safe as the alternative, it takes only a basic understanding of biology to realize that that what's involved in that exchange is an exponentially greater risk.

However, there's a difference between that and saying you'd better not use contraceptives - that kind of foolishness is something I'd expect out of the Catholic church [http://www.lisashea.com/lisabase/aboutme/birthcontrol.html], but not from me, nor from a health professional. No, by all means, use contraceptives if you get involved in group sex. Technically speaking, it'd be prudent to use more than usual.

Also, since when does the pill prevent STDs? Pregnancy yes, but not STDs.

We were discussing both STDs and pregnancy, so this was intended to be implied.

But lets build on that. Group sex introduces an interesting consideration I wanted to broach: it breaks standard contraception measures by using them as they were not originally intended to be.

For example, if you wear a condom, dental dam, or diaphragm in a one-on-one interaction, you're much safer than you would be without (although you can sometimes get infected anyway). This is because they're designed to be a barrier between you and your partner.

However, unless you remove and replace that contraceptive every time you switch partners, the cells you collect on the outer edge of that contraceptive would nonetheless conduct the cells you picked up from one partner to another. In other words, they were never intended to be a barrier between those two partners, only a barrier between you and each individual partner.

I get the feeling not a lot of people would want to do that because it'd be a bother while in the heat of the moment, and it'd rather expensive to build up a small pile of contraceptives in short order like that.

No need to be insulting, I was just adding information I thought was left out, as in the above person you quoted yourself listed contraceptives in a broad swath. I get the concept, I really do, but there's no need to be condescending to someone who's agreeing with you.

 

[geldonyetich]

However, there's a difference between that and saying you'd better not use contraceptives - that kind of foolishness is something I'd expect out of the Catholic church [http://www.lisashea.com/lisabase/aboutme/birthcontrol.html], but not from me, nor from a health professional. No, by all means, use contraceptives if you get involved in group sex. Technically speaking, it'd be prudent to use more than usual.

Also, since when does the pill prevent STDs? Pregnancy yes, but not STDs.

We were discussing both STDs and pregnancy, so this was intended to be implied.

No need to be insulting, I was just adding information I thought was left out, as in the above person you quoted yourself listed contraceptives in a broad swath. I get the concept, I really do, but there's no need to be condescending to someone who's agreeing with you.

Forums are misunderstandings on top of misunderstandings sometimes.

At first, I thought you were disagreeing with me, because you were posting out a quote of my message, which was boggling because I said nothing of the sort. So, I was a little condescending because it was like, geeze, dude, read before you post.

After I figured that you were actually agreeing with me in support to the quote, it was still geeze, dude, read before your post, because what you said was pointing out an error that you saw from losing context, but it was a little more understandable because I realized the context wasn't immediately evident unless you went back a few posts.

I edited it back considerably from what you can see in your quoted section of your inbox. What's left isn't condescending, just explaining where the context was lost.

 

[Stasisesque]

Also female, and answered yes. I would need to know and trust at LEAST one person there, and would prefer no strangers (as in strangers to everyone involved) in the mix.

And protection, of course.

That was the case for me. Knew two participants, and protection was a must. No one wants junk-germs.

You understand protection would be useless unless you stopped to change in-between every single act. The outside of the condom (or other form of protection) would still have bodily fluids on it transferring with each successive act.

I don't know why you'd assume people wouldn't be smart with their protection.

This this THIS THIS. This is what I've been battling for the majority of my posts in here.

For the record, I mentioned as many forms of contraception as I could think of off the top of my head to point out how much choice there was out there. I, perhaps stupidly, assumed others would understand things like The Pill not being viable protection against STDs, cunnilingus or fellatio carrying risks of STDs much the same as vaginal/anal penetration, using the same condom for every partner being remarkably stupid (true, the wearer is still protected, they're just bypassing the middleman and transferring disease straight from partner to partner) etc. and so forth.

It's refreshing to know so many people do understand how contraceptives work, but it's getting old being quoted every time they're mentioned to point out details missed in a condescending way.

Sorry, Ellen, none of this post was directed at you. It's all rather passive aggressive really, but I'm too lazy to quote everyone else.

 

[Gilhelmi]

Also female, and answered yes. I would need to know and trust at LEAST one person there, and would prefer no strangers (as in strangers to everyone involved) in the mix.

And protection, of course.

That was the case for me. Knew two participants, and protection was a must. No one wants junk-germs.

You understand protection would be useless unless you stopped to change in-between every single act. The outside of the condom (or other form of protection) would still have bodily fluids on it transferring with each successive act.

I don't know why you'd assume people wouldn't be smart with their protection.

It is not about intelligence, rather the "Heat of the Moment" excitement. You are fully engaged in action and in all of the excitement around you, you might forget at a time. That would be how you could get in trouble.

 

[Ellen of Kitten]

Also female, and answered yes. I would need to know and trust at LEAST one person there, and would prefer no strangers (as in strangers to everyone involved) in the mix.

And protection, of course.

That was the case for me. Knew two participants, and protection was a must. No one wants junk-germs.

You understand protection would be useless unless you stopped to change in-between every single act. The outside of the condom (or other form of protection) would still have bodily fluids on it transferring with each successive act.

I don't know why you'd assume people wouldn't be smart with their protection.

It is not about intelligence, rather the "Heat of the Moment" excitement. You are fully engaged in action and in all of the excitement around you, you might forget at a time. That would be how you could get in trouble.

Now you're just making assumptions on my behalf. Please don't.

 

[mega48man]

Also female, and answered yes. I would need to know and trust at LEAST one person there, and would prefer no strangers (as in strangers to everyone involved) in the mix.

And protection, of course.

so you'd prefer to do it with people you know i.e. your friends? ............ i think i revealed the flaw in that statement for you OR your friends are hawt

 

[Ellen of Kitten]

Also female, and answered yes. I would need to know and trust at LEAST one person there, and would prefer no strangers (as in strangers to everyone involved) in the mix.

And protection, of course.

That was the case for me. Knew two participants, and protection was a must. No one wants junk-germs.

You understand protection would be useless unless you stopped to change in-between every single act. The outside of the condom (or other form of protection) would still have bodily fluids on it transferring with each successive act.

I don't know why you'd assume people wouldn't be smart with their protection.

This this THIS THIS. This is what I've been battling for the majority of my posts in here.

For the record, I mentioned as many forms of contraception as I could think of off the top of my head to point out how much choice there was out there. I, perhaps stupidly, assumed others would understand things like The Pill not being viable protection against STDs, cunnilingus or fellatio carrying risks of STDs much the same as vaginal/anal penetration, using the same condom for every partner being remarkably stupid (true, the wearer is still protected, they're just bypassing the middleman and transferring disease straight from partner to partner) etc. and so forth.

It's refreshing to know so many people do understand how contraceptives work, but it's getting old being quoted every time they're mentioned to point out details missed in a condescending way.

Sorry, Ellen, none of this post was directed at you. It's all rather passive aggressive really, but I'm too lazy to quote everyone else.

I understand. I do have a friend that, for the longest time, thought the pill was a stop-all on STDs. So it's not like those that make these assumptions don't have reason to be alive with concern. (The condensention isn't ever welcome though.) People will make assumptions on other people, and there's nothing we can really do but address it on a case by case basis.

 

[mega48man]

honestly, i'd have to know the gender ratio. if there's too many guys and the chicks aren't hot enough to out scale the larger male count, i'll probably hesitate. but i'm the only guy, i'm in for a sweet ride, aaaaall riiiiiiight

 

[Stasisesque]

Also female, and answered yes. I would need to know and trust at LEAST one person there, and would prefer no strangers (as in strangers to everyone involved) in the mix.

And protection, of course.

so you'd prefer to do it with people you know i.e. your friends? ............ i think i revealed the flaw in that statement for you OR your friends are hawt

I fully expect to be quoted at some point, and the entire response to be written in complete gibberish.

I would prefer to have sex with people I know and trust. How is this a flaw? In what way is this a flaw? I have friends I've had sexual contact with, that doesn't make them any less my friends. And yes, my friends are hot. I have no idea how this is even relevant, but thank you for the compliment, and I'm sure they'd thank you too!

 

[Gilhelmi]

Also female, and answered yes. I would need to know and trust at LEAST one person there, and would prefer no strangers (as in strangers to everyone involved) in the mix.

And protection, of course.

That was the case for me. Knew two participants, and protection was a must. No one wants junk-germs.

You understand protection would be useless unless you stopped to change in-between every single act. The outside of the condom (or other form of protection) would still have bodily fluids on it transferring with each successive act.

I don't know why you'd assume people wouldn't be smart with their protection.

It is not about intelligence, rather the "Heat of the Moment" excitement. You are fully engaged in action and in all of the excitement around you, you might forget at a time. That would be how you could get in trouble.

Now you're just making assumptions on my behalf. Please don't.

My apologies, but in group sex you are not the only one there. There is 2 other (at least, perhaps more) people. You may be able to always remember but what about one of the others in the group. If one person forgets, the whole group becomes at risk.

 

[mega48man]

Also female, and answered yes. I would need to know and trust at LEAST one person there, and would prefer no strangers (as in strangers to everyone involved) in the mix.

And protection, of course.

so you'd prefer to do it with people you know i.e. your friends? ............ i think i revealed the flaw in that statement for you OR your friends are hawt

I fully expect to be quoted at some point, and the entire response to be written in complete gibberish.

I would prefer to have sex with people I know and trust. How is this a flaw? In what way is this a flaw? I have friends I've had sexual contact with, that doesn't make them any less my friends. And yes, my friends are hot. I have no idea how this is even relevant, but thank you for the compliment, and I'm sure they'd thank you too!

well predicted of you, epic win

the answer; b/c having sex with a few of your friends at once would be REEEEEALLY awkward the next day. luckily for you, they are hawte, so it'd be great for the time being.

go look up Dr. Sigmund Frued, i have a feeling you know who he is, he's got a lot to say about the psychological reprecussions (weather good or bad) of sex.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I am unable to answer the question because my answer would depend upon too many variables: setting, known participants, safety precautions and the like. I have no inherent opposition to the idea but I find that having a satisfactory sexual experience with a single person is difficult enough as it is. As such, I would have to be comfortable with the rules, participants and setting before I even considered it.

 

[Hoopybees]

I almost did once, and it was especially cool since it was these two guys that I knew from school one of whom I'd had a crush on for years, but then the guy whose house it was nearly caught almost us and I felt kind of guilty so nothing happened. But man, if I had the chance again I would definately go for it.