GermanFucker

Not trying to criticize you, just food for thought, hoping to give you some perspective: The problem with most people-pleasers is that exactly by trying to make others happy, they wreck their lives. If someone enters e.g. into a marriage without having the same level of sexual interest in one's partner as the other, that creates a lingering resentment, slowly poisoning the relationship. If there are children, they will pick up on their parents unhappyness, giving them a distorted example of love and sexuality. If there are secrets, there will never be true trust and the level of mutual reliance on each other that is necessary to build a future. And so on and so forth. Even if it is unpleasant for the moment, others deserve to be not taken for a fool (because most aren't stupid and in the end everyone will pick up on something and problems surface one way or another), so they, too, can find a greater level of happyness and fulfilment. So does that mean full disclosure? No. Some things are just as they are. If you think your parents won't understand, you don't have to tell them anything. BUT YOU SHOULD NEVER EVER imprison yourself in a situation where you have to pretend all the time. It will fuck you up and in the long run it will affect those you love as well. So I believe bbzh is right on two counts: If you can't be open to your parents, it's ok not to tell, but you should find a level of distance (emotional and geographical, in the sense that you e.g. shouldn't spend ever second day with someone who doesn't appreciate you for who you really are) that makes it bearable. You cannot keep up a relationship with a girlfriend that at is core is built on lies. You BOTH deserve better. Either way, it's better to end something under false pretenses than to live decades pretending. And, yes, you should seek professional help.

I tend to disagree, just because there isn't really a need yet. IMHO you (i.e. the thread starter) don't have to pretend you're poz - or neg for that matter. You just don't know right now and that's ok as well. Just think of it as handing a in a high-school exam that could go either way. What do you do afterwards? You don't obsess about every possible mistake. Nor do you think about applying to Harvard. Most likely you'd unwind with some friends and play a video game. So do that. Relax and take solace from the fact that there's nothing you can do either way. However you turn it, it's out of your hands. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't think about the future (or to stay within the metaphor: think about which college to apply to). But there is NO NEED FOR FEAR. In the end you'll be fine whether you end up neg or poz. If you're poz, it'll be just one of those things in life like changing jobs or choosing a partner. Sure it will have an impact on your life, but you'll manage. But right now you don't have to do anything other than a.) taking a deep breath, b.) make a commitment to being considerate when having sex with others and to get tested again once the results will be conclusive and c.) realize that until then no action and no train of thought will have an impact on the result. So until then you're completely free to think whatever makes you feel good. You have license not to worry. And once you've got the results take it step by step. That goes for a neg result as well. Don't get into a vicious cycle of dodging bullets, feeling shame and acting out. Instead get to a point where you're comfortable with you're decisions and are able to stand behind the sex life you lead. Then the next time you won't freak out any more, because you're at peace with who you are.

Simple and obvious. RawTop is right.

First of all: I agree that the article is sensationalist CRAP. It does a disservice not only to poz people, prevention efforts but also to young black athletes. It eschews all the important questions (like did he know, was he on meds etc.) which need to be answered to assess the situation. Even though most poz guys live complete, full lives, intentionally giving someone HIV does cause some harm and alters one life. If I knew that the SM game I was playing with you carried a 30 percent chance of me cutting off your left foot, wouldn't you want know? Wouldn't it be your right to know that? (I mean you would be fine without a foot. Countless army vets want to return to duty wearing a prothesis. But then again the man of your dream or just the guy you desire for a quick fuck might not be into that. He'd be a total moron douche, but still your life would be altered because of it, just like with HIV). If there's (and that's a big if - I don't know if it applies in this specific case) a difference in knowledge, the one who knows more carries an extra responsibility - either to level the playing field informationwise (i.e. by telling / divulging, because if the other one knows, that means it's COMPLETELY up to him) or to take precautions accordingly (in my personal opinion: e.g. by going on meds). The fact that the other also party also has to take responsibility for his actions, can have a mitigating effect, but never fully negates that extra responsibility. The fact that everything changes once you know is often clearly unfair. But in a legal - and broader social - sense it is often necessary. Because otherwise it opens the door to all kinds of unsavory arguments. Employers wouldn't want to take responsibility for safety at the workplace. After all their employees choose to work for them. If I sell a house that has toxic mold or housed a meth lab, I have to tell. If I sell a car that might blow up after a mile, I have to tell lest I be liable. If I'm drunk but look sober enough for you to ride along in my car, I'm on the hook.... And so on and so forth. If you look at the big picture, it is often necessary, that if I know that something about the way I interact with you might harm you, that I'm obliged to divulge. And there shouldn't be a gay exception. Saying that amongst gay guys you should expect your partner to be poz whereas heterosexuals make babies blissfully assuming the other one's neg, makes gays a seperate class legally. And segregation was never a good idea (doesn't matter if equal or unequal). IMHO one should go by what can reasonably expected taking into account all the circumstances. If one takes a dozen loads at an adult movie theater he cannot reasonably expect all those to be neg. If one meets a guy over Facebook and hooks up in his dormroom with him saying he tested neg, then yes, one can reasonably expect that he got tested recently and as far as the test can tell was neg at the time. (Of course there's always a risk he's poz and just doesn't know yet. Bad luck, which noone should be blamed for.) If the other person chooses to lie, thus denying one the right to make an informed decision, the bulk of responsibility shifts to that person, and in my humble opinion, that is not wrong. Just generally speaking, I really don't want to pass any kind of judgement based on shoddy journalism. A personal plea: One thing we should all keep in mind: We're all seasoned sluts here. We know how the game is played. But someone from a repressive family exploring his gay side for the first time in college (or even later) might not. Hell, if I want to get a bi-curious "straight" guy into bed, I can be totally convincing telling him that for me, too, "this is the first time I'm doing something like that" (but I usually don't, I prefer the bad-boy approach *LOL). Before one passes judgement - be it a condemnation or acquittal - one should always try to see it from a different perspective, not only the one one instinctively indentifies with. And just because we already know better whe shouldn't look down upon a newcomer's naiveté.

I'm with poptronic. when you get to fuck a woman why go for what you're having all them time anyway?

From a psychological standpoint the answer is simple: it's all about the V. We instinctively find a male physique pleasing if the torso is V-shaped. That can be trim (runner's built), athletic (swimmer's built), muscular (bodybuilder) or beefy (footballer's built). It's not so much about absolute numbers, but rather the RATIO between shoulder/chest and gut/waist. Next on the list would be lean to average guys, who have a more or less rectangular torso, which most find perfectly acceptable (fuckable), but not instinctively appealing (e.g. standing out from a crowd). Whereas A- or O-shaped torsos are often considered less desirable. For someone who was considerably overweight (not saying that you were), just speaking in general terms, it often makes sense to stay a bit beefier, if you have too much loose skin (and not enough money for surgery) to shoot for the defined / chiseled look. As bearbandit says, weight (or more generally, resistance) training is the way to go. The problem with that is that many guys do it wrong. They emphasize secondary muscles (like the biceps) over overall physique (which requires heavy compound exercises) and / or never really get the intensity to the level needed for the muscle to grow. So you should find the right kind of gym / trainer who can help you with that.

Frankly, I don't think it's worth the hassle, for three reasons. 1.) The vast majority of, say, 15-18 year olds are looking for a "highschool boyfriend" experience within their own age group. Sure, decades ago with all the stigma you had to go cruising for older men in parks and restrooms, not out of choice, but out of necessity, because that's what was available the easiest. But this is the internet age, today you can choose your own group of peers. So I think the vast majority of gay teens will be best served by social networking sites for gay youths. Sure, teens will use this sites for sex, too. If cinema teaches us anything, then it's that teens will use apple pie for sex. But for most it's a more comfortable surrounding. 2.) Then there are the early bloomers who know exactly what they want. Who knew how to get a fake ID to get into a gay club long ago. Just saying you're 18 on the internet is a thousand times easier. With the young generation more tech-savvy than ever, one can be sure that those REALLY looking for bareback hookups before the age of 18 all already 100% present on the usual hook-up sites. But if they choose to cheat, the site operator cannot and should not be blamed. 3.) I believe it is nearly impossible - legally and from a user experience standpoint - to create a site that both fulfills the requirements of protecting minors (without being inundated with lawsuits and other legal shenanigangs) and offers a satisfying hook-up experience to all the others, i.e. without a thousands hoops to jump through to prove you're really over 18 and then still to be denied some XXX-rated pics, because the permissions system on the site has to be overcautious or else one slip-up might bring the whole site down. I know that the current situation (when it comes to all the hook-up sites, gay or straight, bareback or safe) which realistically boils down to "just let them lie about their age" isn't really an honest solution. But I don't see a realistic alternative. As to the safer environment: I believe that specific social networking sites for gay youths (that aren't purely sex-oriented) serve that purpose quite well.

Or to make it 4x4: B A R E B A C K B U T T H U N T

Shit is an instant turn-off for me as well, so I always make sure my bottoms know that I expect their ass to be clean. IMHO the secret is not come over as demanding, but to slip it in in a casual way. If they ask me what I'm into, I might say that I'm up for anything having to do with piss, but that I simply can't stand the smell of shit. For me personally, the carrot and stick (as I do carry a large one) approach works best: "Are you hung?"-"Dude, my 8 inches are real, so make sure to clean out well ". I think I always depends on the situation. When I'm breeding an 18-year-old, who lives with his parents and gives me the impression that he did the best he could, I usually don't stop until he's seeded well. If the guy's a jaded queen and you just know he doesn't care, I'm out of there. It does make a difference if a guy is making an effort or just being inconsiderate. Some guys swear by intermittent fasting, maybe you should look into that, because if it is done the right way, it shouldn't be too bad. The Immodium is probably more harmful.

You're probably wrong. Depending on the specific location and scene, they might be, sure. But in general the majority of men having unprotected sex are neg, though they most likely wouldn't call themselves barebackers, even though that's what they effectively are. In the end it often boils down to congnitive dissonance. Imagine a heterosexual guy cheating on his wife. He is effectively asking for a divorce if he were to be found out. Yet during the sex he probably just thinks about pussy. And afterwards he pretends like nothing happened in a effort to continue his normal, everyday family life. He probably loves his wife. And still he philanders. The one and the other aren't exclusive as long as we can ignore the elephant in the room. I believe information is good. I believe it is important to talk about that stuff. I don't think it spoils the mood. In fact I believe it makes the sex better. Because if you know and accept the reality and consequences of your actions, you are able to make INFORMED CHOICES. What Theo8 is doing is one example of informed choice: Knowing the facts and doing what feels right for oneself. Because it's Theo's right to define his sex life himself. On the other side of the pigginess scale there's Efcskin. But at its core, it's the same: Informed choice. We should all battle ignorance when it comes to HIV / AIDS. Without sugarcoating. But not in a condom nazi way, i.e. moralizing and limiting. Knowing all the facts should be liberating, enabling everyone to approach sex in a mature way with peace of mind. There's nothing as sexy as a guy who knows what he's doing, even (or should one say especially?) if he's a neg guy choosing to have bareback sex. But WITHOUT cognitive dissonance. Because that's what he knows he needs. And because it's fun, of course.

The problem is: Your life won't be healthy anymore. Since you have HIV, that's just how it is. You will probably live another 4 years or so, even without meds. But not only will your quality of life diminish over time, the damage the virus will do will be permanent, even if you decide to go on meds down the road. There is no ideal option. Every medication has downsides and side effects (even aspirin). The right time to start going on meds is when the damage the virus will do to you far outweighs any damage meds could do to you. And you have just about reached that point. The real question is: Will your life be healthiER with meds? Statistically speaking: Yes. Of course statistics can never fully predict what's good for you. Maybe you have another six months before you absolutely have to go on meds. Maybe you should have started a year ago. Only a doctor can advise you on that. So I hope you have / will find a good one you can trust. But if you like to hear it or not: If your longterm health and quality of life indeed matter to you, the time to take the necessary steps and discuss your options is indeed now.

5.) should have been "...an identifier for A CERTAIN thing, that is then used..." 6.) Names are important (IMHO e.g. Grindr is a fantastic brand name), but when it comes to communities, it's all about the right people. The right guys will attract others. Barebackcity.com is kind of a weak trademark, but for a few glorious years it was the greatest thing on the internet. 7.) So if Bareback Brotherhood is indeed about brotherhood, about guys beeing cool with each other, then I'm all for it. But then again I've already seen some guys use it in a specific sense (e.g. you need to be ok with meth addiction or stealth pozzing if you subscribe to the idea of a bareback brotherhood), that can be problematic if it is supposed to be a platform for all. So personally I'm actually kinda feeling ambivalent about the BBBH brand. 8.) In the end we are all just horny guys. We want an easy to use product to connect with fuckable dudes. No hassles, no strings. A drawn-out legal battle is never a promising start for a platform.

Really not wanting to take sides or get involved in any way in this matter, so these are just some general thoughts: 1.) IMHO opinion as a European one of the things that are broken when it comes to the US is the legal system. Far too many people earning far too much money for a service that is neither productive nor innovative. I.e. a way of throwing money down the drain. There is a saying in German that goes somewhere along the lines of: Don't expect justice at a courthouse, all you will get is a ruling. 2.) Why not first ask politely what constitutes his trademark / his claim to BBBH? Simple prior usage or is it indeed registered in 99 countries not including North Korea? 3.) Of course the term bareback brotherhood is a simple descriptive term for comradery amongst those practising unsafe sex. If I hosted a PRIVATE SEX PARTY AMONGST FRIENDS under the motto of bareback brotherhood and somebody told me that I was abusing his trademark, I would politely ask him to fuck off. So the next question would be: Is it also a valid brand name, can it be used as a trademark. You obviously cannot register "detergent" as a trademark for detergent, but then again, "Mr. Clean" is ok. So I wouldn't know into which category BBBH might fall. 4.) But if it can be registered as a trademark, once one uses something commercially (an be it just by generating ad money), one usually expects a certain level of control over the "brand". a.) Usually it's just one party that controls the trademark. b.) Sometimes that party grants licenses, so more than one entity can use it. c.) And then there are brands that are e.g. controlled by foundations that everyone can use, but you have to follow a certain set of rules (e.g. Linux, "organic" etc.). 5.) It would seem contradictory if a "brotherhood" is just one guy calling the shots. It can also be problematic if a number of guys share an identifier for thing, that is then used by someone for something slightly different (e.g. non-commercial vs. commercial). So rather than just "it's mine" vs. "no, it's mine" IMHO one would have to ask what is at the heart of the dispute.

Dear Voice of Reason: The problem with your contributions is that you aren't well informed. Yes, there are bugchasers on this site and many others here find their endeavours to get infected quite pointless. The original poster is not one of those. The consensus within the medical community is that if a poz guy is well medicated his chances of passing the virus on are comparably low to capable condom use (which is better than typical condom use). Today there are many serodiscordant heterosexual couples who have been having unprotected sex for quite a long time, even had children that way, without infecting the other. Thanks to the medication. What the original poster is saying is reasonably safe. Keep in mind that he has been having unprotected anal sex with the guy for 8 months now, the only difference being that he was topping in that case. The problem with scare tactics is that they backfire. That way some guys get so oversexed that in the end they take anonymous loads just to fill that certain need, when having unprotected sex with an undetectable guy would have been much safer. Better to discuss openly the risks involved. However, I wouldn't advise to do anything that one doesn't feel good about, even if it's reasonably safe. Why? Because when you feel guilty afterwards you enter that same cycle of shame and acting out that so often led to bad decisions. Better be level-headed.

@ Tattpig and Pozfetish: I think the problem is that black skin is both a racial identifier and a sexual preference. So what is appalling from a societal standpoint (racial segregation) is quite understandable from a sexual one. Everybody has that one white bottom among his friend, who's exclusively and constantly looking for big black cock - and who, most of the time doesn't realize that by doing so he reduces the African American attached to said cock to his genitals. Nobody wants to be reduced to just a single aspect (Yeah, sometimes it's fun when Americans tell me to "speak German to me" while I'm seeding them, but I wouldn't want to be "big scary German" 100% of the time, sometimes you just want to relax and have a good time). Imagine having that guy at a club like the Den, expecting to be the center of attention. Totally spoils the mood / the scene. There is a whole lot of discrimination going on when it comes to sex. Most clubs / sex parties expect you to be HWP (height weight proportionate), often discriminating against a large (no pun intended) group of gays. So - judging by the web site - the Den is walking that fine line quite gracefully. They say they are welcoming men of color and those who appreciate them, but reserve the right to choose and turn away, i.e. to set the scene the way they and their customers prefer it. @ Tiger IMHO you showed class by asking beforehand. And you obviously seemed cool enough for them to let you in. If I were you, I'd just watch that I wouldn't overuse / abuse the privilege. Maybe go there from time to time with some black friends. But you probably wouldn't want to go there every night and in the end become what manyAfrican Americans find annoying: That needy white guy.

Yes there is a somewhat increased risk. How much exactly nobody can tell. But keep in mind that if the risk before was one in 10,000, even a 1000% increase (which would be a lot) means that it's 99.9% likely that nothing happened at all. An increased risk doesn't mean that suddenly something is more likely than not. The sanest thing is EXACTLY what you just said: The next step is to stop worrying and to get out of the vicious cycle of blaming yourself for slipping up, make resolutions to be perfect and then slipping up again. JUST STOP. If you enjoy bareback sex, your bottom friend is a VERY LOW RISK partner. There's nothing wrong with talking things over and agreeing that from now on you have unprotected sex but on any given evening you will be the first one to shoot your load in his ass. So you can just enjoy the fucking and STOP WORRYING.

First of all, I don't like exhibitionistic sex as in: Mothers and children could walk by and see us. So when I last had sex at a public swimming pool it was in a closed toilet stall (total stranger I met there, though *LOL). But as long as I'm amongst other horny men (gay or bi, barebackers or not) I don't have any inhibitions. A dozen onlookers in bathhouses? No problem. There's a forest area behind a rest stop a few miles down the autobahn from me which is among the cruisiest in Germany. So yeah I fucked and seeded a number of guys there in front of 20 or 30 guys. The most was probably at a party at a sex club where I fucked a guy at the bar which was open to the whole dancefloor, in front of maybe 60 or 80 guys... don't remember exactly .

But IMHO that only becomes apparent when you're actively participating here. It takes a few weeks to distinguish between real guys that speak from experience in a nuanced way and the repetitive "I knocked up a dozen neg virgins last week alone" masturbation fantasies. We as members know whom to take seriously and what not to. But to the uninformed visitor it's probably all the same. Interestingly in Germany many bathhouses (e.g. in big cities where there are two or three, it's always at least one) offer some bareback events. Usually that means that part of the club is reserved for a "private party", but of course there's mingling with the regular customers. But such events are often marketed inoffensively. Either as gatherings of poz guys or as just another sex party (e.g. the "YoungsterB" orgy. The passer-by wouldn't know that "B" stands for barebackers). And IMHO being discreet that way is completely ok. Not only as a business decision, but also because it's the organizers' prerogative to define what they want to stand for. Just as it is everyone's right to go elsewhere.

I'm just not sure the guy in the vid is "Liam Driver", xtube member since the 23rd of this month. The "Ach Scheisse" at the end kind kinda doesn't sound Irish. But it does sound like he came.

I think some guys on this thread are masturbating as well when they suggest 11 or 12. Yes, early bloomers exist. But even those don't seek guys in their mid-fifties to have sex with, instead having sex mostly amongst themselves. So age of consent laws don't really cramp their style. Most preadolescents are more fascinated with sex per se than with having sex with a specific person and when it happens early, it's more playful. It's not the same kind of sex a grown man has. Everyone should have the right to develop naturally without having someone older's idea of sex forced upon them. I think I said it before, but I find the German model very sensible. The general age of consent is 16, with only minor restrictions. Having sex with a 16 year old is legal, but it is not legal for a 16 year old to do porn or work as a prostitute (prostitution being otherwise legal in Germany). Also it's not ok for a person of authority to have sex with e.g. apprentices or students. It's also ok for someone of the age of 14/15 to have sex with someone who is just a few years older (I think 21 is the cut-off), and / or if the parents don't mind. I really think that this is the real problem here. Laws dictated by moral outrage, eschewing common sense.

My 2 eurocent: - Barebacking is an everyday reality, not a rare transgression. - The young generation hasn't seen the ravages of AIDS, scare tactics are lost on them. - It shouldn't be treated with moral outrage. - Most barebacking isn't called "barebacking", rather "I forgot the condom because I was drunk". - Because the end result is the same, one should make responsible, sober decisions. - Condoms are scientifically proven to work, they save one a lot of hassle - However, that doesn't mean that not using condoms is insane or that there aren't valid reasons for that. - Poz guys who have sex with poz guys only have to fear "minor" diseases. - Others have unprotected sex with people they trust. - For some it has to do with a drug or alcohol problem. - Again others make conscious choices to take a certain risk, sometimes trying to minimize that. - For some the risk assessments or expectations what it means to be poz are unrealistic because of a lack of knowledge. - When councelling barebackers its important to ask "where they come from" and respond accordingly, i.e. instead of villifying or simply promoting condoms, rather ask oneself how to best help the person at the other end of the line, be it by offering knowledge or helping one make sense of one's behaviour, or simply encouraging a poz guy to get tested for other STDs regularly because those can be more of a problem if you already have HIV. PS: I found BBC's "Unsafe Sex in the City" to be an interesting watch, they might still have it on their website, but I think most episodes should be available around the net (youtube etc.), if you do a video search with Google (Bing etc.).

I think the most important question is: Where in the world do you live?

When I'm in the mood for pussy, I'll find me a girl. When it comes to men, I prefer the term ass / arse. The ass is a muscle, because that's what I like to feel when a fuck a guy: something tight that milks my dick.

Fantastic post, BB, couldn't agree more. It is very, very rare for someone to be undetectable without meds, even long-term nonprogressors usually have a measurable, albeit relatively low viral load. But such cases of "elite controllers" do exist (fact). But not everyone who claims to be one actually is. I've seen the problem with late diagnoses in a friend of a friend, although his viral load went undetectable quickly, he still has been fighting Karposi's for quite some time now, because of the damage the virus did to his body and because his immune system hasn't yet recovered quickly enough. Many guys, especially if they're young, make a quick recovery once on meds, with the increasing T-cell count reversing / pushing back the effects of the disease.

My respect for guys putting veggies up their ass is about the same as for guys using condoms for fucking. Both don't belong there.