and remember, lets be careful out there !!

1 Aug 2010

Quote by Naughty Wigan Couple
Mod Hat off for this reply - this is MY own personal thoughts on this and not what the site does or does not think about bareback sex.

The only reason I do not have it stated on mine in the text, is because I know blokes lie to fit in with what you are looking for, so I prefer to use guerilla tactics to find out!?

So having it as a site option would in fact, defeat your objective of using guerrilla tactics to get people to admit to you if they are into bareback or safe sex? Surely just being straight with people and saying safe sex only is a much more truthful and less deciptful way to be rather than try and catch people out?
No I don't think it would, (and I resent being accused of being what I assume you meant as deceitful) this is just nit picking, I choose not to state it in the text because I know guys will lie to suit themselves here.
I am not lying, I am protecting myself, why you see that as untruthful and deceitful I have no idea? Frankly that is an offensive accusation.
I use what I call guerilla tactics now because there is no other option here, and as I said, yes, people can still lie, but it may save some time. It does not mean I would rely on a tick box as to who I meet.

Quote by demi
But if everyone had to answer it as a multiple choice, it would make people make a choice and lay their cards on the table.
Yes they may still lie of course, but it is a starting point, what is wrong with that?

Sorry Demi, but this totally contradicts everything you have said before. If you wont be honest and put it on your profile that you are only willing to play with condoms, why would anyone else be truthful and tick the option you are asking for?

Please would you stop accusing me of not being honest, it is totally unnecessary.
The last line, it answers your question, there is no contradiction.

I do know other sites use a safe sex option (tick list kind of thing) and I know that St3v3 has said it is something the site would look into, but at the end of the day, this is an adult site and adults are allowed to make their own decisions to use protection or otherwise. Who are you or I to say what they should and should not do?
We never play without condoms and would not play with anyone who we knew played bareback, but I do not have the right to tell others they should not do it. (I simply make a little note of their user name or put something in the Notes section on their profile never to even consider meeting them).

I do the same.
I do not see where anyone is 'telling others what they should not do' ?
I said the site should promote a responsible attitude it is a sensible and realistic thing to do.

Each to their own, and we all have to make our own decisions about who we do or who we do not meet. The site is here to help people to arrange them, not to police what people should or should not do.

To a point yes, but there is a huge difference between taking a risk aware stance and 'policing' as you put it. If this site became overun with people choosing to meet others for life threatening and illegal activities you would presumably be ok with that too eh?
BDSM sites run into the problem of legality occasionally, as the activities can and do sit on the edge. Yet the general consensus is not to condone these activities if they are beyond the realm of common sense. People new to BDSM often get swept along with it and go in heavy, do things they later regret, I would imagine the same could be said of swinging. If the general consensus on this site is silence on the subject of the risks of bareback, a newbie could read that as an accepted activity.
I see no valid reason for this site not to take an active stance on health awareness and protection, as I said, it is the responsible thing to do.

1 Aug 2010

Demi, please can I ask that you re-read what I have wrote, and you will see that I have not accused you of being deceitful. I dont think you are being straight with people, but you have stated that in your own posts that you do not put on your profile that you are looking for safe sex. However, even after re-reading your posts, I still think that what you are saying is contradictory. You are stating that you hide what you are looking for, but you then go on to say that by having an option to put bareback or safe sex, would stop anyone else from not being straight, honest, deceitful or whatever term you want to use. Why would they be honest with a tick box if they cannot be honest in their profile?
Anyway, each to their own and all that, and being aware of the risks and assessing the risks is down to the individual, and not the site. However, the site does take an active stance on this and this is clearly stated in the Advise section, which is available to members and non-members of the site - http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/advice/sexual-health.html
The site also knows that it is indvidual choice to play with condoms or without and therefore does not try to force its views on to people who are old enough to make their own decisions. Its all about being informed and knowing the risks but as the site also says "Please, stay safe and have respect for others safety too"
I can see that you do feel very strongly on this, but neither you or me can make people be honest in their profiles, or force them to play safely.

1 Aug 2010

I am not interested in making this about me here thanks, the crux of the issue is responsibility and I feel the site is taking a very lax approach here.
There is a huge difference between being responsible and using your position to promote safe play, and policingactivities.
There is a long list of activities/interests on the profile page which you can choose to tick or not, some are distasteful to certain people, for example, many people here think watersports is beyond the pale, but it is a whole lot safer than bareback sex.
I can only conclude the reluctance to take a proactive stance on this subject is down to lack of a backbone, I doubt very much the attitude summed up here as each to their own, live and let live etc. would hold much water with people who are involved with sexual health services or HIV treatment and education.
It is a cop out, plain and simple.

1 Aug 2010

Quote by demi
It is a cop out, plain and simple.

1 Aug 2010

to be fair to the site......they are not the health police or our moral guardians. Ciggerettes have massive warnings and pictures on them but don't stop people from buying them or smoking them.
We all know the risks, and must take the resposability or the risks ourselves. We are the guardians of our own health.

1 Aug 2010

Quote by Naughty Wigan Couple
It is a cop out, plain and simple.

Well, all I can say is if you feel so strongly about it, why are you still here? No one made you come back to the site.
I wont bother replying again Demi, as you are not even willing to consider that anyone else may have a point and that only your views are the ones which are important.
Why do you choose to make this a personal issue to me? It isn't.
I have replied to you in private memo as I do not wish to make this personal as I said before.
I clearly have agreed with some other, perhaps more thoughtful posts than yours, your comments are personal and as I said before, unnecessary in this discussion thanks.

1 Aug 2010

I've met people from this site. Their profile says they're single. They're not.
I've met people from this site. Their profile says they don't smoke. They do.
Just because there's an option to use one of the choices in these sections of your profile clearly doesn't make any difference to the truth and will make no odds to the reality that there are people who don't play safe.
It's not the responsibility of the site to keep us all safe. The responsibility lies with us.

2 Aug 2010

My conclusion is that in order to be assured of a safe sex encounter and for the site to have done all it can to make this so, your only option is to become involved with a complete time waster.

2 Aug 2010

Personally, I think this thread is missing the subtext and thrust of the article. The popular tabloid newspapers regard themselves as the moral guardians of the people in the UK, and the thrust of the article is not about STI's but the lifestyle itself using the report as an indictment of the "wrong moral choice" of swingers - "Look what happens when you choose to swap partners instead of being in a single sexual relationship".
As for the article itself - I reference the NHS website:
"Where did the story come from?
The study was carried out by researchers from the South Limburg Public Health Service and Maastricht University in the Netherlands. No information about how it was funded is given. It was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Sexually Transmitted Infections.
Several newspapers reported on this study, with some focusing on the idea that swingers are an ‘STI bridge’ to the rest of the population. The Express said older swingers appear to be the ‘worst offenders’ for unsafe sex. It focused on the possibility that older swingers may pose a risk ‘to all’, a claim based on the study’s suggestion that swingers may act as an STI transmission bridge to the entire population, therefore identifying and testing them early is important.
The Daily Mail’s link between the study and the 'spread of STIs' among older adults (or divorced women) in the UK is unsubstantiated. The study did not look at any possible overall increase in STIs but only at the data from Dutch clinics showing the STI rates for swingers. Nor was it concerned with divorced women, since the group it looked was defined as heterosexual couples.
Only the BBC added that swingers need to be screened regularly for STIs and offered appropriate services."
ref
I might add that, as a scientist, the methodology used in the study was extremely questionable. I won't bore you with a critique of the methodology in this post - if you really want one mail me! However, there are some similar issues with the MMR study by Andrew Wakefield - it would be very interesting to know who funded this research!
The popular press has a long record of selective reporting , including motorcycling, cannabis, and recently the methadrone ban. By the way, I quote these aspects from a purely scientific point of view, and am in no way advocating or denegrating motorcycling (as if I would!!) or taking recreational drugs, I am just saying that the scientific evidence on all these matters are selectively reported by the popular press.
The reason I have quoted the three examples above is that they resulted in legislation under pressure from the press. We are a minority in society and as such we are vunerable to pressure from the society and the state to conform to a "normal" way of life.

2 Aug 2010

Quote by demi
Why do you choose to make this a personal issue to me? It isn't.
I have replied to you in private memo as I do not wish to make this personal as I said before.
I clearly have agreed with some other, perhaps more thoughtful posts than yours, your comments are personal and as I said before, unnecessary in this discussion thanks.

2 Aug 2010

Quote by demi
I am not interested in making this about me here thanks, the crux of the issue is responsibility and I feel the site is taking a very lax approach here.
There is a huge difference between being responsible and using your position to promote safe play, and policing activities.
There is a long list of activities/interests on the profile page which you can choose to tick or not, some are distasteful to certain people, for example, many people here think watersports is beyond the pale, but it is a whole lot safer than bareback sex.
I can only conclude the reluctance to take a proactive stance on this subject is down to lack of a backbone, I doubt very much the attitude summed up here as each to their own, live and let live etc. would hold much water with people who are involved with sexual health services or HIV treatment and education.
It is a cop out, plain and simple.

Goodness me! Take a chill pill.
This country is far too concerned these days with making others take responsibility for things we should be taking responsibility for ourselves.
If you need guiding on things blatantly about common sense then that's fine - the rest of us here are adults (most of us anyway wink

) and can make our own decisions without being babied into it.
YOU need to take responsibility for yourself as do every single one of us. It is not this, or any other sites role to do this for us. This country is enough of a nanny state as it is and it's people like you who continue to make it so!
*Her*

3 Aug 2010

I think it's rather unfair to blame one person for a nanny state. Leave Demi alone, yes her approach had been rather ham fisted at times, but c'mon guys, what's the beef? lol

We all make mistakes now and then, eh. :therethere:
Anyway, I think another box in the preferences thing with the smoking and drinking thing would be a good thing seeing as this place is about sexual stuff. A little box like...
Safe sex
Sometimes
Negotiable
Always
Never
I think that would be a good addition to the site profile pages if it was a searchable option too. You know like I can tick to find the heavy drinkers for a good night out on the town! ;) Yes, it won't stop the liars but it will add to one of the things that I will actively use as one of my scouting tools! smile

Choice to fill it in or not, same as with all the bits on the profile page, so the choice is not removed but a feature which may be useful to some is added. Just a thought. I think in application, it won't replace common sense but it will allow an ardant profile watcher like me to suss out the truth from the chaff if the status keeps changing. ;)
I love it when people are one age one month and about ten years younger the next! :lol:

3 Aug 2010

Quote by little gem
I think it's rather unfair to blame one person for a nanny state. Leave Demi alone, yes her approach had been rather ham fisted at times, but c'mon guys, what's the beef? We all make mistakes now and then, eh. :therethere:
Anyway, I think another box in the preferences thing with the smoking and drinking thing would be a good thing seeing as this place is about sexual stuff. A little box like...
Safe sex
Sometimes
Negotiable
Always
Never
I think that would be a good addition to the site profile pages if it was a searchable option too. You know like I can tick to find the heavy drinkers for a good night out on the town! ;) Yes, it won't stop the liars but it will add to one of the things that I will actively use as one of my scouting tools! Choice to fill it in or not, same as with all the bits on the profile page, so the choice is not removed but a feature which may be useful to some is added. Just a thought. I think in application, it won't replace common sense but it will allow an ardant profile watcher like me to suss out the truth from the chaff if the status keeps changing. ;)
I love it when people are one age one month and about ten years younger the next! :lol:

Tell you what... RWL is taking a beating today!! :giggle:
bolt

3 Aug 2010

Oy! :dry: Don't snip my sensible stuff... it hurts when you do that! sad

NURSE!
NURSE!
I'm bleeding! surprised

uch:
I hope you're happy now. confused

3 Aug 2010

Quote by little gem
Oy! :dry: Don't snip my sensible stuff... it hurts when you do that!
NURSE!
NURSE!
I'm bleeding! uch:
I hope you're happy now.

:therethere:
*puts plaster over wound*
I fixed it! kiss

3 Aug 2010

Did you just play nurse for me?
:rascal: huhuhuhuhuhuhuhhuh (in french accent while twirling mustache!)
But it still hurts... can you kiss it better? That's it... down a bit... down a bit more! ;)
Mwhahahahaha! :twisted:
*skips off to scoot through the adverts and profile pages to put my theory into theoretical practice*
Actually, I'm going to do the washing up, hoover up, play with our pets and then wash my hair. Then I'm going to the bank and to get something to eat. Not that you all needed to know that, but it's rather less glamourous and a bit more necessary. lol

Oh well. x kiss

LG. x

3 Aug 2010

Quote by Naughty Wigan Couple

Why do you choose to make this a personal issue to me? It isn't.
I have replied to you in private memo as I do not wish to make this personal as I said before.
I clearly have agreed with some other, perhaps more thoughtful posts than yours, your comments are personal and as I said before, unnecessary in this discussion thanks.

Demi, as you are the one who has decided to make this very personal, I can only say to you what I have said in response to the sarcastic pm you sent. If you have a problem with me or any other site member, please report this to the site administrators who will investigate further.
Really?
Really? Lol, unbelievable, you know, I posted you a private memo to take your comments out of the forum, yet you, a so called 'mod', choose to reply in here.
(You did not reply to me in memo at all, so do pretend you did).
You are the one who has been making personal comments, not I.
Complain to admins? Why bother? Seriously if your attitude and responses are indicative of the level of intelligence and sense of the mods on here, it would be a waste of time.
I am saddened that this site seems not to have developed at all, it was cliquey when I first joined and it seems it still is.
The approach to safe sex and responsibility shown here would never be condoned on fetish sites, it seems this place has a culture of turning a blind eye, whenever the subject of safe sex is brought up on these forums, the poster in support of active promotion gets shouted down, I have seen it before here.
You may call it nanny state if you like, to me that is plain ignorance, no one is forcing anyone to wear a condom, but when you have threads about 20 year old girls taking on 10 men bareback and no one, no one says a word, wtf?
It is simply irresponsible to not take a stance as a sex contact website to show you actively encourage and recommend safe sex.
Nothing to do with so called 'freedom of choice' as there are plenty of other more edgy topics that would get closed down quick enough if they were broached I am sure.
Why the huge uproar over a simple multiple choice profile button and the vitriolic personal attacks from a cliquey group to the person who speaks up?
Sad really.
I shall go back to leave you to your misguided backward little cliques, not something I have any desire to participate in.

3 Aug 2010

Quote by demi
Really?
Really? Lol, unbelievable, you know, I posted you a private memo to take your comments out of the forum, yet you, a so called 'mod', choose to reply in here.
(You did not reply to me in memo at all, so do pretend you did).
You are the one who has been making personal comments, not I.
Complain to admins? Why bother? Seriously if your attitude and responses are indicative of the level of intelligence and sense of the mods on here, it would be a waste of time.
I am saddened that this site seems not to have developed at all, it was cliquey when I first joined and it seems it still is.
The approach to safe sex and responsibility shown here would never be condoned on fetish sites, it seems this place has a culture of turning a blind eye, whenever the subject of safe sex is brought up on these forums, the poster in support of active promotion gets shouted down, I have seen it before here.
You may call it nanny state if you like, to me that is plain ignorance, no one is forcing anyone to wear a condom, but when you have threads about 20 year old girls taking on 10 men bareback and no one, no one says a word, wtf?
It is simply irresponsible to not take a stance as a sex contact website to show you actively encourage and recommend safe sex.
Nothing to do with so called 'freedom of choice' as there are plenty of other more edgy topics that would get closed down quick enough if they were broached I am sure.
Why the huge uproar over a simple multiple choice profile button and the vitriolic personal attacks from a cliquey group to the person who speaks up?

Sad really.
I shall go back to leave you to your misguided backward little cliques, not something I have any desire to participate in.

A brilliant post.:thumbup:
I thought the topic of this thread very interesting, but that reply suims it up very nicely.

3 Aug 2010

Demi, if you take me or couples in general off your blocked list you will see I have replied to the message sent to me and I replied at yesterday.
Demi, this is not personal against you, it is my personal thoughts and views on what you posted. How can I be personal when I do now know you and know nothing about you? You were the one who made it personal with your private messages and your comments on my posts not being as well thought out as yours. However, your assessment on my level of education, has nothing to do with my ability to think. My posts are just my thoughts on what you have said in your posts and I am entitled to them in the same way that are entitled to yours. If you are taking it personaly then I can assure you it is not.
As for a clique, Ken will confirm I am part of no clique on here, I do my own thing in my own way, and just because I am a moderator does not take away the fact that I am also a site member, just like you and Ken, and that I am also entitled to my own views on things. Actually Ken probably wont confirm this, as I am not part of his clique either wink

I have said often enough that I would never consider playing bareback and I do think it is irresponsible for people to do it (more than irresponsible, I think it frighteningly selfish and extremely dangerous) but you seem to be missing what I and othershave said to you. We cannot make people play bareback, they are adults and need to make these decisions themselves. The site cannot enforce a safe sex only policy, unless they send a representative along to every meet to make sure everyone is 'covered up' before they play. Also, a tick box on a profile will not make people be truthful about what they do behind closed doors. If they lie about it now, they will lie about it if or when a box is available for them to put a tick in.

3 Aug 2010

Quote by Naughty Wigan Couple
As for a clique, Ken will confirm I am part of no clique on here, I do my own thing in my own way, and just because I am a moderator does not take away the fact that I am also a site member, just like you and Ken, and that I am also entitled to my own views on things. Actually Ken probably wont confirm this, as I am not part of his clique either

Who is part of my so called clique then naughty?
Anyone would think I wield some magic stick and all these members jump to my defense.
There are a damn site more that goad and try to piss me off...what are they called? Ah I know they are also part of a clique....they exist on here.
I cannot confirm anything as to be honest you are one of the few who I have had very small dealings with.
The Mods could be deemed to be part of a clique, as I have only once ever seen two mods bicker on here, the rest of the time they all agree....maybe not privately but certainly publicly.
:cheers:

3 Aug 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Who is part of my so called clique then naughty?

Not a clue who is in your clique or if you have one or not, but it was just getting a point across that often people seem to think that someone is or isnt a part of a clique just because they tend to agree with certain people.
As it happens, I (personally) really dont think you are part of any clique on here but then again, I probably wouldnt recognise one if it hit me in the face wink

3 Aug 2010

Sorry to jump in, but just to clarify: the Mod team disagree about lots of things. However we are united in our defense of the AUP. It's our 'job' :thumbup:

3 Aug 2010

Quote by noladreams
Sorry to jump in, but just to clarify: the Mod team disagree about lots of things. However we are united in our defense of the AUP. It's our 'job' :thumbup:

Seconded

And me and easy disagree a lot but we try to keep our domestics away from the site :lol2: :giggle:

3 Aug 2010

Quote by Naughty Wigan Couple

Who is part of my so called clique then naughty?

Not a clue who is in your clique or if you have one or not, but it was just getting a point across that often people seem to think that someone is or isnt a part of a clique just because they tend to agree with certain people.
As it happens, I (personally) really dont think you are part of any clique on herebut then again, I probably wouldnt recognise one if it hit me in the face wink

Yes you are right on that score....I can fight my own battles. :wink:

3 Aug 2010

I have only been on one other forum where i contributed regularly, that was a big U/S site. That site was no where near so heavily moderated as this one.
Not saying its better or worse, just an observation

3 Aug 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Yes you are right on that score....I can fight my own battles.

And Im only interested in perving your bikes, sod to your battles :wink:

3 Aug 2010

And here is where I mark my entrance onto the shitlist, but I have noticed that some conversations that has taken a turn such as this thread has, would have been 'dealt with' long before it got to this point.

3 Aug 2010

Quote by Naughty Wigan Couple

Yes you are right on that score....I can fight my own battles.

And Im only interested in perving your bikes, sod to your battles :wink:
Which one do you prefer? :wink:

3 Aug 2010

Quote by essex34m
And here is where I mark my entrance onto the shitlist, but I have noticed that some conversations that has taken a turn such as this thread has, would have been 'dealt with' long before it got to this point.

Sites evolve, rules change, moderation differs.
The members make suggestions and new ways are tried. Usually on a trial basis and if it seems to work then it stays, if it doesn't then it goes again.
It is quite intersting to see that two long standing members post within a few posts of each other with one claiming it is over-modded and one saying it is under-modded. Each member views it differently.
Dave_Notts

3 Aug 2010

Please excuse my outburst, it was unwarranted, and nothing to do with me.