GermanFucker

Not exactly a fantasy, but my personal thoughts: I do often play with the thought of moving to Hamburg or Berlin to meet new guys, or spending a month in LA, London or Paris just to fuck around and get to know the crowd there. But frankly I wouldn't change my attitude towards life and sex. My sex life is insanely awesome by everyday standards, but I think one has to maintain a normal life, work, have real friends, do sports. Strange as it sounds, I don't center my life around sex (even though there are times when I fuck ten guys a week, I'm not addicted to sex or get nervous if don't have any, I can have a nice and fulfilling evening in the gym as well) and I do stay away from drugs. By maintaing balance / an equilibrium and not being a depraved slut, I'm not stereotyping myself, I don't back myself into a corner sexually. I can be everything to everyone and do whatever I feel like. So in a way I am absolutely living my fantasy sex life right now - all bareback, of course. swimming pool sex party with a dozen guys 31 year old musician with an amazing ass fisting and breeding a 36 year-old mixed race bodybuilder seeding a 21-year old closeted bisexueal boy in the woods near his home hotel threesome with two poz pigs (37/38) fucking the 26 year old model type gym rat and tonight a 31 year old muscle bear cub That's just my last week. Next on the agenda is a repeat with the 21 year-old and a setting up a bareback group session / gang bang at a hotel with an old fuckbuddy of mine who's visisiting town this weekend.

Uhmm, .... no, thanks.

IMHO the problem with some of the answers is that many guys here have very little contact with actual 13-year-olds and just rely on their own memory. Once puberty hits, every boy and girl WANTS to have sex, but few do right away, because few can actually really handle it. We tend to remember the desire of youth but sometimes forget the crudeness of reality. It kinda reminds me of the sunscreen song: "... is a form of nostalgia, dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts and recycling it for more than it's worth". By remembering our past, we are in a way inventing our own life story, rewriting it in a way that it all fits together and makes sense. When I read something like that: I sincerely doubt that the poster's attitude towards being forced was as positive then as he portrays it now. No child deserves to be forced sexually - period! And even if collegekid really was attracted to his uncle, this crass statistical outlier should not form the basis of a law that applies to all. A law should deal with real life, the everyday reality of common people. That means that it can't really be based on extremes (and that goes both ways!). But it also means that it must allow for the fact that people are indeed different. What is right in case A might not be in case B. So the law should allow for some individual assessment rather than just one general rule. That's why I'm still a HUGE fan of the German model, which has not one, but three ages of consent: 14 - if the adolescent is clearly mature enough sexually and intellectually, if the parents allow it and / or if there's just a minor age difference between the sexually active youngsters (i.e. under 21). This means that the legal system here doesn't care about teenage romances, thank God. It also allows a judge to distinguish between a 15-year old that actively or even agressively seeks out sex with a 35-year-old (who then wouldn't have to be punished as a sex offender) and one that is being manipulated or even forced into having sex. 16 - is the relevant age of consent that applies in most cases. Although parents retain certain rights to raise their children according to their values (e.g. they are within their rights to forbid their children to have sex in the family home), otherwise the teenagers are deemed capable of deciding for themselves if and with whom to have sex, i.e. there is no legal recourse against their sexual partners. However, there are some restrictions: - No coercion or abuse of a position of power, i.e. it's illegal if you're a teenager's teacher, educator, employer, landlord etc.. You can have sex with a 16 or 17-year-old, even if you're over 21, but he or she can't be your apprentice. - No drugs! Especially supplying a young addict with drugs is considered coercion. - No money can change hands in exchange for sex, i.e. no prostitution, no doing porn, even if it's legal above 18. 18 - adulthood, i.e. the end of the remaining restrictions, full sexual self-determination (within the scope of the law, of course. You still wouldn't be allowed to have sex in full view on top of the Brandenburg gate *LOL).

Exactly. It's such a big world out there. So many guys with so many different stories. Personally I try not to limit myself to a certain way of thinking. Life is such an interesting adventure if one's open to different things.

Your poz, unmedicated load up his innocent neg butt, I suppose?

I still gotta disagree. You say it "means HIV+", but it does so unambiguously for maybe one percent of the population (i.e. gay barebackers and promiscuous poz guys). For the rest, i.e. the vast majority, it's simply one of many tattoos. I mean skulls and poisonous animals, snakes, scorpions etc. have got to be the most common tattoos there are. At age 17, when I was still fooling around with girls exclusively, I was into heavy metal and motorbikes, and I too thought a biohazard tat was just a cool tattoo. Not everybody is born poz, not everybody is born a cumslut. And even among gays, not everyone's live is centered around a certain idea of sex (i.e. imitating Treasure Island Media Porn). If one gets a biohazard tat at 18 and two years later decides to do porn, one shouldn't blame others for misunderstanding the intention behind it and instead have the humility to admit it was an unfortunate choice. But I don't think it makes one a "fucking idiot". To me, barebacking is about accepting life choices. I don't wanna be judge and won't judge others, especially without hearing their side of the story.

Ok, I'm being a bit snarky, but: No, noone knows what you mean. And no, it SO NOT HOT!!! The only role a condom should play in porn is if the top holds one up in the beginning and says: "Were not gonna use these tonight". Condoms and real sex just don't mix. Why introduce such an element of ugliness to such a beautiful thing as two men fucking?

I think you slightly misread the article. It actually still says that "acute infectivity is [...] a few times higher than chronic infectivity", due to viral load. I would not call that "debunking". What it does say is that the effect has been "overestimated" when analysing the AIDS epidemic in Sub Saharan Africa and that the allocation of treatment and prevention funds should be modified accordingly, as to be most cost-effective in combatting the epidemic. I would imagine that if you have X dollars to spend, and 90% of the infections come from newly infected passing on the virus, you spend most of your money on advanced testing methods, as to catch an infection as early as possible. If it's just 30% you probably should allocate more money for treatment and care of those who are already living with HIV, e.g. treatment as prevention. But thats just guessing. To me this sounds like an important question for the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. But it doesn't contradict the fact that a viral load plays a role (it spikes after infection, then declines and later rises again sharply as one approaches end-stage AIDS), and that a fresh HIV infection is more infectious than chronic HIV (of course: leaving out end-stage AIDS). Just maybe not quite as much more as previouly tought.

Well, I think POZ talk is a fetisch, so I think we have to distinguish between the moments of fetishistic pleasure that everyone has (just like someone who isn't into SM can, under the right circumstances, find it very hot to be spanked) and the NEED to live out one's fetish in order to feel sexually fulfilled. Can I understand it? Sure! Especially if it's a genuine spur-of-moment expression of lust. Do I find it hot or disgusting? Frankly, to me it's like every other fetisch. Taken to its extreme it's an obsessive rumination on the subject. In that regard poz fetishists are actually not that different from condom nazis: Both obsess about HIV. I don't think hardcore POZ fetishism doesn't appear in too many porn flicks, because it's too outrageous and taboo. I just don't think many guys can relate to "all poz talk, all the time". After all, it's supposed to sell. Personally I do watch TIM porn when I'm in to the mood for something intense and gritty. I also watch Sean Cody or Chaosmen-style porn when I'm in the mood for college guys. Personally I find a natural approach to sex much more enjoyable than extreme fetishism. E.g.: I find "I've been barebacking with everyone since I was 16, who uses condoms nowadays, anyway?" a much hotter thing to say than "I was a bugchaser and finally had success with my quest." No worries. Just fucking.

I think a relationship can be whatever you want it to be, as long as it's working for you. You can be monogamous or you can love each other spiritually and still fuck around with a 100 other guys a year. Noone should tell you what a "good" relationship has to look like, you shouldn't try to imitate your grandparents. So I wouldn't automatically say "end it". But you NEED to discuss your priorities, what both of you want out of the relationship (exclusivity? freedom? companionship? an intense sexual connection?) and if the whole thing is working for you in the long run. If it doesn't work or you aren't able to fulfil your needs, you might begin to harbour resentment towards your partner which will fester and poison the relationship. In that case breaking up might really be the more loving thing to do.

It depends on the treatment guidelines in your country, but above all on the time between exposure and treatment. Standard treatment if it's caught early enough is one shot (a rather large syringe) of penicillin. A number of oral antibiotics are an alternative, especially if you're allergic to penicillin. If your doctor determines you need a larger dose, that could be three of the same shots over the course of three weeks. Or shots plus oral antibiotics to be sure. The dosage increases with time. If you've had syphillis for years and it has moved to your brain, you might be hospitalized and get IV (intravenous) antibiotics for weeks. With syph it really is a case of: The earlier it's caught, the better

Usually it takes a few weeks for the rash to show up, 4 weeks sounds realistic. However, if you really have syphillis, you can usually feel the chancre (the point where the bacteria first entered the body, which is like a frozen pea under the skin with a sore on top) long before that (if its on your dick, in your mouth, it's harder to find if it's deep in the ass). If it it's just a slight rash without chancre, don't be too worried. More often than not it's just a result of using the wrong fabric softener. However, an intense rash on the trunk of the body (shoulder etc.) plus a chancre means that it's most likely syph. Painful, swollen lymph notes (especially in the proximity of the chancre) are also a sign. By the time you get a rash, a test will come back positive. So the answer is clear: Get rechecked. An antibody test is simple, fast and even if you have to pay for it, it's only something like 20 bucks. One exception: If you already had syphillis once, you still have antibodies, even if you're not infected right now. So the AB test is worthless. The have to look for the bacteria directly which takes longer and costs more.

If you search the usual databases (Pubmed etc.) and publications (e.g. The Lancet) there are a number of articles and research papers. The main problem is: Because the numbers are so very, very low, they are also very unrealiable. Real life is messy. E.g. cheaters (as in: those who are in a relationship but fuck around on the side) might try to rationalize / excuse their behaviour by claimining that they only had oral sex, when in fact they were taking it up the ass a lot. If you have a large number of cases such effects even out or can be mathematically adjusted for. But if cases are few and far between (like in the case of people who claim they were pozzed orally) something like that might skew the data. At some point it becomes nothing more than anecdotal evidence. To the best of my knowledge: if there are no extreme factors (bleeding gums due to recent oral surgery, sucking off end-stage AIDS patients) involved, the risk is negligable, i.e. so very low that it doesn't warrant worrying about it. Because if a risk is significantly lower than general life risks (getting hit by lightning, getting run over by a car etc.) it's just not worth thinking much about it. E.g.: If I knew that dairy products increased my risk of anal cancer by 5% (i.e. from 0,000004% to 0,0000042%) would I stop eating ice cream? NO, I WOULDN'T.

Neg. Also no Hep, Syph etc. Haven't used a condom for the last 12 years / 1500 or so guys.

Agreed. Simple as that. That's why I think the initial question doesn't get to the core of the issue and should be rephrased: "Why do men START barebacking, if they've only practised safer sex before?" There are a myriad possible reasons: FOMO (fear of missing out): If you know that others have seeded the ass of the 18yo jock you're with, no self-respecting top would use a condom. Small town attitudes: Where everybody knows everybody, noone even thinks of using a condom. Dudes being dudes: Eh, we're cool with each other. Why should we use rubbers, again? But when it comes to why men (gay or otherwise) continue to bareback, the answer, as EQP said, is simple: It's the only way to have sex. It's just right. If they're honest, even condom nazis will agree: Even the best protected sex still feels wrong.

He definitely looks good now that he's a man. Let's just say I'd do him. Not interested in condom porn, so I haven't kept up with his porn career, though. Would I want him to do bareback porn again? Yeah, I'd watch that. But on the other hand: Barebacking to me is about choice. Having unsafe sex without exception is MY choice. If Corrigan chooses to perform in safe sex porn, I can respect that just as well. Live and let live. Just don't expect me to buy the DVD.

If you don't respect your boyfriend enough to let him decide for himself if he wants to become poz and / or be a slut, there is really no point in being in a relationship with him. In real life it really is as simple as that. A relationship is about trust, communication, common interests. If slutty sex is all that matters to you, you really don't need a boyfriend for that. Or you should find one that shares the same priorities. Do the honest thing: Just end the relationship. In the long run, you will BOTH be happier for it.

I would even go as far as to ask: Does it really mean that? If we are talking semiotics, one of the central theories is that the relation between the signifier and the signified is more or less an arbitrary one. What gives a sign a certain meaning is social convention, i.e. a group deciding that sign A stands for object / fact B in the real world. So we have to look at society as a whole. The number of men living an openly homosexual or bisexual lifestyle (and are thus in constant contact with gay lingo and gay symbols) is probably in the 3-5% range. And that only means that they know the difference between bear and otter and have heard of Kathy Griffin. The number of guys that AUTOMATICALLY associate biohazard symbols (or even scorpion tats) with being poz, is maybe a third of that (be it because they are poz themselves, watch TIM porn or lead a barebacker lifestyle so they are in contact with poz guys. It's hard to make an argument that something that has a certain meaning for the 1% is also universally accepted as such. If we take HIV completely out of the picture: Yes, biohazard symbols are cool tattoos. So are "radioactive" signs. Venomous animals are a staple of tattoo art. (Biologically speaking: the human female is attracted to males that seem just the right amount of "dangerous". Just not too much. A car mechanic with a "dangerous" tattoo, not a career criminal). A snake or a scorpion was a "cool" tattoo even before the world had heard of HIV / aids. With all due respect, but IMHO these comments have a lot in common with Cannon's twitter post on the subject. In both cases, on takes one's own perspective and experience in life as a means to judge others. Without taking into account that others might have had different experiences and thus have a different outlook on life. All in all I do agree with Dr. Scorpio: To me it sounds like one of these unfortunate coincidences in life, were you got the tattoo early in life at a time where it had no special meaning and then later you went into a (professional) direction where it already was associated with something else. I don't think it was stupid of him or he should be blamed for it. Just like I wouldn't blame someone for covering his body with runes, because he once was a total fan of the Lord of the Rings, not knowing that it might make him look like a Neo-Nazi. It's just very, very unfortunate. However he should show a little more respect towards poz men and show a bit more humility and insight when being asked about the tattoo instead of freaking out like that. But I think that should go both ways: One should also show respect for the fact that not everyone was born a poz gay barebacker.

A walk of shame usually takes place in a dorm, a frat house or if you share your appartment with a few roommates. If a sex date / booty call stays for the night, in the morning he or she usually needs to get home asap, sometimes even feels some regret for what happened the night before. So the overnight guest usually just wants to sneak out of the building discretely. Often that's not possible, so all the dorm dwellers and flatmates get a good look at you, even though you try to avoid them. Now everybody knows that you fuck around and that's why it's called the walk of shame.

Yes it can be a nice challenge to win over and just "take" a guy. And yes, sometimes you just want to let off steam, so it's good to have an eager bottom available. But taken to the extreme, both options have their downsides: Showing little interest can seem indecisive, confusing or, worse, indifferent. There is nothing less attractive than an indifferent bottom. Whereas eager beavers can come across as fussy and needy, which is also anything but hot. Personally I find directness, but in a sincere, friendly and relaxed way, the most appealing. Sometimes simply telling a guy that you find him attractive / sympathetic and that's you'd like to have nasty sex with him works wonders. Just don't be bossy. The surest way to failure is thinking that one is god's gift to men.

What you are looking for is a so-called PCR test (polymerase chain reaction), which can be performed by a large number of (medical) laboratories. Often blood tests for antibodies and blood samples for PCR testing even go to the same laboratory. The big difference is cost. A PCR test is ten times or so more expensive. While antibody tests are often free as a community service (With the city, county or some organization covering the 5-10 bucks they cost), expect to pay 100 dollars / euros for a PCR test. You need to either find a laboratory that offers anonymous testing directly to costumers or find a local organization / testing facility that offers you the option to get an anonymous PCR for cash. You should specify in which area you're looking. Also you might try calling / emailing local testing facilities. Even if they don't do PCR testing, they might know someone else who does.

Personally I find that too many guys care too much about what others might think. They shave their body because they think they have to. They grow a beard because that's what's hip. A man who is self-confident and likes himself just the way he is, is always the sexiest. Be it a hairless fitness model or a hairy construction worker type. Of course it doesn't hurt to know your type. If you only have three hairs on your chest, letting them grow to 5 inches length doesn't make up for the missing numbers. It just looks kinda weird.

I don't want to come across as harsh, but there's still a point I want to drive home, so forgive me my bluntness. Frankly I pity the fool who thinks that he needs HIV (or any other chronic disease) to live the life he wants to live. That's like longing to get cancer so you can become that amazing, saint-like, strong person you always wanted to be. It's bullshit. It's either in you or it isn't. Whether you self-actualize is up to you alone. Freedom is a state of mind, not a medical condition. That's not saying that there aren't many poz guys who live long, fulfilled lives and have great sex on the way. It's just that you don't need HIV for that. Also it's not the number of sexual encounters per se or the piggishness of the act that matters. It's the ability to enjoy yourself in the moment and to remember each fuck fondly afterwards what really makes for a great sex life. I don't want to brag, but the kind of sex I'm having on a regular basis would probably make some of you guys want to cry (also one of the reasons why I haven't contributed as much lately). If I showed you pictures of some of the guys I've seeded you'd probably call me a liar. That's because I don't see my neg status as a disability, but as something that leaves all options open to me, so I can just enjoy myself like a kid in a candy store. You're poz and on meds? Great. Let's fuck! You're neg? Bend over and take it. Some of my sexual adventures are like scenes from Treasure Island media. Half a dozen guys in a hotel room breeding and seeding for hours. Well, that's what I call a friday. I've fucked muscle gods while others pissed on each other in front of a crowd of 50 cheering guys. And two days later I can hook up with a student from the local college who wants to try barebacking for the first time because his boyfriend insists on condoms (or wants to take a load himself because his BF is a total bottom). I can be a safe-only guy's dirty little secret. Or a "straight" (yeah, right ) guy's experimental phase. Because I'm not hung up on anything or defined by something. Instead I just go with flow and see where my horniness takes me. That probably wouldn't change at all if I were poz. But only because being poz wouldn't really matter: I already am sexually liberated. If you have the option to go on prep, this should be a no-brainer. Just get over your psychological issues. Just let go of all of that bad karma like feelings of envy and start enjoying yourself.

Some guys just aren't versatile at all. I'm a total top by nature. To me the concept of bottoming is as absurd as having sex with fish or poultry. I just love ass. I love rimming it, fucking it, seeding it. My sex life never gets boring. To me, it's more the other way round. Personally, I find knowing that the other guy is versatile more of a turn-on. Don't get me wrong, as NCPOZTOP said, the guys I have sex with all know that I myself am not. But its hot knowing that the guy I'm seeding will in turn breed other guys himself. Also it feels special if a guy as more of a top himself and will only get fucked by a select few. Also I find that I do instinctively "click" with tops and versatile tops rather than bottoms, especially fem or submissive bottoms. It's just so very relaxing to know you're on the same wavelength. I'm an alpha male, totally masculine. I'm not straight ACTING, I actually DO like cars, sports and home improvement. I'm a guy's guy who enjoys hanging with other dudes. If you're a bottom bitch, I'll use you. But for a real connection there has to be something more. And lastly, I do love a challenge: If you have 90% straight sex with women, and when having sex with guys you're 99% top, give me a call, you're just my type. I so wanna get into that ass of yours.

A much more recent documentary is Stephen Fry's "HIV and me", which I highly recommend. It's not about bugchasing per se, but on the reality of HIV in general, gay as well as straight. In typical Fry fashion it's a compassionate, but unflinching look on the topic, not shying away from talking about bug chasing, drug abuse etc.. I found it to be a quite real and honest look on the situation in the United Kingdom. It can be found on Youtube (e.g. (Part 1) (Part 2) and many other video sites.