In the Old Testament of The HOLY BIBLE, we have read historical accounts of Abram's sex maid Hagar having to leave the presence of Abe's primary wife Sarai (Gen 16:15, Gen 16:16, Gen 21:9, Gen 21:14, Gen 21:17, Gen 25:12, Gal 4:24, Gal 4:25). Scripture does not inform us if Abram ever had any further communication(s) or connection(s) with Hagar.

Christ Jesus was descended from Judah, who was a son of Jacob conceived by the lesser-preferred of Jacob's two wives (let alone Jake's two sex maids he was in common-law marriage with concurrently). The record of that is in Genesis 29:

32 And Leah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Reuben; for she said, "Because the LORD has looked upon my affliction; surely now my husband will love me."
33 She conceived again and bore a son, and said, "Because the LORD has heard that I am hated, he has given me this son also"; and she called his name Simeon.
34 Again she conceived and bore a son, and said, "Now this time my husband will be joined to me, because I have borne him three sons"; therefore his name was called Levi.
35 And she conceived again and bore a son, and said, "This time I will praise the LORD"; therefore she called his name Judah; then she ceased bearing.

Also within our Lord's family-tree geneology was temporary-harlot-like Tamar, who disguised herself to entice Judah to take and impregnant her as a passing prostitute (and it is odd that Judah did not even recognize the voice quality nor facial features of his own daughter-in-law who he went into). [Read the record in Genesis chapter 38].

It is not stated in Scripture whether widow Ruth ever had any sex or children with her first husband [Read Ruth 1:1-17] or whether one of David's acquired wives, Abigail (who had belonged to deceased ill-natured Nabal), ever had any sex or children with churlish Nabal [See I Samuel 25,27,30 and II Samuel 2:2 and 3:3]. No record exists of whether Hosea had any sex or children with his additional? purchased concubine or whoever in Hosea chapter 3:

1 And the LORD said to me, "Go again, love a woman who is beloved of a paramour and is an adulteress; even as the LORD loves the people of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love cakes of raisins."
2 So I bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and a homer and a lethech of barley.
3 And I said to her, "You must dwell as mine for many days; you shall not play the harlot, or belong to another man; so will I also be to you."

In Romans 7:3 we read that: "[A woman]......will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she belongs to another man she is not an adulteress." Again, it does not explicitly state whether that previous widow had any sex or children with the first and/or the next man. In fact, it seems that Paul in First Timothy chapter 5: (below) even discourages younger-women widows from re-marrying so as to "belong to" another man and thus obviously also not have sex or children with such:

1 Do not rebuke an older man but exhort him as you would a father; treat younger men like brothers,
2 older women like mothers, younger women (Gr. ne(o)teras) like sisters, in all purity.
11 But refuse to enrol younger women (Gr. ne(o)teras) widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry,
12 and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge.
14 So I would have younger women (Gr. ne(o)teras) marry, bear children, rule their households, and give the enemy no occasion to revile us.
15 For some have already strayed after Satan.

The apostle Paul is not thus contradicting himself by encouraging younger widows to re-marry, but he does want younger women (a broader group than merely "widows") to re-marry (I suppose rather than becoming masseuse-prostitutes, escort call-girl harlots, streetwalking sluts, etc. and consequently getting pregnant outside of marriage, and/or passing around VD, and much more).

So safe sex (or sexx or sexxx) is not a marriageless random connection of people temporarily joined with each other.

Would YOU, in some way(s), want to become sexually connected with one who is butt-ugly? Excessively obese? Wheelchair-confined? Inflicted and besieged with some highly-contagious communicable disease?

How about one who hates George W. Bush, supports abortion-homicide choice, sees no wrong with pervert/queer lesbian homosexuality, applauds feminist-sexist arrogance, or with mythical-evolution-heresy impudence mocks Christian young-Earth creationism? I guess not!

If we considered picking up a hitchhiker along the road, would she force us out of our vehicle at gunpoint or knifepoint and take over without us needing to hitchhike then ourselves, with or without a cellphone? How many other guys has she hitchhiked with, and would she continue to hitchhike after we give her a ride? Who does she already sexually belong to at wherever she lives or visits?

How about using Adult FriendFinder and selecting a nude-photo gal to call up and meet with, restricted to varying degrees of pseudo-secrecy and reputational endangerment? Lots of other guys have seen her naked also, so there will be continuous temptation and competition for and by several sex partners (not simultaneously, of course).

TRUE "safe sex" involves many factors - with or without impractical and disappointing use of ridiculous condoms and disability-causing contraceptives. Disheartening it is to have to stop short of completing sexual fulfilment with complete copulation, for fear of VD acquisition, pregnancy, heretical misbeliefs and prejudices and supersititions, lying marital status, inmost intent of monetary greed, and so forth. It is best to choose one or more persons wisely before beginning even the slightest visual and further erotic connection with any partner(s) of the opposite sex.

Substitution of pictoral porn for real romantic relationships is futile, in association with non-realistic presumptions the porn viewer has of the cute young nude whores? (not necessarily "ladies") he lustfully looks at. Who took the nude picture(s) or video(s)? Her pimp, husband, or boyfriend? Probably not her dad. How about her female roommate, sister, or neighborhood female friend? Maybe she set the camera or videocamera on automatic and therefore did it herself. But who posted the pix in the magazine or on the internet? One can presume (NOT assume) the virtual and realtime fantasy that the nude gal is all one's own for the time being, and controllably plus obediently perfect doctrinally and denominationally for the photo. Certainly protected-reputation anonymity is apparently a factor both in her posing and in his viewing of her photographic or video images. And no menstual headaches, no money expenditures involved with the free pics, and no shrieking kids doing their damndest under threat of conjuring up social-workers-enforced charges of child abuse. (Read Isaiah 3:12). But WHO does she actually belong to maritally or otherwise in real life? And is she faithfully chaste and monogamous with only and always one permanent male partner in reality?

First Corinthians 7:
1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman.
2 But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
4 For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.
5 Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a while, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.
6 I say this by way of concession, not of command.
7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
8 To virgins and widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.
9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

2Co 6:14 Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

You might be wondering why the word "safesexx" in the title of this piece has two x's in it instead of one x or even three x's.

Arbitrarily, I chose a webpage title above referring to [xx-rated] woman-with-man fellatio (i.e. penis licking and sucking with the woman's tongue, lips, and mouth).....rather than [x-rated] penis and scrotum handling with the woman's hand(s) or foot(feet) or breast(s) or whatever else.....and rather than [xxx-rated] insertion of the penis into the woman's vagina (and I do not intend inclusion of inserting a penis into a dung-or-feces-retaining rectum).
Added to that, no ages of the woman nor man are indicated pertaining to the above, although it is preferred that both genders engaging any one or more types of sexual intercourse indicated above have at least reached puberty (at whatever teenage time that happens) rather than with pre-puberty toddlers who in fact do not yet have genitally-directed awareness nor desire.

Sometimes it happens that a sexually-mature teacher, co-worker or next-door neighbor guy is in a more-or-less private situation with a single girl or young woman - which girl or woman is less than always completely-attired modestly in his presence (whether exposing loose-long-haired mopheadedness, sleevesless naked arms, slacksless or shortened-skirted nude legs, or sockless with sandals or whatever). In such a case, it might be inevitable that the man will suggest and/or try to engage in some form of quasi-"legal" sexual connections of a perhaps somewhat or partially-clothed type which the targeted female hopefully-to-him will (and frequently does) voluntarily and consentually submit to.

That can eventually result in safesexx.....and even safesexxx - if circumstances are convenient for such to occur. But more often than not (and in one sense, unfortunately), such is not the case.

The ultimate requirement for safesex, safesexx, and safesexxx is: marriage of and with the ones mutually connecting erotically. Whether in the beginning stages of concubinal intentions, or during State-licensed marriage-certificate-registered marriage with or without already-wedded ceremony, permanent-belonging mentality essentially consisting of at least common-law marriage is necessary for legitimate safesex, safesexx, and safesexxx.