I cant get comfortable if I meet someone like that, what with all the risks involved, almost fell into one...so personally I wont risk it and for other people, use condoms always... 😐

[img]http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd199/vivharv/Gokusen-1.jpg[/img]

Added risk of STDs? Ever tried using PROTECTION? That reason is complete bullshit, seeing as an STD could very well happen in "sexual encounter X", including a RELATIONSHIP. Stupidity is to blame, not internet.

Psychos are everywhere (and nowhere) at all times - the ratio of normal/psycho is no different on the net from bars/on the street.

Attraction, however, can come in the way. "Mr. Extremely charming meets up with Superhot'pics-girl. They live five hours from eachother."

A) Mr. EC isn't as charming and sexy as he was behind the security of his keyboard in his own home
B) The pics of SHPG was actually of her really hot friend.
C) Both of the above, they leave in awkwardness
D) Both of the above, they decide to fuck anyway - it's not like either could do better.

But, there's always option E.

E) They're both as awesome and hot as was depicted online, they have lots of great sex, and thank god (multiple times) for the internet for letting them find eachother and bring them physically closer.

Personally, though, I don't go to bars to get laid, and I don't search for sex online. It's all about the moment for me; when I feel the urge. The net can't give me that (unless from sheer, incredible luck). I can, however, appreciate the lure it has for people that try and get some, and I approve of it as such.

STDs are lurking everywhere, that is true. With a steady partner, the risk for infections is very low, though. I guess this was the point here.
And psychos are everywhere, that is also true. BUT it is way easier (albeit still difficult) to identify a critical character when meeting this person in a natural or at least real environment. Still, people are deceitful, we all know that.
The risk is still higher when you only ever communicated virtually.

Anyone who wants to do it this way should be free to do so, I wouldn't judge.

Quote from Jooles

Added risk of STDs? Ever tried using PROTECTION? That reason is complete bullshit, seeing as an STD could very well happen in "sexual encounter X", including a RELATIONSHIP. Stupidity is to blame, not internet.

No protection is 100% effective, unfortunately, and the more partners a person has, the higher the chance that one of those partners will have an STD. If those partners all have multiple partners, that raises the chances of STDs even higher. 🤢

"[English] not only borrows words from other languages; it has on occasion chased other languages down dark alley-ways, clubbed them unconscious and rifled their pockets for new vocabulary."
-James Nicoll, can.general, March 21, 1992

Quote from Isara

STDs are lurking everywhere, that is true. With a steady partner, the risk for infections is very low, though. I guess this was the point here.
And psychos are everywhere, that is also true. BUT it is way easier (albeit still difficult) to identify a critical character when meeting this person in a natural or at least real environment. Still, people are deceitful, we all know that.
The risk is still higher when you only ever communicated virtually.

Anyone who wants to do it this way should be free to do so, I wouldn't judge.

A steady partner does decrease the risk, even with the added risk-percentage based on trust (HAH-HAH), but off the top of my bat (?) I can name at least three people in my vicinity that have been STDed by their partners [well into the relationship].

Quote from TofuQueen

Quote from Jooles

Added risk of STDs? Ever tried using PROTECTION? That reason is complete bullshit, seeing as an STD could very well happen in "sexual encounter X", including a RELATIONSHIP. Stupidity is to blame, not internet.

No protection is 100% effective, unfortunately, and the more partners a person has, the higher the chance that one of those partners will have an STD. If those partners all have multiple partners, that raises the chances of STDs even higher. 🤢

True, but then again, we could all just turn frigid and let the race die out because we're afraid of replacing the itch in our groin with an itchy groin. It's about fucking responsibly, with partners you can trust to take care of their own shit - that way, the added risk is really slim at worst.

a/s/l pls

Quote from Jooles

Quote from Isara

STDs are lurking everywhere, that is true. With a steady partner, the risk for infections is very low, though. I guess this was the point here.
And psychos are everywhere, that is also true. BUT it is way easier (albeit still difficult) to identify a critical character when meeting this person in a natural or at least real environment. Still, people are deceitful, we all know that.
The risk is still higher when you only ever communicated virtually.

Anyone who wants to do it this way should be free to do so, I wouldn't judge.

A steady partner does decrease the risk, even with the added risk-percentage based on trust (HAH-HAH), but off the top of my bat (?) I can name at least three people in my vicinity that have been STDed by their partners [well into the relationship].

Quote from TofuQueen

Quote from Jooles

Added risk of STDs? Ever tried using PROTECTION? That reason is complete bullshit, seeing as an STD could very well happen in "sexual encounter X", including a RELATIONSHIP. Stupidity is to blame, not internet.

No protection is 100% effective, unfortunately, and the more partners a person has, the higher the chance that one of those partners will have an STD. If those partners all have multiple partners, that raises the chances of STDs even higher. 🤢

True, but then again, we could all just turn frigid and let the race die out because we're afraid of replacing the itch in our groin with an itchy groin. It's about fucking responsibly, with partners you can trust to take care of their own shit - that way, the added risk is really slim at worst.

You mean by not having sex with people you meet online? 😀
And turning frigid and letting the race die? Pregnancy isn't the typical reason for casual stranger sex.

And I know plenty of people who have good monogamous relationships where no STD's have been spread. It seems your friends think like you.

[img]https://www.yourgimmick.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/banner1.jpg[/img]

Quote from shaggievara

They could be telling the truth about their age, a webcam isn't going to tell you if someone is a rapist or psycho or not.

And you can if you'd meet them in real life? Like in a bar, while drunk (=real life?).

Quote from secretdesires

nothing wrong with it
its not really different from going out and picking up people and bars and clubs

One might argue whether there's nothing wrong with picking up people at bars and clubs.

Far-off places with sweet sounding names.

Quote from 狂気

Quote from shaggievara

They could be telling the truth about their age, a webcam isn't going to tell you if someone is a rapist or psycho or not.

And you can if you'd meet them in real life? Like in a bar, while drunk (=real life?).

I don't get drunk. Though generally, yes, but that is because I don't trust many people at all, why would I trust a stranger?

But hey, if I'm the type of person who bar hops drunk looking for a lay, I guess if that person is a rapist or a psycho it doesn't really matter.

[img]http://s4.tinypic.com/23jr85h.jpg[/img]

Quote from Kitteh_13

Quote from Jooles

Quote from Isara

STDs are lurking everywhere, that is true. With a steady partner, the risk for infections is very low, though. I guess this was the point here.
And psychos are everywhere, that is also true. BUT it is way easier (albeit still difficult) to identify a critical character when meeting this person in a natural or at least real environment. Still, people are deceitful, we all know that.
The risk is still higher when you only ever communicated virtually.

Anyone who wants to do it this way should be free to do so, I wouldn't judge.

A steady partner does decrease the risk, even with the added risk-percentage based on trust (HAH-HAH), but off the top of my bat (?) I can name at least three people in my vicinity that have been STDed by their partners [well into the relationship].

Quote from TofuQueen

[quote=Jooles]Added risk of STDs? Ever tried using PROTECTION? That reason is complete bullshit, seeing as an STD could very well happen in "sexual encounter X", including a RELATIONSHIP. Stupidity is to blame, not internet.

No protection is 100% effective, unfortunately, and the more partners a person has, the higher the chance that one of those partners will have an STD. If those partners all have multiple partners, that raises the chances of STDs even higher. 🤢

True, but then again, we could all just turn frigid and let the race die out because we're afraid of replacing the itch in our groin with an itchy groin. It's about fucking responsibly, with partners you can trust to take care of their own shit - that way, the added risk is really slim at worst.

You mean by not having sex with people you meet online? 😀
And turning frigid and letting the race die? Pregnancy isn't the typical reason for casual stranger sex.

And I know plenty of people who have good monogamous relationships where no STD's have been spread. It seems your friends think like you.

[/quote]

Yes, because meeting someone online who you don't "trust" obviously falls into the responsibility-category, uh-huh. Focus.

Turning frigid annuls the possibility of STDs (through fucking, anyway). Yay! That we would die out (pregnancy-bladdieblah) is in this suggestion a side-effect. Focus.

I'm not saying everyone cheats, just that it is far more common than people think (especially since a common misconception is that it's mostly the man doing it). P.s. "Where no STDs have been spread" does not in any way exclude the possibility that they're cheating.

I do not condone cheating. I did not say anything about them being my friends. I have never suggested that a monogamous relationship is a good thing, or even a biologically sound one. So, obviously, my "friends" don't think like me, and obviously, you know too little to make that statement in the first place. FOCUS!

Yeah, there's no way in hell I'd do it just for sex.

Quote from Klapzi

The cool part is that I never get tired of being deceived

Quote from tactics

Just because someone's head was chopped off doesn't mean they're dead. That's just silly.

[img]http://oi44.tinypic.com/vzy2qv.jpg[/img]

Meeting anyone online (or through any other venue for that matter) just for sex is pretty sad.

Quote from Jooles

I have never suggested that a monogamous relationship is a good thing

The "monogamous" part threw me off a bit. Did you mean polygamous?

[We need more staff!] Visit us at: http://www.stilettoheelsteam.net/

Quote from hatsumimi99

Meeting anyone online (or through any other venue for that matter) just for sex is pretty sad.

Quote from Jooles

I have never suggested that a monogamous relationship is a good thing

The "monogamous" part threw me off a bit. Did you mean polygamous?

No, monogamous as in exclusive.

Quote from Jooles

Yes, because meeting someone online who you don't "trust" obviously falls into the responsibility-category, uh-huh. Focus.

Turning frigid annuls the possibility of STDs (through fucking, anyway). Yay! That we would die out (pregnancy-bladdieblah) is in this suggestion a side-effect. Focus.

I'm not saying everyone cheats, just that it is far more common than people think (especially since a common misconception is that it's mostly the man doing it). P.s. "Where no STDs have been spread" does not in any way exclude the possibility that they're cheating.

I do not condone cheating. I did not say anything about them being my friends. I have never suggested that a monogamous relationship is a good thing, or even a biologically sound one. So, obviously, my "friends" don't think like me, and obviously, you know too little to make that statement in the first place. FOCUS!

Pregnancy has nothing to do with casual sex man. If people are committed enough to have kids I am going to assume they can be committed enough to not cheat. Although I understand that isn't always the case (Tiger Woods), but there are plenty of people who follow this formula.

++ STD's can cause birth problems possibly leading to miscarriage and dead babies. (Killing the human race)

So please just admit that babies, pregnancy, and preservation of the human race has nothing to do with meeting people online for casual sex.

[img]https://www.yourgimmick.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/banner1.jpg[/img]

Quote from Kitteh_13

Quote from Jooles

Yes, because meeting someone online who you don't "trust" obviously falls into the responsibility-category, uh-huh. Focus.

Turning frigid annuls the possibility of STDs (through fucking, anyway). Yay! That we would die out (pregnancy-bladdieblah) is in this suggestion a side-effect. Focus.

I'm not saying everyone cheats, just that it is far more common than people think (especially since a common misconception is that it's mostly the man doing it). P.s. "Where no STDs have been spread" does not in any way exclude the possibility that they're cheating.

I do not condone cheating. I did not say anything about them being my friends. I have never suggested that a monogamous relationship is a good thing, or even a biologically sound one. So, obviously, my "friends" don't think like me, and obviously, you know too little to make that statement in the first place. FOCUS!

Pregnancy has nothing to do with casual sex man. If people are committed enough to have kids I am going to assume they can be committed enough to not cheat. Although I understand that isn't always the case (Tiger Woods), but there are plenty of people who follow this formula.

++ STD's can cause birth problems possibly leading to miscarriage and dead babies. (Killing the human race)

So please just admit that babies, pregnancy, and preservation of the human race has nothing to do with meeting people online for casual sex.

Pregnancy and sex go hand-in-hand, regardless of the circumstances. Are either party aiming to make a baby with casual sex? Very rarely. That, I have no problem admitting.

That formula is highly unstable, and won't last long-term. Sure, mix the two ingredients. For a couple of years, the liquid shifts into an amazing amount of beautiful colors. But around the three-year mark, either the goo is dripping down the walls from a violent explosion, or most of it evaporates and only a very slight portion is left in the vial, stale and with a rancid stench.

We've been conditioned into thinking those results are bad for a couple'thousand years now. It is not. It's just LIFE.