Casual hookups

[sa****]

What's everyone's options on fucking when first meeting ?

[CopperKnob]

Do you mean opinions? It's either on the table or it's not and if one person says no, the other respects it and doesn't push

[PolyGothRoss]

Pretty much standard for me, so, obviously, I don’t have an issue with it, but everyone’s different. If it happens naturally, then great, but I don’t tend to assume it’ll go that way, so it’s always a nice surprise when it does!

[DeviantInside]

My opinion? I'm open to it (assuming all tested and clean). But I also don't expect it. Hell even if we do play on a first date that wouldn't necessarily include sex.

[Ricky4you]

No such thing where I am lol

[CopperKnob]

19 minutes ago, DeviantInside said:

My opinion? I'm open to it (assuming all tested and clean). But I also don't expect it. Hell even if we do play on a first date that wouldn't necessarily include sex.

People who test positive for STI's are not 'unclean/dirty', they have a virus or infection. We wouldn't suggest that someone with a chest infection or a post op abscess is 'dirty'. Let's not do it when speaking about those who've got a sexually transmitted disease.
If the NHS can change their mindset regarding how we group them, (STD's to STI's) I'm sure we can as individuals

[Deleted Member]

It's an open minded and non jugdemental community, so, what do you think?

[DeviantInside]

1 hour ago, CopperKnob said:

People who test positive for STI's are not 'unclean/dirty', they have a virus or infection. We wouldn't suggest that someone with a chest infection or a post op abscess is 'dirty'. Let's not do it when speaking about those who've got a sexually transmitted disease.
If the NHS can change their mindset regarding how we group them, (STD's to STI's) I'm sure we can as individuals

Fair point. I had never thought thought anything negatively about anyone who does have any STI and just used the verbiage I’m used to without thought. So I stand corrected, regardless of my personal lack of negative associations I can completely see how it can entrench harmful stigmas.

[Pl****]

I've become a lot more open to it than I used to be, but it just doesn't suit my interests well. My best friend has never had an issue with hookups, so I get the value for some people, but the kind of sex I go for just isn't that compatible with casual sex. Even as the rigger, it's a little uncomfortable to involve bondage with someone you don't know (for me at least), because the trust isn't there for them, and I have to worry more about whether they can properly communicate any issues with me, etc. Even without bondage, my inclinations tend to clash with the tone/expectations of casual sex. 

 

6 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

People who test positive for STI's are not 'unclean/dirty', they have a virus or infection. We wouldn't suggest that someone with a chest infection or a post op abscess is 'dirty'. Let's not do it when speaking about those who've got a sexually transmitted disease.
If the NHS can change their mindset regarding how we group them, (STD's to STI's) I'm sure we can as individuals

Isn't this just semantics? I don't quite understand the benefit of making this distinction, or your comparison to other infections that are not generally contagious. I think if we were considering a fluid transfer from the chest infection or abscess, people might not consider that clean either. Whether we say clean, or negative, or safe, or uninfected or whatever, we all know what it means, whether it's STIs, COVID, or something else. It's more of a metaphor for safety than a judgment. I get trying to fight stigmas, but it doesn't seem like the language is doing any heavy lifting here. 

[CopperKnob]

11 minutes ago, Pleasurecalculus said:

I've become a lot more open to it than I used to be, but it just doesn't suit my interests well. My best friend has never had an issue with hookups, so I get the value for some people, but the kind of sex I go for just isn't that compatible with casual sex. Even as the rigger, it's a little uncomfortable to involve bondage with someone you don't know (for me at least), because the trust isn't there for them, and I have to worry more about whether they can properly communicate any issues with me, etc. Even without bondage, my inclinations tend to clash with the tone/expectations of casual sex. 

 

Isn't this just semantics? I don't quite understand the benefit of making this distinction, or your comparison to other infections that are not generally contagious. I think if we were considering a fluid transfer from the chest infection or abscess, people might not consider that clean either. Whether we say clean, or negative, or safe, or uninfected or whatever, we all know what it means, whether it's STIs, COVID, or something else. It's more of a metaphor for safety than a judgment. I get trying to fight stigmas, but it doesn't seem like the language is doing any heavy lifting here. 

How we use language can greatly affect how we communicate and how our communication is interpreted by others can have a significant impact. Whether it's intentional or not, it's often about how it's perceived.
In a world/community where communication is key, I think how we choose our words/the words we use does matter. That's been really evident on a few threads of late, specifically the one where different people voiced their interpretation of the word slut.
Perhaps my use of chest inf etc wasn't helpful, lets change it to measles
The comparision is, we don't think of people with a measles as being unclean and yet some will make a statement that are 'clean' because they don't have herpes, HIV, Syphillis.
My point is that ill health is about being 'clean' or otherwise which DeviantInside has been able to reflect on

[CopperKnob]

Just now, CopperKnob said:

How we use language can greatly affect how we communicate and how our communication is interpreted by others can have a significant impact. Whether it's intentional or not, it's often about how it's perceived.
In a world/community where communication is key, I think how we choose our words/the words we use does matter. That's been really evident on a few threads of late, specifically the one where different people voiced their interpretation of the word slut.
Perhaps my use of chest inf etc wasn't helpful, lets change it to measles
The comparision is, we don't think of people with a measles as being unclean and yet some will make a statement that are 'clean' because they don't have herpes, HIV, Syphillis.
My point is that ill health is about being 'clean' or otherwise which DeviantInside has been able to reflect on

*is not about

[ge****]

1 hour ago, CopperKnob said:

People who test positive for STI's are not 'unclean/dirty', they have a virus or infection. We wouldn't suggest that someone with a chest infection or a post op abscess is 'dirty'. Let's not do it when speaking about those who've got a sexually transmitted disease.
If the NHS can change their mindset regarding how we group them, (STD's to STI's) I'm sure we can as individuals

To be fair CK, unless the original post has been edited to remove something (which I don't think can be done) - I don't think using the term "clean" is necessarily derogatory, nor does it immediately suggest someone who isn't is "unclean".
.
To use your example, someone who has had a chest infection, has had it treated and no longer has it (or any other illness) would be described colloquially as having a "clean bill of health" and personally I see the term "clean" when applied to being free of STIs as no different to a shortening of that, much used, colloquialism.
.
Though I do take your point, and if someone was described as "unclean" or "dirty" for having one then would certainly consider it offensive.

[ge****]

As for the OP - I have had sex on a first meet, but only with people I have spent time getting to know on-line beforehand, and when we've met earlier in the day and spent time doing something socially first and have both mutually agreed to take that next step.

[Pl****]

3 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

The comparision is, we don't think of people with a measles as being unclean and yet some will make a statement that are 'clean' because they don't have herpes, HIV, Syphillis.

Maybe I'm just not getting this at all. It seems to me that measles is highly contagious and would absolutely not be considered clean to people at risk of contracting it.

[CopperKnob]

55 minutes ago, gemini_man said:

To be fair CK, unless the original post has been edited to remove something (which I don't think can be done) - I don't think using the term "clean" is necessarily derogatory, nor does it immediately suggest someone who isn't is "unclean".
.
To use your example, someone who has had a chest infection, has had it treated and no longer has it (or any other illness) would be described colloquially as having a "clean bill of health" and personally I see the term "clean" when applied to being free of STIs as no different to a shortening of that, much used, colloquialism.
.
Though I do take your point, and if someone was described as "unclean" or "dirty" for having one then would certainly consider it offensive.

Thats the exact point that I was making, it wasn't in relation to the OP, it was in response to a comment within the thread

[Char__]

I've done it twice and quite frankly regretted it both times. Nothing negative happened but ... If we'd had coffee then separated, I don't think I would have come back again to play. So. Lesson learned. As above, I'm not interested in straight up sex so it is a risky thing to do with a stranger. I don't meet anyone unless I feel we have a strong connection online but still. How well do you really know anyone through a keyboard?

With regards to "clean", I can see how it would be a uncomfortable word to anyone who has or has had an STI bc the implication is that is unclean. Change in language is slow, but I will try to be mindful of that association. I'm not sure the "but I didn't mean it that way" argument holds water. Someone a while back in the lobby called another person a "mong" jokingly, and neither of them had an issue with the word because they "weren't meaning to insult anyone". It's not about intention, it's effect.

[As****]

It depends how much interaction by text or phone you’ve had beforehand and what you are looking for from the relationship. If you’re hoping to construct a long term dynamic I would say no, as it’s a bit analogous to learning to fly and attempting to do aerobatics in your first lesson.

[ge****]

59 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

Thats the exact point that I was making, it wasn't in relation to the OP, it was in response to a comment within the thread

No I know it was - and I was referring to "original post" as in the one in the thread not the starter.
.
Personally I don't see saying you're "clean" as implying "uncleanliness" in those that have an STI - I certainly didn't consider myself unclean the time I had one, but did consider myself "clean" (as in "clean bill of health") once I'd finished the course of antibiotics and had a test that confirmed I was testing negative again.
.
But like I said I take your point also.

[CopperKnob]

23 minutes ago, gemini_man said:

No I know it was - and I was referring to "original post" as in the one in the thread not the starter.
.
Personally I don't see saying you're "clean" as implying "uncleanliness" in those that have an STI - I certainly didn't consider myself unclean the time I had one, but did consider myself "clean" (as in "clean bill of health") once I'd finished the course of antibiotics and had a test that confirmed I was testing negative again.
.
But like I said I take your point also.

Maybe im just over sensitive to it, i remember a time when we weren't allowed to record that someone had HIV/Aids on their records because of the attached stigma, we would only refer to it as a 'blood disorder' (i think, I cant recall the actual phrase we used) which to be honest could have been anything. Whether that was right/wrong isn't for me to say, it was an organisational thing.
I think that it comes down to individuals interpretation/meaning as you say.

[Pl****]

7 minutes ago, gemini_man said:

Personally I don't see saying you're "clean" as implying "uncleanliness" in those that have an STI - I certainly didn't consider myself unclean the time I had one, but did consider myself "clean" (as in "clean bill of health") once I'd finished the course of antibiotics and had a test that confirmed I was testing negative again.

I think this is the right answer. In common usage, the antonym of "clean" is "infectious" or "contagious" in this context. I haven't heard of anybody saying the word "unclean" in a medical context since studying the bubonic plague in history class. It's such an antiquated term I'm shocked it's even come up. And even if "unclean" was the word that we used, I still don't think it's carrying much stigma, because most of the stigma comes from the infections themselves. We already judge people on far more petty things than the potential to give us life-threatening viruses.

 

1 hour ago, Lady_Char said:

I'm not sure the "but I didn't mean it that way" argument holds water. Someone a while back in the lobby called another person a "mong" jokingly, and neither of them had an issue with the word because they "weren't meaning to insult anyone". It's not about intention, it's effect.

I don't know what a "mong" is, but in a general sense, I don't think I could disagree with this more, because nobody knows what the effects of their words are going to be. Are we supposed to somehow keep track of what might offend or harm every person, including those we've never even met? I've run into people that were offended by the most innocuous of statements. The first girlfriend would twist my words into meanings so perverse that I no longer recognized them. In each case, 99.9+% of people would not have interpreted my words that way, and I had no realistic way of knowing they'd be taken negatively. Intention has to matter, because otherwise, everybody's liable for things they had no control over, and people already use that mentality far too often to manipulate and silence others. 

[Char__]

8 minutes ago, Pleasurecalculus said:

I don't know what a "mong" is, but in a general sense, I don't think I could disagree with this more, because nobody knows what the effects of their words are going to be. Are we supposed to somehow keep track of what might offend or harm every person, including those we've never even met? I've run into people that were offended by the most innocuous of statements. The first girlfriend would twist my words into meanings so perverse that I no longer recognized them. In each case, 99.9+% of people would not have interpreted my words that way, and I had no realistic way of knowing they'd be taken negatively. Intention has to matter, because otherwise, everybody's liable for things they had no control over, and people already use that mentality far too often to manipulate and silence others. 

It's a word used to mock disabled people. People have a responsibility to consider the language they use. There are a lot of words in our lexicon whose etymology is uncomfortable. I didn't know what it meant isn't an excuse. If someone educates you, you need to consider whether you should still be using this word.

Lizzo this week rereleased a song to remove spaz (as a noun) because she was informed what it meant in several English speaking cultures.

[Deleted Member]

Do what you feel happy with I say

[Matttster]

I have never had a hookup, and although certain aspects of one are appealing, but in a large part a primary reason of my hesitation is the “clean bill of health”. I have taught bloodborne pathogen training, and make a point in my training to discuss how easily hepatitis could be transmitted, so by clean bill of health, I am not just thinking STDs.

So what is the appropriate terminology for not having a transmittable disease? As I noted, I am not as concerned about STDs as some other diseases (like Hepatitis).

For those that are into hookups, I hope that you at least get tested regularly to confirm you are not potentially spreading a disease. Note that some of these are serious and potentially life threatening. Additionally, some are chronic diseases and the carrier may not know they have it. The last statistics I read indicate that more than half of the people with hepatitis do not k is they have it.

[Pl****]

15 minutes ago, Lady_Char said:

It's a word used to mock disabled people. People have a responsibility to consider the language they use. There are a lot of words in our lexicon whose etymology is uncomfortable. I didn't know what it meant isn't an excuse. If someone educates you, you need to consider whether you should still be using this word.

Lizzo this week rereleased a song to remove spaz (as a noun) because she was informed what it meant in several English speaking cultures.

I just don't understand how anybody can say not knowing isn't an excuse. If you found out today that you'd been using a certain word on a daily basis that was incredibly offensive to some people, and you had no idea previously, and no realistic avenue of obtaining that knowledge previously, you'd really still think there was no excuse for your ignorance? 

As a person likely to get a certain neurodegenerative disease, if someone was mocking a person with that condition, like my father, or even myself, I'd think it was a dick move. And maybe there's a certain word that people use to do so, and maybe it even upsets me to hear it. But if somebody used that word in another context, why would I care? Words can have more than one meaning, and they clearly aren't using it in the offensive sense. They aren't being mean to me, or to anybody else with that condition. I feel reasonably certain that they wouldn't mock me or others with this condition. There's nothing about what they're actually saying that's upsetting to me. If I feel bad, it's not because of them, but because I'm projecting my own issues onto their speech, putting words in their mouth that they didn't say. If they want to change their language for my sake, that's a nice courtesy, but I wouldn't think any less of them if they didn't, because it's ultimately my problem, not theirs. Why would it be their responsibility to change their vocabulary and not my responsibility to deal with my issues and avoid misinterpreting their words?

Imagine a scenario where some people began using an ordinary word as a pejorative (let's say "the") and some people began finding it offensive. It may have the same spelling and pronunciation, but it's an entirely different word, and we shouldn't stop using the word "the" just because it has an offensive homonym. If that were the case, some bad actor could destroy the entire language. 

I think it's fine to change your speech for other people, but claiming there's some responsibility to do so is logically perilous. 

[Char__]

12 minutes ago, Pleasurecalculus said:

I just don't understand how anybody can say not knowing isn't an excuse. If you found out today that you'd been using a certain word on a daily basis that was incredibly offensive to some people, and you had no idea previously, and no realistic avenue of obtaining that knowledge previously, you'd really still think there was no excuse for your ignorance? 

As a person likely to get a certain neurodegenerative disease, if someone was mocking a person with that condition, like my father, or even myself, I'd think it was a dick move. And maybe there's a certain word that people use to do so, and maybe it even upsets me to hear it. But if somebody used that word in another context, why would I care? Words can have more than one meaning, and they clearly aren't using it in the offensive sense. They aren't being mean to me, or to anybody else with that condition. I feel reasonably certain that they wouldn't mock me or others with this condition. There's nothing about what they're actually saying that's upsetting to me. If I feel bad, it's not because of them, but because I'm projecting my own issues onto their speech, putting words in their mouth that they didn't say. If they want to change their language for my sake, that's a nice courtesy, but I wouldn't think any less of them if they didn't, because it's ultimately my problem, not theirs. Why would it be their responsibility to change their vocabulary and not my responsibility to deal with my issues and avoid misinterpreting their words?

Imagine a scenario where some people began using an ordinary word as a pejorative (let's say "the") and some people began finding it offensive. It may have the same spelling and pronunciation, but it's an entirely different word, and we shouldn't stop using the word "the" just because it has an offensive homonym. If that were the case, some bad actor could destroy the entire language. 

I think it's fine to change your speech for other people, but claiming there's some responsibility to do so is logically perilous. 

I don't agree. Particularly with examples I gave - words like mong/ retard/ spaz. Continuing to use these words keeps them in the current vernacular. And knowing that they were created as insults because of their association with disability perpetuates the notion that there's something wrong with disabiliy, continues the stigma.