GermanFucker

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.

The best way is to have a number of poz friends and acquaintances in real life. Ideally some where there is no sexual attraction. Because if somebody wants to fuck you, he'll try to present himself in a good way, hiding all the little problems. And guys on the internet don't count. Men can tell anything on the internet. The hottest fucker might actually be a virgin, so always beware if something sounds too good to be true. I have poz friends that are a picture of health and they're very cool with being poz, too. Others have a constant stream of health problems, always some little thing, from depression to problems with the digestive tract, etc. One of my friends almost died because of HIV (not because of AIDS itself, but because HIV allowed an agressive cancer to take hold), despite all the new meds. He's a sweet, optimistic guy and enjoys when I seed his ass, but yeah, he'd much prefer to be neg. When all you know about being poz is frome the internet, you are probably not ready.

First of all: Get tested, both of you. You cannot start an honest conversation without knowing what your starting point is. It doesn't even need to be suspicious: You are talking about threesomes anyway. Secondly: Being cool with becoming poz is not for everyone. For example: There is an aspect of dependency to being poz: You will have to take meds eventually and adjust your schedule to make room for doctor's appointments etc.. Some men cling to the idea of total freedom. They need to know that they could theoretically just move to a tropical island next week. Being poz would be a problem. Trying to talk them into voluntarily giving up that freedom is like trying to neuter your boyfriend. So while your boyfriend might be cool with bareback, he could also be one of the guys who will NEVER accept the idea of letting it happen. You have to come to terms with the possibility that he might never feel the same way as you.

Some guys are cunts and some are cowboys.

I always found the "No Limit" crowd a bit "mature" for my taste. If you (i.e. Skinster) are looking for boys, C&C could be a better fit.

Again, just my personal opinion: Saying that it is normal not to talk about HIV, is a sad thing, as it implies that there's something wrong or shameful about being poz. Again, I believe it is a valid personal choice (because of work etc.) not to disclose status, but it shouldn't be a policy. With DADT, too, you put a veneer on the issue as it a.) creates a false sense of harmony by stifling discussion (more of a general observation, as it is not the only option on breedingzone) and b.) misrepresents guys who have no problem with talking about their status in private. For those guys "Ask me" would be a better choice, while others would prefer DADT. It's not one instead of the other, IMHO both are necessary. Call me an idealist, but I truly believe that if everyone was open about his status, barebacking habits its, we'd realize that we are all men and a.) the stigmatization of barebackers and poz men (even by other barebackers) would soon end as well as b.) increased testing and timely medication would eventually put an end to the AIDS scourge.

It's a mostly regular sex party in a club, usually starting in the late afternoon or evening (depending on which city / club), with music, a bar and a cruising area with slings etc.. It is open end so you can e.g. get on the train home the next morning, but do not expect a sleeping area. Every ethnicity is welcome, though mostly Europeans. Some parties are for young guys (-35 or so) only. For more information, join www.gayromeo.com or www.barebackcity.de, Coffe&Cream (yeah, I think they misspelled it) can be found under "clubs" (GR + BBC) and / or "party listings" (BBC only)

Agreed. Not to be nitpicky (I'm not looking for an argument, in the end it's your personal site anyway, I just want to explain why e.g. I myself felt uncomfortable with the "DADT" label), but what you say is an a posteriori observation, whereas DADT, just like the namesake policy is a demand not to talk about something, i.e. declaring something off limits. When it comes to HIV / AIDS I always found that silence on the issue - while certainly a valid personal choice - shouldn't be encouraged / demanded as a default model for the community.

I think Pig Bottom doesn't disagree with the category itself, but the fact that it is the default option, i.e. if you want something else you have to actively change it. Many guys will not realize this right away and give an impression they don't really want to give, like that by not wanting to discuss status they have something to hide. E.g. for a guy that prides himself on his openness having DADT as the default option can seem passive-agressive and / or misleading. I could imagine three better ways to handle it: 1.) When creating a profile, make it an option that must be filled out / mandatory input. 2.) If someone doesn't choose one of the options, leave the space blank in the profile. 3.) Probably the most sensible: Leave the DADT option as a choice, but add an "ASK ME" option and make that the default.

I like the 12 / one for each month thing, also because it's 2012. So here's my resolution for this year: Fuck up the ass and seed at least 3 total tops. Fuck up the ass and seed at least 3 virgins (under 20). Fuck up the ass and seed at least 3 (real) straight guys. Corrupt at least 3 innocent guys into having bareback group sex with strangers.

A simple, yet very personal question: What is the level of happiness in your life? When I read some of the posts here, they have a very fatalistic outlook on life, in other postings one can clearly see signs of depression. Some psychologists suggest, that while severely depressed gay men have hardly any sex drive, a low-level depression significantly increases the likelyhood of barebacking and risky sexual behaviour. Then there are guys here who simply enjoy fucking around and living life to the fullest, who understand unsafe sex as the most natural expression of a healthy sex drive. Asking about a lack of happiness can be construed as criticism, it is not meant that way. Please don't take it personal, rather understand this non-judgemental question as a product of scientific curiosity. It would just be interesting to get a picture of the life of other barebackers.

Used condoms? Pointless.

Sex should last as long as it's hot for both. That can be a quick fuck'n'fill in a public restroom or a relaxed session at home. I have cum after 3 minutes as well as after 90 (of uninterrupted anal penetration that is). There are no rules. I'd go as far as to say, if there's one thing I don't like from bottoms it's demands like: "I just want you to cum in my ass as quick as possible and then be done with it." "Sex under 3 hours is just not worth my while, so pop a viagra."

Should be raped? Dude, if you're serious, that's one hell of a moronic statement. I don't mind kissing, sucking, giving or receiving a rimjob. I don't mind playing the arrogant asshole, either, if the bottom responds to that. I just go with the flow. However, I never have the desire to get fucked. If anything it's the other way round: I love seeding "top" asses. There's just something so sweetly innocent and funny and primal about the way a guy who never gets fucked reacts during bottoming.

Undetectable guys are among my favorites, love to fuck and seed them for a number of reasons: - They aren't in denial. They are pragmatic and comfortable with who they are and what they did / do. A man with the balls to deal with stuff in his life is just so much more sexy. - Most of them aren't walking trainwrecks. Many of them take care of themselves, work out, live healthy. It's just more fun to fuck around with a life-affirming guy. - Yes they are poz and yes they enjoy bareback sex, but very few have an HIV/AIDS-fetish. It's all about the raw, natural, unsafe sex, not about some virus (Toothbrush? Seriously? Is there anything less erotic?) When it comes to poz men I infinitely prefer a cool (i.e. cool with it / HIV) guy over a high-strung fetishist.

I never bottom. As a top I'm 99% raw. I am open about barebacking and insist on seeding the bottom's ass. If somebody suddenly wants to have safe sex or me to pull out, I WILL WALK AWAY. However, there are a few exceptions to the rule: First and foremost: If I am confident the guy will bareback on the second or third date, I will give him the opportunity to trust me by wearing a condom first. Secondly: If I fuck a total skank just for the heck of it. In that case it's more of a mindgame: "I know you want my load, but you're just not worth it" ) Happens very rarely. Thirdly: If it's the perfect guy and the circumstances are just right (you know, the Ryan Reynolds on a tropical beach scenario *LOL) and even a rubber won't spoil my diamond cutter errection, I go with the flow and don't deprive myself of a pleasurable experience. So: Would I EVER use a condom... yeah. Is it very likely. Hell, no!

Regular fuckbuddies. Once you know each other going bareback is just logical and natural. And living in a somewhat smaller university town - without all the clubs and bars a city like NY has to offer - during my late teens and twentys you kinda rely on a network of fuckbuddies. Sure, there are internet hookup sites, but with many guys flakes and / or too far away, you often call a buddy if you want to get real. Blogs and forums never played a role for me. IMHO they are an intellectual exercise - good for jacking off, but they won't really influence one's behaviour. Take forums for example: Everyone creates a persona, which has something to do with the real person behind the PC, but varies from a sex-oriented presentation (which doesn't really capture one's whole personality) and / or mild exaggeration to cyberwanking fakes. Realistically at least 90% who claim online that they want to be pozzed will chicken out in reality. So everyone takes blogs and forums with a grain of salt. Everyone knows chats and forums are a game which you can turn into reality if you really want to - or you can walk away at any point: no harm, no foul. IMHO what does influence one's choices are real encounters most of the time, as they bypass our intellectual reasoning and let us react on a more instinctual level. When it comes to barebacking they usually fall into three categories: Physical attraction: Most guys will forget the condom if it's the only chance to be with a total hottie. Conformity: If you know that all your friends bareback, why should you be the only one to play safe? Familiarity: The more you know a person, the more you trust his judgement. So even when one jacks off to bareback bloggers, it takes a real-life trigger to act on it.

@ cam1972: Are you referring to me? In that case I got the impression that you haven't really pondered what I wrote. As to us two being animals: That's not a question of belief. That's simple FACT. Humans are neither plants nor fungi. Humans are a spieces of apes. The very fact that we can have intellectual arguments is what sets us apart from other animals (not western living standards!!). Of course as a human I'm sentient. But that doesn't mean that I have to subscribe to the fundamentalist christian worldview that man was created out of thin air. BTW: You're one hot fucker!

The fact that we're human doesn't mean that we're not animals - and vice versa. Why does it have to be the opposite - why can't we be both? I think some perspective is needed here: Billions of humans - e.g. in Africa, parts of Asia - live in barns, i.e. they share their housing with their farm animals. Your ancestors did too, during the European middle ages. And they bedded down in straw and shat on fields, just like hundreds of millions of people still do today. Categorizing these behaviours as subhuman would be racist. Which I don't at all think you are. But your choice of criteria as to what qualifies a human is IMHO not useful at all. What sets the human animal apart from the rest is indeed self-awareness, the ability to reflect upon one's actions and to chart one's own destiny, the realization that life is precious and that one should experience it to the fullest. Ironically, going full blown AIDS, i.e. deliberate self-destruction is supremely human, as is the fetishistic pleasure of hurting oneself or others. It is NOT AT ALL sexual in the animalistic sense, but something that takes place in the mind. If our sexuality is a duality of human thought and animalistic instinct, AIDS fetishism is a mindtrip and therefore almost purely human.