Unprotected sex, or even called fluid-bonding; we’ve all heard about it. And how many, many people tell us to advoid it like the black-plauge— although, they mean the best intentions... I don’t think people desire STDs.
I’ve never had any physical sex with anyone. When I do, I’ll promise to use protection (condoms, dental-dams, yadda yadda)
But something intrigues me though, whenever the right time comes... there’s a committed, consenting couple, they’re usually having unprotective sex. And there’s a secret stigma about the emotional and physical process. They push that all under the rug.
I’ve even seen a sexual educator even admit they’re fluid-bonded without mentioning the important guidelines to their audiences... like it’s one big secret.
Is it actually worth being fluid-bonded? And is it that dangerous, even when (both partners) are not carrying any diseases?
How does someone cope with not knowing they or their partner cannot partake in fluid-bonding?
What about in the future, when I want children when I’m an adult, is having safe-sex still recommended?
(If that’s possible?)
How come people view it as shameful or pathetic to have safe-sex— especially between couples?
*Uh— also I DONT condone to having unprotective sex to whoever’s reading this. You only have one body, so please take care of it. Please be responsible and have safe sex.
Fluid-Bonding?
-
Nonsequitur
- not a newbie
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:57 pm
- Age: 23
- Awesomeness Quotient: I’ve survived a week without crying
- Primary language: English
- Pronouns: She/Her, They/Them
- Sexual identity: Bisexual
- Location: My House
-
Heather
- scarleteen founder & director
- Posts: 9703
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:43 am
- Age: 54
- Awesomeness Quotient: I have been a sex educator for over 25 years!
- Primary language: english
- Pronouns: they/them
- Sexual identity: queery-queer-queer
- Location: Chicago
Re: Fluid-Bonding?
A lot of these questions are whole conversations all by themselves, so I'll just go ahead and get started tacking them really briefly, and then we can dig in more as you'd like or need, okay? 
The idea there's something lesser or shameful about couples -- no matter how long they have been together -- practicing safer sex generally stems from ignorance (and denial) about how sexually transmitted illness works (like that trust or love can't magic away infections) and stigma around it.
The idea that being unable to be fluid-bonded is a hardship to have to cope with is something that also strikes me as stemming from that kind of stigma in part (including very pervasive HIV stigma). After all, some people are sexually super into fluids. Others could care less, and others still actually prefer not to have fluid-sharing be part of their sexual lives, including for reasons other than concerns about STIs (like because they don't like the temporary changes semen inside the vagina can bring, for instance, or because they are avoiding pregnancy and not using methods where they can share fluids).
This also touches on your question about if it is "worth it" to be fluid-bonded. Ideally, if and when people are, they aren't taking big risks for that in the first place, and are either getting something out of sharing fluids (like sexual enjoyment, say, or a wanted pregnancy, if they go about pregnancy that way), or it's a neutral situation. But this really boils down to personal preference and people's unique situations and circumstances. For some people, fluid-sharing is what they want, a thing they can do, and a good fit. For others, it's not worth it because they don't even really want to and it means opening themselves up to risks they would rather not.
Is it dangerous? It depends. When everyone involved doesn't know their STI status? Potentially, yes. Same goes for how people can simply be dishonest about their status, about if they have been getting tested at all, about if they are exclusive or not, and so forth. But it can also be very low-risk, particularly when people HAVE practiced safer sex for all activities with STI risks for at least six months first, with both/all getting full STI panels at the start and end of that time period, and when people then are and truly stay exclusive after. In that kind of situation, assuming everyone involved is negative for all the things they can be tested for, it's really not much more risky than when using condoms, particularly since the HPV those with penises can't get the highly accurate tests for is something that barriers don't protect as well from as fluid-borne illnesses anyway.
Of course it's possible to engage in safer sex when you're older and have children. Remember, safer sex isn't just about using barriers, for one. It's a set of practices, primarily about doing three things: barrier use, testing and treatment, and lifestyle choices. Someone can do all those things and then make choice sin such a way that if they want to try and become pregnant through intercourse, they can do so with low STI risks. Of course, people who have had or do have STIs also usually have the ability to become pregnant and also can usually do so safely, so it's not like having or having had an STI rules out pregnancy for someone, you know?
Phew! That was a lot, but hopefully enough to get you started with all these questions.
The idea there's something lesser or shameful about couples -- no matter how long they have been together -- practicing safer sex generally stems from ignorance (and denial) about how sexually transmitted illness works (like that trust or love can't magic away infections) and stigma around it.
The idea that being unable to be fluid-bonded is a hardship to have to cope with is something that also strikes me as stemming from that kind of stigma in part (including very pervasive HIV stigma). After all, some people are sexually super into fluids. Others could care less, and others still actually prefer not to have fluid-sharing be part of their sexual lives, including for reasons other than concerns about STIs (like because they don't like the temporary changes semen inside the vagina can bring, for instance, or because they are avoiding pregnancy and not using methods where they can share fluids).
This also touches on your question about if it is "worth it" to be fluid-bonded. Ideally, if and when people are, they aren't taking big risks for that in the first place, and are either getting something out of sharing fluids (like sexual enjoyment, say, or a wanted pregnancy, if they go about pregnancy that way), or it's a neutral situation. But this really boils down to personal preference and people's unique situations and circumstances. For some people, fluid-sharing is what they want, a thing they can do, and a good fit. For others, it's not worth it because they don't even really want to and it means opening themselves up to risks they would rather not.
Is it dangerous? It depends. When everyone involved doesn't know their STI status? Potentially, yes. Same goes for how people can simply be dishonest about their status, about if they have been getting tested at all, about if they are exclusive or not, and so forth. But it can also be very low-risk, particularly when people HAVE practiced safer sex for all activities with STI risks for at least six months first, with both/all getting full STI panels at the start and end of that time period, and when people then are and truly stay exclusive after. In that kind of situation, assuming everyone involved is negative for all the things they can be tested for, it's really not much more risky than when using condoms, particularly since the HPV those with penises can't get the highly accurate tests for is something that barriers don't protect as well from as fluid-borne illnesses anyway.
Of course it's possible to engage in safer sex when you're older and have children. Remember, safer sex isn't just about using barriers, for one. It's a set of practices, primarily about doing three things: barrier use, testing and treatment, and lifestyle choices. Someone can do all those things and then make choice sin such a way that if they want to try and become pregnant through intercourse, they can do so with low STI risks. Of course, people who have had or do have STIs also usually have the ability to become pregnant and also can usually do so safely, so it's not like having or having had an STI rules out pregnancy for someone, you know?
Phew! That was a lot, but hopefully enough to get you started with all these questions.
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead