Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

View Poll Results: When will you consider fluid bonding?
0-3 months 8 25.81%
3-6 months 3 9.68%
6-12 months 2 6.45%
1-2 years 1 3.23%
2-5 years 1 3.23%
More than 5 years 0 0%
Never - Always Protected 0 0%
Never - Only w/ Primary 1 3.23%
Other 15 48.39%
Voters: 31. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-08-2012, 05:25 PM
tachycardia's Avatar
tachycardia tachycardia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 48
Default When will you consider fluid bonding?

I'm sort of curious at what point into a new relationship would you consider fluid bonding with a partner who has other partners? Assume the circumstances are good: your partner is trustworthy, pregnancy is not an issue, you know the person's other partner(s), and anyone with whom they are fluid bonded, and so on. I'm sure it varies a lot even for the same person, but when is the first point you would consider it? I don't mean to imply that time is the most important dimension in this issue, or that groupthink is an acceptable substitute for personal judgement. I'm just curious.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-08-2012, 06:26 PM
nycindie's Avatar
nycindie nycindie is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 9,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tachycardia View Post
I'm sort of curious at what point into a new relationship would you consider fluid bonding with a partner who has other partners?
I wouldn't consider it in any **new** relationship. It would have to be quite established and secure with bonds of trust and really knowing the person for that to happen. A year would be a minimum, but more likely much longer than that. At least, for me.

Hmm, I find the "Never - only with primary" answer interesting. What if this person is a primary or co-primary, or becomes one? There would still be a time frame, no? Or if we have no primaries. I guess that answer pertains to people who have primaries already and this would be about someone who came along after that. Or is that what you meant by "new?"
__________________
The world opens up... when you do.

"Oh, oh, can't you see? Love is the drug for me." ~Bryan Ferry
"Love and the self are one . . ." ~Leo Buscaglia "

Click here for a Solo Poly view on hierarchical relationships
Click here to find out why the Polyamorous Misanthrope is feeling disgusted.

Last edited by nycindie; 05-08-2012 at 06:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-08-2012, 07:17 PM
tachycardia's Avatar
tachycardia tachycardia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 48
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycindie View Post
Hmm, I find the "Never - only with primary" answer interesting. What if this person is a primary or co-primary, or becomes one? There would still be a time frame, no? Or if we have no primaries. I guess that answer pertains to people who have primaries already and this would be about someone who came along after that. Or is that what you meant by "new?"
I agree that the question is most applicable to someone with existing fluid-bonded partners (and I suppose shaped somewhat by my circumstances) but I think the "Never - only with primary" answer could still apply to someone who does not currently have a "primary" partner but would only consider fluid bonding with someone if that person were not fluid bonded with anyone else.

The real issue with STI transmission risk is concurrency, right? If you're going to be fluid bonded with someone, you're going to want to know the size N of the group of other people with whom you're bonded. My intention is that the "Never - always protected" answer would apply if you require N=0, and the "Never - only w/primary" answer would apply if you require N<=1. Make sense?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-08-2012, 07:33 PM
Tonberry Tonberry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 1,426
Default

I think the main problem with that reasoning is that some people have several primaries, and that "never, only with primary" doesn't mean said primary is only fluid bonded with you. But now that you explained it, I guess people can vote accordingly?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-08-2012, 07:36 PM
drtalon's Avatar
drtalon drtalon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 112
Default

Why isn't "after results are exchanged and discussed" an option? Why would anyone think there's some amount of chronological time that can substitute for regular testing and informed decision-making?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-08-2012, 08:04 PM
Tonberry Tonberry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 1,426
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drtalon View Post
Why isn't "after results are exchanged and discussed" an option? Why would anyone think there's some amount of chronological time that can substitute for regular testing and informed decision-making?
I didn't take it as being the substitute. But obviously you can't get tested right away and rely on that, you need enough time to make sure anything would be detected, hence the question about how much time.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-08-2012, 08:23 PM
rory's Avatar
rory rory is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Europe
Posts: 497
Default

For me time isn't really a factor, so I answered the first option since I would be fine exchanging fluids right away in the right circumstances (and have done so).

I don't really know how much use the concept of fluid bonding has.. There doesn't seem to be a agreed definition. People seem to talk about fluid bonding synonymously with "not using (STD) protection" with a person. Yet, somewhere I read a definition that fluid bonding is when there is an agreement to use protection with people other than the one(s) you are fluid bonded to. That means that if you only have unprotected sex with your partner but they have it with others, you two are not fluid bonded - unless your partner's other partners have in turn agreed to not have unprotected sex with anybody else in which case you all are fluid bonded to each other.

To me the concept simply seems too confusing to be useful. I think agreements and understandings about safer sex can be much more clearly articulated without the term.

Sorry if this is all off topic, and I do find this topic interesting even if people do have different definitions.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-08-2012, 09:02 PM
Kommander's Avatar
Kommander Kommander is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Detroit
Posts: 112
Default

For me, time isn't really a factor in itself. It has more to do with what the risk is and what kind of sexual activity is occurring.

Manual stimulation has pretty much no risk as far as STIs are concerned. While rubber gloves are probably a good idea at an orgy, it's probably safe enough to not use them otherwise.

Oral sex is low risk, and most of the infections that can be passed this way are curable. If it's casual sex with someone I just met, I'll use barriers. Although, I don't have casual sex very often. If I can be reasonably sure my partner is low risk, I'll proceed without protection.

Vaginal penetration is a little different. The risk is much higher, the additional concern that this is how babies are made is present, and as much as some men complain about condoms killing the feeling, I've noticed very little difference in feeling with a condom and without. If testing is done when and where relevant, and another form of birth control is in use, I'll consider it.

Anal sex... I only do if it's requested of me, otherwise I really have no desire. There's lots of other fun stuff to do. I always use a condom for this, because it doesn't come up often enough to calculate acceptable risk and it's easier than doing math.

This will most likely change if my sexual behavior becomes more active. In general, "Low risk" with testing when relevant is acceptable, medium risk I'd rather avoid, and high risk I won't do.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-08-2012, 10:08 PM
drtalon's Avatar
drtalon drtalon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonberry View Post
But obviously you can't get tested right away and rely on that, you need enough time to make sure anything would be detected, hence the question about how much time.
My testing schedule has nothing to do with whether I'm starting new relationships or not. Why should it?

I believe one should have a safety regimen that includes regular testing (whether you think you need or not) and exercising good judgment about partners, including that you trust them to exercise good judgment about partners.

I teamed up with another partner who was having a lot of negative reaction to the idea of testing and safety and wrote a letter to the fun, hot people I'd like to have sex/play with. I think it addresses your concerns about networks of partners.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-08-2012, 06:27 PM
RedSalamander RedSalamander is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 12
Default

Other - it has much less to do with the amount if time I have been with someone, and more to do with that person's current number of active sexual relationships, and how seriously they take safer-sex within those other relationships.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
condoms, fluid bonding, safer sex

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:40 PM.