GermanFucker

I'm pretty sure he barebacked back then, just didn't want to admit it. Maybe he thought I was too young and innocent. A gentleman doesn't tell *LOL. Also I want to keep it kinda ambiguous, it's far too easy to track someone down in the age of social media. Let's just say: 2 Wurstfilm guys, 1 Prime Pork actor, 2 XXX-Project boys plus one or more where I can't remember the films he did. And then there was this huge bareback sex party. The night is kind of blur, but if I remember correctly, one or two of the guys I fucked there also did porn on the side. The funny thing is: I could name half a dozen guys I fucked bareback over the last months, two of which (semi-) regular fuck buddies, who SHOULD do porn (and I mean quality porn, like Chaosmen or Dark Alley) and probably would be an awesome success as porn stars (if it weren't for their boyfriends who still think they're faithful).

Dear Josh: I don't want to come across as overly critical. I in fact mostly enjoyed the article. You are a talented writer. Still, something doesn't sit quite right with me. In the article you say: You make it sound like it was only about the sex and that you though of HIV as somewhat of a risk. Yet if I remember your forum / blog postings here correctly, it wasn't only about the sex, it was about HIV as well. I interpret using a toothbrush on your ass as actively seeking HIV, not just risiking it by letting the dice fall whichever way they might. You say: I do believe your feelings to be heartfelt and sincere. And I really do sympathize. Yet because of your omission in the article you don't adress that lingering question of hindsight. Judging by some of your earlier comments you finally got what you wanted. I'd find it interesting to FULLY know what you felt. Just numbness? Regret? Buyer's remorse? Melancholy? Knowing what you have told us the picture in the article just seems incomplete. You say that yours is a challenging and controversial view, but in the article it really doesn't come across as THAT controversial. Things like: are mainstream / common sense. Only if you take into account what is not mentioned in the article, it really gets controversial. E.g. one of your postings: This is not meant as an accusation. Nor do I want to imply you're dishonest. It's just that you show a completely different side of you in the article. And I'd find it interesting to know more about how these aspects of your personality interact. Is it just horny Josh vs. everyday Josh? Sober Josh vs. cumslut mode? A dark alter ego (or "passenger" for the Dexter fans among us)? Or is it growth / maturation: Did HIV change you. For better? For worse? So many open questions. I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT WITHIN ALL OF US IS THE POTENTIAL TO BE MORE THAN JUST ONE PERSON: WE CAN BOTH BE GOOD CITIZENS AND DEVIL-MAY-CARE PIGS. AND TO UNDERSTAND / ADRESS HIV AMONGST BAREBACKERS AND GAY MEN IN GENERAL WE NEED TO ACCEPT AND ADRESS THAT DICHOTOMY. Otherwise we may say all the right things and yet change nothing.

Fucked half a dozen porn stars. All European, no A-listers, so I won't bother you with names, you probably wouldn't know them anyway. As I don't pay for sex those were just normal fuck dates and I find that porn stars are just normal guys like the rest of us. Two funny anecdotes about porn stars I didn't fuck (at least one of them you could know): Ten years or so ago (I was barely out of my teens) I chatted with this hot, kinda beefy black guy. We were into each other and decided to meet. Straightforward as I am, a few days before our date I sent him a message saying that I prefer unsafe sex and would like to seed his ass. He lectured me how I should play safe and in the end nothing came of it. Today he goes by the name Frederik Berlin and is one major bareback slut. Just do an image search on Google with safe search turned off. A few months ago a porn star (the smooth, toned twentysomething type) hit on me at the local sauna, and quite shamelessly so, as I was there with another guy (who's quite shy and normal plays safe). In the end I fucked the guy I came with. Bareback of course, in the steam room in front of an audience. It was quite a show . Of course I got the porn star's number (still have it), but when I wanted to hook up, he was in rehab, so that one kinda fizzled out, too. Nice ego boost, though ).

What's the alternative? Safer Sex? Abstinence? Men will have sex the natural way. I can't understand how some guys think that a little respect and consideration (you don't even have to be open about everything, a little white lie to sugarcoat the truth is ok, if the interests of the other person are taken into consideration) is an insurmountable task whereas never fucking the way God intended was the easiest thing to do. That's like saying abstinence works. Technically true, but it has nothing to do with reality.

From a purely legalistic standpoint: No. No need to warn someone if there's no risk. From an ethical standpoint: Always disclose. If the other guy's poz, he should also know all the facts before he decides. If the other guy's neg, ideally a short explanation how often one gets tested and how often one barebacks would be great. If you're honest and upfront about your sex life and not getting tested, no. If you say you get tested regularly or give the impression: Yes, you do. No. Everyone has the right to privacy. Never - IMHO - when practising safer sex. And if you meet the other guy lying in a sling at a bareback sex party, discussing status is moot, anyway. However if a smile across the aisle in a sporting goods store turns into a spontaneous fuck, you do have the ethical duty to care and discuss the whole status and / or safe / unsafe sex thing. Whether you do it openly or delicately is up to you. No. As long as you're honest about it. It is your choice if and when to go on meds. But if for whatever reason you don't want to, you shouldn't get pissed when asked about it or getting turned down because of it. You've got to be able to live with your choice. No lying, no misleading. Everybody should have the right to decide whom to have sex with, however ludicrous the criteria might be. That includes racial preferences as well as serosorting. That also means that if a neg guy wants to have sex with a poz guy and both parties are informed and fine with it, it's nobody else's fucking business. Everyone SHOULD. But we can't realistically assume that everyone is informed. Google isn't an answer to everything. Even on the internet you can find bullshit like Duesberg or right-wing Christian nonsense. We should realize that there is such a thing as a society and that the norms and the knowlegde of an urban gay community are not necessarily the same as everywhere else. Communities are in flux and we should greet newcomers to our's with respect and kindness. As to health insurance: The long-term costs of HIV treatment are about the same as for morbid obesity and IMHO it should be treated much in the same way. Help and encouragement to do the "right thing" (e.g. to get tested) is ok, but blaming someone for getting HIV is counterproductive. Not limit. But caring about the people you know is a good starting point.

Just a few off the top of my head: 1.) Don't lie. Period. 2.) Don't mislead. "Sorry, but you are to complicated for me" or "If status is important to you, there probably is a risk" is an ok way to avoid a direct answer. "Don't worry" isn't (that is, if it can realistically be assumed that the other person might be worried by an honest answer.). 3.) Don't assume. If the biggest slut of the city bends over in the local steam room, there isn't much room for interpretation. However, one should never assume that a guy who's clearly showing signs of being inexperienced (about gay sex / safer sex etc. in general), even if you run across him in an ABS, is looking for poz loads. 4.) Say what you mean and do as you say. If you don't want to pull out, don't promise to do so. 5.) Make sure you're talking about the same thing. Just because someone sometimes foregoes condoms doesn't necessarily mean he unterstands or subscribes to the "bareback lifestyle". 6.) Get tested regularly. There is a problem with your logic. Let's take my country's numbers for example: There are about 1.5 million gay men in Germany, out of which 50.000 are poz. If you subtract all the happily married guys and successful safer sex practitioners, realistically one third will have unsafe sex. Some will fall under the "barebacker" category, but most won't generally fuck raw, but will if the circumstances are right: - They're drunk - They're freshly in love - They're buddies with the other guys - They're smitten by the hotness of the other guy - They're bisexual and 200 miles from the next big city and have no clue about the bareback community - and so on. That means 450,000 out of 500,000 or nine out of ten guys who could possibly say yes to playing raw will be neg. I know the statistics are different in other countries, so let's be generous and say: It's only four out of five. Just because everyone could possibly be poz doesn't mean that the majority isn't neg. Assuming they're "probably poz but scared/refuse to get tested" can be used as a way to justify not giving a shit. In reality there's a fifth group, and it's the largest one: 5. Those who sometimes forget condoms, but don't necessarily call it barebacking. Some of them are poz. But the vast majority out of sheer dumb luck and because they don't do it that often are neg. Your logic might work in West Hollywood, The Castro or Prenzlauer Berg. If you look at society as a whole, you have to realize that not all are hardened whores like us. You most likely will run across someone who falls into category five, the one where it really gets problematic. That's why - if we want to be ethical - we should just take that one second to think, to care.

First of all: It sounds more like an erotic fantasy than a real dilemma you're facing right now. But if it is: Ask yourself: What feels right (not just good) for you and what will you regret later? It doesn't matter if you'll be a junkie who regrets not having become a doctor or a doctor who'd rather have been a junkie. It's your life to cherish or use to the extreme. It also means being honest about you're choices and letting e.g. your boyfriend decide if he wants to go along or if that way is not for him. Just don't be an asshole.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but: Doesn't expecting others to man up mean that you don't have to man up enough to just give a simple question a direct answer? IMHO all kinds of personal preferences are valid and everyone should have the right to ask them. Be it HIV status, body weight or hair color. That doesn't mean we actually have to fuck with the guys asking the question. If a guy online asks the tenth question about the size and shape of my feet, the only answer he will get is: " Sorry, dude, I don't like the vibe you're giving off, I'm not a fetishist. Happy hunting and goodbye." But hey, I'm an adventurous guy and enjoy having my preconceptions challenged. If I only wanted to fuck with guys with a similar mindset I'd have to stick to fucking the same dozen guys all the time. Which is also a valid preference. Just not mine.

versatile with other guys (also, bisexual is fun) active sportsman no drugs self-assured, no attention whores v-shaped back, muscular ass easygoing, boyish attitude but at the same time manly a slut / don juan is fine with me, but kinda prefer it when the guys i seed breed other guys themselves in turn someone you can hang with afterwards or take to the local sauna, i.e. shouldn't be afraid of daylight. average to handsome (boy next door type) legal age to ~48

That's why it's called ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE. The problem with anecdotal evidence is that because of the small sample (usually just one person) the data has little or no statistical relevance to the rest. One example: Let's say I won the lottery last week. That doesn't mean you will next week or that buying a lottery ticket is a good investment FOR YOU. Only if you take a large enough sample group you can get to generalized conclusions. And even that doesn't allow to predict the exact outcome in one specific case. It only gives you a guideline as to what course of action might be sensible. In the case of HIV the question is always: What is more doing more harm right now: The side effects of the medications or the constant damage the virus does to the body. The answer isn't necessarily the same for everyone: On the one hand there are maybe 0.5% "elite controllers" whose bodies keep the virus in check by themselves plus another few percent of viremic controllers / slow progressors, who show very little progression towards AIDS. On the other side of the spectrum there are a few percent fast progressors who will progress towards AIDS within months and need to get on meds ASAP. The fact that elite controllers exist doesn't negate the truth that the vast majority fall somewhere in between. Another problem with anecdotal evidence is the question of measuring success. There are quite a few "miracle healers" who tell cancer patients to go off chemo. Of course the side effects of the treatment stop, they look better and get paraded around, all while the cancer continues to grow. When the patients die a few months later, the charlatan has already moved on to his next victim. Just because someone looks or feels healthier doesn't necessarily mean he really is. That's why anecdotal evidence can always be interesting, but one should take it with a grain of salt and draw one's own conclusions. Exactly: It works for HIM. And there is nothing wrong with sharing experiences. One just sholdn't mistake personal experiences for general truths or blindly imitate them. And one shouldn't advertise bullshit like the website does.

For your age your level of experience is quite acceptable, indeed. But you're still completely missing the point, maybe because you had some bad experiences with other "tops". I was never talking about control, ownership etc. I was talking about chemistry (not chems *LOL), "vibe", an intuitive rhythm. Look, I'm not excluding the possibility that you got it right. Because you knew the other guys or instintively picked the right ones. Good for you. But I've been invited to many so-called gang bangs which turned out to be consisting of one bottom trying to get fucked by as many guys as possible. That's nice for him. But not a gang bang. No chemistry among the tops, everyone just trying to fuck the bottom and then get the hell out. Not very hot. Not very hot at all. A deflowering is about the bottom. Doesn't mean the top is just a dick or not important. It just means that the whole thing is only enjoyable if you get the bottom to feel comfortable, just like gang bang tops need to be comfortable with each other. That's the difference that turns a run-of-the-mill breeding into a gang bang. And that's why a gang bang is about tops. Has nothing to do with dominance, ownership or control. I think you didn't get the joke. That was not a threat of violence, just an admission that I'm a prolific wanker. Sex with a guy should be more interesting than sex with my right hand. Most offers I get frankly aren't. I got my pride and preferences. Before I bang some meth head I much rather watch some porn or think back to some awesome fuck I had before and just start rubbing one out. The point is: I'm a rare specimen. I'm a real man. I am confident in myself so that I don't need to control other men just to nurture my ego. I have unbreakable willpower without being bossy or domineering. I'm usually in control because the other guy wants me to be in control. I am an alpha male not because I strive to be but because every fiber of my being is made of alpha-male stuff. It's just my purpose, my mission, my spiritual essence. I like sex. I like it a lot. But I don't have to have sex - with you or any other guy - to feel self-worth. I will not pretend to be someone else just to get someone into bed. If you don't like my style, you don't have to spread your legs (same goes the other way round: If you're not my type, I won't bang you). I will respect you just the same whether we have sex or not. Because every human being deserves respect. Doesn't matter if you're the "head bitch in charge" (rotflmao) or the cashier at ALDI's. Respect is something one innately deserves, not something you demand. Call it the Zen of fucking: Letting go your ego and just enjoying the ride.

If you're referring to my posting, you clearly didn't unterstand it. Not all sexual activity in general is about the top. A gang bang, however, is about (tops) GANGING up on a bottom and banging him as a team. Otherwise it's just a guy taking loads. Which is also ok, but no different from one-on-one sex, only that it's repetitive. But such is NOT a gang bang. If you have a gang bang with 9 tops, that means that 90% of the mood, the chemistry, the scene depends on the tops. Of course a great gang bang needs a great bottom. But even a great bottom has his limits and can hardly turn the thing around if 90% of the attendees don't play well together. I'm not saying all sex is about tops (a gang bang however, is). I'm saying many bottoms don't know the difference between taking loads and a proper gang bang. In that sense it's really not. 10% bottom is not more important than 90% top at a gang bang. Anything else would be megalomanical. Only if you break it down into 10 times one-on-one sex, it becomes about the bottom. But then it's no longer a gang bang. It's like saying that a dom doesn't respect his sub enough. In life and in general he can respect him plenty, but when it comes to S/M, it's just the rules of the game. In the same sense a gang bang has a certain dynamic, it's not an arbitrary thing. If you find a proper gang bang disrespectful, noone is forcing you to participate in one. But you shouldn't make the mistake of generalizing: A gang bang is not the only way to have sex. Neither should you judge the participants in a practice you don't necessarily like or understand. My goodness, 98% of all bottoms don't stand a chance against my right hand. Respect is not about giving the other guy what he wants or pretending to be something else. I respect my partners enough to be polite, open and honest about me. Then you can like it or not.

Judging by the number of total bottoms desperately trying to set up gang bangs, I'd disagree. It's not enough to just hold your ass up in the air. Setting up a good gang bang is a really hard thing. Because many bottoms don't get what a gang bang is about. Of course, the bottom is the center of the sexual activity. But a gang bang is not about the bottom. Gang banging is a team sport. It's about the comradery among the tops. It's about boys being boys and enjoying themselves in a group. The question is not only: Does the top want to fuck the bottom, but also: does he want to continue fucking in the other guys' cum? Only if there's chemistry among the tops, if they have a similar mindset, the thing can turn into a really great gang bang. As with all good sex parties, rules are key. Plus knowing which rules to enforce strictly and when to be lenient. (E.g.: If I have a nudist party with 50 guys and allow three guys to keep their boxers on, I might make 3 guys happy, but will piss off 30). If there's to be no playing amongst the tops, say so beforehand. Also, if all the cum has to go into the bottom, make that a rule. Many bottoms just want to be fucked by a huge number of guys, so they tend to invite as many guys as possible and don't really care with what kind of mindset and expectations they come to the scene. Let me be clear: Such a gathering IS NOT A GANG BANG. A gang bang doesn't consist of individuals, but a team. Games need to have rules, agreed. But you also need to have team players. If you don't have guys that know each other for a long time and play well together, you need to be a bit a bit easy going and not easily frustrated. A team effort requires both: Working together according to a set of rules AND being tolerant / helping your team mates.

It boils down to reading the situation. If he gives you no indication whatsoever that he's interested, it makes no sense to go for it. If he sends signals (smiling, averting the eyes as not to be caught looking at your crotch etc.), give him a chance to make the first move. The porn idea is a good one, there are many other ways to start a conversation: If you're into sport let him walk into you doing pushups or wearing speedos or have bodybuilding magazines lying around. Let him see you as a physical / sexual being, but make sure he is the one to ask. If he shows interest in your body / sex life, he's interested Attitude is key. You should be playful about your sexuality and give the impression that you're a cool guy someone can have harmless fun with. That whatever happens nothing will change - i.e. if something happens you won't tell and if nothing happens it won't change your friendly attitude towards the boy.

I prefer holes to be part of a muscular arse, I don't like flabby. As to hairy or not: Depends on the guy as a whole. The overall impression should be consistent.

It's not necessarily drugs per se, I have a problem with. You like to smoke weed, fine by me. You want to do coke? As long as I don't have to join you, it's not my problem. A very wise man once said: "Hey it’s okay to get cracked once in a while. It’s your body and fuck those who say otherwise. Go out and have a good time, find that guy or group and get plowed. It’s not okay to let crystal run your life. It’s not okay to lie, [...] t’s not okay to steal [...], it’s not cool expecting everyone else on the dance floor to be on the same planet as you. If you can’t handle your shit then don’t do it. Trust me, as a tweaked out queen you don’t look good. I know, you think you do but you don’t." It is exactly the kind of nihilism that pulszer describes, that I find so deeply sad and pathetic. To me the purpose of life is life itself, to mingle, grow, learn, teach, fuck, play, love, to feel. To have fun not as a distraction from the doom of our existence, but to experience joy as a celebration of our being. If nothing else our potential for kindness elevates us above the primordial ooze. To me, said nihilism has but a superficial sexiness; someone with humanity, with a soul, someone who has a real life and people / things he cares about, is a trillion times hotter than any meth head. As the same wise man put it: "Caring brings true happiness. Not money, not fame, not sex, not power, [...]. I wish I knew that then."

This thread is meant to be a bit controversial, if it's in the wrong forum or it belongs in the backroom, the mods should feel free to change that. I recently went to a bareback party for youngsters and bodybuilders only, so it was supposed to be a hot crowd. But in reality it wasn't. Most of the guys were smoking meth, tripping, talking nonsense about how high they were at that moment. I had fun with 3 down-to-earth guys (out of 50). And all of us left early because of the nasty scene. What could have been a mindblowing orgy was - at least to us 4 - just sad and desperate. When I read here how some guys stealth and infect others against their will - which in most cases I frankly believe to be masturbation fantasies or bullshit of the highest order - it's just so malicious and egotistic. I mean some ego is fine when it comes in the form of manly pride, but not in the case of lowly narcissism. I really do believe that to enjoy yourself fully you need to have some kind of karmic balance, to be right with the world so you can just let yourself go and ride out the moment instead of clinging to addiction, ego, megalomania or malice. And all it takes is a modicum of good-naturedness and basic honesty. I LOVE to have that giddy feeling of pure joy after sex - you know, where you just grin stupidly and have that tingly feeling from endorphines ricocheting through your body - not the shame associated with living out an addiction. I want to fuck around as a celebration of life, not as a negation of life, to cherish and drink from the cup of other men's beauty, not to envy or wish to destroy it, to embrace my fellow man, not to meet him as a hardened cynic. It is this kind of lightness of the soul that IMHO oozes sexuality, especially when combined with just a bit of physical fitness (and I don't necessarily mean gymrats). When I look at the bareback scene I often miss that kind of good life. And I ask myself: Am I one of only a few promiscuous barebackers who thinks that way and the rest really prefers chems and a heavy-handed, fetishistic approach to sex? Or are there others who think that even intense sex should be fun and elevating?

I'm a total top. I never bottom, it's just not in my nature. However, I usually don't go for total bottoms. Of course there are some total bottoms I enjoyed greatly and would fuck over and over again. But that's rather the exception. Almost all the guys I fucked were at least versatile, but I'm most attracted to tops, i.e. I either fuck versatile tops or I try to butter up total tops (but fail to get them to bottom, but many a threesome has started that way). There are three reasons why I usually don't find "cum dumps" alluring: 1.) State of mind. With versatile tops there's an instant connection, a sense of brotherhood and understanding. Plus it's hot to know that the guy you just bred will seed another boy the next day. 2.) The hunt / chase. I like a challenge. A cum dump doesn't need seducing. It's a business transaction, rather than an interesting game. 3.) Not "doing things well". With total bottoms sex is often a well rehearsed play. If a guy's not perfect at it, sex can be so much more funny, immediate, intimate. There's a certain coarseness to it which really turns me on big time.

With me your ass will get bred. So first load always goes up the ass. You can swallow the second load if you like.

Well, I am neg so I cannot claim to know what it feels like to be asked if I'm "clean". I do believe that everyone has the right to make his own choices and that goes for neg men wanting to have bareback sex with other neg men as well. Whether or not that is realistic risk avoidance strategy is another question. But I do believe that all of us are allowed to make flawed decisions. So I do think that it is absolutely OK to ask and that everyone should be able to deal with the question of serostatus when seeking bareback sex. Ideally somewhat honestly and honorably. Noone should be pissed off by such a question. HOWEVER, I find phrasing such as "clean" or "healthy" completely moronic and insensitive. As if someone were dirty just because he's got HIV. I've fucked so many poz guys. Some got it from cheating boyfriends, others were tricked, some just didn't know. To believe it couldn't happen to you (even as a non-"barebacker") or me is ridiculous. Maybe it's meant as a euphemism to avoid the bad word HIV. But for fuck"s sake, if it's HIV you ask about, have the fucking honesty to ask about it directly. IMHO directness and honesty is always more respectful than bullshitting someone. If someone asks me if I'm clean I say I shower regularly. If someone asks me if I'm healthy I answer honestly that I have allergies and a bad knee. - "No, that's not what I meant!" - "Then say what you mean, fool. And yes, BTW, I'm neg.". P.S.: What's at least as bad as asking if someone is clean is asking if someone "has AIDS" when meaning HIV. It's a fucking syndrome, not the disease per se, everyone should know the fucking difference.

I just bareback. For that I need neither toys, gear nor lube.

When it comes to porn I like many different kinds of videos, quality stuff like Chaosmen, Active duty etc. as well as amateur cell phone / webcam videos. Sometimes I'm in the mood for high quality, sometimes a dirty voyeuristic pleasure. I think the most important thing is honesty about the content and consistency between genre and contents. If I'm looking for some high quality porn, I will not tolerate lousy picture quality. I know the scene is shot in HD, so I don't want it to look pixellated. If I lust for some amateur stuff I will tolerate a low resolution and shaky camera work. What I will not tolerate is e.g. trying to pass off third-rate studio porn as amateur stuff. A guy that's a bit clumsy because he's doing stuff for the first time is seriously hot and endearing. A professional who's just bad at his job is not.

The risk is somewhere almost non-existant (very minimal to theoretical). If an infection happens it's mostly because of open wounds etc. If you don't have bleeding or a syphillis chancre in your mouth, I wouldn't worry too much. If he's on meds I wouldn't worry AT ALL. Anyway: If you fuck his hole raw and the bottom has a high viral load, your main risk (especially if you're not circumcized) is from fucking, i.e. rubbing the delicate head of your penis against his colon wall. If you're fine with that, his cum isn't really an issue.

Simple: 1.) Law is mainly concerned with interactions between different people. If you rape a guy, that's a crime. If you rape your own ass with a dildo, who the fuck should care, it's your business. You can only hold someone responsible for his health insofar as it concerns others. 2.) But because negs cannot infect someone else, it doesn't concern anyone else: There is no potential for harm.

TOTALLY disagree. For me as a top a tight hole reminds me that I fuck a man - up the ass! - is there anything more glorious than that? Also muscle tone in the ass feels just so youthful and healthy - i.e. I'm not just fucking dead old meat. I think it's an evolutionary thing. There are situations where a more sloppy hole can be hot (e.g. after hours of fucking, as a sign that the ass yielded to MY cock - no just some dildo, or a group scene), so I'm not judging guys that are into sloppy holes. But in general: Assholes are not pussies, so they shouldn't feel like those.