GermanFucker

No passion for the bottom = no passion for the act. It's all about chemistry, simple as that. I'm mindblowingly good as a top with the right mate, if there's no chemstry (unfortunately sometimes you only notice very late, when you can't get a rhythm going) I'm a shitty lay. Know what? I'm perfectly fine with that. I don't aim to please anyone. I just wanna enjoy myself with likeminded blokes. Don't worry. Guys like me will be long gone at that point *LOL. Well, you gotta be able to pull it off. Right now it's just empty talk, you gotta back that up. That's the difference between dom and bossy. Trust me, I know. I am naturally dom - the best kind .

That's because a great many guys are just plain fucking stupid. Because they prefer falseness for the sake of harmony over honesty. They don't get that different doesn't mean a threat and don't appreciate that if a guy is open about what he is and does, they can make their own informed choices. An ironic observation: On non-BB specific sites I often run into Safer-Sex-Only profiles. Mostly I just tell them: "Read my profile. Are you sure?" Sometimes I find myself more attracted to the ones who realize their mistake and are respectful and intelligent in telling me "no thanks" than in the ones who tell me that their profile is bullshit and that of course they bareback. Bullshit only makes one more distrustful: "What else does that guy need to hide?". All that makes it hard to relax ans just let yourself go. A "real man" on the other hand does as he says and says as he does, and there's something very powerful and erotic to that. That's why of course I'd fuck your POZ ass in a heartbeat.

Well, I guess it depends on the specific site, I frequent the more euro-centric ones like gayromeo.com, so blocking someone on one site isn't the same as as on another (on one site you are alerted right away - which is kind of the point when being rude on purpose, on another you might not even notice). I think it's when one goes out of his way to show others that he doesn't like them and / or will never have sex with them, when someone - without provocation - just wants to make the point that he doesn't want to have anything to do with them, that's when it's starting to get douchy. Excluding someone from one's own search parameters and reducing one's OWN hassle is not the same as actively trying to hassle OTHERS.

Sure. But don't expect these sites to be popular. I've seen it a thousand times with online communities and groups on online communities: There is a vocal group of guys complaining about negs (non-chem-friendlies, overweight, etc. - take a pick), so the groups get more restrictive and in the end you end up with the same handful of jaded queens that are regulars at the same sex clubs and constantly run into each other anyway. While the bulk of guys moves on to a more permissive group. In the end variety is the spice of life and it's easier to complain if you have a choice but don't like some of the options then when you have no choice at all. Yeah, but that's a RESPECTFUL, OPEN and HONEST discussion. What could be better than that? Well, ok, if you actually do fuck these guys (which I'd find seriously hot). Seriously, dude?

I disagree with barehole4use. - I think many guys when they say "bareback" mean the sex they PERSONALLY like to have. That's raw sex, but it's often more than just raw sex: Piggish sex, sex on drugs, sex between poz men. Just look at e.g. HIV fetishism in TIM porn: Yes it's advertised as bareback porn, but it's so much more. Chaosmen is just as much bareback as TIM. In the end bareback just means one thing: fucking the natural way, i.e. without rubbers. Not all barebackers are gaunt parTy boys. Bareback sex can be sober, vanilla and non-fetishistic. And I believe the bareback community would be far worse off if it didn't embrace all facets of barebacking instead of a more narrow definition. - Given the demographics of the bareback community, respect for HIV poz men should be a given, because everyone could be next and most likely will be soon. So it's just fair to enforce some kind of etiquette. But that etiquette should be the same for all and be based on common sense, namely: Live and let live. Everyone has preferences, but you shouldn't be a dick about it. - Other than that, it's everyone's goddam right to have sex the way he fucking pleases (as long as no other person's rights are violated. Sex with e.g. children is not ok). I've seen many poz guys say in their profiles: no hep c or syph and that's completely ok. It's their fucking choice. Just as it is one's choice to say "neg only". It doesn't even have to make sense. Sex is not meant to be locigal. Personally I can't stand drugs, so I avoid tweakers. But I don't call for them being banned on forums and online communities. Because that's just a way of avoiding to deal with reality. It changes nothing about the fact that people will take mind-altering substances anyway. And neg men will fuck without rubbers. Humans are stupid - and that's what makes them fun. I think it's more honest to show openly what everyone's about instead of just saying: I don't want to see it so let's pretend it's not there. - And lastly: For many promiscuous gay guys (aka sluts) there are only two M.O.s: Either to fuck or ignore a guy. Because it's sometimes hard to see another guy as a sexual being without actually having sex. But I think trying to do so would do wonders for understanding among the community. I understand and agree that when you're horny and want to fuck RIGHT NOW, a search option ignoring all non-compatible sluts is a good thing. But otherwise why would I want to limit myself and block a "poz only" guy.. even if it won't lead to a fuck? Sometimes there can be camraderie nonetheless.

A crap, the edit button doesn't work anymore, I wanted to rewrite the last part. My point is: Being adult sometimes means to choose between two less-then-ideal options. Barebacking and accepting the risks should be a concious decision, knowing that there is no miracle strategy. Not when it comes to avoiding HIV, not when it comes to going on meds. You have to weigh the pros and cons and decide what is right for you (even if that goes just for a specific point in time) and then not worry about it too much. Instead, live life to the fullest, fuck around and enjoy yourself.

@cumdrainer4u: You have to keep in mind that there are side effects to not being on any medication, too. From unchecked viral replication itself, from susceptibility to opportunistic diseases (which might also make you feel unwell and lower your sex drive) as well as from a reduced immune response. E.g.: Every day normal body cells have defects and turn into (what will later become) cancer cells. The immune system snuffs them out. Say your immune system is only working at 30% for 10 years until you go on meds. The damage done during these 10 years will also have an effect on the next 20, 30 years after that. Nobody gets a medal for going on meds as early as possible - or as late as possible. The important question is: At which point in time will the side effects and long-term effects of not being on meds outweigh the downsides of being on meds. That question is for you (and your doctor). I don't want to frighten you, but I think it is only honest to expect some side effects EITHER WAY. That doesn't mean you won't be able to handle it. But one shouldn't decide to go bareback thinking HIV is all fun and games.

I think perpetual singles fall into three categories: - Guys who know exactly what they want - and are not willing to just let things happen and maybe compromise now and then - the lonely wolf type. - Guys who don't know what they want - often young guys who don't really know how a relationship works and go about things the wrong way - lack of experience. - Guys who have other priorities - whose relationships will fall apart because, not because of their job or because they fuck with strangers, but because work, fucking with strangers or a drug habit is MORE IMPORTANT than having a partner.

@ adam4adam: Funny, we are different in that regard. I was never that judgemental, but then again I also never fantasized about HIV. I bareback (always!) because I enjoy it and in many ways my life resembles good porn. But boy, would I prefer a world without HIV/AIDS, where EVERYone would bareback naturally. I am fine with the risk I'm taking and I don't discriminate against poz guys - if end up poz myself that's just fate - but I don't seek it out. In the end it's about being at peace with yourself. This can be: - wanting to stay HIV-neg and going back to having safe sex - serosorting and trying to minimize risk - taking all loads no questions asked and just letting the dice roll - seeking out poz tops / conversion fucks or any other facet on the spectrum. It doesn't have to make sense to others. Some will tell you serosorting doesn't work, others will tell you that bugchasers have psychological issues. That's not the point. The point is finding out what feels right FOR YOU. It is good to have other people with whom you can openly talk about that kind of stuff. But keep in mind: You don't have to feel obliged and you don't have to run with the crowd. You can choose your associations, but you shouldn't let your associations handle your most personal choices. For all you know, I - or any other guy on the internet - could be a 92-year-old virgin, so who am I to tell you stuff? IT IS YOUR FUCKING LIFE.

There are some careers where HIV is an issue, two examples off the top of my head: Aviation: Some countries (e.g. former USSR states) have archaic laws regarding entry into the country for HIV+ people, which means your employer can't send you anywhere he might need to. Thoracic surgery: There's always the risk the surgeon will cut himself on a sharp bone fragment. The insurance alone will keep an HIV+ thoracic surgeon out of the OR (Ironically I know a surgeon who himself got infected that way. Ended his career). As to adam4adams post: To quote Henley: You are the master of your fate: You are the captain of your soul. There's nothing keeping you from changing your mind, if you want to. It is YOUR choice. Ask yourself what you really want. If converting isn't for you, get tested, so you know for sure if you're still neg (which is VERY likely). But most of all: Sex is for enjoyment, you shouldn't have to worry about it.

Sex is not supposed to make any sense. Everytime I read about tina and gina I am dumbfolded as to how anyone could taint the sanctity of fucking with such crap. But that's MY opinion. Other men, other choices. So if somebody tells me not to cum in his ass, I totally respect that choice 100%. I won't actually fuck him. I will tell him thanks but no thanks. But in the sweetest, most respectful way imaginable. I will - respectfully - tell him not to bother me further, if that's his position. I won't belittle, ridicule, criticize or push him, but I will extend an invitation if he should ever change his mind. Most guys do. But then it's their fucking choice. Because I don't have the right to choose for them.

I think "ask me" is a perfectly valid answer. If I read "ask me" I will ask and I will only write "ask me" if I'm willing to give you detailed information. The problem is that nowadays noone says what he means and means what he says. It's a sad testament to the state of the barebacking community if "versatile" means "bottom" and "ask me" is interpreted as "don't ask me" or "poz", for that matter. So my only advice would be: Be a real man. If it's none of another person's business, say so. If you want to be asked, be able to explain. If you don't want to divulge certain information (picture, hiv status, drug habits, whatever) that's perfectly fine as well. But don't act all insulted if someone decides not to have sex with you because that person would have liked to have that information. Be comfortable with your decisions. Not everyone's a fit for everyone.

With the right guys it can be fun, especially if there's some nice twist to it (e.g. if the bottom usually doesn't do that kind of stuff. If the tops are all straight guys who afterwards go home to their wives. Another example: I had a foursome in a hotel room a year ago, where the other two tops and I then went on to advertise to bottom on the internet, that was also nifty). But i find the usual kind of walk-in situation (90% of the time it's just the slut just lying there waiting to be banged) one of the most boring, formulaic set-ups. There's just no eroticism. I like easy, discrete and reliable. I just don't find indifference hot. Just my personal opinion.

Believe me, when I fuck someone, I hold all the cards . And when I hook up online I will discuss the fact that I don't like scat and I will always remind the guy that my big dick goes deep. But seriously: I - like most tops - can sense the difference. If a bottom comes prepared and really wants the fuck to be a pleasurable experience for both, and after hours of rough fucking shit happens, well, I won't freak. I don't enjoy it, but it comes with the territory. But there are bottoms - especially drug users - who just don't care, who just want spunk up their hole and will tell every kind of bullshit just to get fucked. If you aren't clean, either douche or man up and be honest about it and find someone who is into scat.

The thing is: I don't have an ultimate fantasy. For two reasons: First, I'm a laid-back, go with the flow guy. I find it interesting to see a situation develop, to be in the moment and not have a big plan beforehand. Secondly, I've done pretty much all the stuff I ever wanted to try. I've spent evenings with top buddies driving from house to house to restroom to adult bookstore seeding boyholes. I've fucked the 20yo barkeeper at the local sauna after closing time and pissed on him in the showers and the steamroom. I've fucked porn star(let)s and brothers. Doesn't mean I have done everything. I was never interested in drugs. No judgement here. It's just that I know what I want and prefer to experience things sober. But there are a few encounters I fantasize about and in my fantasy they have a slight tweak or a different ending. Like the 30yo perfect muscle bottom I fuck from time to time. When we finally had threesome with piss and all, it ended up kinda awkward... The one thing I always come back to is that bareback party for youngsters (35 max.) at a bar / sex club in Berlin, where I would have killed for one or two more loads (making it seven instead of six) to give. The party started allright, met this cute asian bodybuilder flightattendant from Australia and he just milked my dick. The first one was a huge load and my big dick having split open his tiny ass, it just oozed out of him. Then I seeded this cute 20something in a rubber outfit, whom I fucked in a gyneacologist's chair, ran into an old fuckbuddy of mine, then some mediterranean guy.. (the middle part was kind of a blur). Then while I was taking a break at the bar this smooth, boyish Danish dude chatted me up, telling me what a hunk I was and that he'd like my load up his ass. "Sure", I replied, "right here?". Of course we fucked right there between the bar and the dancefloor, with five dozen other guys watching... I managed to squeeze out another big load which made the little pig happy... I relaxed a bit afterwards and when I had regathered my strength, went on the prowl again. In what was usually the pissing area of the club, but had now turned into a mosh pit of fit young guys fucking each other bareback, it hit me like a lightning strike: This tall, hunky Swede, footballer type, with such an amazing boyish smile. He held this other, smaller guy in his arms (in a way that I couldn't see his face, just his bare back) and offered him up to me: "Breed his ass, please"... I instantly got my hard-on back and fucked the little dude while passionately kissing the blonde hunk.. I shivered and spasmed when I came... All three of us went back to the bar, I was still totally smitten with the Swede. He told me how he had been watching me (why didn't you say something earlier?) and how when he saw me fuck the Dane, he thought that I had to seed his boyfriend, too. So I didn't just fuck some random ass. We chatted and the three of us really had great chemistry. Cocky as I am, I told the Swede that now it's his turn to bend over. His boyfriend got kinda nervous, but the Swede was game and immediately went back to the fuck pit. His BF held me back, whispering in my ear: "Dude, please don't cum in my boyfriend's ass. It's just that I'm poz, but he's not." I'm neg, too", I replied. The boyfriend didn't say anything, he just smiled wrily in a way that could have meant anything. We fucked for hours. If fucked the Swede, he fucked his boyfriend, I fucked his boyfriend and so on. It was pure bliss. I told the blonde giant that I so wanted to cum in his ass... He just smiled like he had known the whole time that it was inevitable... "Yeah go for it, it's yours." But I couldn't. After six loads that night my balls were empty. His ass was as raw as my dick and we were both aching for it, but there was no cum left after half a dozen other guys who carried my fuckjuice in their asses. So my ultimate fantasy would be having had one more load that night to flood the muscled giant's guts.

I tell all my bottoms: Dude, I have a big dick and I don't pull out, so that loads gonna end up deep in you. If someone has a problem with that, I politely tell him that it's not gonna happen and that he should find himself another guy who's a better fit. If the guy contacts me again, I will ask him, if he has changed his opinion. If not, I will politely tell him not to contact me again until he's ready to go through with it. I once had an hour drive and 5 minutes from his place I get a text: Sorry, changed my mind, you can fuck me bareback but you can't cum in my ass. I turned around. Twenty minutes later I get another text: "Where are you?". I replied: "On my way home. I got my principles and you knew that." Two months later the guy is offering to come to my place and begging for my load.

First of all I quoted the study as an example of my personal way of weighting information, namely that because can read and UNDERSTAND studies, I will prefer a flawed study over non-related analogies. Because I can distill some information out of it and / or dismiss the rest. Because it is flawed I did not introduce Kitahata as proof of anything. My personal opinion on the topic is based on a variety of sources, and I would e.g. rate B-cell health above simple mortality as a critierion. I personally find that arbitrary analogies are much more confusing and problematic for the discussion as they present some things as equal which in reality - being non-related and all - they are not. Especially when used on the feeble-minded, analogies are a powerful tool of disinformation creating the illusion of understanding the subject at hand via the analogy when in fact one just understands the analogy without being able to evaluate the correllation between the subject and the analogy used to describe it. Discussing specifics is always hard. In the worst case the other person can arbitrarily raise the bar on what he accepts as evidence however much work you put into an argument. Using analogies thus is a way of staying aloof: Noone can disprove you if you don't get into specifics. In the end I only want to point out where you put words in my mouth by contrasting them with what I actually said. As to the question of this thread: Everyone should make up his own mind. Someone grappling with the question should NEITHER take my NOR your word for it (especially because we're both neg and thus talking out of our asses). I have NO DESIRE whatsoever to influence others when it comes to their health choices. I just want to fuck. I love banging muscle ass and seeding 19-year-olds. In my personal opinion it should be about the unsafe sex. And just because I fuck bareback that doesn't mean I take drugs or have an HIV fetish or that I'm anti-medicine. I have no agenda and I'm not shopping for one, either. I just like fucking the way god intended.

Which is why I was the first one to mention its flaws... [/sarc]. Because I do know how to read studies. What I said was that I prefer - albeit flawed - on-topic information above non-related analogies. My point is: Yes, the flaws of such studies are pertinent and relevant and its worthwhile discussing them. As I would like to discuss the flaws of studies to the contrary. Because that is what an informed decision about HIV treatment it's about. Not about neurology, not about vaccinations.

My point was rather that talking about neurosurgery misses the point. I've had personal experiences with 2 bad general practitioners, a truly abysmal dermatologist, a gifted general practioner specializing in SEM (Sport and Exercise Medicine) and a brilliant neurosurgeon. But all of these experiences say nothing about when to start HIV treatment. Abstract via Google: www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0807252 Kitahata's main focus is mortality. But the study finds that "starting therapy at progressively higher CD4+ counts has been shown to LOWER the risk of some toxic effects associated with antiretroviral therapy, including peripheral neuropathy, anemia, and renal insufficiency.", while admitting that "all the potential side effects of long-term antiretroviral therapy are unknown.". In other words: From what is known, waiting increases your chance of drug side effects rather than the opposite. But on the grand scale it again becomes about weighting known benefits vs. unknown risks, which should be the informed decision of the individual.

With all due respect - and I do hope that we can have a intense discussion without there being any bad blood - your arguments are designed to discredit medicine in general without saying much about the question at hand. Namely, as TonyRedux pointed out, that the new consensus seems to be based on empirical data, namely that starting ARV treatment early seems to have a positive effect on the overall longterm health of those living with HIV. One of the reasons might be that early treatment restores resting memory B cells to the same level as that in HIV-uninfected men, but late treatment does not. Early ART reduces the proportion of immature B cells to the same level as that in HIV-uninfected men, but late treatment apparently does not. Instead, with late treatment the number of exhausted B cells is higher. As a result, studies suggest, early ARV significantly improves the body's pathogen-fighting capabilities, resulting in fewer illnesses and reduced mortality (e.g. approx. half as high when starting above 500 T cells compared to starting below 350). IMHO that is what a discussion about early ARV needs to be about and serious arguments need to adress and / or be weighed against that. I realize that it is kind of heartless just to brush away anecdotal evidence, especially when it is as tragic as your dead boyfriend. But in the same way I don't expect my anecdotal evidence to the contrary to be taken as the gold standard. However, if I e.g. have to choose between your four examples (incompetent nurse, incompetent neurosurgeon, non-HIV related medication, marketing) and e.g. Kitahata's study of 17,000 poz patients, the latter - despite its (moderate) flaws - carries significantly more weight. I think everyone should be able to make an informed decision, but for that you need dependable information, and your kind of emotionally invested activism IMHO doesn't qualify (The study about therapy compliance and resistance on the other hand would be pertinent.).

cont.: The problem with your argument is that you rely on analogies (like that of the social worker), while not being able to empirically support your thesis. The fact that you can respect a certain position says nothing whatsoever about its efficacy. You are a critical thinker and question authority. But to be able to be authoritative yourself you need to be able to supply a better theory, including research and data and all.

I've been to truly horrible doctors. But exactly because I do think for myself and had enough Latin in school to actually read pubmed articles, I am able to find the right doctors for me and discuss the issue in a matter-of-fact way. Sorry, but the autism nonsense has been solidly debunked. Especially because most of the tin foil hat crowd trace their argument to one study done by Mr. Wakefield, which is a known fraud (just google "wakefield fraud"). There is no solid empirical evidence (meaning significant statistical deviations) linking vaccines and autism. But even if there were (which there isn't), it's still preferable to the letality of so called childhood illnesses. Just a few towns over from where I live a thirteen-month-old boy recently died of measles, contracted when he was a few days / weeks old at a doctor's office, because another child wasn't vaccinated. One of the other children in the waiting room has also gotten SSPE encephalitis. The death rate is especially high for those who contract measles under the age of one. (Does that mean that all vaccines are perfectly side-effect-free? No. It just means that in the case of measles there are empirical reasons for vaccinating) Sometime so called common sense (if it is called a childhood illness it must therefore be harmless) can indeed mislead. That's why we need to take a sober, fact-based non-paranoid approach.

While you ignore the effect 10 or more years of uncontrolled HIV have on the body. I agree that in the end it should be an informed decision made by the patient and he should here all aspects of the argument. However I do believe your propetia analogy is misleading, as it is a.) not really that pertinent to the question and b.) not really based on hard facts. I admit that maybe I am slightly biased and therefore maybe slightly emotional about the issue. As I mentioned before a good friend of mine got cancer as a result of the damage HIV did to his system and just barely survived. Early treatment most likely would have benefited his quality of life, his long-term health and would have saved him weeks in the hospital. As to your brain tumor scare: Yes, there are bad doctors, and yes, there always is the risk to be the one exception that proves the rule. That doesn't mean one should ignore facts to fit one's preconceived notions. If I'm with Tony on this it is because right now empirical data points in that direction. I once talked to an alternative / tin-foil hat mom who tried to convince me that vaccinations are bad because one out of every thousand kids got serious side effects / lasting damage (not true BTW). I answered: Well, great, measles KILL about that many, it's always better to survive, isn't it? She went apeshit. She simply couldn't handle her prejudices being challenged. A hopeless case. My point is: when weighing different arguments on the issue, you also have to look at the background to assess their value: activist vs. specialist analogy vs. pertinent information potential risk vs. known damage speculation vs. empirical data P.S.: Being at peace with oneself is the basis of well-being, that doesn't mean that it alone is always enough.

In short: I agree with TonyRedux and disagree with RawTop. The scientific consensus today favors starting early exactly because studies suggest that the damage HIV does to the system significantly outweighs the side effects of ARVs. So it is indeed about the health of the poz guys. The damage that unchecked HIV does to your brain, your intestines is real and needs to be kept in mind when weighing some hypothetical risk. Mortality statistics might be boring, but in the end we cannot rely on analogies and anecdotal evidence (you always find an example of just the opposite). As to the price of ARVs: It costs about 5% of the retail price in western nations to actually make these drugs and Africa and India pay little more than just what it costs to make them. Patents on AZT and abacavir have already expired, if we're talking 40, 50 years we can expect prices to drop significantly as more and more compounds become public domain.

I probably am in the minority here - and after all it's just a personal preference. So please do excuse my snarkiness. But I do like tight holes, either virgin boy ass or muscle ass that milks my cock. Knowing that would definitely lessen the appeal for me. Yes. The initial resistance is part of the fun. When a guy loosens up after an hour of intense fucking, that's to be expected, but if he's loose from the start, it's like: "That guy puts everything up his ass, do I really have to stick my dick in, too?" Not for me.