Letting go of negative opinions

I approve of Tinder hookups, swinging and casual sex, it's just not satisfying for me and higher risk than I take with myself and or someone I can date. There is lot's of room to discuss frequency and practice here. It's not a black and white answer. There is no judgement about the activities involved. I have done many fun things in my time and often wish STDs were not a factor since I find it so limiting to what I want to do.

I was approached on a site and declined because of incompatible levels of risk and intent. At first explaining my poly interests, they indicated they were frequent swingers, and when re approached as poly I pointed out risk (not 100% condom use) and offered info on poly and bi groups. I said I admired how forthcoming the profile was.

The need to honest in risk limitations, in poly intent, in my marital agreements are commonly received as a judgement on behavior even when I insist it is about risk. You have the confidence and the desire to pursue your fantasies, go for it! I may ask to watch. I just can't join you.

When they take the defensive position, accusations I am cheating, lying and are judgemental are heaped on to me. I know it's not about me but it bothers me a lot so I often persist in clarifying my position. More accusations based on their past experience or, in my guess self disapproval. It's just sex for Gods sake. Breathe.

After a few exchanges I am aware I have to let the last accusations yelled at me go and not reply. It drives me mad when I have worked hard at living honestly and openly and someone, a stranger, walks away with a completely negative and nasty opinion of me..... then sometimes they turn up at my local poly group. Hmmm

Do you find it easy to let go of negative opinions about you knowing you can't change their mind?
 
Personally, I find it quite easy to let negative opinions go. Especially where someone is just annoyed that something renders me incompatible with them.

On a side note, if people are regularly accusing you of being judgemental in how you voice your limitations regarding risk, consider that you may be unintentionally using language (verbal, text or otherwise) that gives that impression. The only example I can think of off-hand is a friend who has an immunocompromised partner and therefore has really strict safer sex rules for themselves which mean a lot of people doing low risk activities are not eligible as sexual partners. He explains that though and when assessing compatibility, he will go out of his way to reiterate that the risk of transmission from said activity or lifestyle is (usually) low (like barrier free oral sex) and it is them (the couple) who take extraordinary caution.
 
Phrasing

Normally I say no thank you. We are not looking for the same thing. When i get into a conversation it it becomes a maze of work around suggestions I may eventually explain my restrictions. “...insert rules that include I can not engage with people who have sex without condoms”. All my comments are I statements and about my marital agreements.

If there is a way to say it when pressed I am all ears. I pref to be silent on the reason but not lie about it. I am not invested in their health, only mine. I don’t care if you fuck someone every night but I can’t sleep with you.

So guide me. If you are pressed to be honest how do you say this is higher risk than I am willing to accept?
 
Normally I say no thank you. We are not looking for the same thing. When i get into a conversation it it becomes a maze of work around suggestions I may eventually explain my restrictions. “...insert rules that include I can not engage with people who have sex without condoms”. All my comments are I statements and about my marital agreements.

If there is a way to say it when pressed I am all ears. I pref to be silent on the reason but not lie about it. I am not invested in their health, only mine. I don’t care if you fuck someone every night but I can’t sleep with you.

So guide me. If you are pressed to be honest how do you say this is higher risk than I am willing to accept?

It depends what you mean. From what you have just written here it seems like you're saying that you have barrier free sex with your marital partner but cannot accept a partner who does the same. If that is the case, there is an element of you saying that your dyad is "good" enough to be trusted to have barrier free sex with one another but another similar couple isn't "good" enough to be trusted to have barrier free sex with each other. And I'm assuming that the sex with you would include barriers anyway.

This judgement is inferred as unless you factor in your subjective opinions of the characters involved, it's equally likely you or your maritial partner could break safer sex agreements and introduce a risk factor that some people did not consent to.

I can't explain this concisely but it's (IME) very, very unusual to expect a marital couple to be using condoms. I'm not saying that many don't use that form of contraception because it works for them but I've never known of a partnered poly person who is seeking an open "secondary" relationship and expects the "secondary" to use condoms with everyone else. I'm not pointing this out to say you're a bad person for needing it, but I would expect anyone who was seeking this to present it as something highly unusual to request in an autonomous person.
 
So guide me. If you are pressed to be honest how do you say this is higher risk than I am willing to accept?

Speak plain.

"This is higher risk than I am willing to accept" Say it once, and don't JADE. (Justify, argue, defend, explain.)

Alternately, if saying "higher risk" is received with defensiveness? Because evaluations (even if true for you) can sometimes make people all humphy?

You could say "Thanks. That's more than I can do right now. We're not going to be compatible" and let it end.

If they keep pushing, disengage, walk away.

Galagirl
 
Last edited:
Re (from Orlandobif):
"Do you find it easy to let go of negative opinions about you knowing you can't change their mind?"

I do not find it easy to let go of negative opinions about me, but I try not to JADE, I find that if I just walk away, I am able to let the negative opinions go after awhile.
 
It depends what you mean. From what you have just written here it seems like you're saying that you have barrier free sex with your marital partner but cannot accept a partner who does the same. If that is the case, there is an element of you saying that your dyad is "good" enough to be trusted to have barrier free sex with one another but another similar couple isn't "good" enough to be trusted to have barrier free sex with each other. And I'm assuming that the sex with you would include barriers anyway.

No, this is not what I mean. I do not expect primary couples to use protection between them. It is when you are not using condoms outside of that relationship that is higher risk than I am willing to take. Keep in mind this started from the angle of swingers with the assumption, based on the profile, of frequent sexual activity with various partners. I'm not talking about someone who has occasionally or rarely had unprotected sex but I may then ask whether they have been tested.

Let me be super clear. It's not a judgement. If not for the risk of, oh, say HIV and safety I'd jump in the middle of a gang bang if the mood struck. I've been to plenty of swing events in my past. It's not the activity. It's really only risk factor that in my later years and my marital agreement has a higher restriction.

It is clear that people do not distinguish risk discussion from judgement and in another thread gave me a good way to say no thank you without explaining even when they press.
 
Well you have a negative opinion of them and they have a negative opinion of you. Who cares, really? It's not as if you actually know each other.

Personally, I think your assessment of the risk factor is a little off base but it's your boundary.
 
"I do not expect primary couples to use protection between them. It is when you are not using condoms outside of that relationship that is higher risk than I am willing to take."

Okay. So why not say that you would only be okay with partners who are fluid bonded with one other person as it's easier to ensure compatibility with testing routines etc? That specifies a number and takes away from making assumptions about relationship dynamics and reliability of individuals.
 
... The need to honest in risk limitations, in poly intent, in my marital agreements are commonly received as a judgement on behavior even when I insist it is about risk ... When they take the defensive position, accusations I am cheating, lying and are judgemental are heaped on to me ... After a few exchanges I am aware I have to let the last accusations yelled at me go and not reply ... It drives me mad when I have worked hard at living honestly and openly and someone, a stranger, walks away with a completely negative and nasty opinion of me..... then sometimes they turn up at my local poly group ...

Your concerns are perfectly valid. The principles of communication and respect are fundamental poly principles. At least I say they are for me, and they should be for the community as a whole. I had to add that rider because it seems there's often disagreement between me and others over what being poly is really about, and it's relevant to this issue. Every poly reference source I've run across stresses health and disclosure. It's just the respectful and responsible thing to do.

Health concerns aren't subjective opinions. They're based on medical science, and there are proven risk factors. So there's nothing judgemental about it. If the person you're discussing this with can't accept that and lashes out with personal attacks, then I'd suspect them of being a wolf in sheep's clothing type who is just out to satisfy their own desires at the expense of others, and that they are using their attack to derail your concerns, which means they're more likely to be hiding something, like their own medical condition.

My advice is to stick to your position and don't be afraid to call them out or point them out to others who might become a victim of their nasty attitude, if not worse. I've seen wonderful people get STDs after trusting some jerk who talked them into getting it on without knowing the facts about their health situation. Don't give in and become part of the problem! You're doing the right thing to stand your ground.
 
Last edited:
Your concerns are perfectly valid. The principles of communication and respect are fundamental poly principles. At least I say they are for me, and they should be for the community as a whole. I had to add that rider because it seems there's often disagreement between me and others over what being poly is really about, and it's relevant to this issue. Every poly reference source I've run across stresses health and disclosure. It's just the respectful and responsible thing to do.

Health concerns aren't subjective opinions. They're based on medical science, and there are proven risk factors. So there's nothing judgemental about it. If the person you're discussing this with can't accept that and lashes out with personal attacks, then I'd suspect them of being a wolf in sheep's clothing type who is just out to satisfy their own desires at the expense of others, and that they are using their attack to derail your concerns, which means they're more likely to be hiding something, like their own medical condition.

My advice is to stick to your position and don't be afraid to call them out or point them out to others who might become a victim of their nasty attitude, if not worse. I've seen wonderful people get STDs after trusting some jerk who talked them into getting it on without knowing the facts about their health situation. Don't give in and become part of the problem! You're doing the right thing to stand your ground.

PolyNatural,

Assessing STI risk is ABSOLUTELY subjective. Yes, everyone should be informed about the medical, scientific aspects of STIs and risk factors--but what each person does with that information will be different. It's up to individuals to assess their own risk, and to not get involved with people whose risk assessment differs from their own.

To believe that STIs are acquired from "some jerk" who tricks "wonderful people" is a very subjective (and unhelpful) attitude that contains a lot of non-scientific judgment in tone.
 
PolyNatural,

Assessing STI risk is ABSOLUTELY subjective. Yes, everyone should be informed about the medical, scientific aspects of STIs and risk factors--but what each person does with that information will be different. It's up to individuals to assess their own risk, and to not get involved with people whose risk assessment differs from their own.

To believe that STIs are acquired from "some jerk" who tricks "wonderful people" is a very subjective (and unhelpful) attitude that contains a lot of non-scientific judgment in tone.

I said "STD" not "STI" but I assume you mean the same thing, and I completely disagree that assessing the risk of disease transmission is subjective. That's because diseases and the way they are transmitted are scientific medical facts, not subjective opinions. Learn the difference and how science works. Admittedly, calling someone a "jerk" for knowingly engaging in sex with someone who is clean without informing them of the risk is subjective, and I'm completely unapologetic for it. I'd call them something worse but prefer to retain some semblance of civility.
 
Last edited:
The reason it is subjective is because there are disagreements on what the risk actually is. It is interesting that you think a person with an STI is not clean. Obviously you feel there is some sort of stigma attached.

Have you ever had a full panel test for STIs? Some, like the various forms of HSV, are so common now that clinics don't even test for them unless specifically instructed to do so.
 
The reason it is subjective is because there are disagreements on what the risk actually is ...
Varying statistical outcomes based on measurable factual information that provide specific numbers based on the scientific method are not subjective. Subjectivity in medicine happens when patients are asked subjective questions like, "How do you feel?", not when studies show a pathogen and the means by which it is transmitted. Having an STD is not a subjective opinion. The means of transmission is not a subjective opinion. That others can get an STD via the STD's method of transmission is not a subjective opinion.

Maybe start here: https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/stds/conditioninfo/causes
More here: https://www.astda.org/std-prevention-science-series/
 
Last edited:
I completely disagree that assessing the risk of disease transmission is subjective. That's because diseases and the way they are transmitted are scientific medical facts, not subjective opinions.

Infections and the way they are transmitted are also subject to human behaviour. When taking human behaviour into account in your own risk assessments, your assessment of the other person's behaviour is most definitely subjective. I think you misunderstand exactly how statistics work. They are designed to be a measure across large data sets or populations, not at an individual level.

For instance- It's been noted that people who identify as poly are statistically a lower risk for transmission of infections across that particular data set. That doesn't mean that Joe Cowboy who is poly, but also is known to eschew using protection with *any* of his partners including new ones isn't going to be a higher risk. Because you're not only assessing how a particular bacteria is being transmitted. You're assessing another human being's behaviour and its impact on the likelihood of transmission. That is subjective.


Learn the difference and how science works. Admittedly, calling someone a "jerk" for knowingly engaging in sex with someone who is clean without informing them of the risk is subjective, and I'm completely unapologetic for it. I'd call them something worse but prefer to retain some semblance of civility.

I wonder if you think people who spread colds to other people are also jerks. Yes, it's generally the decent thing to do to disclose what risk you could be posing a partner, if you know what that risk is. But often people *don't* know what risk they are- especially if they are between their regular testing, happen to be in an incubation period, or a whole host of other reasons. Again, that is where it's your job to subjectively risk assess your own boundaries according to your perceptions of their behaviour.

And quite honestly, using archaic, outdated and stigma-loaded language like "clean" only contributes to people *not* wanting to talk about their own status.

Is someone who got a cold from their work colleague "unclean" or are they only unclean if they got that cold from having sex with their partner? Infections get transmitted between people all the time in a variety of ways, but I find it interesting that we only feel the need to use terms like "clean" when those infections happen to be transmitted as a result of two people having sexual contact. The language you are using is loaded with a lot of sex-negativity and shame and quite honestly, I know of no doctors or scientists who work in infectious diseases who would use such terms.
 
Orlandobif, it seems it's just a controversial topic, so you've unleashed hell again :D (Aka maybe you're not doing anything wrong.)
 
Infections and the way they are transmitted are also subject to human behaviour. When taking human behaviour into account in your own risk assessments, your assessment of the other person's behaviour is most definitely subjective. I think you misunderstand exactly how statistics work. They are designed to be a measure across large data sets or populations, not at an individual level.

For instance- It's been noted that people who identify as poly are statistically a lower risk for transmission of infections across that particular data set. That doesn't mean that Joe Cowboy who is poly, but also is known to eschew using protection with *any* of his partners including new ones isn't going to be a higher risk. Because you're not only assessing how a particular bacteria is being transmitted. You're assessing another human being's behaviour and its impact on the likelihood of transmission. That is subjective.




I wonder if you think people who spread colds to other people are also jerks. Yes, it's generally the decent thing to do to disclose what risk you could be posing a partner, if you know what that risk is. But often people *don't* know what risk they are- especially if they are between their regular testing, happen to be in an incubation period, or a whole host of other reasons. Again, that is where it's your job to subjectively risk assess your own boundaries according to your perceptions of their behaviour.

And quite honestly, using archaic, outdated and stigma-loaded language like "clean" only contributes to people *not* wanting to talk about their own status.

Is someone who got a cold from their work colleague "unclean" or are they only unclean if they got that cold from having sex with their partner? Infections get transmitted between people all the time in a variety of ways, but I find it interesting that we only feel the need to use terms like "clean" when those infections happen to be transmitted as a result of two people having sexual contact. The language you are using is loaded with a lot of sex-negativity and shame and quite honestly, I know of no doctors or scientists who work in infectious diseases who would use such terms.

I agree wholeheartedly and I'm disappointed that the moderators would permit such isolating and offensive language.

This is up to personal interpretation to an extent, but there are points where risk perception is objective. Having unprotected oral sex with someone in two closed relationships where all members are regularly tested and negative for the most common testable STIs is low risk. However, an individual may have a particularly low threshold for risk and that is okay but the onus is on them to acknowledge their interpretation is unusual.
 
I agree wholeheartedly and I'm disappointed that the moderators would permit such isolating and offensive language.

I'm glad that our mods let us adults have our discussions and for the most part let us sort things out. The term "clean" was used and several people have explained in detail why that word is not a good choice anymore. You say it's an isolating and offensive term. I say it's archaic. Let's discuss it more if need be (although I think the points have already been made) but please, let's not nanny-state this community. We are intelligent, caring and articulate adults who keep up this place very well with mostly peer regulation. Thank you to our mods for not stepping in over this.
 
Back
Top