Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'study'.
Found 4 results
-
For goodness’ sake. If you read the conversations on these boards, anyone would get the impression that the bareback world is teeming with men with massive endowments, and every bottom who posts his ‘true’ story encounters them regularly. When we watch porn, we apparently get confirmation of this, because there the cocks are, biiiigggger than life. So how does the average Top feel when he then unzips his pants and looks down and doesn’t find one of those? How does a bottom feel when he can’t get any play because he’s set his profile to read “Only 8+”? Why do so many men feel the need to embellish the tales of their experiences both in their own minds and in what they write here to perpetuate this fantasy about the Big Cock? First of all, porn is largely to blame; porn isn’t an impartial, objective representation of the cock world as it is, the industry cherry-picks men with the largest genitalia for that specific reason, and uses cinematic techniques to emphasize their dimensions even further. After that, though, the blame falls on the consumers of porn for perpetuating the misconception at their own expense, for celebrating the BBC as though it were a thing apart from its owner (and an actual defining trait) and worse, for reducing all men to a series of numbers by which we are judged: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. We need a reality check, badly. Fortunately, the British Journal of Urology International, in 2015, published a synthesis of 17 independent studies of human male penis size, encompassing a total sampling of 15,521 individuals, to arrive at actual data on the standard distribution of cock size in Homo sapiens. You can find the results here: [think before following links] https://www.science.org/content/article/how-big-average-penis The average length, gentlemen (go get your rulers) is 5.16 inches. A penis length of 6.3 puts a man in the 95th percentile, meaning that out of every 100 men, only 5 of them will be longer than 6.3. I’ll place the graph from the study here for reference: Note that the highest length notated on the chart is 22cm - 8.66 inches - putting it in the 99.9th percentile. Extrapolate that upward and you begin to get into orders of magnitude in rarity. All those 10” cocks everybody’s getting pounded with? They belong to men that are one-in-thousands. Now, they aren’t mythical like unicorns - they really are out there. The porn at least proves that much. And, some of the stories told here are completely true. I personally am very careful not to exaggerate or embellish what happens to me, and I can honestly say that yes, I have been fucked by an 11” cock, and by a 10” cock. But only one of each (though the 11” had me twice). Since I’ve taken more than 1,000 cocks, it’s not statistically odd that I might have had these encounters, nor the handful of 9s and 8s I’ve taken. But if one were to somehow tally up every fuck chronicled on this forum and sort them by the size claimed for the Top, I’m absolutely sure the result would be impossible to reconcile statistically with the chart above. Guys, you don’t have to be huge to be a terrific Top. Bottoms, let’s face it, huge is largely a fetish - a really good fuck is all about your attitude and the Top’s skill. Maybe we can all re-calibrate our expectations a little and accept ourselves and each other as we are. I’m just a little over 7”. If length actually mattered, that would put me right about the 99th percentile, and some might bemoan a tragic waste of a good cock on a total bottom. But as I don’t penetrate at all, I might as well not have a cock at all, and so that 7” number becomes meaningless. We’re not numbers. We’re men. Always remember that. Otherwise, it’s just fuck by numbers.
-
I'm reading an academic article this morning by Kai J. Jonas, a researcher from the University of Amsterdam, who did research on the impact of bareback porn on it's viewers. Results indicate that watching bareback porn lowers the threshold for viewers to engage in bareback sex. This new study didn't make many headlines, assumably because Jonas and his team mention clearly in their article that further research is needed and that the conclusion is not 'Watching bareback porn will make you a barebacker' but rather 'Viewers will more easily consider engaging in sex without a condom after watching bareback porn'. But there were some voices on social media which were quite surprised at the outcome. Though the loudest comments attacked the research method rather than the conclusion. Note: From an academic viewpoint, the research method is solid. Jonas even notes why they chose this approach. So it is irrelevant to criticize the method, I'd much rather like to debate the conclusion. Study 1 Jonas and his team conducted two studies. In Study 1 focused on the theory that watching bareback porn lowers the threshold to engage in bareback sex. 220 gay men watched DVD covers after which they reported about their sexual behavior. The results indicate the theory to be correct: those who are confronted with bareback sex images will more easily engage in bareback sex. Jonas does mention a lot of factors that influence such a choice (e.g. HIV-status) but overall the result supports the theory Study 2 This study focused on the practice of bareback sex. 34 men were given a bag with condoms etc. to go out in a local bar where sex videos were shown and sex parties were hosted. (Cruise Club Church if I'm not mistaken.) The men reported afterwards on their sexual behavior. The results of this study indicate that viewers of bareback porn video footage will more easily engage in bareback sex. Again Jonas mentions factors that influence such a choice, but this time too the results support the theory. Discussion Jonas and his team conclude that watching bareback porn will have viewers engage more easily in bareback sex. These studies are limited, more research is definitely needed, Jonas and his team state. But their research could be of importance to sex health workers and organisations, sex locations as well as porn producers. One option the researchers mention is analogue to the way society currently deals with tobacco and alcohol: warning viewers about the risks of bareback sex on DVD-boxes, through banners on bareback porn websites or on locations where bareback porn is shown. As an 'educated viewer' is expected to be more aware of risks and to make a more conscious decision about whether or not to engage in bareback sex. What do you think? Are you more likely to engage in bareback sex after watching bareback porn? And do you think putting warnings about risks on DVD-covers, sex sites and sex locations could prevent men from barebacking? Note/Personal Opinion: I will be the last one on earth to say people should not have bareback sex, but I personally think it could do no harm to add such a warning to bareback pornography. If we do it with smoking and alcohol consumption, why not with porn? Also, people that want to bareback will bareback, but it is better when someone makes a conscious choice to do so instead of it (having bareback sex) happening accidentally. If you would like a copy of this research article, send me a message or get in the comments. (It is 300kb, breedingzone's limit for .pdf is 200kb.) -
10 days ago I started in Gilead's Discover study for the drug Descovy as a new PrEP drug. There are 5,000 men in the study. I haven't seen anyone else on here that's mentioned it and wondering if there are any others. It's a "sister" drug of Truvada with a change in the concentration of the active ingredients to reduce long term side effects regarding bone density and kidney function. Many (most) poz guys on Truvada have been switched over to Descovy I believe. It's not currently approved as PrEP which is why it has to be studied, and I'll be in the study group for about 2.5 years. There's a 50/50 chance I'm on the test drug, or the placebo which is Truvada. Kind of wondering what to call my "status" on bbrt and other hookup sites. I changed it to Neg + Other on bbrt. Might put "ask me" instead. Don't really wanna do something that will decrease my chances of hooking up, but I'm pretty upfront and all about repeat fuckbuds and building some trust. I plan to be a good test subject and not change my sex habits. Anyone else on it?
-
I'm sure most of you know about the PARTNER study that started a few years ago. If you know about it, the results won't be a big surprise for many. However, something HUGE happened and it's been making the news this week (including very mainstream media like TIME, NBC/CBS, Reuters). I didn't see a post about this yet so I thought I'd share this development. The high profile Journal of the American Medical Association recently reviewed new results from the PARTNER study, and for the first time, they not only published but also endorsed the findings and published the entire article for free! If anyone knows the AMA Journal, you know that this is way more than a stamp of approval. The fact that they published it widely "reflects the importance that the results have the widest possible access". A day later, the Human Right Campaign issued a statement to highlight the study. And there are talks for the CDC to update their directives and guidelines about undetectable viral loads, prevention and safe sex. Finally, organizations are already hoping that this publication will give new blood to fight back against HIV stigma and the criminalization of poz partners in unfair legal cases. So with this, here are some of the headlines seen by millions starting this week! I have to admit it's refreshing and encouraging to see how the public opinion may slowly change as more and more of these studies get in the open. Seeing it on FOX News is kinda nice. And I'm sure more will be published on LGBT / medical sites in the coming weeks. It's time to end HIV stigma! Reuters/NBC: HIV patients with undetectable virus unlikely to infect partner TIME: These Drugs Stop the Spread of HIV Even Without Condoms LA Times: Safe sex without condoms? With drugs keeping HIV in check, infected partners didn't spread virus Human Right Campaign: Findings Show No New Transmissions Between HIV-Negative Partners & People with HIV on Treatment even Fox News: Antiretroviral therapy prevents HIV transmission during unprotected sex and my favorite, from Attitude UK: Gay men, it's time to educate yourselves about what HIV-positive and undetectable means ----------- Finally, here are some interesting explanations about what it all means this week, quickly put together by TheBody. Hope you find these updates interesting! What are the implications of the results? The lack of HIV transmissions should challenge the wrongly held common assumption that there is always a risk just because someone is HIV positive. The results actually go further. The lack of transmission challenges scientists to prove that transmission is actually possible when viral load is undetectable. The PARTNER study -- as with other studies -- suggests that there is likely to be a level of viral load where HIV transmission does not take occur. PARTNER suggests this might be at 50 copies/mL, or at 200 copies/mL or perhaps even higher. How will people benefit from these results? HIV positive people can become less anxious and concerned that they are a risk to their partners whenever they have sex. This can still be a worry, even when using condoms. HIV negative people can be less anxious about risk. Even when using condoms, this residual risk can limit full enjoyment of sex. Less anxiety and fear can help with closer communication and better sex. For many people, a good sex life is an important and essential part of life. Some people might enjoy not using condoms in a way that wasn't possible when they still worried about HIV. Sero-different couples who want to have children can conceive from just having sex without the need for additional PrEP. Reducing fear about HIV transmission might reduce the stigma and rejection HIV positive people encounter when meeting new partners. Legal cases where HIV is used because of a theoretical rather than actual risk will hopefully become more rare. The results might enable some people to launch an appeal. US activist Sean Strub from the SERO project (www.seroproject.com) said in response: "Hundreds of people living with HIV in the U.S. have been charged with criminal offences for the perceived or potential risk of HIV exposure or transmission. Some are serving or have served long prison sentences for spitting, scratching or biting and others for not being able to prove they had disclosed their HIV positive status before having sexual contact (even in the absence of any risk of HIV transmission). HIV criminalisation has created a viral underclass in the law, further burdening a disenfranchised community, putting a disproportionate share of the shared responsibility for preventing sexually-transmitted infections on one party, and discouraging people at risk from getting tested for HIV." Source: http://www.thebody.com/content/77904/qa-on-the-partner-study-how-to-interpret-the-zero-.html -----------
