I've decvided to bareback and enjoy it's pleasure. And I'm aware of the dangers of bottoming bareback. At the saunas I find it easy to find tops that wanna bareback.

Some ask for a condom and I say that I don't have one. At that point many just start fucking without asking any other questions. Sometimes after they cum they begin to feel guilty and that they shouldn't have barebacked. Too late: I already have their load in my ass.

Some say that they will go get a condom and come back. I tell them that I only get fucked bareback. So some leave and never come back. Others, after having preached of the dangers og BB and how they only play safe, they do come back and end up giving me their load. After all, bareback is the way sex was meant to happen.

__________________
Eric

A cum-hungry bareback bottom
7"uncut, HIV-neg,
very good shape

Quote |

I do not see non-verbal communication disappearing simply because the relative need for secrecy about your preferences and orienation has drastically decreased over the past few decades. Non-verbal forms of communication are by no means limited to providing the schield of secrecy in any sense. Verbal communication, too can provide such a protection, if needed. Yet, with all the forms of verbal communication at hand, all modern societies continue to foster the growth of non-verbal forms of communication. Non-verbal communication is to quite some extent economical and it is the economics of that discourse which virtually gaurantees both its survival and growth.

There is very little hope that some universal sign might be adopted to signify 'I am safe only' on a global level. Societal forms and their respective communication systems are far too independent for such a development to take place. And whereas we all like to believe that we live in a global village that village is anything but a coherent village in terms of its lifestyle, traditions and identities.

---

I am in favor of all the non-verbal forms of communication when it comes to crusing. Most people I know, cruise for sex and not for a dialogue or an open-end verbal discussion. If you hit a bathhouse and see guys sporting a condom attached to a wristband, join the party and feel free to do the same. If someone wants it bare and you hold a different view, feel absolutely free to walk away and keep in mind that there are so many men and so little time at your hands.

---

I very much agree with the notion that young guys are the prime, relatively vulnerable targets in most of the cruising areas. Equally so, I agree that they are not everyone's top target either. Furthermore, young might mean inexperienced but it rarely means 'dumb' despite the popular stereotype. Guys who are being actively sought after by a multitude of other men soon realize that they get to pick and choose and accordingly do so. It is thus, even easier for them to turn someone down for whatever disagreement and pick up the next dude on their waiting list, and trust me, they do so from Moscow to San Francisco and from Vancouver to Cape. That bit is as global as it ever gets.

---

Which all brings us to the key issue of how to make bb a less acceptable alternative to all the guys out there. The truth is that there is no simple answer to this question. For one, we will all have to recognize that some part of population will always wish to bb and there is nothing we can do to prevent that.

The vast majority will go with fashion, trends and education. I am guessing here, but probably few college kids will come to these boards and/or search the web for relevant information and education (sure, some will do that as well). More likely, if their role models keep on insisting that bb is not cool and that condoms are, we will all move one big step forward. And media strategists would certainly say much more on this, if told to do so.

---
Finally, 'bb'ing' is what sex was meant to be argument' is lacking any substance whatsoever. Condoms are by no means new. They have been with us for thousands of years simply because the societies were unable to feed and provide housing for all the kids that would have been born out of unprotected sex.

Furthermore, STDs were rempant before the introduction of antibiotics in the late 40's and people have been using the condoms for recreational sex for all those centuries. I guess, that was meant to be, too.

The truth is that recreational as opposed to procreative sex was meant to be protected sex and we should not fool ourselves with yet another 'conservative, traditional, value-oriented argument' here. Like all the simple and easy-to-understand, obvious truths that are not based upon the solid body of evidence, they are really lies not truths...


KD

Quote |

I find the last two posts refreshing. One from bbdude for his honesty, which is always refreshing, and KD's for being kind and informative without judgement.

Both I have to agree with to some degree, yet not all.

When it comes to bareback sex, bbdude hit the nail on the head in regards to how a lot of guys approach it. Temptation usually wins out, just like lot's of decisions in life when it comes to self preservation. I also think that there are lot's of guys who have made the same decision as bbdude and fuck raw despite what consequences may arise. This kind of mentality isn't only specific to bareback sex, it applies to lot's of other things we do that are self destructive. The thought process that leads to that is complex and one that would take to long here to analyze.

KD, I agree with a lot that you said but the one thing I question is the argument for how sex was "meant to be". Personally, I think it was meant to be without man made boundaries such as condoms, yet, understand that they were created to accomodate disease. My point or question to you is: Procreational sex isn't exempt from disease, therefore, was that as well meant to be protected?

As for the whole "code" thing, I think most guys can find there way around verbally and non-verbally. If you're looking to stop bareback sex, it's probably best to start with the guys who are in turmoil over the physical pleasures of it, yet, don't really want the health hazards. They are the most pliable to work with than guys who have made a decision to bareback, except for ones who may have made that decision on the basis that it's too late so why stop now.

Guess that's all guys.

Quote |

Hey MGB

Thanks for your kind words. And the good arguments presented.

The reference I made as in 'how/what sex was meant to be' goes back to the view expressed in last bbd's posting:

I do disagree with the notion that everything that happened and the way it happened on the day one was what was right, and it should have stayed somehow immutable in order to maintain its genuinity and inherent value. This is a possibly the most universally abused argument of all the conservatives throughout the times. And yet, it does sound simple, good and reassuring. Nonetheless, it is as false as it could only be.

If there ever was a day one in any plausibly definable terms, sex must have equalled bb'ing. Soon, humanity discovered that endless procreation was simply unaffordable in more ways than one and started introducing various, however primitive ways of changing what and how it was on the day one to make sure they survive to write the day abc+1 or any other day for that matter.

Just like none of us goes back to history and says 'walking is the way travel was meant to happen', simply because it would be largely uneconomical and unreasonable to do so. Indeed, no one doubts that in the beginning, people simply walked from A to B rather than taking cars, buses, trains and commercial airliners. Why would I stick with my arguments and my view of the world only when it somehow justifies what I really want to achieve and forget my immutable truths the moment they stop working for me?

---

Condoms in their very rudimentary form ( e.g. sheep's skin) were not invented to protect humanity from any particular disease as at the time when such primitive condoms came into being, humanity lacked the knowledge and understanding of the STDs. They were meant to protect women and couples from unwanted pregnancies. The fact that condoms protect from a host of STDs was merely a very welcome side-effect which became known at some point of time, possibly in 19 century and started massively loosing its importance after the discovery and massive application of antibiotics in the second half of the 20 century.

Obviously, procreative sex had to remain bb'ing for better or worse in its technical sense. Yet, societies went a very long way to create a set of powerful institutions that would secure conjugal fidelity. Adultery, simple cheating out of the wedlock used to be a despicable crimes and would invariably end being severely punished. You protected the sanctity of your conjugal bed mostly for two reasons: you did not want to spend your good money rearing someone else's children and later on with the general growth of medical knowledge, you wanted to make sure that no one introduces a potentially lethal bug into your unprotected system.

I have little doubt that most such institutions, i.e. wedlock, general sense of Christian morality, etc., largely failed to meet the expectations of the general public. Yet, they are among so many other things collossal monuments to humanity's quest of providing substitute protection where technically, no protection was meaningful.

KD
---

Quote |

Here's the code and it's verbal:

You are so hot and I want to fuck you as much as you want me to. With a condom.

No condom?

Let me show you how hot my dick in your ass is with a condom on. If you don't like it, that's OK. I can only be safe with you.



If you need a non-verbal code in a bathhouse you shouldn't be there. It's that simple.

Quote |