"Neg Only"

[HungLatinDom]

I wish I could block these guys on BBRT. If they are not interested in me (and in most of the guys in the website), it's kinda useless for me to be seen by them. I'd rather not exists for these people, as I am not interested in infecting them, and they will remain neg forever, as we all know that serosorting works 100% of time. (cough, cough).

What I hate the most is the stupid jerks who put "neg only" in their profile, they see a dick they like, do not bother to read the profile, and then they send a message, then they react offended when I turn them down, and then act like they are doing me a favor because they are interested in me. The last time this happened, it was actually funny, as I had set a party ad, and a couple replied, asking to be invited. It was a big pleasure to turn them down.

My point is: If you are going to be barebacking and have an obnoxious "neg only", at least be aware enough to read my status bfore wasting my time and expect me to tell you I'm poz.

[barehole4use]

I think wankers that join bareback websites that go around stating they only want neg only should get removed or banned from bareback websites, These guys are a total time wasters & mostly are flakes anyway. There are enough websites for the neg boys to play in.

[GermanFucker]

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.

Edited February 20, 2012 by GermanFucker

[totalasspig]

Same here HungLatinDom -- Many other websites I am on, I have HIV POZ right in the first line of the profile - then I have guys that will say "Jeeze, beautiful hot looking ass, can you I fuck you with a condom or fist you with a glove? Waste of time - didn't you read the profile. I BAREBACK -- Period. Same at the baths, I have my can of Crisco and paper towels -- and someone will come in and start talking or start playing with my ass and say "Do you have a condom / do you have a glove?? " Meanwhile all the bare backing signs are there. When will people grow up!

[ronetbus]

- didn't you read the profile

The answer is no. They don't read profiles. On many sites my picture is one of me in a leather jacket and cap. Every single one of those profiles says I am a bottom. But I can't tell you how many guys message me expecting a top because of the leather. Idiots. My guess is that at least 80% of them don't read profiles except maybe to look for location. You'd think that if they post "Neg Only" they would check to see if you are neg, but it seems that is asking a lot.

[calrockxxx]

I just block them, no discussion, no reply. If they can't bother to read my profile, I won't waste my time and be courteous.

Every now and then I do a search for guys who have neg only in their profiles and go on a blocking spree.

I wish Manhunt had a similar field so I could do the same. I get a lot of messages there from guys who say they're neg in their profile but tell me they're poz in their messages to me.

I don't mind having sex with neg guys. I just find the time waters obnoxious.

[Inception]

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.

On this point, PNP hard drug users - it's actually good when they are online posting their preferences because then I can avoid them, not just online but also if I happen across them in person. This past weekend SteamWorks bath house in Vancouver held the first cumunion party here. They tried to keep it quiet outside of the bb community but word got out. On BBRT's party listing over 100 guys posted that they would attend. Most of the $$whores, crystal queens, and slam pigs were on the list. I stayed away, as did many other people I know. Hey, we've got three other baths in the city, I don't need to be at a place that openly allows illegal activities. Eventually I see them getting raided, and I don't want to be there when that happens.

[TonyRedux]

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.

in principle i agree with u, in practice i lean more towards hunglatindom...however i'll note that every once in awhile i have convinced some neg guy to take my load, always by simply elaborating my argument with links to credible sources and inviting them to study the issue and the conflicting opinions on their own time. once in awhile someone freaks out at me, whether or not i've actually written to them...but this only amuses me n enrages them further, ad infinitum. sometimes people r open-minded...i have even considered using condoms with some guys bcuz their asses were so nice n they begged me repeatedly. in truth THOSE meetings have yet to happen, as i'm happy to note that some of this latter category openly express the fear that THEY will ultimately surrender to my raw cock.

i have always been honest with them: "if by chance u let me fuck u raw, i'm taking the shot...deep and hard."...often the response is "holy shit dude i just came all over my keyboard, but i just cant do it!"...some of them eventually convert, and if they weren't douchebags b4, they do get my nut.

what this thread is ultimately about is "degrees of balkanization Online", and has been debated for years in non-sexual terms. "what happens to Society when people only read what they LIKE, associate with only people LIKE THEM, and filter out anything that displeases them?"

ultimately it's gonna come down to each website-designer's preferences...notice how A4A doesn't banish people when u block them? more annoyingly, notice how A4A doesn't hide or even indicate the profiles who have blocked YOU unless u write them or click their profile n see that annoying tiny blurb "this member has blocked you"? notice how BBRT has a more Manhunt-style block, however, if u block someone in the middle of an exchange they still get to send you one last email post-block?

these r all examples of web-designer choices that affect how much we can filter people. a couple of years ago Manhunt renewed my full membership for quite awhile as a reward for advising them about things like undetectable status and search features seen on other sites: they loved everything i told them and implemented none of it during their Big Upgrade. hence, i'm rarely there n would never pay them a cent now...but there's still a huge pool of fuckable guys there that arent anywhere else...except maybe Grindr, and i aint buying no fukn Iphone!

[Pig Bottom]

There should be poz only bareback sex hookup sites, where negs who don't mind being with a poz can join, but people looking for neg only can't.

[GermanFucker]

There should be poz only bareback sex hookup sites, where negs who don't mind being with a poz can join, but people looking for neg only can't.

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.

in principle i agree with u, in practice i lean more towards hunglatindom...however i'll note that every once in awhile i have convinced some neg guy to take my load, always by simply elaborating my argument with links to credible sources and inviting them to study the issue and the conflicting opinions on their own time. once in awhile someone freaks out at me, whether or not i've actually written to them...but this only amuses me n enrages them further, ad infinitum. sometimes people r open-minded...i have even considered using condoms with some guys bcuz their asses were so nice n they begged me repeatedly. in truth THOSE meetings have yet to happen, as i'm happy to note that some of this latter category openly express the fear that THEY will ultimately surrender to my raw cock.

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).

Every now and then I do a search for guys who have neg only in their profiles and go on a blocking spree.

Seriously, dude?

[rawTOP]

Why not just assume the profile text is fiction (which is often is) and reply with something like "Hey - would love to dump a poz load in you." OR just pretend you didn't see the "neg only". If you've been clear that you're poz - it's up to them to read your profile (and/or ask questions).

[BBBttmPete]

Although I'm neg, I would never discriminate against poz guys. If they meet my criteria, I fuck them. I cruise in Hiv+ chatrooms on gaydar for example and most guys on there must think I'm poz if I use such chat rooms.

[TonyRedux]

1) 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.

2) 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).

3) Seriously, dude?

1) that's a great point.

2) in fact one of these guys works for major film studios and is a seriously hot n passionate cub i cant wait to get my cock into again. extremely hot, sweet hairy cheex, magical head-suckling second spot.

3) truth: sometimes i'll do the same. on BBRT my basic search is for guys open to taking loads anally...on A4A my basic search is of guys who have "anything goes" in their profile, or less frequently "no answer"...on manhunt i would search for profiles that were either "poz", "ask me" or "no answer". the reality is that this greatly improved my success-rate and minimized the number of fights i would get into, as the stigma of being openly poz AND openly BB only can be explosive. i wont go out of my way to search for non-compatibles, but i will hair-trigger block profiles that exclude me, especially during those times when i expand my searches past the usual..."no white people", "DDF for same", "hard-fuckers, stay away!", "no Liberals/no Republicans", "no on under 10 inches", "no uncut", "no BB", "no fake tops, 100% top only!"...since i'm "white", POZ, fuck harder than most/all, am politically independent, 8+ inches long, uncut, BB-only, and still reserve the right to bottom...there's no need to bother with these people, and it saves me time and future hassles.

for every single fuck i might harvest from such groups will come at the cost of a dozen fights or more. fuck that, fuck them.

[GermanFucker]

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.

[GermanFucker]

the reality is that this greatly improved my success-rate and minimized the number of fights i would get into, as the stigma of being openly poz AND openly BB only can be explosive.

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.