Well this here is a thread here because when I was at school all the students had to do sex-ed class.
Thing is it was all about hereto sex. Not one word about homosexuality. So I would like for the more experienced people to teach us why the use of condoms for gay sex? It's not like I'm going to get pregnant.
And even if both partners have done STI checks is it safe to not use a condom?
Give us your wisdom!
Cos tbh all that I know is use a condom cos but sex can lead to HIV.
Some STI checks (e.g. HIV) won't show up for quite a while after infection meaning you can pass on the STI even although your recent check up was all negative.
Unless you and your partner are in a monogamous relationship (and you trust him not to be cheating on you) I'd advise condoms always.
Quote:Anal sex can expose participants to two principal dangers: infections due to the high number of infectious microorganisms not found elsewhere on the body, and physical damage to the anus and the rectum due to their fragility. Increased experimentation with anal sex by young persons without sound knowledge about risks and what safety measures do and don't work may be linked to an increase in sexually transmitted infections.[82] Judy Kuriansky, a Columbia University professor and author, stated, "It really is shocking how many myths young people have about anal sex. They don't think you can get a disease from it because you're not having [vaginal] intercourse."[83]
Kiid Wrote:Well this here is a thread here because when I was at school all the students had to do sex-ed class.
Thing is it was all about hereto sex. Not one word about homosexuality. So I would like for the more experienced people to teach us why the use of condoms for gay sex? It's not like I'm going to get pregnant.
And even if both partners have done STI checks is it safe to not use a condom?
Give us your wisdom!
Cos tbh all that I know is use a condom cos but sex can lead to HIV.
Basically there are different tests for HIV one of the most common (maybe not so much today with scientific advances) is the antibody test from the blood. For this to provide you with a positive status you would have needed to have the virus for about 3 months usually for the antibodies to show up in your blood. This is a bit problematic because if you get tested maybe 1 month or two months after initial infection because the test may show you are actually HIV negative which may be problematic and is what we call a false negative. This type of test has also shown to have some difficulties even picking HIV antibodies up at around 3 months too. There are other tests called immunoassays which you can actually do yourself at home but I think these should be done in conjunction with a proper test from the doctors (perhaps in between your three month testing period if you choose to get tested every three inths).
If there is one thing that is evident Modern HIV testing is highly accurate, I remember reading out of like 1000 people tested only 15 had false negative results, which is a tiny bit risky. My friend and I were talking about this the other day and he was saying that He thinks HIV is more prevalent in straight relationships but it is more widely publicised within the gay community providing a stigma so to be fair gay or straight unprotected sex may lead to infection. I don't know where I stand on this as I always have protected sex and I am very careful but maybe and by a small margin maybe if I was in a long term loving relationship would I even then start to consider having thoughts of unprotected sex,
With regard to sex education in schools, in England in quite a lot of schools now they do learn about gay sex and sexuality to some extent. I know now in story time in primary schools they have stories where there is a boy or girl with two mums or two dads or even with two princes and two princesses.
I was raised in Texas which doesn't have sex ed for real, but instead has this thing called "abstinence only." In a nutshell it was to teach us--and lie to us so that we didn't trust them even when they were telling the truth--that sex was dangerous, dirty, had terrible consequences, and we must never do it until we're married. They got downright vicious, too, like when boys were told (in front of us) that any girl who'd put out for them was a diseased slut that would infect them and make their dick look funny while we were told (in front of the boys) that we should say no or we'd become dirty sluts who'd be used and discarded and if a boy insisted we should punch him in the balls (of course we weren't taught how to defend ourselves if this only served to enrage him). As an added bonus the health teacher I had for sex ed was extremely high strung about it and couldn't speak at all without sounding strained and we were scared to ask her anything. Oh, and they made us repeat the most idiotic lines to each other that we never would in real life (to encourage us to just say no to sex). We girls also had to take care of "Baby Think It Over" dolls which doubled to help scare us away from sex even more.
I don't recall homosexuality even being mentioned.
And there was an earlier class when I was 12, IIRC, in which boys and girls were separated and we saw a dated film on the changes brought by puberty (but there was no discussion afterwards), and even for that alone we had to get parental permission slips signed to see it.
When I saw the movie Mean Girls I really laughed at the coach who taught sex ed (who said things like "if you have sex, you will die," even though he was having sex with high school students himself, and also misspelled chlamydia) because it mocked the kind of sex ed as states like Texas likes to "teach" as those states so richly deserve.
Luckily, at 17 I found Scarlateen, which is for kids of all orientations:
Anyway, I wanted you to understand that sex ed is probably very different in the USA than it is in NZ, because most states are "abstinence only" like Texas (though I expect Texas is more determined to be so than many other states). Of course it doesn't work, and Texas has (or at least did) about the highest rates for teen STDs, teen pregnancy, etc, but that doesn't stop the authorities from promoting it in the name of God and Family Values, er, for the sake of the children.
But in any case it's hard for me to think of sex ed as being about how to use birth control because if it was even mentioned it was to scare us about how fallible such methods were (sometimes lying to us in "educating" us, like I recall the teacher telling us over half of people who have sex with condoms still get pregnant and diseased, and anyone who says different has been brainwashed by corporate ads who want to sell us condoms--of course refusing to teach us how to use condoms made it difficult to use condoms properly even when we bothered so that it wasn't as effective as it could be, while others decided to not even bother with them because they figured there was no point). Obviously, I think this needs to be corrected, and I'm glad a few more states have chosen to give REAL education in the last few years.
What I'd also really like to see is real info on seduction tricks to avoid common lies to blackmail techniques to date rape drugs (strangely, Texas didn't cover this in the classes I wasted my time in). Knowledge is power, not corrupting as many seem to believe.
Also, the basics about sexual orientation would good, too. For example:
in N America:
-You have no idea how DIFFICULT it is to teach it as a family in this society.
-Most of the schools or churches here are totally ignorant or they have a teacher or preacher up on sex charges.
-Organizations like Planned Parent Hood seem to have some other type of agenda than what you need.
vaccinations, testing and especially semi accurate advice is available at the free testing clinics at most government run city hospitals. If your city has a LGBT Center they may list this and other resources. in Denver CO
straight bi or gay, it costs nothing but your time to get tested.
Dont know how effective it is but there is a free series (3 shots) vaccination for hepatitis A maybe B
hep C was a Reagan era blood infection that got out of hand because they refused to screen donors.
I honestly believe that the ignorance stems from a lack of education or discussion. If homosexuality was discussed or implemented in sex-ed there would be fewer individuals confused about this topic. Part of the reason behind this fear, or disdain is the lack of an open, free discussion. It's as if the subject is taboo and off limits, which does nothing to help further understanding.
I sometimes fell that the subject is taboo. And I also fell a little bit awkward talking about it with people who know little about it and are close minded.
Lunar Wrote:I honestly believe that the ignorance stems from a lack of education or discussion. If homosexuality was discussed or implemented in sex-ed there would be fewer individuals confused about this topic. Part of the reason behind this fear, or disdain is the lack of an open, free discussion. It's as if the subject is taboo and off limits, which does nothing to help further understanding.
The problem is not whether homo-, hetero-, bi-, a-, anthro- etc.-sexuality is discussed.... the problem is that sexuality as a whole is not discussed in schools, and that is deemed taboo. Sex for sexual enjoyment is considered taboo by our society, even the hetero kind... in fact the word 'sodomy' which is so readily used to describe anal sex by the average bystander is actually a term which originally enveloped all sexual acts outside of a pleasurable nature and outside of a marriage contract.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
Aries
