Barebacking, Yet Again

[Guest 2004]

I know I know this has been writtened about probably a zillion times and everyone seems to have various yet strong feelings on this topic.

 

I am looking at this from a slightly different view at the moment. I am honestly amazed at all the escorts that will bareback without question lately.

 

Due to my travels I contact in the US about 10 - 15 escorts a week! That usually results in about 2 or 4 appointments. In every contact I ask if it is ok to either be fucked or fuck bareback and a whopping 94% last month said YES!!! No questions asked.

 

Even the ones I hired (who said no to BB) might do it and I always use condoms however, I just don't understand this current trend. Had I posted this same info even 6 months ago I would say it was 50/50 as to BB or not.

 

There was only ONE escort in LA who actually emailed me back and said yes with a notice that he was POZ. I wish I could post his name here as I believe he deserves some kindof award for being honest at least about his status.

 

Is money so tight for these guys that they are willing to do anything? Or are they all infected? Or do they simply not care at all about their health? I did notice that many of the 94% did say the fee would be higher to BB.

 

Anyway, I see all these young guys taking a chance with their health and find that very sad.

 

---/

In time.

[Doug69]

>That usually results in about 2 or 4 appointments. In

>every contact I ask if it is ok to either be fucked or fuck

>bareback and a whopping 94% last month said YES!!! No

>questions asked.

 

In your little investigative report, you have equated and grouped together 2 things - getting fucked bareback and fucking someone bareback - which are, in fact, fundamentally different. Without knowing whether the 94% who responded YES were willing only to fuck you bareback, only to get fucked bareback, or both, the information you reported really has very little to do with the point you're trying to make.

 

Virtually every sex act with another person entails some degree of HIV risk, including sex acts that an enormous percentage - if not the vast majority - of gay men continue to engage in (such as performing oral sex without a condom, whether to ejaculation or before). The same is true for fucking someone without a condom.

 

But fucking someone without a condom (like performing condom-less oral sex) is in a different risk universe completely as compared to getting fucked without a condom. The fact that an escort is willing to fuck someone without a condom (or perform condom-less oral sex) hardly puts them in the same category as an escort who is willing to get fucked without a condom.

 

Also, isn't pretty obvious that the vast majority of people online who expressly and blithely agree to get fucked without a condom are already HIV-positive? If so, why is it so alarming that they are willing to bareback? If they are already HIV-positive and, knowing this, decide they will engage in this activity, what's that to you?

[Guest 2004]

Bringing it back on topic:

 

Is money so tight for these guys that they are willing to do anything? Or are they all infected? Or do they simply not care at all about their health?

 

---/

Time

[Doug69]

>Bringing it back on topic:

 

What I wrote was exactly on topic. If all that the escorts are doing is agreeing to fuck your hole without a condom, rather than take your load in their ass, then the entire premise of your whole shrieking, trite Chicken Little routine - "Young Escorts are killing themselves!! Are they being reckless with their lives? Desperate for money? This is horribblllleeee" - is completely false.

 

Moreover, since it's likely the case that most escorts who ARE willing to take loads in their ass are, for obvious reasons, already HIV-positive, then it hardly merits any worry, let alone hysteria, that they are willing to do so.

 

Just because your "point" got exposed as illogical and hysterical doesn't mean that the person who did it was writing "off topic."

[noviceny]

For me, the most important thing in my life is my physical and mental health. As far as I can control it, I will put myself at the least risk possible. This is why my encounters are basically muscle and j/o. I dont trust a person I dont know to be upfront with me, or even know their status. I do respect the person and am always kind, friendly and enjoy their company...I will not put my life in their hands however.

 

Besides HIV, there are a number of other STD's that you can get/give through giving and recieving bareback :

 

1) a friend of mine from DC got herpes in his ass from a guy (not an escort) who rimmed him...my friend said he saw no evidence of herpes in the other guy's mouth

 

2) If you are the top and fucking bb, you can be exposed to herpes and warts among other things

 

 

I have made up my mind, while in the quiet of my house and my room, that I will not put myself in certain situations...I am worth more than that...every single one of us is worth more than that...and I would NEVER do that to another person, EVEN if they wanted me too

 

Hope you all are as safe as you can be and are happy

 

BTW to answer your question, I dont know what the reason is that people (especially younger) may engage in this activity (activities). I just think that some people really think that it is not gonna happen to them. I would have only seen one person in my life die on HIV (my uncle), if I didnt do 4 years at an AIDS clinic. I was still with women then, but it totally changed me and the way I look at risk. I cant imagine how reckless I would have been with guys if I was a "practicing gay" at 17...I probably would not have been very lucky, so maybe it was best that I was repressed until my mind could rule my hormones

[Curmudgeon]

It's an often-studied question, and the reasons are as varied as anything else humans do.

 

Part of it is the tendency of youth to think themselves invincible.

 

Part of it is that the youngsters among us didn't live through the first wave. They don't remember seeing the "walking dead" in the gay ghettos. They didn't live through the horrors of all those around them dieing.

 

Part of it is better (but not perfect) meds. Being HIV+ is no longer seen as a death sentence. Guys who are poz can appear perfectly healthy until the very last stages of disease takes them off the streets. When was the last time you saw someone with Karposi on Castro street? There was a time when it was every 3rd person.

 

A big part of it is complacency on the part of us old farts. We let the message get weak. The American Cancer Society hasn't relented one iota on its anti-smoking campaigns in the last 20 years and it shows in society at large, where smokers are all but shunned. When was the last time you even saw a safer sex campaign, much less one getting national exposure?

 

For that matter, when did you last see an obituary that listed "AIDS related illness" as cause of death? Somewhere along the way, society started euphemizing it. Again, the message is dulled.

 

And, finally, in some circles it has actually become the "hip" thing to do to get infected. Sad, but true. People throw bareback parties specifically to "give (or get) the gift". These came about because of all of the above.

 

It's a complex topic that AIDS service organizations all over the world grapple with daily. There's no easy answer.

 

 

The problem with making something foolproof is the universe keeps making better fools.

[BobbyB]

Curmudgeon,

 

Your point is well taken and I, for one, always appreciate anyone taking a moment to do his part in keeping the message fresh and on-going.

 

In addition to raising the topic again, I would also like to thank you for not letting yourself be side-tracked, or your message derailed, by your would-be detractor in his thinly guised attack. Well done on both counts.

 

-BobbyB

[Doug69]

>In addition to raising the topic again, I would also like to

>thank you for not letting yourself be side-tracked, or your

>message derailed, by your would-be detractor in his thinly

>guised attack. Well done on both counts.

 

I love how you intervened in this thread in order to write a post praising those who stick to the original topic, and criticizing those who don't.

 

And, in doing so, you said absolutely nothing about the topic raised by the person who started the thread.

 

Did you do that in order to be hilarious, or did you really not realize that you were condemning people who "side-track" the discussion away from the original topic while simultaneously doing exactly that?

[VaHawk]

Bobby cluess Thompson, OUR SAVIOR!

 

Message deleted by me, VaHawk. :7

 

No, it wasn't nasty, but it was on the basest level of response and posting that this site seems to have deteriorated to.

[BewareofNick]

RE: Bobby cluess Thompson, OUR SAVIOR!

 

So why are you continuing to drag this site down instead of raising the level of discourse?

[VaHawk]

BONer is such a limp biscuit?

 

Why do you care? Don't you have some STALKING to do, that doesn't involve me? NAH, that would mean that you evolved past junior high school emotionally! Some people would say YOU ARE exhibiting a REAL LOSER attitude! :7

[BewareofNick]

RE: BONer is such a limp biscuit?

 

Thanks for continuing the deterioration. Must be a slow night in the trailer park tonight.

[rocky]

I am sorry but all of us take a certain degree of risk when we do what we do and let's face it some do like unprotected sex. Shouldn't that be up to the person who is requesting such favors, if I want to hire an escort and he does barebacking Ihave the chance to say no or to say get on with it. I find it pretty strange that we're accusing the escorts of un safe sex when not looking at the customer..

[BewareofNick]

>if I want to hire an escort and he does

>barebacking Ihave the chance to say no or to say get on with

>it.

 

If you want to bareback with an escort, and he agrees to it, that's your business most certainly. The question is how do you know the escort barebacks when he advertises that he does not? I believe that was the crux of 2004's question. He was surprised at how many of the escorts out there bareback, when if you looked at their ads, it clearly states "safe sex only". Of course, even if the escort does practice safe sex only with clients, that doesn't mean he does it in his non escort encounters. That was illustrated here with a well known escort not too long ago. It's a question of honesty.

[Curmudgeon]

>The question is how do you know the escort barebacks

 

Maybe in your mind. The question asked was why they do it.

 

 

 

The problem with making something foolproof is the universe keeps making better fools.

[BewareofNick]

For the literal minded, such as yourself, yes. In fact, there's a place you can go that is set up to impart "information" to people such as yourselves:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/images/headers/fnc_logo.gif

 

The issue here is one of honesty. Who can you trust? These escorts who engage in this decpetive and dangerous behavior are a menace to everyone, including themselves. They show no regard for the client. I encourage you to post the names of any escort who advertises "safe sex only" but engages in barebacking. Caveat emptor.

[Curmudgeon]

Sorry, but that WAS the question that was asked. Asked twice, actually, because of crap like what you and Doug keep bringing up.

 

No matter how hard you want to twist it to being something else (which is, I agree, an important issue), that doesn't make your contribution to this thread any closer to answering the question that was asked.

 

I realize it's a difficult concept for you, BoNer, but some people really would like to see the topic they brought up discussed instead of your constant hijacking and beating a dead horse.

 

We get it, OK? Dishonesty=Bad. Thank you for the first grade Sunday School lesson.

[SteveInMtl]

I think that it is best to assume that anyone I have sex with is HIV+ and therefore take precautions accordingly. I don't feel that an escort has the obligation to disclose his status, and even if he did, I'm not sure if I would believe him. However, my experience has been different than 2004's, in that, most escorts have told me they will not bareback unless it's with their lover.

[BewareofNick]

>I don't

>feel that an escort has the obligation to disclose his

>status, and even if he did, I'm not sure if I would believe

>him.

 

I believe both the escort and the client have that obligation, but there's no guarantee it would be an honest admission.

 

>However, my experience has been different than 2004's,

>in that, most escorts have told me they will not bareback

>unless it's with their lover.

 

Please tell me that you are not so naive as to believe an escort when they tell you that?

[woodlawn]

RE: Why ask why?

 

>Sorry, but that WAS the question that was asked.

 

 

True, but the question as asked doesn't make a lot of sense. It's like asking why people smoke or why they gamble money they can't afford to lose. There are almost as many answers as there are people who do it. And in many cases the people doing it don't really understand it themselves.

 

BoN, practical as always, is focusing on a question that makes more sense and that could actually benefit people who come to this site -- I really don't see how knowing the motives of barebackers can be of any practical benefit to anyone. Barebackers are more likely to be positive than those who never bareback, so it's of some use to clients to know how one can find out whether an escort does this. BoN understands this. Why don't you?

[Curmudgeon]

RE: Why ask why?

 

>It's like asking why people smoke or why they gamble money

>they can't afford to lose. There are almost as many answers

>as there are people who do it. And in many cases the people

>doing it don't really understand it themselves.

 

And that pretty much paraphrases the answer I gave, above.

 

>BoN, practical as always, is focusing on a question that makes

>more sense and that could actually benefit people who come to

>this site -- I really don't see how knowing the motives of

>barebackers can be of any practical benefit to anyone.

 

Doesn't matter whether you think it's practical or not. It's obviously a curiosity for the poster. People get curious about things that have no tangible or practical value all the time. (There must be SOME justification for NASCAR!) The question was asked. You've just proved yourself capable of answering the question. Why didn't you?

 

>Barebackers are more likely to be positive than those who

>never bareback, so it's of some use to clients to know how one

>can find out whether an escort does this. BoN understands

>this. Why don't you?

 

That's a given and I haven't disputed it. If you (or others) feel strongly about it, why not start a thread to discuss it? Why take over this thread and make it impossible for the OP to get opinions on his original question?

[jackhammer91406]

RE: Why ask why?

 

>BoN, practical as always,

 

Really? I would call it pissing in the wind just to SPEAK FREE.

 

is focusing on a question that makes

>more sense

 

Great, then let him start a thread that is more practical and makes more sense and we can all enjoy if we choose.

The original poster asked a specific question that may or may not prompt a multitude of opinions. But maybe those are the opinions he was looking for. Thanks for sharing your opinion with us, even though we didn't ask for it and it has no relevancy to the original poster's question

 

 

and that could actually benefit people who come to

>this site --

 

Oh, we have elected YOU to determine what is more beneficial to visitors at this site? Wow, I must have missed that day.

 

Do you have this place confused with YOUR clubhouse?

:o :o

[Doug69]

RE: Why ask why?

 

>That's a given and I haven't disputed it. If you (or others)

>feel strongly about it, why not start a thread to discuss it?

>Why take over this thread and make it impossible for the OP to

>get opinions on his original question?

 

This thread really does so perfectly illustrate the absolute intolerance which so many of the posters here have for any opinions other than their own - as well as the resulting mis-use of accusations such as "he's mean and disruptive" and "he's attacking!" and "he's hijacking the thread!" as a means of silencing anyone who expresses different views. If you deviate from the script that people here want everyone to parrot, then you're an attacker, a hater, a negative poster, a thread hijacker, blah blah blah.

 

Five different people in this thread (including the original poster, Jackhammer, and this Crumudgeon) have accused me and BoN of posting things that had nothing to do with the original poster's point. This is truly idiotic.

 

The original poster said that he found that 94% of escorts he contacted were willing to engage in bareback sex, lamented how tragic this is, and wanted to know why so many young escorts are willing to subject themselves to great HIV risk by barebacking.

 

In response, I said:

 

(1) I believe that many, if not most, escorts who are willing to bareback as bottoms are already HIV-positive, and therefore have decided that they have little reason to avoid barebacking.

 

(2) Many of these escorts are willing to bareback only as tops, and not as bottoms, which entails substantially less risk, and their rationale for choosing this is similar to the reasoning of people who (in huge numbers) are willing to suck dick without a condom - they judge the risk sufficiently small compared to the benefits (sexual gratification, money, whatever it is).

 

(3) The premise of the original poster's claims - that because 94% of escorts said that they would bb, escorts are running around subjecting themselves to huge HIV risk - is totally flawed, since this data does not support the hysterical claim made by the poster because most if not all of those he contacted may be willing only to bb as tops.

 

In response to the original poster, BoN made the point that the question posed was not relevant and was nobody's business, and formulated what he believed to be the only relevant part of the original poster's question.

 

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of English and basic principles of logic would see that these posts are wholly responsive. Nobody rational could suggest that these points are not responsive or constitute the evil sin of "thread hijacking."

 

And yet, that's exactly what numerous people have said - that these plainly resonsive posts are horribly distracting and prevent conversation of the main point. And why is that accusation being made?

 

The reason is obvious. What the original poster obviously wanted - and what many disappointed parrots hoped for as well - was to re-create the trite and self-serving ritual where a bunch of strutting, oh-so-concerned Good People come and, with great despair, point to the tragically reckless behavior of our young gay men who are risking their health for no good reason - and we all throw up our hands in despair and hug each other and say how we wish so much we could stop these horrible actions by our precious gay youth. That makes everyone feel so good and just and concerned before hiring the next prostitute. Everyone loves a good dose of group grieving and getting to show how concerned we are in public.

 

But that didn't happen. People who responded - me and BoN and others who answered - refused to adhere to that script. We gave responses that the original poster and others don't like and don't agree with - but which were nonetheless plainly responsive - and so we get accused of being disruptive and preventing constructive conversation and thread hijacking, when anyone with a minimally working brain could see that our posts could not have been more responsive to the original poster's "point".

 

The responses were not in agreement with the original poster's point, but they were unquestionably responsive. But around here, you are only being responsive and cooperative if you spit out the trite orthodoxy that so many people here want to hear (another recent, egregious example of people here using "community" and "niceness" as a club to punish anyone with dissenting views was the thread where the married guy talked about cheating on his wife and deceiving her, and the people who pointed out that this behavior is less than noble got accused - idiotically - of not speaking on-point, of preventing constructive discourse, all because they didn't adhere to the script where they were supposed to tell the married guy that everything he's doing is OK and that he's really a great, interesting guy).

 

Why don't you people who do this at least be honest with yourselves? What you want is a Board where everyone says what you want to hear - and you want anyone who doesn't say what you want to be silenced.

 

Confessing that is a lot more commendable and constructive than running around looking like idiots by yelling at people that they have hijacked a thread and disrupted the Board all because they expressed views that you don't agree with.

[SteveInMtl]

Hi Nick, as I said in the beginning of my post, I wouldn't believe what they disclosed their status to be, therefore, I take what they say about barebacking only with their partners with a grain of salt.

[woodlawn]

RE: Why ask why?

 

>>BoN, practical as always,

>

>Really? I would call it pissing in the wind just to SPEAK

>FREE.

 

You would call it that because you are blinded by your hatred of anyone who says anything you disagree with. It could hardly be more obvious.

 

 

> is focusing on a question that makes

>>more sense

 

> Great, then let him start a thread that is more practical

 

As we all know, there have been a vast number of threads in which one poster has raised an issue that is related to, though not exactly the same as, the original issue. And in those threads you have not objected. You only object when it is done by people you dislike, you hypocrite.

 

>The original poster asked a specific question that may or may

>not prompt a multitude of opinions. But maybe those are the

>opinions he was looking for.

 

Neither BoN nor anyone else has done anything to prevent any poster from posting an answer to the exact question the thread author asked. I know you're not going to lie by claiming otherwise. Right?

 

 

>Thanks for sharing your opinion

>with us, even though we didn't ask for it and it has no

>relevancy to the original poster's question

 

"We"? For whom are you pretending to speak? After all the years you've been posting here, you still haven't figured out that you have no more right to decide what does and does not constitute an acceptable response to a thread than anyone else.

 

 

 

>Oh, we have elected YOU to determine what is more

>beneficial to visitors at this site? Wow, I must have missed

>that day.

 

Perhaps your remedial English instructor can go over my post with you and explain to you why it is obvious to any English speaker that I purported in it to do nothing other than express an opinion, as I have every right to do.

 

While we're on the subject, can you think of any way in which it could be of practical benefit to clients to understand the motives of escorts who bareback? Go ahead and try it.

 

> Do you have this place confused with YOUR clubhouse?

 

No. Do YOU have it confused with YOURS? I've been following this board since long before you showed up. Is there any reason why I should consider this place more yours than mine? Well?