Safe Group Sex and Barebacking?
 

This is a spin-off from "Bareback: Pro or Con."

From personal experiences and from reading many ads, I know that having cum in the ass is a common male sexual fantasy, which means that barebacking is a common fantasy. Therefore, in order to understand why men bareback we must understand why men like cum in the ass, essentially why men want cum: The Semen Fetish, once again.

I'm all for people living their fantasies, if at all possible. For instance, if a man feels the need to experience group sex, the ideal would be to find a relatively safe way to fulfill that fantasy. Why not?

We all know that the only problem with group sex and barebacking is the issue of health. But, what if we found a healthier way for men to hook-up and live their barebacking fantasies? Would that be something men would want?

TheSexWizard




[Note: This message has been edited by Horndogg]

While what ProGay suggests sounds like a great idea....the major problem is there is NO WAY to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that "Negative" men are indeed negative for two reasons:

1) It still takes up to 3 months after having taken a load up your ass to find out if you contracted HIV because the current medical standard ELISA test can only detect exposure to HIV up to 3 months ago, but not within the last three months. There is no "DAY AFTER" HIV test, however you could probably talk your doctor into giving you a VIRAL LOAD test which can detect exposure after a few days.

2) Men lie. PERIOD.

Also, to share personal experience...I have often thought about the "load up the ass" cum sharing thing...and for me what I found was the turn on was this:

A mans body shuddering as he cums while fucking me, it was not his "load" that turned me on, it was the feel of his body as he blows that load (into a rubber, of course).

However with oral sex it is different for me. I do miss being able to suck a guy off to completion and made the choice NOT to that with strangers. Although taking cum in your mouth is not as dangerous as taking it up your ass, I prefer not to take any chances.

But somehow along the way I did discover a way to share cum that totally turns me on, makes me crazy actually.

Whether I fuck a guy til he blows (which is usually the case), or he fucks me, or I suck him, or we just JO to finish.

I LOVE THE FEEL OF CUM ON MY CHEST!!! I love having it rubbed into my pecs and having my nips litely pinched. Gets me so damn hot, I can shoot it in less than 2 minutes.

I have also seen oral guys who wont take cum in their mouth--but love it on their face.

Its all really simple.

You make the decision on how you want to practice safer sex and what your own personal rules and boundaries are about it. Then EXPLORE and DISCOVER FOR YOURSELF what turns you on--all while still playing safe.

Its an old cliche but its true....

the biggest sex organ is the brain.

[This message has been edited by pornsizedguy (edited March 12, 2001).]

Here we go again! Good grief:


First of all, the generalization that "Men lie. PERIOD" is just as bad as straights who think that ALL GAY MEN love to take it up the ass! Give me a break! While I must commend Pornsizedguy for being considerate as an HIV+ man, his condemnation of any hint of bareback sex among TRULY NEGATIVE men is just as bad as anyone else who is only looking at this issue from a narrow perspective. There are men in both the negative and positive camps who are more upbeat about barebacking when the risk factors are low or nonexsistent and I'm more than surprised that these issues are not being looked at more seriously and with greater acceptance. NOT EVERYONE WHO BAREBACKS will be in danger of contracting HIV! The Sex Wizard has presented an important point here...and among MANY conscientious negative men in the U.S., barebacking is indeed a viable option -- in spite of the scorn this very intimate activity is receiving! Pornsizedguy might be surprised to learn that there are several conscientious positive men who also SUPPORT barebacking among negative men who are careful with each other. I support barebacking when it's practiced conscientiously and only when the risk factors are low or not present. Just because a lot of men are not justified in doing bareback on each other DOES NOT DISQUALIFY all gay and bisexual men. Until we provide options for all men beyond safe sex, all prevention efforts will fail....

by the way, I am negative and get tested twice a year.....funny that you would assume I am poz because of my opinions on barebacking. I have those opinions because I have been a fucking pig most of my adult life but have practiced safe sex so I REMAIN negative.

As for men lie....I have personally witnessed two men barebacking at a group thing I was at...I assumed both were neg, because no one discussed HIV status...until I saw a bottle of Viracept in the one guys bag when he was putting his clothes on.

Do what ever you want but don't delude yourself. There is no way to be certain that someone is negative just because he "THINKS" he is.

And I guess no one really gives a shit about getting other STD's either....last time I got gonorrhea was from a bottom who just sat on my dick (I pushed him off and got a rubber anyway) and he assured me he was negative.....yeah for HIV maybe, but not the clap.

All my comments come from my direct experience, perhaps yours has been different.

And I stand corrected concerning your HIV status, my apology for misinterpreting that. I understand how some men do lie in order to get bareback sex with other guys -- it's unfortunate that they would do so...but I believe much of this has to do with the more conservative atmosphere which has evolved among gay and bisexual men. There appears to be less compassionate advice and understanding and more condemnation and "hateful" discourse towards men who prefer raw sex vs. condom use. What continues to amaze me is how heterosexuals continue to bareback without the same type of scorn and condemnation from their communities. Raw sex happens...and it's more widespread than some of us would like to know. As for me "deluding" myself, I have not: Does everything have to be so absolute, especially when it comes to being either negative or positive? There are many men who are absolutely negative and not in danger of contracting HIV...they test themselves as often as you, why would you NOT allow them the opportunity to bareback with similar men who HAVE BEEN ABSOLUTELY TRUTHFUL? I'm sorry that you run into guys who have not been sincere...but there are lots of other men who practice truthfulness here. Yes, we're all living in a very uncertain time...but we must also allow a variety of options, just as birth control forces on both sides have learned that lack of choices will defeat the purpose of prevention. That's what I'm trying to convey here: I may not necessarily condone widespread barebacking...but I don't live in a vacuum either! If straight society can treat heterosexuals as adults and allow them to choose sexual options from a wide list, then we gay and bisexual men should be allowed to the same!

I guess the closest thing we have to condemning straights for "bareback" sex is the fact that the welfare laws have been changed so that you get any additional benefits for any more babies once you sign up. And guess what....the birth rate has gone down.

Unfortunately for gay men the risk of getting, living with, and then wasting away from HIV has NOT had a similar effect on the rates of new HIV infection, particularly in young men of color (which was widely reported in the last month).

Out of compassion we have programs that give HIV medications to people in need...maybe if the medications that are helping people live weren't free, and you had to pay for them yourself if you wanted to live guys would be more careful. Talk about irony.

Lastly....we have never been on equal ground with straight society. No one is gonna help us, we have to help ourselves. And no one is gonna do us in faster than we will do ourselves in by spreading HIV in our community. Guess we haven't learned anything in 20 years.

And it's precisely those type of comments and attitudes which will do more harm than good in terms of prevention and education. We must be careful not to underestimate other gay and bisexual men's intelligence and abilities...and I got the impression from your last post that you view most of us as not intelligent enough to make our own choices based on the information presented to us. Compassion and understanding should begin LONG before the problem erupts...that's one reason why the U.S. can't seem to get a grip on the huge drug problem or high crime rates in certain areas. Extending our compassion and understanding after someone has contracted HIV is wonderful, but we should extend such behavior to everyone, not just the infected! Until some activists and proponents realize that, any prevention efforts will be futile. As someone close to me once said, "Don't send flowers to my funeral, I want them delivered while I'm still alive." This same kind of theory holds true elsewhere: Compassion and understanding begins from Day One....

[This message has been edited by blackguy469 (edited March 14, 2001).]

The big prob is that not many HIV negative men take the time to educate themselves. You and I are very different in that we have actually given thought to these issus. Most gay men probably see posts like these and dont bother to even read them.

anyway someone sent me a good link that highlights many of the arguments I have tried to make in here...and the link is a web discussion from two very well known gay doctors.
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/1700.50606

Interesting responses. But I'll go back to my original theme: Can we minimize the risk for contracting HIV and other STDs in bareback and group sex? I say this because both types of sexual activities are considered high-risk for contracting STDs.

Pornsizedguy writes: "...the major problem is there is NO WAY to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that "Negative" men are indeed negative..."

I agree with you completely. For reasons such as shame, many men do not attend STD Clinics. They do not want to face someone interviewing them about their sexual activities. "Should I say it was a pussy I licked or should I tell them the truth that I'm an insatiable cocksucker" What if you meet someone you know in the waiting room of the STD clinic: "So, what are you doing here?"

Other men suspect that they may be poz but continuing to exchange fluids becomes a form of denial. Some poz guys, I imagine, fucking a willing hole and dumping their load deep in it, may be a big turn on.

So, yes. Pornsizedguy is right to capitalize his statement.

However, I will concentrate on a point that blackguy469 pinpoints very well:

"Until we provide options for all men beyond safe sex, all prevention efforts will fail...."

I totally agree with blackguy469's statement for two important reasons. First, it is a precise statement because it includes "all men." It gets away from the senseless idea that gay and bisexual men have a monopoly over male homoeroticism. All men, at some point or another in their lives, will mourn the male body, and will be tormented by the dilemma of male-to-male experiences: "What would another guy's hard-on feel like in my hand?" So, yes. We have to provide options to "all men" beyond safe sex.

Otherwise, "all prevention efforts will fail..." Which brings me to the second reason I like blackguy469's statement.

As I have mentioned before, it is clear that many men have fantasies of sexual activities that are high-risk in terms of STDs. These include bareback anal sex, group sex in bathouses and parks, and gloryholes. My question to you is:

Assuming that there is a mechanism that guarantees that the men involved are healthy and that these men only have sex with members of this healthy group, would you be interested in being part of this group, which would allow you to participate in bareback anal and group sex at a low risk of STD?

TheSexWizard
For more info on male homoeroticism, go to http://members.home.net/tswiz/

In answer to Wiz's question, YES of course, who wouldnt? Safe barebacking would be great, whoever invents an imunization against HIV will make a million....

------------------
hot tite throat & ass 4 u

So some gay men lie about their status, some may be recently infected and not know their true status, and some may be completely clean and ready to unwrap, which means we can never be truly certain if the guy we are about to screw is a safe bet or not for barebacking.

I assume if you are asking the question how do we ensure a safe hookup between men who want to bareback you have thought about various options. I'm curious as to what you think some options would be.

You want to be sure everyone is not going to infect anyone else, so this must mean guys who are going to enter into this event/experience/whatever you will call it are going to offer proof of their negative status. What proof will suffice? Is this going to be some kind of registry or something? A sort of approved list of negative men that someone oversees and updates on a timely basis. Obviously you can't go on a man's word alone, if you do you're more trusting than I am or hopelessly naive. So there has to be some sort of monitoring or form of bureacracy that raises all sorts of procedural and privacy issues. In other words, a whole lot of not so erotic foreplay that's time consuming and hard-on killing. Is someone dumping cum up your ass that important?

Your assumption is right. What I would like to propose is a mechanism that would ensure a "safer" hookup for men. This would include "straight" men who are married or have relationships. For this reason, its purpose is not only to guard against HIV/AIDS, but also against any other STD.

You asked: "Is someone dumping cum up your ass that important?" For many men this is a very important need that the health department should keep in mind. I run a community for men who are interested in understanding their desire for other men. Many men write in their intro their need to be fucked. Believe it or not, "straight" men have a great desire to be fucked, thus changing their usual role. However, as I said before, this system is intended to protect against all STDs.

You guess right in your speculation about my plan. It would be a program where men would register voluntarily. By the use of technology, telephony and an information system, men could check on the phone for the status approved by the health department.

I will be meeting someone from the health department to discuss some of this issue. More details later.

TheSexWizard



[This message has been edited by TheSexWizard (edited March 28, 2001).]

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

Maybe I've watched too much Sci-fi channel or smoked too many shibbies and am overly paranoid, but REGISTER with a government agency my HIV status and my acknowledgment that I want to engage in a practice that society views as a major health risk? I just had the DMV fuck up information on my license when I went to renew - who's to say they wouldn't fuck up information on members of your little cum-laden shangri la? And what about men who want to join but then learn they are HIV+? What's to be done with that information? This is the same lack of foresight that's involved when someone decides it's inconvenient to reach over and grab a rubber...

"By the use of technology, telephony and an information system, men could check on the phone for the status approved by the health department." - that same use of techonology you promote as being a convenient way of getting much-needed cum up your ass could also be used in ways that might not thrill you as much.

not surprising to see such ridiculous rot from someone who INSISTS that someone can be str8 and want to take cum up the ass.

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.

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.

Sex Wizard: First off, if you want people to take you seriously, then don't make personal attacks on someone who disagrees with your ideas. Calling me "self-centered" is not going to get you anywhere except a label as someone too insecure to have his ideas questioned and challenged. Since I live in the US and the vast majority of people posting here live in the US -- just check their profile information -- it's not unreasonable to point out that your system won't have a chance to even be considered in this country.
Secondly, if people who become positive get kicked out of the program and therefore their records become inaccessible to third parties, what exactly would be the point of your system? Aren't you proposing it so that people can learn whether someone they want to have sex with is positive or negative?
If your system can only say that someone's negative (and even that's questionable since it all depends on how updated the information would be in your system) what is someone to do with a partner who's been kick out because he tested positive? A potential partner won't know that the person tested positive and got kicked out since whoever is in charge of your system won't be able to reveal this. The potential partner only knows the person is not in the database. Does such a system really help the gay community, even if all the other potential for abuse and misuse never comes true?

We've heard the pros and cons regarding safe sex practices, individual truthfulness, trustworthiness of anonymous strangers, and everything else under the sun and moon. We cannot escape the fact this entire discussion would not be taking place but for the fact there is this issue of the HIV and AIDS. Each of us must deal with the issue of safe sex today because our very lives are at stake. We cannot escape certain aspects of gay culture that puts our lives at great risk.

One aspect of our gay culture that puts our lives at great risk is anonymous sex with strangers. Another aspect of gay culture that puts our lives at great risk is multiple sex partners. Add to these risks the potential lethal mix of alcohol and drugs and you have a risk multiplier effect. Anonymous Sex With Strangers + Multiple Sex Partners + Alcohol + Drugs = DANGER!

Any combination of one or more of the above is potentially lethal. So, our focus must be to eliminate most if not ALL risk factors.

These risk factors are a part of our gay culture because they are a part of our sexual lifestyle. A significant number of men will continue to practice their sexual lifestyle oblivious to the risks associated with unsafe sex practices. I can think of at least 200,000 reasonsfor practicing safe sex. There are estimated to be at least 200,000 people in the United States who do not know they have the HIV.

This thread needs to die already....

SexWizard, skip the hyperbole and your proposals...answer ONE question:

Why is having unprotected sex (with multiple partners no less) so important to you....until you can answer that question anything else you have to say is pointless

For me, "barebacking" (or what used to be just normal sex), is a very pleasurable variant of the "safer sex" we practice in the presence of HIV. Barebacking is like Christmas dinner or a a trip to the Alps. Sometimes I will bareback a date I really like or love, other times I seek out an escort willing to bareback (as a bottom). I realize that these behaviors put me at risk and I practice them less than 2 or 3 times a year. In essence, what makes them so important is their erotic power, and I have yet to find substitute behaviors that take their place. :rolleyes:

There is another factor that figures into the unsafe sex equation -- Communication. Specifically, it is the lack of communication that takes place in the chance or anonymous sexual encounter.

In the world of Cruisingforsex, many of our sexual encounters fall into the category of chance or anonymous encounters. We don't know the other person on a personal basis. We cruise for anonymous sex with complete strangers who are cruising for anonymous sex just like us. What little communication that does take place between us is probably about what kind of sex we are seeking at that moment. Our focus is on getting off ourselves or getting the other guy off right then and there. HIV status?

The HIV status of the other person is probably the least likely subject (if ever at all) to come up during a chance or anonymous sexual encounter. If you are cruising a hot looking guy at your favorite cruising location, our focus is on the sex both cruisers are seeking out. There is no exchange of names and other personal information before, during, or after the anonymous sex. It is typical "Wam-Bam-Thank You-Man" sex and we move on to our next encounter. This scene is played out in the world of the cruiser on a minute-by-minute, hour-by-hour, day-by-day, and year-by year basis.

Unfortunately, this is the sexual encounter scene for many men out there. The participants are many. That good looking guy who offers his ass to be fucked unprotected (bareback) is a prime candidate for contracting the HIV if he has not already acquired the HIV previously from another chance encounter sometime in the past. The guy who will willingly unbuckle and unzip his trousers at the drop of a hat, without so much as thinking about protection for himself or his partner, is a prime candidate for contracting the HIV.

Unfortunately, this is the world of the cruiser despite our best efforts to inform and educate ourselves about the HIV and AIDS. Ignorance of the facts does play a role in the spread of the HIV. Lack of education also plays a role. But, ignorance and lack of education alone does not take into account the fact too many men are choosing to engage in unsafe sex when they know and understand the consequences of the risks they are taking. Sadly and tragically for those who have unsafe sex, the consequences of risk have no immediate impact on their lives. HIV statistics have little or no value to anyone caught up in the moment of getting off with another chance encounter at their favorite cruising spot.

Responding to sandog,


Although it came out as a personal attack, I feel that you are using unclear evidence against my proposal. We are not even sure if my proposal would violate any laws that you are talking about. For instance, can you in the US go to a clinic and ask for a certificate with all you STD test results? I know you can in my local clinic. As I said earlier, the system I propose is an electronic version of the certificate in har-copy. Currently, if I were HIV+, infected with gonorrhea, have had 2 episodes of syphilis, I wouldn't ask for suck certificate. Similarly, in my electronic version, someone who had this STD status would not be forced to be in the database that is used by the system I'm proposing.

This has been already been partially answered. Again, think of my system as a replacement of the certificate. If I meet a guy on the chatline and check his STD status using my proposed phone system, I'm back to square one. It's my choice to go ahead and have sex with him. However, if I do so I must report that I have had sex with a man outside the network. This is what the periodic interview would be for.

Or, I can choose to say: "Sorry man. I only fool around with guys who are in this program." That way a man has a greater guarantee that the men he has sex with tests negative to all STDs and does it regularly.


Gay community? Why bring gay community into a discussion that has nothing to do with it. I'm discussing a system to help men choose sexual partners that they can trust because they know (1) that they are testing regularly, (2) that they are receiving emotional support if they need it. Furthermore, there is no reason for this system not to be open to women, as I said before. If a woman is looking for a husband she can check for her new partner's STD status and reassure herself that having sex with him would be OK. Remember that in order to check on members of this program, you have a to be a member yourself.

Again EbonyMagic brings up the gay culture into the discussion. Why? Please read my other post on Sexul Orientation. In this thread we don't focus on gay, straight, or bi. We focus on the fact that there are many men who wish they could have a greater guarantee about the safety of their male partners. Many of these men are married men who need to satisfy needs that currently they don't satisfy, or they do so risking becoming infected with STDs (not only HIV!).


Then, pornsizedguy wrote:

I guess is hasn't (-:

I think that bigmike answered that question. But I will add that my guess is that most men don't like to suck on rubber or put a rubber on their cocks when they are getting a blow-job. I'm one of these men.


Herne The Hunter wrote some interesting comments:


I disagree with the notion cruising is bad. There are reasons why men like cruising and anonymous sex. Most men like to think of anonymous sex as a temporary phase. As if "real" sex can only be achieved in a relationship. However, I do agree that the current situation of the cruiser has gone to an extreme. But my approach is not to censor the needs of men, but to channel them in a way that men can enjoy eroticism and sex in a safer way. With the help of my system, there are possibilities of organizing hot group sessions. A number of men, all members of the system, can get together and do whatever they want without having to worry about STDs. Furthermore, the program could offer special counseling to members of the system who feel the need to participate in safe group action. This could mean, for instance, that a greater monitoring of the interested members. I don't know. There are many options. What's important is not to ignore the needs of men.

Herne The Hunter has a point. It would be better if men had a more stable sexual life, without having to live with an obsession about sex. Some men may disagree. Obsessions are powerful experiences that are sometimes difficult to let go. Why would a man obsessed with impersonal sex, reflect on his inner self, resolve all his emotional turmoil, and never experience the power of anonymous sex?

What I think should be done, is to educate boys about male sexuality. We should talk to them about their cock, erections, cum, and the shame about all of this. If boys knew how to handle and deal with their shame, they would be less likely as adults to spend time in gloryholes, and want to get fucked in the ass bareback. But we need something to help those men who as boys did not get the necessary information and had to adapt in bizarre ways.

TheSexWizard

[ April 22, 2001: Message edited by: TheSexWizard ]

Being respectful of all the above opinions I truly feel the reason that barebacking is even an issue is because we have forgotten what it was like the first time around. I also know that those days are far behind but we seem to be making a u turn for the worst. Though it's not a death sentence to be HIV+ these days I've yet to see a friend turn positive and remain the same. Sure the body is not devastated like before but the person becomes a shadow of what they used to be. I'm not saying that this is the case for everyone. It seems like we can't even be honest to protect our community. Who needs all those homo-hater politicians when we are doing the worst damage ourselves. Of all the people I know that are positive about one or two are honest to themselves and others about their condition. Several continue to behave as if nothing where different not taking any consideration for their partners.

Pornsizedguy has voiced many of these concerns very well. I could not agree more. As far as showing compassion, maybe it's time that people were slapped with reality and take responsibility for their actions. I fortunately was too young to be affected the first time around and managed to educate myself very well. So were my friends yet they got infected in the last 2 years. We were the generation that did not know what it was like to have sex without a condom yet people I know continue to turn positive. These are well educated, intelligent, individuals who are active in the community and experienced the loss of friends the first time around. All the resources are there for both sides yet the numbers show where the interest, or lack of, is. I've tried to convice my friends to come out so that the message hits home to the rest of us that it's ravaging our community again. I just feel like we can protec eachother better. Be it though compassion, honesty and or reality. We must not keep pretending like it will be OK until there is a cure.

Hey, Sexwiz.. have you thought about trying your idea within this site? Like having HIV status slot within the profiles? Maybe just to see who responds?


:confused:

Ah now we have philosophy too...

Kuhn can be used to argue against anything....you can debase positivism all you want, but it the foundation on which all human knowledge has been built and organized.

But back to the real world.

The arguments here are all over the place, contradictory and add no insight into why men would want to bareback or worse yet to bareback and NOT talk about HIV.

Yet they make it quite clear that something must be done, unfortunately it will probably be more government involvement.

Why should we the taxpayer's have to pay the medical benefits for people who willfully and knowingly put themselves at risk for contracting a disease, and why should we pay for the medical benefits for someone who knowingly spreads the disease.

This is the ethical catch-22.

We give benefits out of compassion...but end up taking the fear out of the disease and wind up keeping people alive and living who have no compassion for anyone else.

Joe-Blow asked:

It wouldn't really work. The information has to be managed by a separate agency in order to make sure that the results are real. Remember, my system is siply a replacement for the "paper certificate" that one can obtain at a STD clinic indicating the test results. Allowing to include your HIV status in your profile is like allowing anyone to write their own certificate.

Another point. My proposal is supposed to include not only HIV, which will provide protection for other STDs.

pornsizedguy wrote:

Could you be more specific?


TheSexWizard