I don't understand the desire to get pozzed

[ErosWired]

32 minutes ago, viking8x6 said:

reason and civilization are a thin veneer.

Yet reason and civilization trump animal instinct and impulse - yes, even sexual drive, as potent as it is - every day, and, on balance, have for millennia, which is why we are right now having this pleasant conversation via electronic technology and not throwing our own dung at one another whilst swinging from trees.

But never mind reason and civilization - though I think they’re considerably more durable than a veneer - self-preservation is not dependent upon them. It’s a far stronger instinct, universal across living things, a base biological instruction that powerfully drives the behavior of both individuals and populations. We observe that gifter/chaser culture is irrational because it runs directly counter to the most fundamental imperative understood by all living things: Avoid Death.

 If this were just another fantasy or fetish playing itself out within the confines of the mind, it would be harmless. For some, it is. Their motivations can be rationalized through psychology. I don’t necessarily think a man is looney for having a gifter/chaser fantasy - sexual psychology is bizarre, often with deep, dark roots. But there are those who actually act on it, and It’s when they act on it that it becomes irrationally self-destructive.

More than that, in this case, the potential for harm extends beyond the individual to every other sexual partner this person may fuck, should he become infected and feel the desire to “share”.

Thus we also observe gifter/chaser culture to be irrational at the population level. A society that openly distributed a deadly pathogen would eventually cease to be. The ‘brotherhood’ we’re discussing speaks openly of going without meds, seeking high viral loads, and trying to reach the advanced stage of the disease so as to appear ‘wasted’, as though it were a status symbol and not a harbinger of death. Their philosophy, taken to its logical conclusion, would doom a society, if not a species.

 

[ErosWired]

1 hour ago, JimInWisc said:

Exactly.  My body my choice.

No one questions that men have the right to make this choice with their bodies. We only question whether they’re in their right minds when they make it.

‘My body, my choice’ sounds like a statement of responsibility. But how many of these guys who actually do this are following through with the responsibility that comes with their choice? What about the responsibility for the cost of their medication if they start it (it’s expensive, and somebody, somewhere, has to cover it)? What about the cost of their inevitable hospitalization if they don’t? What about the burden their failing health may place on their families and friends?

What about the lives they may forever change by ‘passing on the gift’ to someone unsuspecting, who will not be given a choice? Because the boards are sickeningly full of statements by men who say they stealth breed men with ‘toxic cum’. There are all too many gifter/chaser guys who get off on that - ‘my body, my choice’, but not ‘his body, his choice’.

Here’s the choice I’ve made - I choose to believe that the man who pozzed me did not know he was infected. I choose to believe he was not a HVL gifter who stepped up to my cunt and smugly, intentionally, pumped me full of the corruption that wrecked my life. Because if I believed that, it would blacken my view of humanity and leave me an angry, bitter, hostile man.

[PozBearWI]

@ErosWired I do understand your position.  Hopefully you're not of a mind that anyone who disagrees with you is daft.  

I have my reasons, no one else has to agree with me.

[ErosWired]

1 hour ago, JimInWisc said:

Hopefully you're not of a mind that anyone who disagrees with you is daft.  

Oh, goodness no. If I’m not prepared to be wrong at any moment, I can’t truly claim to believe in science.

[PozBearWI]

11 minutes ago, ErosWired said:

Oh, goodness no. If I’m not prepared to be wrong at any moment, I can’t truly claim to believe in science.

Thanks.  I actually only need to understand my chase for me.  And there is a big chance I'll never convert due to my genetics.  

[Guest]

it's not always something that can easily be put into words. is it logical to want HIV? No, not really...But the thought and desire can still insinuate itself into one's mind and in my experience, it doesn't really go away. It may wax and wane according to one's life at any given moment, but for me it's always there burrowed into my being. Doesn't mean everyone's going to act on it...indeed, for most it remains only a fantasy. But for some, we take the steps to turn it to reality. 

[LoadHunter612]

1 hour ago, Vancrawman said:

for me it's always there burrowed into my being

perfectly put.  and very much the same for me

[hairyone]

6 hours ago, keith55 said:

Alas I am now being OUT and HONEST…..I love the desire to really be converted to being poz.
 

Is this a "desire to suffer"?

This isn't something I've thought about. If so, that can get quite deep.  The "desire to suffer" has spiritual connotations going back to Buddha, the Christ, and perhaps St. John of the Cross?

But, perhaps, the "desire to suffer" is something else.  (Masochism?)

May need to think on this some more.

Edited August 21, 2023 by hairyone
Final thought.

[BootmanLA]

11 hours ago, ErosWired said:

What about the responsibility for the cost of their medication if they start it (it’s expensive, and somebody, somewhere, has to cover it)? What about the cost of their inevitable hospitalization if they don’t? What about the burden their failing health may place on their families and friends?

While I recognize that this is, in fact, a concern for many of us, I'd like to remind us that in a well-ordered society (as opposed to the United States), health care, being in large measure influenced by luck more than anything else, would be paid for at the societal level through taxes, rather than our Frankenstein's monster-ish, multi-headed hydra-ish, Gorgon hair-ish system that allows providers, the government, and private insurance to all pass the buck amongst each other to avoid incurring the cost of care.

And yes, I understand that there's a philosophical question about whether people who deliberately risk infection ought to bear some of the resultant costs of care. But we don't impose that standard on other risk-takers, like those who enjoy base jumping or high-speed racing (on a track, not on a highway) or rock climbing or big wave surfing or skydiving. We don't impose that standard on people who consume nothing but fatty, highly processed, or overly sweetened foods and beverages. We only mildly impose that standard on smokers. I'm not sure there's much of a philosophical basis for saying HIV chasers ought to be responsible for some or all of their care while not demanding the same for any of these other categories.

[ErosWired]

1 hour ago, BootmanLA said:

While I recognize that this is, in fact, a concern for many of us, I'd like to remind us that in a well-ordered society (as opposed to the United States), health care, being in large measure influenced by luck more than anything else, would be paid for at the societal level through taxes, rather than our Frankenstein's monster-ish, multi-headed hydra-ish, Gorgon hair-ish system that allows providers, the government, and private insurance to all pass the buck amongst each other to avoid incurring the cost of care.

And yes, I understand that there's a philosophical question about whether people who deliberately risk infection ought to bear some of the resultant costs of care. But we don't impose that standard on other risk-takers, like those who enjoy base jumping or high-speed racing (on a track, not on a highway) or rock climbing or big wave surfing or skydiving. We don't impose that standard on people who consume nothing but fatty, highly processed, or overly sweetened foods and beverages. We only mildly impose that standard on smokers. I'm not sure there's much of a philosophical basis for saying HIV chasers ought to be responsible for some or all of their care while not demanding the same for any of these other categories.

Racing, rock-climbing, big-wave surfing and skydiving differ from chasing HIV in a significant way - the other activities do not have as their goal a condition that requires lifetime care. The racer, climber, surfer, skydiver, all approach their risk with the awareness that the worst could happen, but generally with the expectation that it won’t, and that the risk-taker’s skill will enable him to defy the odds. The chaser’s goal is that the worst should happen, and he may go to extra lengths (such as abrading his rectum with a brush) to ensure that it does - and his expectation is that he will be entitled to support at others’ expense when he succeeds.

Further, conflating those other risk activities with chasing is somewhat apples-and-oranges for another reason: If a racer wrecks. A climber falls, a surfer drowns, or a skydiver plummets to his death, the individual’s results aren’t communicable to the rest of the population. He can’t spread them. He’s only a danger to himself, not a danger to others as well. A daredevil may say, ‘My body, my choice,’ legitimately, for his is the only body at hazard. Not so the chaser.

The argument that health care in a well-ordered society would be the equal responsibility of all taxpayers doesn’t carry much water - it only means the burden the chaser unnecessarily places on other people gets evenly distributed so that his self-centered choice has a negative impact on everyone. There’s a difference between being willing to support persons whose luck or skill has failed them, or even people who have made poor lifestyle choices, and being willing to support persons who have actively engineered a misfortune that need not have been, and that threatens to harm others.

[tupolino]

 

4 hours ago, ErosWired said:

The argument that health care in a well-ordered society would be the equal responsibility of all taxpayers doesn’t carry much water - it only means the burden the chaser unnecessarily places on other people gets evenly distributed so that his self-centered choice has a negative impact on everyone. There’s a difference between being willing to support persons whose luck or skill has failed them, or even people who have made poor lifestyle choices, and being willing to support persons who have actively engineered a misfortune that need not have been, and that threatens to harm others.

I find this interesting, as it is kind of putting the intention of what one is doing as what matters, even if the result might be somehow similar.
(like someone who is enjoying unhealthy food all the time, is accepting medical conditions later in life, which needs to be paid for by society, smokers, etc.)
What I wonder is how to assess for instance using PrEP but at the same time accepting the very real risk of getting all kinds of other infections, sometimes also linked to high costs, like Hep C for instance. 
What makes the difference in "judging" such situations? Intention? To what extend I can settle costs for necessary medical treatment myself?
I'm on PrEP for instance, and was quite unlucky this year so far, twice chlamydia, syphilis once. No big deal, I know. Still it kind of bothers me in terms of: it would have been completely avoidable just by fucking with condoms. So, where to draw the line?

As difficult I find the decision to intentionally get infected with something, I'm afraid as society we have to deal also with such extreme positions, otherwise we will get into an unpleasent discussion about all in between risk-taking and who is supposed to pay for it. 

My perspective is: if there is an issue with chasing then it is not so much the fact that someone might get hiv positive in the end with all consequences, but more what leads people into this kind of self-destructive thinking and how we can take care of this with ideally better outcome for everyone involved.

Regarding the bold sounding "My body my choice": if I see someone who intents to jump under a train (also a my body my choice case...) I would still try to rescue this person. I think it's a bit of empathy we have for protecting also other's life, as we are social beings. 

Edited August 22, 2023 by tupolino

[PozBearWI]

Costs....  The cost of PrEP is about the same as the cost of other HIV drugs.  

[tupolino]

1 hour ago, JimInWisc said:

Costs....  The cost of PrEP is about the same as the cost of other HIV drugs.  

I think it depends a lot on how "old" the specific antiviral medication is. Tenofovir&emtricitabine based PrEP is not protected by patents anymore (Truvada) so generics are way cheaper. But that changes significantly as soon as we are talking about modern antiviral therapy where pharma industry protects their products by patents. 

Because of that in a lot of countries people can just pay for their Tenofovir&emtricitabine-PrEP themselves, in case health insurance or others are not covering.
But cost comparison between prophylactic and therapeutical HIV-medication doesn't make a lot of sense in my opinion: with PrEP you can stop anytime, if you are just not up for engaging in bare sex. With HIV medication you can't really stop for long if you like to stay alive. 

[PozBearWI]

I do follow that.  And yet I have several poz buds who take several months off once a year.

[norefusal]

On 8/21/2023 at 7:49 AM, ErosWired said:

It’s not clutching our fucking pearls to wonder why men whom we might potentially fuck want to become incubators for a disease that makes fucking a deadly hazard. Wanting a disease is crazy, by any sane standard. It’s not strange that any normal, rational person would look at gifter/chaser culture and think, ‘those guys are insane’. There is not a single justification for wanting to contract HIV that stands up to rational scrutiny. Every excuse is based on some fevered fetish or fantasy that ignores, glosses over, minimizes or denies some basic truth about the consequences of becoming infected with the Enemy Virus.

Calling it ‘being sexually extreme’ is just another delusion. I’ve done sexually extreme, in diverse ways that most guys would justifiably think anyone would be out of his mind to allow, and sexually extreme doesn’t look like this. This is just nuts.

Their ‘brotherhood’ is a brotherhood of the misguided, and I can say that as one with more goddamn credentials to join than anybody would ever need. 

i'm not sure where your hostility comes from. 

i get that this is different in the "no turning back" way but you literally can't come up w a rational answer for any kinky desire. why get tied up? why get slapped? why get pissed on? 

most kink is a reaction to trauma imho and if one wonders where my desire to be pozed comes from look no further than the pearl clutching overly hysterical safe sex movement of the late 20th century. having spent my early sexually formative years kept in a constant cycle of fear of  it's likelihood, imagine my surprise to find bug chasers actively trying to get infected and failing in the quest. 

couple this with mainstream society's habit of considering gay and aids interchangeable synonyms and it's no stretch  to "are you even a faggot if you're not poz" 

i don't feel this is on the level of "the gov puts a tracking device in vaccines" 

fear of being stealth pozed is pretty fucking irrational in and of itself but that's what prep is for. 

i struggle emotionally with an intense desire that's counter productive, so i don't appreciate being scorned and victim blamed by people in my own community.