So, what is being suggested is that guys who want to bareback need to find a way to do it safely...

How about for those who are interested in such activity to isolate themselves from all human contact, except for monthly chaperoned visits with an M.D. for testing. After 6 months of consistant negative HIV results, let all of the participants get together & fuck each others brains out? Barebacking to their hearts' (or their ass's) content. They will get their deeply held physical, or psychological needs met without endangering themselves or anybody else.

Of course, in order to continue to engage in such behavior, the control group would have to perpetually maintain their isolation from the general population. This might be just as well.

I can't think of any other rational, sane,safe way to do it.

[This message has been edited by Louie429 (edited April 04, 2001).]

Most of the sexual health strategies are based on protection (condoms) and/or monogamy. This in itself goes against the current needs of many men: a need to experience cum (Semen Fetish) and engage in sex with anonymous multiple partners. That's the ideal, the fantasy for men of any self-identity. This relates to the concept of private sexuality that I've discussed earlier.

Any successful prevention system has to take these needs into account. Are these in fact men's needs? Well, just look around at pornography and men's fantasies. Definitely multiple partners, as you can see in both all-male porn films and "straight" porn films. A "hot" piece of porn will probably consist of group action (multiple partners) and will include many shots of hard-ons and cum-shots. For porn to sell, it has to contain what the porn industry calls the "money shot:" a cum-shot.

This is the essence of pornography and male fantasy. Many men who fear the shame of homoeroticism and homosexuality (what is the difference between homoeroticism and homosexuality? Read <A HREF="http://communities.msn.com/AboutMenandtheirDicksAmIgay/thetheory.msnw?action=get_message&ID_Message=11&La stModified=4675290897186300989">Erotic vs. Sexual
</A>. These men channel all their erotic and sexual energy towards women. Or at least they try, but of course with a lot of disappointment. In my opinion, part of the hatred towards women (misogyny) is rooted in this dynamic.

But many other men feel the need to connect with the male body, the body they live in and that gives them a sense of existence. It's not unreasonable for men to feel desire for the male body! Can these men live their desires and fantasies in a way that will guarantee safety with respect to all STDs?

Someone in another discussion board wrote: "I can't think of any other rational, sane,safe way to do it."

I say that there is. I will write my proposal in the near future.

TheSexWizard



[This message has been edited by TheSexWizard (edited April 03, 2001).]

Well, you can be sure we will be waiting with baited breath......

What I'm suggesting is a system that would encourage men to get tested and also provide them with some trust regarding each other's STD status. From talking to men who are into sex with men, I've noticed that many men never get tested for any of the STDs, or there is no mechanism to validate what they say about their own STD status.

The typical "I'm clean and disease free" is not enough. Also, carrying a certificate that proves the status is not good either. There is a need for a more dynamic mechanism to achieve this. The answer is to use Technology.

I'm assuming that the local health department would get involved in this program. They would offer men who they identify as men who have sex with men (MSM) and who are involved in impersonal sex. These are the men who are the best candidates for this program. Other men can also get involved. For instance two men who are looking for a LTR can also use this system.

The men would volunteer to register in this program. This would consist of periodic counseling sessions as well as testing for a variety of STDs (syphilis, gonorrhea, HIV) and a general health check-up (lymph nodes). Initially this would be free of charge. However, in order to provide an "excuse" for not being in this program, eventually there should be a minimal fee. If the service is free men would feel that is they don't participate is because they are not "clean." Charging would avoid this: "I can't justify paying the $$$$." This is just a detail.

Trained personnel would first interview the candidate and discuss all aspects of sex with men. The counselor should gather information about the man's sexual needs and fantasies. Tests and medical examination are performed at this time.

Each participant is given an "access code" which would allow other men who are also in this program to inquire about their status using the phone. I will not go into great detail about how this Information System will work. When calling to inquire the voice of the participant would guarantee that the results belong to that person. No name or any other personal information would be disclosed.

Members of this program would at first be required to attend regular sessions at the clinic. A failure to do so may mean that the member is removed from the program. This would guarantee that the men are being tested regularly. A sexual history would also be discussed in these sessions.

The information provided on the phone would be the results and dates of the tests as well as a "rating" grade given by the counselor. This scale would reflect the time the individual has been in the program and perhaps other variables.

This way a man can meet up with another man, quickly get on the phone and inquire about each other status, and after that proceed with the fun part: sex. Also, groups of men can get together without the fear of anyone in the group being infected with any STDs.

There are issues to resolve. How about men getting drunk and having unprotected sex with some guy in a bathouse who is not in the program? Part of the counseling has to deal with these issues. Also, my guess is that many participants may be motivated enough not to slip, because they know that they have a large number of men with whom they can have sex in a safer way. Why risk then?

This system may not be perfect but it's a start. It can also be used for men who are having sex with women. Any comments?

TheSexWizard




[Note: This message has been edited by Horndogg]

and what's your solution for world hunger...

the only solution that will ever work is to have a bunch of guys test negative, lock em up in solitary for six months, then if they test negative again....drop them all off on a deserted island with drum full of lube and let them go at it.

Until a test is developed that can detect infection within 24 hours is developed and that same test is accessible everywhere and CHEAP there is no feasible practical way to do what you are proposing.

I guess having raw sex is really that important to you. I'd rather just have sex with someone I am into personally, fucking isn't even always necessary, but thats me.

Pornsizedguy said:

"That suggestion is so beyond ridiculous....."

Such kinds of statements, with very little background knowledge, are of very little value to me. I insist. For some strange reason you have a need to put-down this plan that I'm bringing forth. It would make more sense that you provided us with more constructive criticism. It would be appreciated.

I have also noticed that you keep insisting that the need for cum is my exclusive issue. Earlier you wrote:

"…guess you have just made up your mind that you want a load up your ass or to give one to someone else AND you are simply looking for permission to do it."

An then again you write:

"I guess having raw sex is really that important to you."

Where have you been man? I won't deny that it would be fun to get together with a bunch of guys and have some uninhibited sex, without having to worry about this or the other. But, am I the only one who feels this way? Of course not.

Just the other night I was on a chat line talking to a married guy in his 40's. He really wanted to get fucked. He had just tried it a few weeks earlier and wanted to try it again. Although I had no intentions of hooking up with him (it was already too late), I told him that I very seldom fucked because I didn't like wearing condoms. He began to tell me that the idea of getting fucked bareback was a big turn on to him. Then he said: "If I could get a certificate that would prove that the other guy is safe, I would want to get fucked."

Furthermore, my plan not only wants to tackle HIV/AIDS, but all other STDs. Therefore, this program would not only be for men who want to get fucked or fuck another man raw. No. This program would be for anybody, eventually men and women, who want to avoid becoming infected with any STDs. There are many married men who would like to get their dicks sucked, or be able to suck a dick. But they are scared, not only of the diseases, but of the shame and guilt that they would feel if they were infected. If they were involved in a program such as this one, they would have more chances of finding one or more men with whom to share their fantasies.

It may not be anal. But for anal too. Because we cannot forget the persistent fantasies that men have, portrayed so clearly in the following ad from squirt.com:

28, 5'7, 135, blk/brn, smooth lean toned. Looking for hot and young bareback tops with hard wet dicks to fuck my tight ass long and hard and leave the seeds deep in there. Hours of fucking. Or slutty bareback bottoms with hot wet tight holes, ride my dick until it unloads big fresh hot loads in your gut. All night long bareback fucking. If interested, reply.....

It's time that we stop going against the current, and instead go with the flow. Let's discover what men REALLY WANT, and find a way of providing the setting for men to fulfill their needs.

The SexWizard
http://members.home.net/tswiz/



[Note: This message has been edited by Horndogg]

I don't mean to sound paranoid, but...

So, technology is the answer. Technology in the hands of the government. Technology in the hands of the government with the added information of my sexual proclivities & health history. This is supposed to be a dynamic mechanism? Yikes.

Counselling sessions with the local health department? I'm supposed to let my local city government hire some kind of trained professional? Yikes, again.

Back to technology, this time information technology. A personal access code? How long could this remain confidential before some "ex-gay", or whacked-out religious person, or someone else with an anti-gay or anti-sex agenda figures out the system & decides that the community needs this information?

I personally just don't think I could trust any branch of the government with this kind of information. Our improving status within this society is pretty tenuous, it could change for the worse, quickly, at any moment under the right, (or wrong) conditions. It's a very short step from volunteering for a program to being compelled to enroll.

The Sex Wizard admits that this is an imperfect system. I would say that our most primal current need is to stay alive, & that while protection & monogamy are also an imperfect system, they do meet our deepest human need for survival.

I wish I had something different to suggest but protection & monogamy seem to be what is called for to be responsibly sexually active in these times that we live in.

In a previous post I mentioned total isolation. Pornsizedguy suggested an island. For an eletist group of irresponsible men either of these ideas sound like the way to go. Maybe FOX can capture it all on video & market it to help defray the costs.

Louie429 wrote:

But unfortunately you sound extremely paranoid.

Have I said the Government? As in Bush? No. Most definitely the tests and medical exams have to be the responsibility of the health department, probably under the local jurisdiction. After the participant enrolls in the program he is assigned a number (no name or address), which will be the reference for tests results and other pertinent information. The organization in charge of the system could be a separate entity. Non-profit organization? Perhaps.

So, we all know that this program is not for you, but you bring up an important point: trained professionals. This professionals would have to understand the dynamics of sex with men and the needs of men. Usually the professionals at the STD clinics are quite ignorant of man2man sex. The equate it to sex where women are involved: why don't you get one partner?

These professionals would have to understand the relationship between men's impersonal sex behavior and their need to experience sexuality as private; something I call "private sexuality." I talk about this at length in my Community "About Men and their Dicks: Am I gay?" so I won't discuss this any further here. (see

I will get on a tangent here because I can't help it. I need to talk about your paranoia, so common in gay/bi men. Listen, THE WORLD IS NOT AGAINST YOU!!! This is precisely the reason why so many men who have sex with men cannot self-identify as gay/bi. You later write: "Our improving status within this society is pretty tenuous…" This self-victimization of the gay/bi identity is something that many men cannot accept. I interpret homophobic remarks or behavior that originates from men as a result of their own shame about them wanting to have man2man experiences. I don't internalize other men's shame but the gay/bi identity seems to thrive on it.

However, there is merit to Louie429's paranoid remarks. One way of removing the stigma associated with free, impersonal sex between men is to design this system of STD Status Inquiry (SSI) is to open it up to make available to both men and women. That way, a man and a woman who meet but are afraid to get involved in a sexual relationship, can still use this system. They too attend, separately, the STD clinic interview, and they can check each other's STD status, and live happily ever after. However, I'm sure that the membership would be mostly men.

This is not an imperfect. It's just a preliminary proposal. There are many issues that need to be resolved. For instance, the idea of making it open to everyone is a good idea. Thanks Louie429! Every time one handles issues associated with shame, you have to work around it.

It may be appropriate to implement certain constraints in the system: a person must be a member in order to inquire about someone else's STD status. This would prevent non-members from gathering any information form members. That way, if I meet a guy at a bar, I can't just go home, get on the phone and ask him to listen in that I'm clean. He would have to be a member in order to listen to my STD status. Things like this have to be workout.


This is what the HIV/AIDS prevention programs thought too…

Thanks for your comments Louie429.

TheSexWizard


[Note: This message has been edited by Horndogg]

Rule #4 NO E-MAIL IN THE POST.

__________________
Robert

simple solution for your cum-theory:
take that same self-responsibility idea you have about a hiv-neg group & apply it to everyone: "I will forego cum in the ass (& use condoms for anal) because there is a high risk of aids or other disease. If I want to play with cum, I'll do it OUTSIDE of the ass, where there's no risk"

also there's the wildcard concept: why would someone with lots of safe opportunities go & do something risky & unsafe? = Hugh Grant is a well known actor that women find cute, who got busted with a prostitute in his car on a street in Hollywood. WHY would a guy with so much opportunity to get laid take such a risk?

knkslut, you wrote::

Everyone is forgetting that my proposal is not only to protect against HIV (i.e. poz cum in your ass), but also against ALL STDs, including Gonorrhea, Syphilis, etc. Not only HIV.

There are great numbers of married/attached guys who are too scared of ALL STD, not only HIV. So, your idea of catching cum outside the ass is not the solution for these guys. A simple blowjob, that for most men who have sex with men may seem harmless, is terrifying for many married guys.

Currently, the only alternative is: "I'm clean and disease free." "Oh, yeah, I check myself all the time." How do you validate this information? The answer is: An Information System.

For the slightly paranoid individuals I would like to repeat that this would be completely up to the individual. Also, this is not registering with the government either. Take as an example the following situation:

Two men meet on the chatline. They start talking and they decide that they wanna have fun together. "Are you clean? Because I'm married and can't bring any diseases home." They realize that they are both in this program. This would mean that they get check periodically and that their sexual practices may be discussed with a counselor. Attention paranoid guys! You don't have to register in this program and discuss with a government spy your STD status! It's a voluntary program. Once they realize that they are both in the program, they can, on the phone, login to their access code and check the other guy's latest test and exam results. Maybe these men don't want any anal, but are still worried about diseases. This is what the purpose of this program. IT'S NOT ONLY FOR GETTING CUM UP YOU ASS!

There are many men who very seldom get tested for anything, not only HIV, which is a concern with the health department. This may also encourage men to get tested.

Then knkslut wrote an interesting comment:

I explain this at length in my community. It's a need that most men have to exercise their "private sexuality." Most men need impersonal situations for sex where the partner is nothing else but another body to obtain self-gratification. Hugh Grant, although good-looking and with many opportunities for sex, he would sometimes choose, like any other man, a "body" to fulfill whatever fantasy he may have.

The same thing happens with most men. Many men are married, love their wives, but they need impersonal encounters where they can enjoy their "private sexuality." Or, with gay men with a same-sex partner. No matter how much they love each other, there times when these men will feel a need to have "impersonal sex", that is "private sex," where the lover has no business.

It's this need for "private sexuality" that pushes men to impersonal sex. Since childhood, men have been having "private" experiences with their sexuality, and later on in life, masturbation.

TheSexWizard

There are many flaws with your idea, Sex Wizard, but the biggest one is that it violates federal medical privacy rights legislation that went into effect this past weekend. Voluntary or not, being part of a program in which other people can check on any part of your medical history by just phoning in or typing in an access code is very dangerous. The idea may be for men looking for sex to have some protection but how are you going to screen out employers, insurers or a whole host of other folks who may want information for reasons that weren't originally intended?

Exactly. SexWiz, you may call it paranoia, but the point is you're advocating putting personal and sensitive information into the hands of a third party and blithely assuming all will be well. I call that naivete. This is the Age of Information, once you put it out there it stays out there and you've lost control over who can see it and how they might want to use it.

But I have enjoyed your theories. I'm saying this in a seriously admiring way - I think it would make a really cool Outer Limits episode. <SMOOCH>

A few words about sandog and scott1607's comments.

I insist that releasing one's STD tests to a phone/IS system is nothing to worry about.

First of all, the releasing of this information would be on per/test basis. For instance, if someone all of a sudden tests positive to any STD, that information will not be "downloaded" to the phone system. ONLY results that are negative would be part of the phone system. Once a person tests positive, that person is out of the system and no company, FBI, CIA, or whatever other favorite agency of the paranoid ones, can get access to positive results.

In the event that the data in the phone-system leaked out, there's nothing to worry about. Why would any company reject you in any way (employment, insurance, etc) if your tests are all negative? Even then, it would be impossible to determine who these individual are.

In reality, the system I propose if the "electronic" equivalent of a paper system that is available now. I've been told by the clinic that they can give me a piece of paper with the results of my tests. But as all paper systems, the information becomes obsolete very fast. The phone system will not only provide you with the most up-to-date test results, but it would also provide reassurance of the other person's STD status.

One last thing. Why are you sandog being so self-centered, and think that all the laws in your country are universal?

TheSexWizard

[ April 20, 2001: Message edited by: TheSexWizard ]

SexWizard~

it's obvious you've got intelligence; i just wish you would utilize it for more productive purposes than your bizarre queer theories. everything you say amounts to a gay version of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, with no practical, PRACTICABLE application in this, the real world we live in.