When will you consider fluid bonding?

[tachycardia]

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.

[nycindie]

Originally Posted by tachycardia

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?"

[RedSalamander]

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.

[polypenguin]

assuming all parties have tested, and we agree it is ok. And no one steps outside of the closed agreement set forth. If someone has a new partner, then it's time once more to wrap that willie, until they are both tested. It may be a pain in the ass, but it's better than the serious deseases which plauge our society.

[Tonberry]

I said 3-6 months, because I believe at this point, everyone could get tested and whatever they might have caught before getting together would be detected.
That implies that I fully trust the person from day 1, but you did ask for the minimum amount of time.

[tachycardia]

Originally Posted by nycindie

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?

[Tonberry]

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?

[drtalon]

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?

[Tonberry]

Originally Posted by drtalon

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.

[rory]

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.