Gay Guys Only: If you fuck bareback why do you do it?

[B_Italian1]

I don't know if you know this or not (I'm not bashing you at all, just think this is an interesting fact), but there is suppose to be bacteria in our intestines. They have a purpose, whenever food goes form our stomach to our intestines, these basteria soak up all the nutrients, that doesn't happen in the stomach. The stomach siply breaks it down, all the nutrients is absorbed in the intestines. Furthemore these bacteria produce vitamin k for us, which is vital for our survival. I find it quite fascinating how we would be dead without these bacteria in our intestines. Isn't that cool?

True. Some bacteria is good and other is not so good. E coli helps digest food and produce vitamin K, and the bad type of E coli, O157:H7, which you can get from contaminated or undercooked food, bad water, or even person to person contact, and can cause everything from diarrhea to kidney failure. And bacteria is used to make yogurt.

kind of off subject and i know i'm going to get totally slammed for this...

first of all, condoms aren't 100% safe. they are just "safer"

isn't it funny how monogamous, committed relationships seem to be the exception instead of the rule? i mean if you're both disease free (and stay that way), this isn't an issue.

Condoms were never even designed for anal sex. In fact, I don't believe any condom box has ever stated that the product is intended for use during anal sex. It will mention that it can be used to prevent pregnancy and STD's, and it's not 100% for either one of those. You can get HPV and herpes even while using a condom correctly, since it's not covering all of the exposed genital areas. Obviously one of the people would have to have it in order for the other one to get it.

 

[B_becominghorse]

The God of Abraham didn't label sex as a sin. Sex is just an aspect of nature.

I was being, like, you know, totally sarcastic, which I don't know how anybody could miss for just being on this site. I've fucked and sucked THOUSANDS! If it is a sin, I probably don't care, unless that makes me get even hotter. I was responding to some excessively chaotic writing.

Must compliment you on using periods here. Most people seem to thing you use the other punctuation marks, but skip the periods. I have no idea how this started, but I think it's jes' ignunt.

 

[unique_exposure]

is meth like a plague within the gay community or is it media hype? i am not out, so i guess i dont really know....

Meth is a plague to anyone who uses it.
There is also growing evidence that specifically meth use makes the person's body more susceptible to being infected by HIV.

"...not only does meth lower inhibitions -- leading to more high-risk sex -- the drug also seems to hurt the immune system, raising the risk of getting HIV."

 

[D_Portelay Porquesword]

Bareback?

Why don't we just call it out for what it is in this day and age. Roulette!

I understand the purpose of the thread, however there seems be an a lot of reprehensible behavior that seems to be connected with that word no matter what your sexual persuasion is.

My intention was not to be a buzz kill.

 

[B_Nick4444]

"El sentido comun es el menos comun de los sentidos"

thanx! (!gracias!)

 

[SandraSmithCarver]

True. Some bacteria is good and other is not so good. E coli helps digest food and produce vitamin K, and the bad type of E coli, O157:H7, which you can get from contaminated or undercooked food, bad water, or even person to person contact, and can cause everything from diarrhea to kidney failure. And bacteria is used to make yogurt.



Condoms were never even designed for anal sex. In fact, I don't believe any condom box has ever stated that the product is intended for use during anal sex. It will mention that it can be used to prevent pregnancy and STD's, and it's not 100% for either one of those. You can get HPV and herpes even while using a condom correctly, since it's not covering all of the exposed genital areas. Obviously one of the people would have to have it in order for the other one to get it.

that is soooo scarey

 

[B_Nick4444]

think you just made a convert

True. Some bacteria is good and other is not so good. E coli helps digest food and produce vitamin K, and the bad type of E coli, O157:H7, which you can get from contaminated or undercooked food, bad water, or even person to person contact, and can cause everything from diarrhea to kidney failure. And bacteria is used to make yogurt.



Condoms were never even designed for anal sex. In fact, I don't believe any condom box has ever stated that the product is intended for use during anal sex. It will mention that it can be used to prevent pregnancy and STD's, and it's not 100% for either one of those. You can get HPV and herpes even while using a condom correctly, since it's not covering all of the exposed genital areas. Obviously one of the people would have to have it in order for the other one to get it.

 

[Mem]

Why, because people no longer think that Aids is a death sentence.

 

[amazingfuck]

Funny this was a thread started as a question for gay men who bareback to answer, but pretty much everyone posting is not a barebacking gay man and is only interested in spamming those gay men who do bareback...

 

[Smaccoms]

Funny this was a thread started as a question for gay men who bareback to answer, but pretty much everyone posting is not a barebacking gay man and is only interested in spamming those gay men who do bareback...

lol true, but at least they have a good reason, I mean, STD"s sounds pretty serious to me...

 

[xxncxx]

I don't see why condoms would be necessary if both men know and have proven that they don't have any diseases. I'm completely inexperienced in this area, but HIV/AIDS can't just pop up magically by itself just through intercourse - one of the persons has to be carrying it.

 

[deleted213967]

I don't see why condoms would be necessary if both men know and have proven that they don't have any diseases. I'm completely inexperienced in this area, but HIV/AIDS can't just pop up magically by itself just through intercourse - one of the persons has to be carrying it.

The overwhelming majority of barebacking activity does NOT involve two 100.00% monogamous partners clinically proven to be STD-free.

The "spamming" of barebackers is fair game as BB concerns PUBLIC health and entails a PUBLIC cost.

 

[aspshortjock]

I don't see why condoms would be necessary if both men know and have proven that they don't have any diseases. I'm completely inexperienced in this area, but HIV/AIDS can't just pop up magically by itself just through intercourse - one of the persons has to be carrying it.

Well, that's all nice and stuff, but I trust no one and just assume the other guy has an STD and use a condom anyway. And I hope he does the same of me, and he's grateful that I used one (unlike the idiot I just sent home, because he threw a tantrum when I reached for my condom drawer).

 

[widenine]

You forgot another possible reply to your question: " Are you HIV positive and feel I have nothing to lose?"

 

[bayonet]

Condoms get in the way of true intimacy. I'm not advocating spreading your self all over the world, barebacking everywhere you go; however, given the right situation, why not have the sort of intimacy one ought to have with another consenting adult?

No matter how you look at it or what your consicne tells you is right about protection, let's face it: sex without a condom feels a whole lot better. Flesh against flesh is certanly more stimulating and pleasurable than sex with a rubber contraption getting in the way of intimate touch.

 

[deleted213967]

Condoms get in the way of true intimacy. I'm not advocating spreading your self all over the world, barebacking everywhere you go; however, given the right situation, why not have the sort of intimacy one ought to have with another consenting adult?

No matter how you look at it or what your consicne tells you is right about protection, let's face it: sex without a condom feels a whole lot better. Flesh against flesh is certanly more stimulating and pleasurable than sex with a rubber contraption getting in the way of intimate touch.

Please define "the right situation"...

If it isn't between partners who can be proven to be completely STD-free as of the moment they engage in barebacking, it is risky to them AND to society at large. Even unprotected anal sex between two proven HIV+ partners is risky.

"True intimacy" is a bizarre circumlocution for an activity that mostly occurs between guys who (no pun intended) don't give a shit about each other once they've shot their load.

 

[bayonet]

Please define "the right situation"...

If it isn't between partners who can be proven to be completely STD-free as of the moment they engage in barebacking, it is risky to them AND to society at large. Even unprotected anal sex between two proven HIV+ partners is risky.

"True intimacy" is a bizarre circumlocution for an activity that mostly occurs between guys who (no pun intended) don't give a shit about each other once they've shot their load.

Goodness, you are nitpicky, and ready to pounce on my choice of words.

I never suggested it was risk-free. It's worth it for some people to bareback, believe it or not.

And as for "true intimacy," I see no circumlocution involved in my statement. It's not as if I referred to it as "a deeply intimate, unencumbered, wholly gratifying, spiritually uplifting phenomenon," which would be an example of circumlocution. I am calling it "true intimacy," not because of its transcendent otherwordliness, but simply because choosing not to wear a rubber allows sex partners to enjoy the full extent of physical contact. Nothing more.

By the way, I'm curious about something in your profile: You are 1% gay and 99% straight. That makes you almost a true heterosexual! How quaint.

 

[jdoe86]

For those of you who are old enough to remember the time before AIDS, bareback fucking was the only way to go. Having a load of cum shoot deep inside you feels like nothing else. And to shoot bare inside an ass was everyday back then. Do I still bareback? Yes, give and receive. Am I taking risks? Yes, no matter how well I know the person.

 

[deleted213967]

Goodness, you are nitpicky, and ready to pounce on my choice of words.

I never suggested it was risk-free. It's worth it for some people to bareback, believe it or not.

Assuming you are not referring to the fully-committed properly-tested, HIV- partners,

the relevant question is: is it worth it to the rest of us who pay for their mistakes and deal with the minor inconvenience of reduced skin-to-skin sensation.

The answer is a resounding: no.

 

[blueyoshi23]

The overwhelming majority of barebacking activity does NOT involve two 100.00% monogamous partners clinically proven to be STD-free.

My main annoyance in this "bareback" controversy is comments like the above which clearly conflate one's grievances with the actions surrounding people's act of condomless penetration with the condomless penetration in itself. xxncxx's observations were spot on. The blunt truth is that sex outside an exclusive couple's relationships where both parties have been confirmed to be disease free allows for a spectrum of disease risk....and that includes promiscuity WITH condom use as well - even while people act as if the condom is a badge of honor. If we are to claim that society is at risk, health-wise and financially because people contracted diseases when failing to use a condom, then does not the same logic apply when people use condoms, and contract a disease anyway?