Do you continue to have sex while being treated for an STI?

[Cutedelicategay]

46 minutes ago, ErosWired said:

There are governments that take the view that if the population will not take their responsibilities seriously in order to enjoy their freedoms, then they simply should not have those freedoms. Or any freedoms, because human beings in general aren’t really very good at being responsible. Be careful what you ask for.

The collective society (usually the majority in rule) may well decide that them taking over your responsibility for ensuring that STDs aren’t spread among males having sex means criminalizing bareback gay sex altogether. If a total prohibition against barebacking in gay sex would address the issue, a total prohibition against all gay sex would do it even more so, and stamp out all that “unnatural” behavior in the process, right?

And thus, so much for your freedom.

Don’t imagine this couldn’t happen. There are countries in the world today where this is the reality.

I wasn't even thinking down the path of total prohibition. That is impossible to enforce and against the overall well being of the population. We all need that sexual gratification, be it gay or straight or any other however a proof of negative test on the lines of proof of Covid vaccines should be a more manageable way. The issue is there are many who fetishizes about bugs. As far as it is a fantasy I have no problem but putting the fantasy into practice knowingly is something I am against. Imagine if all bottoms close their asses to the tops I am sure they too will be in frustration. It's about forcing guys who think they are invincible and do not need STI testing to go get tested and break the infection cycle. I do not wish that any unsuspecting bottom should be infected irrespective of what some ignorant people say here. 

[ErosWired]

40 minutes ago, Cutedelicategay said:

Imagine if all bottoms close their asses to the tops I am sure they too will be in frustration.

You know, you might be onto something here more effective than the proofs you’re talking about. Women have employed sex strikes successfully for centuries. They’ve used them to stop entire wars. It’s even a point in the classical Greek play Lysistrata, where women engage in a sex strike to put an end to the Peloponnesian War. Here’s an interesting article on the history of sex strikes:

[think before following links] https://qz.com/958346/history-shows-that-sex-strikes-are-a-surprisingly-effective-strategy-for-political-change/

Of course, any blockade or boycott is only effective if it’s a barrier not easily breached, and in this case we’re dealing in some cases with men with such unrestrained sexual lusts that not even the threat of deadly disease deters them. Also, a gay sex strike would have to overcome the problem of rising male horniness over the passage of the siege; the wall would suffer from growing weakness within as well as growing pressure from without.

And, a gay sex strike against STD irresponsibility couldn’t just be bottoms closing asses, because Tops aren’t the sole source of spread. It would end up being a case of those who are responsible fuckers boycotting those who are irresponsible fuckers.

The question is, could it have any effect? On the one hand it might, if a man experienced enough rejections on account of his attitude toward disease, do the math and decide that failing to stay healthy and safe isn’t worth the loss of those fucks. On the other hand, just look at the results of the poll at the top of this topic - almost 43% of respondents here say they still fuck while carrying an active STD. So there’s a high likelihood that that group would simply turn to one another and simply multiply and concentrate the disease reservoir, making it that much more likely to spread when the strike ends.

And, how would the strikers know when to stop? Gonorrhea isn’t going to sign a peace treaty and declare an end to hostilities. How would we know when enough people had gotten tested and treated to make the community safe? Everyone would probably have to have some kind of proof of testing…

And we’re back where we started. 🤷🏼‍♂️

[ErosWired]

The results of the poll at the top of this topic are shocking. Appalling. It makes a damning and chilling statement about our community that nearly 43% of those who answered - 75 members of this site - are so cavalier about others’ wellbeing that they knowingly fuck other people while infected with an STD. It’s stunning that just a bit under half of us are actively undermining the health and safety of the other half.

 I would like to be able to chalk part of that abysmal number down to men voting yes not because they actually do it but because it feels hot to fantasize about fucking toxic (a fetish I simply cannot wrap my head around), but the comments here and elsewhere tell us that no, there really are men among us here who lack the ethical underpinnings to take responsibility for the harm they do, and they don’t care. (These are among the diagnostic markers of psychopathy, by the way. Just saying.) Actually, judging by comments here and elsewhere, some of them do care, after a fashion - they feel a little guilty. They know it’s wrong, but they do it anyway because loads. Because asshungry. Which, in some ways, is worse.

Yes, I know. There’s Bleeding-heart ErosWired, bleating another of his pollyanna goody-two-shoes sermons that nobody cares about or wants to hear, like that crazy dude who stands on a box on the streetcorner hollering about the Second Coming. tl;dr

Fine. Guilty.

But I’m right. This community needs to take a good, hard look at itself.

[BootmanLA]

3 hours ago, ErosWired said:

The results of the poll at the top of this topic are shocking. Appalling. It makes a damning and chilling statement about our community that nearly 43% of those who answered - 75 members of this site - are so cavalier about others’ wellbeing that they knowingly fuck other people while infected with an STD. It’s stunning that just a bit under half of us are actively undermining the health and safety of the other half.

 I would like to be able to chalk part of that abysmal number down to men voting yes not because they actually do it but because it feels hot to fantasize about fucking toxic (a fetish I simply cannot wrap my head around), but the comments here and elsewhere tell us that no, there really are men among us here who lack the ethical underpinnings to take responsibility for the harm they do, and they don’t care. (These are among the diagnostic markers of psychopathy, by the way. Just saying.) Actually, judging by comments here and elsewhere, some of them do care, after a fashion - they feel a little guilty. They know it’s wrong, but they do it anyway because loads. Because asshungry. Which, in some ways, is worse.

Yes, I know. There’s Bleeding-heart ErosWired, bleating another of his pollyanna goody-two-shoes sermons that nobody cares about or wants to hear, like that crazy dude who stands on a box on the streetcorner hollering about the Second Coming. tl;dr

Fine. Guilty.

But I’m right. This community needs to take a good, hard look at itself.

I think the percentage is high because all the "look what a toxic slut I am" assholes are likely to respond to these kinds of polls because it's yet one more chance to be an obnoxious twat about their depravity, whereas I suspect (and hope) that thousands of guys who know better simply didn't answer the poll because it didn't appeal to them to even check out the topic.

[LetsPOZBreed]

Agreed on the stats of the poll in a couple ways.  Yes, the number who voted "yes" to this is shocking and concerning.  But this isn't representative of the whole population.  This is just those of us who saw the post and poll and voted; there's lots of guys out there that aren't on BZ, even if they are exclusive barebackers - and if we put this type of query out to them, the "no" option would (I hope!) quickly run away toward a supermajority.

That being said, I'm in no way condoning or defending any person who voted yes, or put in a comment supporting this practice.  If you're going to stand on that street-corner soapbox @ErosWired, I hope you've saved room for me, cause I'll stand right there next to you.

If these last two years have taught us anything, it's that you don't really know how one individual person would react, both physically and mentally, to being infected with some pathogen.  Our bodies react in different ways to things.  Admittedly, STI symptoms are much more well known (i.e. there are clear clinical symptoms of gonnorhea, for example)...but if you've KNOWINGLY infected someone with this, and they were not aware that you had it - you bear a level of responsibility for the consequences of that action.  

[hntnhole]

On 12/14/2021 at 2:00 PM, ErosWired said:

There’s Bleeding-heart ErosWired, bleating another of his pollyanna goody-two-shoes sermons

Hardly.  Your posts are crucial to honest discourse.  There is a place for fiction on this site, and places for actual honest exchange of information.  I rather doubt there is one guy on BZ that doubts your sincerity, your honesty, and your intelligence in sharing the truth of how certain events are likely to unfold if certain behaviors are indulged in.  

If telling the truth is being a Bleeding-Heart (usually used with Liberal, but that part's your business), or a pollyanna, or a goody-two-shoes, then so be it.  Telling the truth is far more important than nicknames, and given your self-identification with your calling, those monikers are nothing but laughable.  

Keep telling the truth, ErosWired.  You may not have any idea how much impact your posts have. 

[ChicagoCumDump]

I usually pick the meds to cure it but then decide to party up and spread it anon in bath houses parks and glory holes.