GermanFucker

Interesting post, MMM! Just some quick thoughts I had. I think drug use is indeed a problem in the barebacking community and it doesn't hurt having it discussed by a wide audience. However, especially with promiscuous gays / barebackers these problems often play into each other. As I said once before on another thread, the problem often isn't HIV alone or occasional drug use alone, it's the combination / nexus of HIV / Hepatitis, drugs, depression, de-socialization etc that can kill guys. Well, sex has addictive potential as well (just like many former smokers suddenly become overeaters), many straight people can't image a gay reality and mistake common promiscuity for sex addiction. Many gay prudes do as well. Couldn't have said it better. The secret is to fully enjoy sex without using it as a crutch. Most 12-step programs with ABSTINENCE at their core can't really help with that. Also I'd say: Try to become self-aware and see all the aspects of the problem. Ask yourself: Why am I doing this? Some questions as to ascertain what is part of the problem and what's not might be: - Can I enjoy sex for its own sake or does it only work in certain, drug-heavy, setting anymore? - What are my real priorities (Drugs, sex, work, friends....)? - Who are my real friends and what are my relationships really worth (if you believe your dealer is your best buddy, you have a problem)? - Do I really enjoy bugchasing or is it just an obsessive behaviour typical for depression? - What things are connected in my mind and elicit the same psychological reaction (addictive behaviour, withdrawal, anxiety etc.). If sex and drugs are one thing for you, that might be something to work on. And so forth.... If I have a clear picture of what my problem is, I can choose the right setting for me (12-step, psychotherapy etc.). Conversely, I believe that with gay settings analysing the nature of the problem is so important, as it is often more complex than just "I am an alcoholic".

I'd disagree. I would say that most guys are indeed versatile and just prefer to take one role. However, there are also some for whom it's not just a role, but an identity, who realized, that theay are either top or bottom. For whom it's not dedication to a role, but the easiest thing in the world: to be what they are. You see, to me that just sounds absurd. For me it doesn't take one iota of resolution to be a top, it comes natural. On the other hand, bottoming for me has nothing to do with sex. It's about as clinical and unpleasant as a colon exam. Just as for other guys it feels absurd to stick their dicks into pussy. Many guys are somewhat bi, but some guys are just gay and that's it. Yes and no. I tried bottoming once or twice when I was young and stupid. With a very nice fuckbuddy who I really liked at the time. The experience did nothing whatsoever for me. You can't really learn much from something that feels completely wrong. So I think one has to be careful, because there is nothing more annoying than missionary zeal ("But you HAVE to try that....")

With all due respect, but that sounds like one of those silly ideas that are only put out there so one can masturbate to one's own outrageousness. First of all, it's wrong. If somebody insists on condoms one way or the other (having condoms nearby is not insisting, handing them over and checking for rubber is), he makes a clear choice. I choose to fuck raw always, but everyone has the same right to choose for himself. Secondly it's just weak and cowardly. IMHO the right call would be to just speak the truth: "Dude, barebackers want to have fun here, just walk away instead of spoiling the mood.". In my experience frankness will be rewarded, usually the hottest, funnest guys will soon come after you, because you're not ashamed of what you're doing.

With all due respect, but no. just no. If I understand your argument correctly, it all hinges on the propagation of genetic code and then you equate the propagation of one's own genetic code with that of a virus. But that equation is specific to the bugchaser community, no non-HIV-fetishist would ever come up with that. Don't get me wrong, I totally get the first part. If I lived in the US I would soooo be a sperm donor (different rules here). I would love the thought of knowing that my DNA lives on. But it would be MY OWN genetic code, not a parasitic one. And I - obviously - get the joy of natural sex and marking one's territory. But that's just barebacking, not bugchasing, i.e. seeking the virus for the virus' sake. So it's the second part of your argument where you lose me.

I haven't seen the film and if it equates barebacker with bugchaser I think that would be it's main problem. Because I think there is a difference between barebacking (i.e. accepting risks) and bugchasing (seeking HIV and all that toothbrush nonsense). While there are valid reasons for enjoying the fun of barebacking, the main aim of bugchasing is indeed to hurt one's health. It's about as sane as amputating one's healthy foot, i.e. there are indeed some people who can only live happy and complete lives without certain body parts (body integrity identity disorder), same goes for BC. But one can't make an intellectual argument for bugchasing (i.e. specifically seeking out the virus) that holds generally true and that is valid outside the bugchaser community. If one isn't an HIV fetishist, there is absolutely nothing to be gained over simple barebacking (i.e. letting the dice roll) by bugchasing. Although the outcome is most likely the same (give and take a few months / years), when it comes to the bugchaser mentality, the difference is immense. So while I respect any bug chaser the same as someone with BIID or someone's right to smoke, I don't think bugchasing needs sympathy or special encouragement. It is what it is, and that's ok, as long as it remains consensual. But for me it's not a modern-day civil rights issue. And I don't think that intelligence has anything to do with it. Even the smartest people are influenced by upbringing and societal value systems. You don't have to be self-loathing to have these instilled values work against you. Many bugchaser say they need the virus to be able to relax and pig out, because deep inside they believe that barebacking and all-out sluttery while HIV-neg are wrong. HOW FUCKED UP IS THAT? And as to the poz brotherhood: Sure there is a level of mutual understanding which often etablishes an instinctive connection and makes sex less complicated. Shared experiences help bonding, simple as that. But in my experience it doesn't automatically go beyond that. Helping each other and being friends takes an effort, and more than anything it depends on the individual - not serostatus - if that effort is made or not. Even the smartest human beings aren't purely rational. We often base our decisions on idealized notions, be it of health (if only I were healthy, then I'd be happy) or brotherhood (once I'm part of the brotherhood, I'm all set) or whatever. That doesn't mean we'll be automatically dissappointed by reality, because the way we perceive it, is subjective as well. But it means that it is almost impossible to discuss bugchasing rationally, because most of its gestation and probably all of it's allure comes from the realm of individual imagination. You seek something you have no real idea of how it feels until you've arrived. Whether you experience it as exhilarating or sobering, it's all up to the individual. Which makes it an infinitely complex, complicated issue.

Agree with MascMountainMan: Spit and cum. Most water-based lubes are horrible, there are some decent silicon-based ones, which are ok for fucking anal virgins (which I do my share of), but other than that best to avoid artificial lubes. They don't feel anything like cum when fucking and they certainly don't taste like it.

The idea that you have to get the latent HIV out of hiding has been discussed and evaluated for years. Trials with valproic acid a few years ago weren't a smashing success. In 2012 the focus had shifted to HDAC inhibitors and teams from Australia and the US claimed "inspiring" first successes with vorinostat: http://www.hivandhepatitis.com/hiv-treatment/hiv-cure/3509-croi-vorinostat-a-first-step-on-the-road-towards-a-cure-for-hiv AFAIK research is still ongoing, as are clinical trials: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01319383 If I understand it correctly, what the Danish are doing is basically exchanging Vorinostat for Panobinostat and modifying the study design from a tentative evaluation of efficacy to trying to answer the question "Is it doable?" (and maybe even without accompanying ARVs) as soon as possible. I guess it will be the same as with HepC, which some guys have multiple times and then have to go on interferon for half a year to clear it out of the system. For them it's not a life sentence, but most still dread it like hell because of the more aggressive curative therapy.

I think one has to keep in mind that porn is a business. It's a celebration as well as a selling point. I'm sure that if TIM could have, say, Rob Gronkowski fuck Mike Carr (http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.181515178614470), they'd celebrate their healthy youthfulness. It's about selling a fantasy, which makes total tops out of versatile bottoms and straight guys out of notorious queens. Everything should be taken with a grain of salt. Well, yeah, however, there is a difference between spreading rumors that one's mailman is poz and speculating if a bareback porn star is. In the first case it's a private issue, which deserves protection, however the professional life (and all that pertains to it) of a public figure is to a certain degree up for debate. But that doesn't mean it's good taste.

If someone told me that as a neg guy I can't be on BBRT or fuck around with poz guys, I'd consider that a righteous rant. But if a poz guy says that he simply does not want to infect a neg hole, I'd say he's completely within his right. As long as it happens in a respectful manner, it's completely his decision who he fucks with and what he chooses to burden his conscience / muddy his karma with. It's the same as choosing not to associate with drug addicts. Some guys just prefer to avoid situations that make them feel queasy and bad about themselves, even if noone is forcing them to take drugs themselves. Everyone should have the right to have sex the way it feels right for him.

Personally, I couldn't find any correlation between serostatus and hotness, the distribution seems to be quite random. I'll admit, however, that under certain circumstances it seems that way: a.) Not every who barebacks is on BBRT, most "straight" guys who wouldn't dream of ever using a condom also don't consider themselves barebackers in the BBRT sense. So the poz community is certainly oversampled on BBRT. b.) One always wants what one can't have. A poz guy who wants to "avoid the hassle" of fucking serodiscordant guys, suddenly seems ten times as hot to a neg guy. Many non-HIV-fetishistic poz barebackers find it to be the other way round. From one friend I constantly hear: "Uh, he's so hot, but I can't fuck him, he's neg..."

The thing is: You never know. Maybe the guy was prone to depression anyway and testing HIV positive was just the trigger. The same thing with physical health: Most of my poz friends lead healthy, productive lives. And then there are others, for whom HIV lead to cancer, who can't feel their legs anymore or who lost 50lbs because anxiety on top of the medication fucked up their digestive system. And while most men one way or the other make peace with their fate in life, it's nothing that can be forced. Telling someone who has problems with depression to "buck up" or that it is his obligation to move on just won't work. Because some brains work differently. And that is why stealth pozzing (i.e. actually infecting) is categorically, unequivocally wrong: Because even if one oneself is fine with HIV, one never knows when it comes to others. Trying to rationalize it with statistics is just making excuses for something that is unexcusable. And just to be sure: I'm not saying that happened here, I don't know any of you guys personally. But there are indeed psychopathic assholes out there. A friend of mine got pozzed against his will by someone who wasn't as mature and sane as bearbandit and transgeressed the thin red line between fantasy and reality. And even though my friend learned to accept being poz and is doing OK by now, that doesn't make the deed ok. Just because testicular cancer survivors do ok with prosthetic balls doesn't give me the right to go around castrating others.

I think there are two different issues at play here. Of course it is impossible to determine what exactly counts as good looks. Also a comparable level of attractiveness doesn't make one soulmates. But I do understand that especially younger guys feel more comfortable if they can perv out with a group of their peers. It's banal, but belonging to the same age group and social stratum makes it easier to bond, especially in group / orgy setting. And sometimes one really needs a level of comradery to completely let oneself go and just pig out. I've actually enjoyed fucking and seeding bearish types 15 years my senior (had an occasional fuckbuddy like that a few years ago). But when it comes to piss play and manscents, I always end up with jock types 18-32. Maybe it's the stark difference between innocent looks and raunchy stuff I find so very hot. But also I just feel comfortable amongst my type of guys.

I think there is a difference between a pity fuck and finding something attractive about a guy who isn't one's type initially. I don't do the former, I'll be friendly and polite, but if I don't click with a guy at all, I won't have sex with him. For me it's about adventure and mutual chemistry, I'm not really one of those guys with a big ego who get off on "slumming it" / fucking someone who's "beneath them". But the latter case has happened, I've been both the one to reconsider myself and the one who's been given a second thought. And why not? If I get to feel comfortable with a guy because he's sweet or because something makes me see him in a different light (which sometimes is as banal as finding out that a fuckbuddy friend of mine has already fucked the guy and seemingly enjoyed it), why shouldn't I go for it?

I agree with the other guys: No, I wouldn't pay for ass. As bttm2go says, it often boils down to what the bottom can offer in addition to hole. Be it a killer body or porn star fame, youth or the willingness of a twenty year old to be fucked by chubby 65-year-old guys, availability, discretion and so on. You have to have a value proposition that sets you apart from those who give it away for free to create your own niche on the market.

To the best of my knowledge: On the one hand flu shots are more important for the immunocopromised. That also includes e.g. recipients of organ transplants on corticosteroids etc. On the other hand, the success of a certain vaccination depends on the immune response to the vaccine. So those who sometimes need the shots the most are also often the ones form who the shots are the least effective. While many HIV+ patients have successfully rebuilt their T-cell count over years of ARV therapy, it is of interest for the doctor to know if a patient is poz, if only to monitor if the shot works as planned (or consider repeat vaccinations etc.).

It's impossible to accurately access the risk, as a number of factors can play into it. The best estimate in my opinion is: About as low as safer sex using condoms. I.e. while accidents can happen (the top could just have unknowingly gotten syphillis which causes a spike in his viral load), but are very rare. Under normal circumstances, i.e. if the top has been undetectable for quite some time, no drug binges (forgetting to take his meds) and other STDs, the risk is so very low that you shouldn't worry about it.

My personal opinion: Not really interested. While it might be fun to fuck what anatomically amounts to a living ken doll once for the sake of trying things out, I'm rather drawn to masculinity. That not only means cock, balls and all. Also if you don't go on hormone replacement therapy, it would make you more feminine, which is not appealing to me. Without meds I really don't think there is such a thing as a castrated or completely gender nullified masculine bottom. If absolutely feel the need to do it, I wouldn't want to talk you out of it. But it's YOUR fantasy and you shouldn't expect others to share your preferences. If you feel that being nullified will make you happy regardless of its impact on your sex life, then maybe it is the right thing for you. But if you just fantasize about being seeded by top X or top Y as a eunuch, you should consider that X and Y might not be into eunuchs at all. As said before: If I'm not in the mood for men, I'd rather find me some female pussy.

Frankly, after oh so many years of fucking around, my impression is this: There are normal guys and there are inconsiderate morons, who often exhibit a stunning level of both disregard of others (not reading profiles, ignoring preferences etc.) and cognitive dissonance. But IMHO that's just how the world is and has nothing to do with serostatus.

As a big-dicked guy I've run into the situation that the bottom thought he was clean enough for a normal, average fucker, but not quite enough for me. I think one can judge by the level of embarrassment the bottom shows if it really was an accident that happens once in a blue moon (or a regular occurrence). I don't throw guys out or freak out, but the fuck is pretty much over for me. After all, shit on my dick is a turn-off. But if the bottom's interesting I usually give second chances (of course not if the bottom is a guy I normally wouldn't fuck twice, anyway). If you can sense that the bottom doesn't really care, then NO, no second chances.

On their own - i.e. without fever, malaise etc. - diarrhoea, stomach cramps, loss of appetite and problems sleeping are terrible indicators of seroconversion sickness. Why? Because these can also be psychosomatic and thus symptoms of great stress and anxiety. I know many neg guys that are afraid of HIV that got caught in that spiral of hornyness, barebacking and fear / regret afterwards. For them the diarrhoea isn't symptomatic of HIV, but rather their fear of HIV.

No. If I'm in the mood for men, I fuck men. Not crossdressers, transsexuals or eunuchs. Sorry guys.

Germany has a staggered age of consent law: Everything under 14 is strictly illegal. 14-16 year olds can have sex with other adolescents and young adults, as long as those are under 21. Above 21, it's illegal (but not always punishable). Parents still have to press charges or a state attorney has to decide that the case is of general interest for it to go to court. 16-18: Sex is generally legal, but there is a catalogue of restrictions. E.g. 17 year-olds cannot work as prostitutes (prostitution being otherwise legal in Germany). Employers, teachers, coaches and other persons of authority cannot have sex with students, apprentices etc.. You also cannot take advantage of a teenager's problems, like offering a place to crash in exchange for sex. 18+: No restrictions. I certainly don't want to press the "Europe is so enlightened theme", but I do think the German law is exemplary in that it is a very sane and workable compromise between the different interests. Teenagers are not being punished for having sex with each other, while predatory behaviour can be prosecuted.

I do get the control aspect. What I don't get is the "enjoy the disease" part. It's as strange to me as enjoying getting diabetes. For some sugary treats are just as enjoyable as bareback sex. And many obese people count on getting diabetes. But it's not like becoming insulin dependent is enjoyable PER SE. Neither is the fuck flu nor the nuissance of regular doctor visits.

Again, I agree, but I intentionally used the number for the whole 300 million or so US Americans. Because my starting point was that there shouldn't be two sets of laws for gays and straight guys. Hornyness. Every bottom has the desire to give in to his top and get seeded within him. All it takes for him to give into this desire is for the other guy to either: a.) Perfectly fit the bottom's fantasy of a perfect guy / dream top. If one's truly smitten with the other guy's looks / attitude etc. one doesn't think rationally. b.) Be able to talk the bottom into doing away with the condom by either incrementally rationalizing it or by establishing authority. You are a smart guy. You probably know how to push the right buttons as well. I would disagree. Sure, it's called unsafe sex. And if go to a sauna with two of my buddies who everyone either knows are poz or might assume by their looks, every bottom would ask the status question. If introduce myself to a bottom saying that I haven't got much time because my girlfriend might get suspicious, I NEVER in a million years get asked that question. A presumption of safety is surprisingly easy to establish, if the other guy has a genuine desire to get fucked by you. But the mere psychological distress for a few weeks isn't the core problem in my eyes. If the other guy actually gets infected, that's when the question of disclosure really matters. And of course, IMHO, there should be a legal distinction between both cases. Again, that is if nothing happens. I'm all for leniency when nothing happens. But if the shit hits the fan and the other guy gets infected against his will, that in the eyes of many would be punishment enough, so in that case it really isn't "totally on the poz guy".

I think that this is a very interesting and highly pertinent point. Europeans do indeed see things differently. But I would go a bit further than that. Europeans seem to feel more comfortable with shared responsibilities and complex situations, whereas in the US I feel this constant need to find someone who is solely responsible for what is wrong with a situation. From a European perspective the whole system of nuissance lawsuits and excessive punitive damages looks bizarre. And I really believe that this black-and-white dychotomy, that need to make a point rather than seek justice is weighing on this subject. So the question is: Is bareback sex rather like working for a chemical company (my example) or standing in the middle of a shooting range (yours)? I totally get that for you as a gay New Yorker it looks like the latter. But again, I think that to be the basis of a general law you have to look at the whole spectrum, geographically as well as sexually, and that's where the similarities begin to vanish. Also you have to look at what the person "pulling the trigger" would realistically assume. On a shooting range I would NEVER EXPECT someone to just step in front of my gun. The likelyhood is 0.0something percent (the stray mental case or suicidal person). On the other hand: EVERY man likes bareback sex and about 50% of all gay men have it, whereas the numbers of HIV positive gay men are much lower. So here the likelyhood that the other guy is neg is very high indeed. Because if there is practically 0% chance of something happening, I have no responsibility of taking precautions against it. If I realistically can EXPECT problem, I have to take them into account, lest I behave negligently. If I remember correctly, there are negligence laws in the US, as well. But then we'd have to talk representation of risk. Just a thought experiment: About 1% or so of Americans are poz. That would be the risk on is taking by having unprotected sex with just anyone. Many activities or products carry similar(ly low) risks. But if for some reason your product were to carry a much higher risk and you were to misrepresent that, you'd be liable even in the US. Ralph Nader built a career on that. But with HIV / AIDS the need to assign blame doesn't solve anything. Only open discussion and share responsibility will. But you have to agree that even in this day and age, for many guys (absolute numbers, not necessarily a majority) HIV is a serious, severe disease which they wouldn't wish on anyone else (even if others enjoy having it). But the concept of total self-reliance hasn't been a realistic way of life for over a century. If you aren't Amish and have thus built your house yourself, you put your health into hands of others: landlords and largely anonymous contractors, and largely you have to hope that they haven't gifted you with toxic mold. If you don't farm you rely on supermarkets not to poison your food and for most guys (who aren't self-employed) you have to rely on your employer to create danger-free working environments. So the question would be: How much of a strangers do you remain if you exchange bodily fluids? Is it more or less intimate than being landlord and tennant? But stupidity is part of human nature, especially when it comes to the propagation of the species. Sex is not meant to be rational. As before: I do agree that criminalization doesn't make much sense if nothing happened. In the case of an actual infection of a non-HIV-fetishist: HOW IS THAT POSSIBLY A REWARD? I actually didn't disagree with you on that specific set of circumstances. However, I'd like to point out that this ideal constellation cannot form the basis of a general law that says: "If you're barebacking and neg it's your job to ask, not the other guy's to disclose", as you suggested. That's why I am against both extremes. One should neither automatically blame one side nor the other, but rather look at the SPECIFIC SITUATION. And any sane law should take that into account. As to the disclosure issue, I could imagine something along the lines of: You have to disclose EXCEPT when all scietifically recommended precautions for having safer sex are being taken (which can be condoms or a med regime, subject to research and cyclical reevaluation). Which leaves most poz guys alone, but makes HVL AIDS fetishists disclose, which seems only fair to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking morals here (morality laws regarding nudity, drinking in public etc. are already ridiculous in the US). But isn't there something as basic human ethics, just an extrapolation of the golden rule, that applies here as well, beyond all that cultural bias? But either way, you for sure made some interesting points.