Climbing Everest vs. Barebacking: Morality at its best

[hungry_hole]

So much talk lately about people trying to reach the summit of Everest in spite of the dangers. I've read about the Everest being like a morgue, dead bodies left behind. I've also read that Everest will be crowded again days after these deaths.

So, why is it that no one critizes the climbers like they critizise barebackers? On the contrary, the climbers are consider heroes.

Barebackers are seen as putting others at risk, but most barebackers play with other barebackers, just like climbers.

It must be because barebackers pursue sexual gratification and that makes people uncomfortable: "How can you risk your health for a fuck?"

[HungLatinDom]

Wow, that's a great analogy.

In the end, it's all about endorphins. Some of us get them fucking, others get them climbing.

[rubio2001]

I've not done Everest but I've scaled several some 14,000 peak mountains. It's a rush but still it's nothing compared to meeting some complete stranger and then within a couple of minutes having his bare cock shoved up my ass over the top rough with no lube and just being used as a fuck hole. I've found my calling.

[Belfast-Bottom]

I have never understood why mountaineers, those who are first to the north pole, south pole, or get killed trying, are heroes. The same goes for people who risk their lives trying to break speed records. The desire to be FIRST at something is usually about ego. I have no objection to people getting their kicks that way - but why are they heroes? Christianity essentially teaches that sexual pleasure is SINFUL, dirty and wrong. The puritan ethic which permeated British and most of U.S. culture taught quite simply that PLEASURE is sinful. That is why we still have a raft of sexual hang ups. I really do wish that Jesus had died at birth.

[einathens]

people climb everest to prove something to the world. people bareback to prove something to themselves.

[LBRaw]

I think it's the other way around.... Some people climb Everest ( ride a century, complete a marathon, sail around the world....etc, etc....) to prove something to themselves, that they can do it.

Some people bareback to prove something to the world." You can not control me!!! FUCK YOU!!!"

[einathens]

that works too.

guess it jsut depends on what kind of risk appeals to you. i'll take the semen of unmedicated high viral load poz men inside me, but i won't ride a rollercoaster or a zipline. i don't even like spicy food.

[JoshLandaleXXX]

I might be a rarity on these boards, but as well as being a nasty filthy HIV riddled barebacker (and DAMNED proud of it too), I am also a keen mountaineer.

I've not tackled the likes of K2 or Everest, but i've scaled the highest Peaks here in the UK, both in Summer time and Winter.

I am also a keen Rock Climber.

Whilst I can't answer the OP's question, the obvious guess is that it's down to social acceptance.

Tackling K2 or Everest is a feat of human endurance. It takes years of training, not to mention tens of thousands of pounds of fund raising, and 30% of those who tackle it (such as the recent, unfortunately failed attempt by seriously injured British Army Vets), do so to raise millions of Pounds for Charity - thus it garnishes massive public support.

Barebacking on the other hand, is done by gay guys who ignore the sexual health warnings and persist on spreading STD's and HIV.

We don't do what we do to raise money for charity, nor to raise awareness. We do it because we're red blooded males who just want to blow our nut, and we hate condoms.

In my opinion, as the longest bareback blogger on the internet, I think it also has something to do with the numbers of barebackers who have become poz, who blog about being poz, but forget to mention how they got it.

The guys who tackle the mountains, aren't doing anything against public support. They're doing something lots of people dream and have ambitions about. THAT is the difference between barebacking and climbing Everest.

On a slightly side note, there used to be an unwritten rule on Everest that if you came across someone in need of help, you just carried on by them and left them for dead. That was until the case of Lincoln Hall in 2006. He was discovered many tens of thousands of feet up; delirious, practically naked, sitting on an ice cliff, overlooking a multi thousand foot drop. Climbers passing him by, had the god awful decision of A) carrying on to the summit (their goal!) and ignoring him as per the unwritten rule of the Mountain, or abandoning their attempt, and escorting him steadily down, thus saving his life. They chose B. Dan Mazur (Expedition Team Leader) is quoted as saying "The summit is still there and we can go back. Lincoln only has one life."

So I don't think at all, as a barebacker, nor as a climber, that it is safe to put barebacking and mountaineering into the same bracket. They carry very different risks and more the the point, very different morals amongst participants. After all, when was the last time you saw a barebacker, go up to a guy getting barebacked in a sex club/sauna and save him from being fucked by condoms??????

Edited May 27, 2012 by JoshLandaleXXX
some gramatical errors

[kpig]

i think putting "others at risk" is a flimsy argument aimed at barebackers in an effort to isolate us from the norms of society.people put other people at risk during the course of their everyday activities without so much of a thought about it.distracted or just stupid driving would be the most common example

[kpig]

i didn't start barebacking to prove something to myself,its more of an attitude thing. mother nature pretty much nailed the sex thing perfectly when she designed it back in the day when we were unthinking primal creatures then we started thinking about it and screwed it all up, if you going to have multiple partners then sex isn't going to be safe and the thought of someone slipping on an ultra thin layer of latex and thinking he was protected is absurd to the point of being commical to me

[NYCBlack34]

I agree that we decide as a society what is legitimate and it is not objective. Personally, I could also spend years of training and achieve the height of physical endurance in order to walk on my hands from here to NJ while wearing a Speedo and a smile. The fact that what I mentioned is not a sport and mountain-climbing IS a sport is just chance, like the way that some countries eat dog and others eat cow. One is no better than the other. As for doing it for charity, you can do anything for charity. The bareback Olympics would not have charity as a primary motive anymore than mountain-climbing does. And I don't think that mountain-climbing OR barebacking need to "raise awareness and perform charity work" in order to make them acceptable. Why can't people just have vices or thrills anymore?! Everything has to be categorized as good or bad and that gets so boring! Even drugs and alcohol can now have excuses tacked on to make them into "healthy" endeavours. People are allowed to be a little naughty.