Isn't the Rona lockdown an amazing opportunity to get rid of STD's in the entire population?

[NJGB]

On 4/2/2020 at 11:32 AM, leatherpunk16 said:

And then there are some of us (at least a few on this site will admit to it) who will never get treated. They enjoy and appreciate their bugs. Quarantine won't change that, and they'll still be out there, possibly getting stronger. Don't forget we have a few strains of this or that which are untreatable and don't respond to the traditional medicines.

Do you tell guys you have untreatable bugs before you breed them? 

[Throatpunchr3]

Fuck all this paranoia. 
I got fucked by two of my regulars last night. 
They both fucked me bare, both left a thick load in my ass and in my throat. 
I’ll take my chances. 💀

[romeo48]

If you’re worried about a virus you’re on the wrong website.  If you think coronavirus is something to lock down for but then happily have unprotected sex you might need to evaluate yourself.  It’s not about right or wrong but there are many people justifying safety measures for CV while simultaneously on websites and apps that are INHERENTLY RISKY.  Imagine wanting the world to take you seriously when your logic isn’t connecting those dots?

[BootmanLA]

9 hours ago, romeo48 said:

If you’re worried about a virus you’re on the wrong website.  If you think coronavirus is something to lock down for but then happily have unprotected sex you might need to evaluate yourself.  It’s not about right or wrong but there are many people justifying safety measures for CV while simultaneously on websites and apps that are INHERENTLY RISKY.  Imagine wanting the world to take you seriously when your logic isn’t connecting those dots?

But just because SARS-CoV-2 and HIV are both viruses does not make them equal, in terms of risk, in terms of transmissibility, or anything else. The dots aren't connecting because there are no dots to connect.

HIV is a is a retrovirus transmitted essentially exclusively through the exchange of bodily fluids, i.e. semen and blood. It's possible to avoid HIV infection by preventative medication which stops virtually any chance at HIV from infecting another person. And for the extra-cautious, condoms can provide another layer of protection (though obviously this site is primarily for those who choose not to add that layer). Even for those who abuse injectable drugs, using a clean needle every time is a way to reduce the risk down to near zero. Moreover, except for some very uncommon drug-resistant strains, treatment is available to manage HIV infection that is highly effective (albeit expensive). With treatment, HIV infection may eventually result in death but only after decades of life; scientists are cautiously hopeful that, in fact, it's possible to keep HIV at bay for a lifetime.

SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus spread primarily through aerosol contact - breathing virus particles in from an infected person. Masks do an acceptable though not complete job of blocking much transmission, but there are no "behavioral" changes one can make, such as not barebacking or not doing IV drugs, that actually eliminate the risk. Because almost everyone has to come in contact with other people on a daily basis if life is to resume as normal, the risks are completely inapposite to HIV risks.

Moreover, there is no known single treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection that works in the same percentage of patients as we have for HIV. Nearly 2% of COVID patients die, typically within a month. Even when HIV was at its worst with no treatment available, people lived for years after infection (albeit not knowing they were infected) before their health collapsed.

In other words, these are two extremely different situations linked only by a single word: "virus". There is no logic to connecting "dots" that are not there.

[Guest]

A bit late for that in my case.

I caught my first Syfilis (ass) last summer and I've got my first Herpes (cock) infection now.
(Seems that after starting with the crabs years ago in my tweens before becoming a full barebacker and a couple of rounds of Gono (both ends) since then; I'm apparently on my way to collecting the whole set... har har har). 🙄

It's not fun but it's treatable.
(Just pointing this out to be open about where my input is coming from, not advocating STD's or something).

 

On 4/2/2020 at 4:53 AM, Guest Appletree said:

Am I missing something?

Yep.
People fuck like we've done for millions of years. 

And it's not like everyone is being good boys and girls and following the COVID-19 guidelines and rules outside of the bed-room. 

And people fuck bareback. If not the overcrowding of our planet by humans beings might be a little less cause straights do it to and apparently that's how babies are made.

 

On 4/2/2020 at 10:04 PM, Guest Appletree said:

Everything you guys say is right so far. But when you look how the world has mobilized around fighting the coronavirus, I can't help but think what we could accomplish for safe, bareback sex if we put a fraction of that effort into mobilizing against STD's.

What if... now the vaccines against Covid-19 are sort of starting to work we put those Billions and Billions of dollars into ALSO developing a Vaccine against and a cure for HIV/Aids? And while we're at it do the same for every other STD out there?

 

I do like your train of thought and utopian thinking.
But on the other hand I'm a bit hesitant when people advocate for (other) people to change their ways. Don't get me wrong; a (short) change in our routines might be the smart thing to do.
It's just that overemphasising it could lead to - literally - blaming the victims. (Of viruses and bacteria).

As a community I believe we faced that attitude when dying of AIDS was seen as our own fault, a punishment from GOD even.

 

Barebacking is natural to me, that's why I'm a proud although sometimes mutinous (Right @rawTOP?) member of this site.
I'm just a guy following my path that starts with who and what I am, what I feel and ignoring peoples opinions about my sexual life style while trying to have a little common sense so I also try to take good care of myself and others.

Being ourselves as gay and bisexual men and women is still a bit of a chore. 

So I'd like it if the blame is put on the the diseases and their biological causes... and have that money and effort that IS apparently available , used to find vaccines and treatments and less so on people like you and I who don't like condoms.

 

(Just my input for the discussion). 

 

 

[Close2MyBro]

The "lockdown" isn't even going to be enough to get rid of the corona virus. I doubt it would be able to get rid of STD's as well.

[BootmanLA]

1 hour ago, Close2MyBro said:

The "lockdown" isn't even going to be enough to get rid of the corona virus. I doubt it would be able to get rid of STD's as well.

To be fair to the original poster, I think the thought process was something like this:

STI's are spread by sexual contact between two people, one of whom is infected (from a sexual contact elsewhere). If the lockdown had been taken more seriously by more people, with people only having sex with others "in their bubble", it might have been possible to mostly eradicate many STI's by treating the entire population of the bubble with whom the person had had sex. The idea, then, is that when lockdown ended, you wouldn't have reservoirs of people with untreated STI's ready to spread them as "bubble lines" were being crossed.

The reality, of course, worked out differently. If I had a dollar for every guy who asked a question like "since covid is spread by breathing in virus particles wouldn't getting fucked at a gloryhole be safe enough?", I'd be retired and rich. A significant number of gay men in this country would NEVER give up anonymous raw sex, even if there were a disease ten times as transmissible as COVID that was 25 times more fatal floating around out there. There's a significant number of them who feel zero responsibility toward the overall health of the community, even though the community is what provides them with sex partners. That rugged individualism and freedumb they espouse ends the moment they need to get laid.l

[Guest]

4 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

That rugged individualism and freedumb they espouse ends the moment they need to get laid.l

🙋‍♂️

Guilty as charged. I made a conscious decision after a while not to put my sex life on hold any longer.  

Neither did the Dutch Attorney General by the way when he got married and his and his bride's wedding-party was caught hugging and not keeping social distancing by the tabloid press. And it seems every-other person deviated from some rules during lockdown, sometimes hiding behind their kids.

One thing lockdown taught me was the need for fysical contact. This is my outlet.

Two weeks after my second vaccination I'm also sooo going to hug my friends and family...

Sue me.

[NEDenver]

6 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

To be fair to the original poster, I think the thought process was something like this:

STI's are spread by sexual contact between two people, one of whom is infected (from a sexual contact elsewhere). If the lockdown had been taken more seriously by more people, with people only having sex with others "in their bubble", it might have been possible to mostly eradicate many STI's by treating the entire population of the bubble with whom the person had had sex. The idea, then, is that when lockdown ended, you wouldn't have reservoirs of people with untreated STI's ready to spread them as "bubble lines" were being crossed.

The reality, of course, worked out differently. If I had a dollar for every guy who asked a question like "since covid is spread by breathing in virus particles wouldn't getting fucked at a gloryhole be safe enough?", I'd be retired and rich. A significant number of gay men in this country would NEVER give up anonymous raw sex, even if there were a disease ten times as transmissible as COVID that was 25 times more fatal floating around out there. There's a significant number of them who feel zero responsibility toward the overall health of the community, even though the community is what provides them with sex partners. That rugged individualism and freedumb they espouse ends the moment they need to get laid.l

The bigger problem, of course, is we’re part of a global system.  Even if you eradicate gonorrhea in the US, someone comes in from Canada where it wasn’t eradicated, and you’re back in a contact tracing mode.

[BootmanLA]

1 hour ago, NEDenver said:

The bigger problem, of course, is we’re part of a global system.  Even if you eradicate gonorrhea in the US, someone comes in from Canada where it wasn’t eradicated, and you’re back in a contact tracing mode.

Oh granted, as long as there are people who will fuck anything with a semblance of a pulse, STI's are going to spread much more widely than if people were less promiscuous (or even just more serially monogamous). I'm not saying everyone ought to be such; just that our community's sexual practices (in the global sense) means STI's spread quickly. The most that we could have reasonably expected from the lockdown was a dramatic downturn in the numbers of STI cases. And there was something of a decrease in reported cases, I believe, but not as many as one might expect if in fact people were adhering to the guidelines. 

[BootmanLA]

3 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

🙋‍♂️

Guilty as charged. I made a conscious decision after a while not to put my sex life on hold any longer.  

Neither did the Dutch Attorney General by the way when he got married and his and his bride's wedding-party was caught hugging and not keeping social distancing by the tabloid press. And it seems every-other person deviated from some rules during lockdown, sometimes hiding behind their kids.

One thing lockdown taught me was the need for fysical contact. This is my outlet.

Two weeks after my second vaccination I'm also sooo going to hug my friends and family...

Sue me.

I wouldn't sue you. I just think perhaps "need" either doesn't translate well from English to Dutch, or perhaps its meaning isn't clear. We NEED air to breathe. We NEED food and water to consume. We NEED shelter during inclement weather. "NEED" implicates something that is necessary for survival, as opposed to a WANT, which may be something necessary for mental happiness (depending on the individual).

Physical contact - whether you mean sexual or otherwise - may be desirable for mental health, but it's not a NEED in the same sense. You will not die solely from lack of contact; you may be unhappy, you may neglect your health if you are unhappy for that reason, and so forth, but that doesn't make it a NEED any more than severe disappointment over not having a Maserati causing depression that results in suicide means that owning a 6-figure Italian sports car was a "NEED".

[Guest]

7 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I wouldn't sue you. I just think perhaps "need" either doesn't translate well from English to Dutch, or perhaps its meaning isn't clear. We NEED air to breathe. We NEED food and water to consume. We NEED shelter during inclement weather. "NEED" implicates something that is necessary for survival, as opposed to a WANT, which may be something necessary for mental happiness (depending on the individual).

Physical contact - whether you mean sexual or otherwise - may be desirable for mental health, but it's not a NEED in the same sense. You will not die solely from lack of contact; you may be unhappy, you may neglect your health if you are unhappy for that reason, and so forth, but that doesn't make it a NEED any more than severe disappointment over not having a Maserati causing depression that results in suicide means that owning a 6-figure Italian sports car was a "NEED".

On the risk of getting waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay of topic here:
To me there's a difference between living and surviving. And the latter just won't do.

Getting back on topic:
If we all were certain and agreed to not fucking (pardon my French: getting laid) for say a year or so to destroy all STD's:
I'm in.
Let's do it and make this happen.

Still I strongly disagree with one of your specific arguments ('just don't have sex, it won't kill you').
That line of reasoning can also be used and actually has been used to deny asylum to homosexual refugees from strict Muslim countries (where the death penalty is given for homosexual sex), the same as here in the West to hinder our basic right to privacy and to live our private and public lives as we are. 
It all comes down to that we might need (!) to be more kind to our selves.

[BootmanLA]

6 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

On the risk of getting waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay of topic here:
To me there's a difference between living and surviving. And the latter just won't do.

Getting back on topic:
If we all were certain and agreed to not fucking (pardon my French: getting laid) for say a year or so to destroy all STD's:
I'm in.
Let's do it and make this happen.

Still I strongly disagree with one of your specific arguments ('just don't have sex, it won't kill you').
That line of reasoning can also be used and actually has been used to deny asylum to homosexual refugees from strict Muslim countries (where the death penalty is given for homosexual sex), the same as here in the West to hinder our basic right to privacy and to live our private and public lives as we are. 
It all comes down to that we might need (!) to be more kind to our selves.

I didn't say "just don't have sex, it won't kill you". I would never advise someone not to have sex because it's not my place to do so. Even if I were talking with someone in a country following a strict version of Islam, my only advice would be "Be careful and make sure you understand the risks of whatever you decide to do."

On the other hand, I'll still reject sex being a "need". You want to draw a distinction between "living" and "surviving". I'd posit those are synonyms, for the most part, but I'll acknowledge that one can draw a distinction; I assume you mean "living" encompasses more than merely "surviving", correct?

If so, then "living" doesn't have "needs". It has "wants". It has "desires". It's the things that you WANT precisely because they elevate "surviving" to "living." Because the moment you start classifying the things that make "living" better than "surviving" as "needs", it raises the question: What if you can't get those "needs" met? Or, perhaps more darkly, What if you can't get those "needs" met by methods society considers acceptable?

For instance: if sexual intercourse is a "need" for your version of "living", what if nobody wants to have sex with you? Does that justify rape, because sex is your "need" and it's the only way to get it? What if, as I suggested, having a Maserati is what you "need" to believe you're living - can you steal one if you don't have the money? Can you demand one from the dealer because, after all, it's a "need."

"Need", to me, connotes something that you're entitled to simply by being a living human being. Food (though not necessarily the exact kind you want), water, air to breathe, shelter - those are things I think meet the definition of "need". I'm also firmly in the camp that health care is in the category of "need", though a lot of societies fail to meet that need, just as some even fail to meet the needs of food, clean water, and shelter. In fact, I think that's a good working definition of "need": the things that we, as a society, are obliged to provide for those who can't access those things on their own.

I have no problem with society's governing bodies being mandated to provide housing for those who can't afford it, or food, or health care; I have no problem with those same bodies mandating access to clean air and water even if that treads on business's toes. I can't see government being required to provide sexual outlets for people, though. And that (in my view) makes it not a "need".

[Guest]

13 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I didn't say "just don't have sex, it won't kill you". I would never advise someone not to have sex because it's not my place to do so. Even if I were talking with someone in a country following a strict version of Islam, my only advice would be "Be careful and make sure you understand the risks of whatever you decide to do."

On the other hand, I'll still reject sex being a "need". You want to draw a distinction between "living" and "surviving". I'd posit those are synonyms, for the most part, but I'll acknowledge that one can draw a distinction; I assume you mean "living" encompasses more than merely "surviving", correct?

If so, then "living" doesn't have "needs". It has "wants". It has "desires". It's the things that you WANT precisely because they elevate "surviving" to "living." Because the moment you start classifying the things that make "living" better than "surviving" as "needs", it raises the question: What if you can't get those "needs" met? Or, perhaps more darkly, What if you can't get those "needs" met by methods society considers acceptable?

For instance: if sexual intercourse is a "need" for your version of "living", what if nobody wants to have sex with you? Does that justify rape, because sex is your "need" and it's the only way to get it? What if, as I suggested, having a Maserati is what you "need" to believe you're living - can you steal one if you don't have the money? Can you demand one from the dealer because, after all, it's a "need."

"Need", to me, connotes something that you're entitled to simply by being a living human being. Food (though not necessarily the exact kind you want), water, air to breathe, shelter - those are things I think meet the definition of "need". I'm also firmly in the camp that health care is in the category of "need", though a lot of societies fail to meet that need, just as some even fail to meet the needs of food, clean water, and shelter. In fact, I think that's a good working definition of "need": the things that we, as a society, are obliged to provide for those who can't access those things on their own.

I have no problem with society's governing bodies being mandated to provide housing for those who can't afford it, or food, or health care; I have no problem with those same bodies mandating access to clean air and water even if that treads on business's toes. I can't see government being required to provide sexual outlets for people, though. And that (in my view) makes it not a "need".

Basically it seems we might disagree about the question if freedom and human rights are basic needs or merely desires.

Edited July 15, 2021 by Guest
type-o

[BootmanLA]

11 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

Basically it seems we might disagree about the question if freedom and human rights are basic needs or merely desires.

I think it depends on how it's framed. For instance, I agree that having sex, for people judged to be of the age of majority (and that's a can of worms that needn't be opened, for the purpose of this particular discussion) is essentially a human right: no one should have the power to tell person A of the age of majority that he can't have sex with person B of the age of majority. (With the obvious exceptions, such as legitimately incarcerated individuals, and even then, I'm open to discussing requiring the option of conjugal visits for inmates with partners, if that can be managed in a way that doesn't compromise prison security.)

But elevating it to a "need", in my view, shifts the focus. We need food to live; if a person simply hasn't got food, it's a reasonable thing to demand that the government provide food programs that will meet that need. If a housing unit doesn't have access to clean water, it's a reasonable thing to insist that the water utility, no matter who owns it, extend its services to that unit. And so on. Needs, in my view, are things that, when not met naturally, can be compelled, via taxation of the community, if necessary.

The problem I see with defining highly desirable things that make us happy (like sexual contact) as "needs" is that there's no end and no limiting principle. It's possible to calculate how much it costs to reasonably feed an individual. It's possible to calculate the costs of extending water infrastructure, or building subsidized or free housing, or providing health care coverage. But sex? Aside from deciding how you compel individuals to provide sexual contact with another person, how much is sufficient? If a guy wants sex three times a day, do we have to supply that much, to meet his "need"?  What if he insists that only certain types of partners meet his "need"?

Mind you, I'm aware that you may not accept the dividing line I draw between "want" and "need". But then it's incumbent on you to tell me where YOUR line between the two is. How do YOU define "need" in a way that distinguishes it from mere desire?