Does anyone go to BM WITHOUT the expectation to have sex?

Share your views on the policies, philosophies, and spirit of Burning Man.
transgirl
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:00 am
Location: Sioux City

Does anyone go to BM WITHOUT the expectation to have sex?

Post by transgirl » Sat Aug 26, 2006 3:43 pm

Just curious if anyone who is already in a relationship (and their partner isn't going) go to BM and hold BACK from having sex? Are you just expected to be sexually free without a care in the world?

This is my first BUrning Man, and I am in a relationship, but my fiance is off on a ship in the Pacific. If the situation were reversed, and he was going without me, i just don't think I could handle it, cause I would instintively know he was going and getting laid. Or maybe you just have to accept that most likely your significant other will probably be with new partners and that what happens on the playa stays on the playa?

User avatar
AntiM
Moderator
Posts: 20123
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 5:23 am
Burning Since: 2001
Camp Name: Anti M's Home for Wayward Art
Location: Wild, Wild West
Contact:

Post by AntiM » Sat Aug 26, 2006 3:55 pm

Navy? You simply must trust your partner, that's all. And he has to just trust you. larry and I were in the navy, he was always going interesting places like PI and Thailand. There was much opportunity, and plenty of things I could have been suspicious about. Heck, the first two years we were married we only saw each other for a total of 28 days. Plenty of time to have gone astray, for both of us, especially since we hung out in bars with other drunken sailors!

You two must put rules in place, and then stick to those rules. Whatever works for the two of you.

You don't need to have sex at Burning Man. Of course, my advice back when I was in my 20s would have been entirely different, do what you will (safely) and keep your mouth shut, no need to hurt the ones you love. Sigh, I am a much different person thse days!

User avatar
Mister Jellyfish Mister
Posts: 2367
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:02 pm
Location: Sparks, Nevada
Contact:

Post by Mister Jellyfish Mister » Sat Aug 26, 2006 4:01 pm

I like the way you look at it from a "tables turned" perspective. You obvoiusly care for him a great deal.

It is important for me to see myself, standing on the playa as a married man who loves his wife, and recognize when that is threatened. Just like, well, I'm not gay and some really big bells go off when that kind of opportunity presents itself-- the difference being it's someone I don't want to fuck.

Sex with the one you love is always better after the burn, no matter what you do there. I hope you don't have to wait too long for your beau to come back for that.

The playa presents many, many opportunities to be SENSUAL, and I'll bet you know the difference. Document the fantasies that creep up on you and you may feel less compelled to live them out with a stranger, yes?
Art cred: Georgie Boy 2011: www.mutantvehicle.com/georgie_boy.htm ; Ein Hammer 2010; Fluffer 2009; Zsu Zsu 2008; U-Me 2007; Mantis 2006; MiniMan and Pikes Of Paranoia 2005; Time Machine Mutant Vehicle 2004. www.MutantVehicle.com

User avatar
Silver 2
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: DC/Northern VA

Post by Silver 2 » Sat Aug 26, 2006 6:14 pm

I'm bored and packed and awake and have to get up in about 6 hours to pick up friends and catch a plane at 07:00 EST.

So in response, yes I know several (at least) people who go to Burning Man without their SO's and make no effort to get laid (if men) or who turn down offers (if women or gay men). Very few straight guys in my experience get cold offers. we generally have to put some effort out. These are not old farts like myself but people in their early/mid thirties.

My perspective is a bit different; a couple of weeks ago I was emailing back and forth with a friend about love, sex and whatnot generally and at Burning Man specifically.

She wrote:
You don't go to Burning Man to hook up

My response:
Right, generally have too much other stuff to do. Would not turn it down if it came up quick and easy. Another aspect is that I had never paid much attention on how it was done until lately, at least in a proactive way. Will say from my limited experience it's too much trouble and too time consuming for BM. If I had the skills of some of the guys it might be a different story.

To explain:
The skills I refer to is the ability to flirt and like that, on a scale of 1 to 10 I hit maybe a -3. Since I have the ability to talk to anyone about anything often women will think that I am flirting or building up the courage to do so; in reality I am just collecting one experience before I move on to the next one. Quite honestly very few people can hold my interest for long. If all I wanted to do is get laid I could stay home and save a couple of thousand; however, burners are a whole lot less boring than most people.

Mister Jellyfish Mister has this right:
The playa presents many, many opportunities to be SENSUAL,
At Burning Man you will see me with my arms around and maybe kissing, friends and friends who are wives of friends. This low impact, low drama interaction provides a nice sensual touch without any 'what next' sort of thing and nobody is surprised or whatever when I move on.

SS&S and then bedtime
I like playing with fire.

User avatar
Silver 2
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: DC/Northern VA

Post by Silver 2 » Sat Aug 26, 2006 6:24 pm

I'm bored and packed and awake and have to get up in about 6 hours to pick up friends and catch a plane at 07:00 EST.

So in response, yes I know several (at least) people who go to Burning Man without their SO's and make no effort to get laid (if men) or who turn down offers (if women or gay men). Very few straight guys in my experience get cold offers. we generally have to put some effort out. These are not old farts like myself but people in their early/mid thirties.

My perspective is a bit different; a couple of weeks ago I was emailing back and forth with a friend about love, sex and whatnot generally and at Burning Man specifically.

She wrote:
You don't go to Burning Man to hook up

My response:
Right, generally have too much other stuff to do. Would not turn it down if it came up quick and easy. Another aspect is that I had never paid much attention on how it was done until lately, at least in a proactive way. Will say from my limited experience it's too much trouble and too time consuming for BM. If I had the skills of some of the guys it might be a different story.

To explain:
The skills I refer to is the ability to flirt and like that, on a scale of 1 to 10 I hit maybe a -3. I know a couple of guys who have the ability to walk into a place and within a short period of time walk out with a woman. I watch them do it and still cannot figure it out; granted their standards and mine seem to be very different though some of the women they are sucessful with are quite intelligent. Since I have the ability to talk to anyone about anything often women will think that I am flirting or building up the courage to do so; in reality I am just collecting one experience before I move on to the next one. Quite honestly very few people can hold my interest for long. If all I wanted to do is get laid I could stay home and save a couple of thousand; however, burners are a whole lot less boring than most people.

Mister Jellyfish Mister has this right:
The playa presents many, many opportunities to be SENSUAL,
At Burning Man you will see me with my arms around and maybe kissing, friends and friends who are wives of friends. This low impact, low drama interaction provides a nice sensual touch without any 'what next' sort of thing and nobody is surprised or whatever when I move on.

SS&S and then bedtime
I like playing with fire.

transgirl
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:00 am
Location: Sioux City

Post by transgirl » Sat Aug 26, 2006 10:36 pm

THanks for your replies.

With my fiance, while he's out on deployment to Thailand, and the rest of the south pacific, I just try not to think about what goes on. I expect he'll at least TRY not to get prostitutes at every port :p. I hope he'll have respect for me AND himself. BUt if something happens, he knows I damn well don't want to get a disease, and that I don't want to know.

I still think it's better to not hurt your partner and bear the guilt burden, at least if it was JUST sex.

From what I've read, BM seems to be a sexually charged environment, that makes it easier to just let go and temporarily forget your better judgement.
Personally, I'm not looking to explore sexual boundries, but to try to relate and form relationships with people outside of the sexual experience.

I never have male friendships in real life, because it ALWAYS turns sexual. Well I don't really keep friendships with women either, because it either turns sexual or competitive. I'd like to change that.

SED
Posts: 1359
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 10:26 pm

Post by SED » Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:08 am

So are we gonna do it, or what?
It ain't the hanging, it's the drop.

User avatar
joel the ornery
Posts: 2657
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:28 pm
Burning Since: 1998
Location: i'm the snarky one in your worst fucking nightmares
Contact:

Post by joel the ornery » Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:30 am

<smirk>

User avatar
Mister Jellyfish Mister
Posts: 2367
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:02 pm
Location: Sparks, Nevada
Contact:

Post by Mister Jellyfish Mister » Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:44 am

SED wrote:So are we gonna do it, or what?
You sleigh me, SED.

Transgirl: Ouch! Thailand?! That's a chastity belt full of temptation too!

Sounds like you've got the curse of an attractive woman when every friendship tries to go sexual, so you won't get any sympathy from all of us that are trying so hard to glam up our playa look just have game. I'm still as pervy as the next guy and love to flirt in such an atmosphere. For us middle aged guys, believing that a beautiful young girl would have us is almost as thrilling as actually doing it, so...

Play up that tease with the ones who stimulate you in ways not sexual. Kiss some greasy bald spots and sit on Santa's lap. If some old bastard is dressed like Conan the Barbarian, examine the possiblility that he really is Conan the Barbarian for the simple reason that he deems it so. Treat him with the reverence women pose at his feet on those cheesy book covers. You may have new and thrilling SENSUAL experiences not available to you in the default world without creating a million stalkers and you just might make somebody's burn. Hugs are like drugs out there.

Thanks again for starting this subject. I'm bringing up the rear guard with Camp Apokiliptika so I'm pining for my arrival on Wednesday and this conversation helped me get my married shoes on (and they look sensational!).
Art cred: Georgie Boy 2011: www.mutantvehicle.com/georgie_boy.htm ; Ein Hammer 2010; Fluffer 2009; Zsu Zsu 2008; U-Me 2007; Mantis 2006; MiniMan and Pikes Of Paranoia 2005; Time Machine Mutant Vehicle 2004. www.MutantVehicle.com

Kinetic IV
Posts: 2977
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06

Post by Kinetic IV » Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:29 am

SED wrote:So are we gonna do it, or what?
With people looking at that child like avatar it doesn't exactly enhance your prospects.
K-IV
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!

transgirl
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:00 am
Location: Sioux City

Post by transgirl » Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:46 am

lol. Cute SED.


I don't know if it's so much BEING attractive, but maybe only forming friendships with people I FIND attractive and vice versa. I don't think I've ever had a friend that I wasn't somehow attracted to.

What I mean is I think maybe I unintentionally blow off people as friends if there isn't attraction. Which is kinda fucked up. So it ends up I only form friendships w/ sexual attraction built in.

Well with exception of my 68 yr old boss/landlady. She's a really close friend. Although I've had my doubts even then.

transgirl
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:00 am
Location: Sioux City

Post by transgirl » Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:48 am

eck, I need sleep. I pretty much just repeated myself, and think vice should be vise. ?

User avatar
AntiM
Moderator
Posts: 20123
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 5:23 am
Burning Since: 2001
Camp Name: Anti M's Home for Wayward Art
Location: Wild, Wild West
Contact:

Post by AntiM » Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:57 am

transgirl, don't worry about Thailand. mylarry went there a lot, and I have some pretty fishy pictures, (Soapland, throwing girls into the hotel pool, and one, well, he said it belongs to a buddy), but hey, he's here now and if anything did go on, I don't care. Sex is just sex.

Burning Man is a great place to learn to like people for being just themselves. If you're aware of the attraction thing, that's the first step in letting it go. I used to be much the same way, no girlfriends and far too many sexual relationships. Eventually I redefined my sexual self, and now I'm just me. Of course, I've been married 20 years, so there's that difference.

Don't worry, you'll get to where you need to be, at least you're examing your life!

SED
Posts: 1359
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 10:26 pm

Post by SED » Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:39 am

transgirl wrote:lol. Cute SED.
Check it, y'all. She thinks I'm funny and cute. I am so getting laid!


But if not, drop by the Bar (2:45 + Anxious) for some top shelf flirt. I give the best.


And remember, vice is nice as long as it's not versa.
It ain't the hanging, it's the drop.

transgirl
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:00 am
Location: Sioux City

Post by transgirl » Sun Aug 27, 2006 4:48 pm

^^^ See now, it's already started. :p

AntiM: I really liked your post, thank you for taking a moment to write it.

transgirl
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:00 am
Location: Sioux City

Post by transgirl » Sun Aug 27, 2006 4:52 pm

MJM, I like your post too. You have some interesting ideas. I have a feeling the vibe/interations at BM are like nothing I've seen in the real world, with all new social rules (or lack of them?).

helitack
Posts: 4140
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:00 pm
Burning Since: 2004
Location: A secret, undisclosed location in TexMexistan...

Re: Does anyone go to BM WITHOUT the expectation to have sex

Post by helitack » Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:38 pm

transgirl wrote:Just curious if anyone who is already in a relationship (and their partner isn't going) go to BM and hold BACK from having sex? Are you just expected to be sexually free without a care in the world?

This is my first BUrning Man, and I am in a relationship, but my fiance is off on a ship in the Pacific. If the situation were reversed, and he was going without me, i just don't think I could handle it, cause I would instintively know he was going and getting laid. Or maybe you just have to accept that most likely your significant other will probably be with new partners and that what happens on the playa stays on the playa?
If you are going to feel quilty about what you do, whether it is sex or anything else, use your own judgement and do what you need to do. You are ultimately only responsible to yourself.

User avatar
philosopher
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 12:35 am
Location: Chico, CA

Post by philosopher » Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:30 am

I'm willing to bet that there are lots of participants (like me) whose SO won't be setting foot on the playa any time soon and who are not looking for sex in BRC. Anyone who is paying attention will discover that they have myriad edges to explore beyond the sexual and amazing people to meet every day.

I can't even begin to list the cool things that would never have happened if I had been focused at the sexual level. For people who find themselves concentrated in the sexual frequencies, well, that's where they happen to be at the moment and it is great that BRC offers a sympathetic environment.

But BRC offers a spectrum of intensities unlike anyplace else, and there are infinitely many fine paths through them. That being said, there will always be those who go to Paris and are delighted to find a McDonalds.

User avatar
Traveller
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:19 am
Contact:

Re: Does anyone go to BM WITHOUT the expectation to have sex

Post by Traveller » Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:52 am

transgirl wrote:Just curious if anyone who is already in a relationship (and their partner isn't going) go to BM and hold BACK from having sex? Are you just expected to be sexually free without a care in the world?


Who would be expecting this, and who is he or she to have expectations about what you choose to do with your body? Doesn't real sexual freedom have to include the freedom to not have sex?

To be absolutely sexually carefree anywhere in the world today would be imprudent. AIDs changed everything. Keep in mind which city is most heavily represented at Burning Man: San Francisco, the place most heavily hit by the plague. The triple cocktail only contains the disease, it doesn't cure it, and those on it get to spend the rest of their lives wondering if or when a relapse will occur. The long term studies haven't had time to run their way to any kind of completion. If somebody is so selfish that he expects you to play such a game of Russian roulette just because he wants some instant gratification, such a person is undeserving of even a polite greeting, much less intimacy. Step on him, scrape him off the bottom of your shoe with about as much love and respect as you'd give to a cockroach, because just how much love and respect would our hypothetical stranger be showing you? Beginning to wonder whether this "liberation" I'm hearing so much about from the West Coast is maybe just another form of compulsion, a kind of Puritanism run in reverse.


transgirl wrote:Or maybe you just have to accept that most likely your significant other will probably be with new partners and that what happens on the playa stays on the playa?



No, absolutely not. Unfaithfulness is unfaithfulness, no matter where it occurs or with whom, and it does not go without saying that men will be unfaithful, even if there are a few men who find it convenient when the women around them think so. Obviously, you know your fiance far better than I do, but what makes you so sure that he would sleep around, given the chance?

Oblique
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:25 pm

Post by Oblique » Mon Aug 28, 2006 9:00 am

There are TONS of people who dont go to BMan for sex, me being one of them. Have been 5 times and never have had sex, even though I am bi and could have had sex.

Although, SEX on the Playa is fine and the above statement is a bit paranoid in my opinion. I can say that since I work in disease cure/diagnostics for a living.

The simple solution to worrying about disease on the Playa is, well, use a condom and play safe! It's the same way you can play safe in real life. Or you could kiss, grope, and get kinky. We learn this in 3rd grade these days. Either be creative/safe or wrap it up and have fun! :)

Ob.
[url=http://www.elementsgraphics.net/index.php?id=eggs][img]http://www.boomspeed.com/egraphics/l5v2s.gif[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.elementsgraphics.net/index.php?id=eggs][img]http://www.boomspeed.com/egraphics/we972.gif[/img][/url]

User avatar
Traveller
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:19 am
Contact:

Post by Traveller » Mon Aug 28, 2006 9:27 am

Oblique wrote:Although, SEX on the Playa is fine and the above statement is a bit paranoid in my opinion. I can say that since I work in disease cure/diagnostics for a living.

Some call that "medicine", slick.

"On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." I rather seriously doubt that you have the background you claim.

Oblique wrote:The simple solution to worrying about disease on the Playa is, well, use a condom and play safe! It's the same way you can play safe in real life. Or you could kiss, grope, and get kinky. We learn this in 3rd grade these days

What Californians are learning in 3rd grade is wrong. Using a condom will reduce the probability of infection, but it will not come close to eliminating the risk. No competent physician or health care worker would tell you otherwise. Microscopic tears or pores in the material of the condom, literally too small to even be imaged in red light (550 nm) can still be large enough to allow passage of the virus that will kill you. Viruses are not, in general, viewable under visible light microscopes. Remember that little tidbit? Probably not.

As a result, even if Trojan were to take to the incredibly expensive and unheard of extreme of hiring labtechs to check each and every condom for flaws microscopically, bankrupting themselves in the process even should they outsource the effort to Bangalore, the danger would still be with us, and I'm amazed at the thought that anybody could believe otherwise. Pre-HIV, women were still managing to get pregnant from condom wearing partners. Compare the size of a human sperm cell to that of a virus. Believing that the latex novelty which fails to provide anything like an absolute shield against unwanted pregnanacy will somehow provide us with an unbreachable defense against AIDS is a little like believing that one can squeeze a blue whale through a pipette too narrow to allow a fruit fly to pass. Politically Correct or not, such a belief is pure madness, and to promote it is grossly irresponsible.

Oblique
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:25 pm

Post by Oblique » Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:45 am

Actually I do indeed have a PhD and develop HIV detection ELISAs and cancer therapies for a living.

We all know that viruses are on the nanoscopic range. LOL Thanks for the refresher though.... When I modify TMV, I generally use optical labelling techniques via MolecularProbes/Invitrogen to check them out. They are not exactly small molecules afterall. In my world of nanobiotech, small is a peptide <100 nm.

The above is correct, but the statistics still show that the chances of infection with HIV via safe sex is very very low. It's a fact. Way less than 0.1 percent. It's unrealistic to expect people not to have sex, so you might as well promote safe sex!

Here is a quote referencing NIH and CDC workshops (which to me is much better than garbage you read anywhere else since NIH and CDC are the most scientific forums): "Using a condom during sex is no guarantee against the risk of transmitting HIV. However, using a condom reduces the relative risk of HIV transmission to less than 0.00000004% if used properly. When a condom is correctly used, the chance of it breaking and resulting in the transmission of HIV is 0.006% (1)" That's 3/50000 times having sex with a condom and that is factoring in the breaks. When it doesnt break the other stat in negligable at 1/250000000 when used properly.

I will take those odds anyday! :) Also, I appreciate your concern above and I personally do not live a promiscuous lifestyle because I am personally very choosey, but it really isnt that realistic to expect the same for everyone... It's like saying you will burn in hell if you commit a sin and dont repent. Sure comparing order of magnitude size scales etc. sounds good, but you have to factor in the percentage of the population that has HIV, whether or not the infected media infects the person or not (i.e.-your body does have a wonderful immune system with lots of factors which are different for each of us, etc.), the fact that the virus doesnt exactly exist without being carried through by some sort of medium, the relatively low percentage of condoms that do break as above, the chances of the virus penetrating the skin into the blood. etc. etc. etc. Its a multifactorial problem. That is why the numbers above do indeed show the capability of getting infected while using a condom, yet they are very low for most people. Unless you are having unprotected sex, or having gigantic gang bangs, they are really quite good in my opinion. Sure the chance is there, but we do live in a world where 1/6 people will be diagnosed with cancer in their life. That scares me more, personally.

To avoid faulty condoms (which in the polymer industry stats show really arent the norm either, although it does happen as above stats show) just test it first. i.e-fill it up with water first and check it out. Then, use lots of lube etc. :roll:

As for things that dont transmit disease, there are tons of fun sexual things people can do together that dont involve intercourse.
[url=http://www.elementsgraphics.net/index.php?id=eggs][img]http://www.boomspeed.com/egraphics/l5v2s.gif[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.elementsgraphics.net/index.php?id=eggs][img]http://www.boomspeed.com/egraphics/we972.gif[/img][/url]

User avatar
Traveller
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:19 am
Contact:

Post by Traveller » Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:28 am

Oblique wrote:Actually I do indeed have a PhD



Sure you do. You only sound like an activist who has puffed his credentials in order to give the party line on a subject a credibility that it doesn't merit because gosh, nobody would ever, never do that online. No, never, never, never happens. Plus, you used a smiley so that proves your point, but all the same, I'm about to obsess on a few of those boring old facts, as un-postmodern a thing as that is to do. Forgive me.


Oblique wrote:We all know that viruses are on the nanoscopic range. ... To avoid faulty condoms (which in the polymer industry stats show really arent the norm either, although it does happen) just test it first. i.e-fill it up with water first and check it out.




You claim to have a PhD and yet you seriously believe that a submicron sized breach in the material can be detected by the naked eye using this water balloon test. You honestly, seriously believe that were a stream of water much narrower than the width of a bacterium to come leaking out, that one could just look down and see that. I'm guessing that really good eyesight must run in your family.

But apparently even the most elementary understanding of physics does not. Water tension ensures that breaches below a certain size won't merely allow very little water to pass, they'll allow no water to do so at all. The narrower the breach, the higher the pressure needed to force the water through.

Oblique wrote: It's unrealistic to expect people not to have sex, so you might as well promote safe sex!

It is most certainly not unrealistic to think that they might refrain from being open to screwing everything that moves, given the stakes, or that others might refrain from trying to high pressure them into being so. There is a wide variety of alternatives between being promiscuous and being celibate. As for your conviction that it is impossible to go a week without sex, I'll leave that one to your probably grossly undercompensated therapist to explore.

Oblique
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:25 pm

Post by Oblique » Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:37 am

Actually lots of submicron things can be detected. I work with antibodies fragments, peptides, viruses, etc. that are all detectable if you immunostain. Probably 50% of the science done in biological and chemical labs today require these capabilities and if you are a scientist I would hope you are well aware of that since most publications use one of about 2 dozen techniques that can do this.

Things I have used that characterize nanoscopic items.

Atomic Force Microscopy for surface characterization.

An updated SEM or TEM.

Rotating disk confocal microscopy.

The fact that you have never "seen" any submicron imaging while making the comments you are making, really does concern me. I dont have super eyesight, but I do have science. :) Science rocks and as stated, there are tons of methods that allow you to "see" submicron entities. This isnt 1980! :)

blah blah blah. I dont care if you believe my phD, but I am stating facts. I have one from a top 25 university and have all the recognition I need. Your approval isnt the point of the post.

As far as tears in polymers such as latex. They do exist, but it's not like its common. You make it sound like wearing a condom is no different than not wearing one. That is soooo incorrect. The stats above show that very logically.

I wasnt talking about one week without sex. Anyone can do that if they want, but many choose not to. I dont know what world you live in, but lots of people have sex each week, so I was simply stating facts for in general purposes and not just Burning Man. Burning Man, to me, is not a sex event. Period. But, it's fine if some people explore that side of their life. They should just be as safe as they can if they do! It doesnt take my PhD to acknowledge that. As for my psychologist, I dont have one, but I have dated one before! :) I love psychologists! As for being an activists. I have never even been to a protest. Until recently I spent 80 hours in the lab each week! :)

Off to Burning Man. Have fun people! :)
[url=http://www.elementsgraphics.net/index.php?id=eggs][img]http://www.boomspeed.com/egraphics/l5v2s.gif[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.elementsgraphics.net/index.php?id=eggs][img]http://www.boomspeed.com/egraphics/we972.gif[/img][/url]

User avatar
Traveller
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:19 am
Contact:

Post by Traveller » Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:46 am

Oblique wrote:Actually lots of submicron things can be detected.

How many of them can be detected with the naked eye, and how likely is it that somebody testing that condom before being intimate with a partner will have an atomic force microscope on hand?

Oblique wrote:Off to Burning Man.

Uh huh. Throw the BS and run, just like any good snake oil salesman.

Oblique
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:25 pm

Post by Oblique » Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:03 pm

Doesnt everyone own an AFM? I sometimes carry around the tapping mode and gold contact mode tips around in my pockets, but then they seem to break. Damn. That 700 lb granite sound-free platform also fits right in my pocket along with my pocket protector. (joke LOL) If there is a nano or microscopic tear, that is what (possibly) leads to a condom breaking. i.e.-when the condom expands the tear propgates and condom breaks. So give it a little sqeeze and test it out. LOL It will pop most of the time if its faulty. Think of crack propigation in your materials science class or mechanical testing etc. And back to another point in your previous post. Believe it or not, condoms are actually tested and stretched mechanically before selling. Think of taking your biggest steel dildo and shoving it in the condoms on the assembly line. Yep. Nice one.

But, seriously, some break but way less than a percent. There are other factors that make your story wrong. The viscosity of semen is pretty damn high. That being said, it doesnt exactly flow readily through small tears like bacteria in a stream of flowing water. LOL Those two things are like comparing honey flowing through a pin hole to water. One takes lots of force due to capilary forces and a high viscosity. The other goes through readily. So, if you really want to go there, it is possible to have a nanoscopic hole in a polymer such as latex, without the sperm ever coming through! You have to account for things such as capilary forces, hydrophobicity/hydrophillicity between cum and latex, force used during sex, etc....which if you are, the condom may break leading to being one of the 3/50000 assuming your partner has HIV already. It's all taken into account by the stat.

And thank the gods for latex since all of us in science/medicine use that and nitrile to protect our pretty little hands from much smaller molecules than cells and viruses each day! :)
[url=http://www.elementsgraphics.net/index.php?id=eggs][img]http://www.boomspeed.com/egraphics/l5v2s.gif[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.elementsgraphics.net/index.php?id=eggs][img]http://www.boomspeed.com/egraphics/we972.gif[/img][/url]

User avatar
Traveller
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:19 am
Contact:

Post by Traveller » Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:53 pm

Oblique wrote:If there is a nano or microscopic tear, that is what (possibly) leads to a condom breaking. i.e.-when the condom expands the tear propgates and condom breaks. So give it a little sqeeze and test it out. LOL It will pop most of the time if its faulty. Think of crack propigation in your materials science class or mechanical testing etc.
Crack propogation is not instantaneous, nor does it invariably continue without limit. Were it otherwise, ALL crystalline and metallic materials would instantly suffer catastrophic failure; the probability of a sample of even a monocrystalline material being defect free is zero. Observe the fact that computer chips do not crumble to dust and office towers still stand.

You have a lot to learn about solid state physics.

o another point in your previous post. Believe it or not, condoms are actually tested and stretched mechanically before selling.

which hardly qualifies as nondestructive testing, and can easily introduce tears and defects into the material that weren't present before.

But, seriiously, some break but way less than a percent.

Except, as aleady pointed out, one does not need a macroscopic tear for failure to occur.

There are other factors that make your story wrong. The viscosity of semen is pretty damn high.

Again, showing that you're a layman trying to pass himself off as a scientist by dropping a few professional sounding terms he picked up out of Science News, or some such place. That which appears homogenous on a macroscopic scale seldom remains so on a microscopic scale, and given the size of a sperm cell or a virus, one hardly needs a macroscopic quantity of the sol state leaking through to carry a virus or a sperm to where it is most definitely not wanted, nor does any of the gel state need to accompany any such leakage.

You've made the beginner's mistake of confusing a colloid, with its complex microstructure, with a viscuous liquid. This speaks to a level of sophistication that does not even approach the level of a first year grad student; the "liquification" of standing semen should be your first big clue that you're not looking at a one phase material. So seriously, who do you think you're fooling, and do you think that they didn't pick up on the context shifting game you tried to play a few posts back?

transgirl
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:00 am
Location: Sioux City

Post by transgirl » Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:48 pm

Well I never said I EXPECT him to cheat. I DO expect him to be human. I hope he acts decently most of the time. If he messes up, well to err is human so I'm not going to destroy an otherwise beautiful relationship over something as silly as sex. As long as he's still decent, loving and respectful to me that is.


And I'm generally really picky as well. If I am unfaithful, it'll be with someone I'm crushing on, and I have to know someone longer than 4 or 5 days to crush.

As far as condoms, if it's fresh, sealed, and there's plenty of lube to prevent tearing, I think the odds are in our favor. As long as the person doesn't look really scaggy, doesn't shoot up or have sores all over, it's probably fine.

transgirl
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:00 am
Location: Sioux City

Post by transgirl » Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:27 pm

Also, I think a lot of women who claim they "really did" use a condom and still got pregnant are just lying to avoid the social stigma of: "unwed single, 'slutty' women who are so stupid they got knocked up my joe blow."
Most likely, the pair got carried away in the heat of passion and just "forgot" to be safe. And the woman always suffers the brunt of blame, hence the lying.

Oblique
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:25 pm

Post by Oblique » Mon Aug 28, 2006 6:10 pm

LOL. Point being the stats say 0.006%. Period. It's a very low risk. That point stands, regardless of if you want to waste time giving me a high school science lesson. (The colloid chemistry reminder of cum being a colloidal mixture is of course true, but that is not significant in effecting the stat I listed. Its quite pointless actually.) I mean you are afterall the one that was talking about bacteria in water as an example. (assuming both a liquid and a cell type instead of a virus and a colloidal mixture) Not to mention you completely disregard the science and testing which relates to product development of a condom. (which does of course include microscopy techniques, hence why I said you could see those lovely nanoscopic tears in the 0.006% case that they are there.)

Seriously though. Why harp on something with such small odds. Why not harp on disease transmission without a condom or educating people about safe sex and getting tested. I am pretty sure that most people at Burning Man already know that condoms can fail. The educated population there is pretty high.

BTW-I never said condoms didnt fail. I know you know it's a much more complicated version of the story you are telling, but why make it sound so easy or common. It simply isn't that common (i.e.-the stats). Making a condom sound like a fishnet stocking is silly. The fact is that 99.994% of them seem to be pretty damn useful! :) Takes a lot of sex to catch up with those odds.
[url=http://www.elementsgraphics.net/index.php?id=eggs][img]http://www.boomspeed.com/egraphics/l5v2s.gif[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.elementsgraphics.net/index.php?id=eggs][img]http://www.boomspeed.com/egraphics/we972.gif[/img][/url]

Post Reply

Return to “Philosophical Center”