Is Barebacking Becoming the Norm???

[axebahia]

>Devon, are you confirming here, as it sure seems, Axe's

>statement that you never get fucked anymore? Because I recall

>reading quite recently some rather erotic entries in your

>diary where you described getting fucked quite hard and

>abusively.

 

As I recall he stopped renting his rectum professionally, but continues to offer it up for free privately when the spirit moves him which apparently is not that often any more, if it ever was. Such a blooming pity, as the old Ad used to say!

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Unless you contend that the use of condoms is 100% effective

>-- and you seem to be going back and forth on that issue --you

>can't deny that maintaining a promiscuous lifestyle as a gay

>man does pose a risk to the public health.

 

I certainly can deny that maintaining a promiscuous lifestyle as a gay man, while avoiding barebacking, poses a SERIOUS risk to the public health. I don't think it's dumb luck that I've stayed HIV-negative all these years and I fully expect to continue to do so, regardless of whatever fear-mongering you resort to try to talk others out of what you can't even talk yourself out of doing.

 

>Therefore, when you criticize others whose behavior you say poses a >similar risk, it's legitimate to ask why your concern about this

>health problem has not moved you to end your own risky

>behavior.

 

I have never said that barebacking poses a "similar risk" to protected sex. I've said it poses a MUCH GREATER risk than protected sex. You're the one that wants to downplay the importance of safer sex, because, according to your logic, once someone has made the decision to be promiscuous, he might as well bareback while he's at it. That sounds like pretty fucked up logic to me.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Unless you contend that the use of condoms is 100% effective

>-- and you seem to be going back and forth on that issue --you

>can't deny that maintaining a promiscuous lifestyle as a gay

>man does pose a risk to the public health.

 

I certainly can deny that maintaining a promiscuous lifestyle as a gay man, while avoiding barebacking, poses a SERIOUS risk to the public health. I don't think it's dumb luck that I've stayed HIV-negative all these years and I fully expect to continue to do so, regardless of whatever fear-mongering you resort to try to talk others out of what you can't even talk yourself out of doing.

 

>Therefore, when you criticize others whose behavior you say poses a >similar risk, it's legitimate to ask why your concern about this

>health problem has not moved you to end your own risky

>behavior.

 

I have never said that barebacking poses a "similar risk" to protected sex. I've said it poses a MUCH GREATER risk than protected sex. You're the one that wants to downplay the importance of safer sex, because, according to your logic, once someone has made the decision to be promiscuous, he might as well bareback while he's at it. That sounds like pretty fucked up logic to me.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>There's a little cliche about driving which I think is

>applicable here: "everyone who drives faster than you is

>reckless and crazy; everyone who drives slower than you is an

>idiot."

 

That would be applicable if anyone here were criticizing people for having more or fewer sexual partners than them. If you want to use driving analogies, everyone who makes the decision to drive is risking his own health and that of others. Does it follow that he mustn't criticize drunk drivers? After all, the only difference is that the drunk driver is accepting and subjecting others to a higher level of risk; the difference is in degree, not substance. Why not draw the line at driving altogether, rather than at some "arbitrary" line like driving while intoxicated? After all, the safest thing would be not to get into a car in the first place.

 

>Many people here seem to define "appropriate risk" as being

>precisely "the level of risk which they personally have chosen

>to assume." Thus, the health risk that comes from barebacking

>is unacceptable (because they (some of them) have chosen not

>to do it), but the health risk from prostitution and/or

>promiscuity generally is acceptable (becasue they do that and

>don't want to give it up).

 

The health risk from barebacking isn't unacceptable because some of us have chosen not to do it. Rather, some of us have chosen not to do it because the health risk is unacceptable. You've got it backwards. The reason we think it's unacceptable is that HIV rates dropped dramatically after the gay community widely adopted safe sex practices and they began rising again after a growing number of people began to abandon those practices in favor of barebacking.

 

>I guess it's somehow okay to subject yourself to some health

>risks in pursuit of a few minutes of sexual pleasure, but not

>okay to subject yourself to other risks. I wonder how they

>drew that line - not just for themselves, but for everyone.

 

Yes, indeed...however did we settle on drawing the line at BAREBACKING? We must have just picked it out of a hat! I'll repeat what I just said above: HIV rates dropped dramatically after the gay community widely adopted safe sex practices and they began rising again after a growing number of people began to abandon those practices in favor of barebacking. There's nothing abitrary or whimsical about singling out barebacking as the single most effective way to spread HIV. As I said above, virgins and monogamists aren't the ones who NEED to worry about the risks of barebacking. Promiscuous people ARE. Of COURSE it makes sense for promiscuous people to criticize barebacking. They've got the most at stake.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>There's a little cliche about driving which I think is

>applicable here: "everyone who drives faster than you is

>reckless and crazy; everyone who drives slower than you is an

>idiot."

 

That would be applicable if anyone here were criticizing people for having more or fewer sexual partners than them. If you want to use driving analogies, everyone who makes the decision to drive is risking his own health and that of others. Does it follow that he mustn't criticize drunk drivers? After all, the only difference is that the drunk driver is accepting and subjecting others to a higher level of risk; the difference is in degree, not substance. Why not draw the line at driving altogether, rather than at some "arbitrary" line like driving while intoxicated? After all, the safest thing would be not to get into a car in the first place.

 

>Many people here seem to define "appropriate risk" as being

>precisely "the level of risk which they personally have chosen

>to assume." Thus, the health risk that comes from barebacking

>is unacceptable (because they (some of them) have chosen not

>to do it), but the health risk from prostitution and/or

>promiscuity generally is acceptable (becasue they do that and

>don't want to give it up).

 

The health risk from barebacking isn't unacceptable because some of us have chosen not to do it. Rather, some of us have chosen not to do it because the health risk is unacceptable. You've got it backwards. The reason we think it's unacceptable is that HIV rates dropped dramatically after the gay community widely adopted safe sex practices and they began rising again after a growing number of people began to abandon those practices in favor of barebacking.

 

>I guess it's somehow okay to subject yourself to some health

>risks in pursuit of a few minutes of sexual pleasure, but not

>okay to subject yourself to other risks. I wonder how they

>drew that line - not just for themselves, but for everyone.

 

Yes, indeed...however did we settle on drawing the line at BAREBACKING? We must have just picked it out of a hat! I'll repeat what I just said above: HIV rates dropped dramatically after the gay community widely adopted safe sex practices and they began rising again after a growing number of people began to abandon those practices in favor of barebacking. There's nothing abitrary or whimsical about singling out barebacking as the single most effective way to spread HIV. As I said above, virgins and monogamists aren't the ones who NEED to worry about the risks of barebacking. Promiscuous people ARE. Of COURSE it makes sense for promiscuous people to criticize barebacking. They've got the most at stake.

[Flower]

>Either you think it's fine to risk your health for promiscuous

>sexual gratification or you don't. If you do (as all

>prostitutes and those who use them presumably do), then you

>can't consistently criticize others who do the same thing.

>

This is simply too stupid for words. It represents a new low in your cognitive disability, and makes no sense whatsoever.

 

You have to be pretending to be this stupid, as you seem to know how to use a spell checker!

 

Your last several posts have been a tell tale trail of names and slurs leading closer to your true alter-ego on this board. Like maybe an escort that posts here regularly, and obviously could never say the garbage you spew under his business name.

 

Regardless, you very seldom make sense, and have poor reasoning and low cognitive ability, and obviously frustrated with life and your lot in it--which maybe explains why you are so hostile and ready to strike out at anyone and everything.

[Flower]

>Either you think it's fine to risk your health for promiscuous

>sexual gratification or you don't. If you do (as all

>prostitutes and those who use them presumably do), then you

>can't consistently criticize others who do the same thing.

>

This is simply too stupid for words. It represents a new low in your cognitive disability, and makes no sense whatsoever.

 

You have to be pretending to be this stupid, as you seem to know how to use a spell checker!

 

Your last several posts have been a tell tale trail of names and slurs leading closer to your true alter-ego on this board. Like maybe an escort that posts here regularly, and obviously could never say the garbage you spew under his business name.

 

Regardless, you very seldom make sense, and have poor reasoning and low cognitive ability, and obviously frustrated with life and your lot in it--which maybe explains why you are so hostile and ready to strike out at anyone and everything.

[Flower]

>LOL - - Hey moron, you can't "cause" someone to do something

>"by reward." To believe that the actors in bareback videos

>are being "forced" to bareback or that the "cause" of it is

>the one paying them rather than they thesmelves who choose to

>do it, is too stupid even for you to say.

The biggest laugh is that the only real moron on the MC is calling talyorky a moron--I thought you were preaching about hypocrisy in your other posts--saying that if you sin, you can't call other's sinners LOL. You are about as hypocritical as you are moronic -- if only your reasoning and cognitive abilities could be half as good as taylorky's, you could be something other than a pest here.

[Flower]

>LOL - - Hey moron, you can't "cause" someone to do something

>"by reward." To believe that the actors in bareback videos

>are being "forced" to bareback or that the "cause" of it is

>the one paying them rather than they thesmelves who choose to

>do it, is too stupid even for you to say.

The biggest laugh is that the only real moron on the MC is calling talyorky a moron--I thought you were preaching about hypocrisy in your other posts--saying that if you sin, you can't call other's sinners LOL. You are about as hypocritical as you are moronic -- if only your reasoning and cognitive abilities could be half as good as taylorky's, you could be something other than a pest here.

[axebahia]

>>Well, excuse me Woodlawn, but whether it's to Axe or anyone

>>else on this Message Board, could you please tell us how we

>>could interpret:

>

>>< But I try not to deceive myself about the fact that what I

>>and

>>other johns do >

>>

>>as anything OTHER than that you hire escorts?

>

>I think it is quite obvious that that is NOT the "admission"

>to which Ad rian (alias Axebahia) referred.

 

Actually, he got it right, and you have it wrong. Sorry, Charlie!

[axebahia]

>>Well, excuse me Woodlawn, but whether it's to Axe or anyone

>>else on this Message Board, could you please tell us how we

>>could interpret:

>

>>< But I try not to deceive myself about the fact that what I

>>and

>>other johns do >

>>

>>as anything OTHER than that you hire escorts?

>

>I think it is quite obvious that that is NOT the "admission"

>to which Ad rian (alias Axebahia) referred.

 

Actually, he got it right, and you have it wrong. Sorry, Charlie!

[Flower]

>You have indeed missed this in my previous posts in this very

>thread. I confess to becoming a little weary of having to

>call your attention to something that you would already know

>if you had read the other posts in the discussion. This is

>the second time I've had to do that in this thread. If you're

>not going to make the effort to read the posts you're

>responding to, this will happen again and again.

 

 

ummmm, as they say, you can take the boy out of the teacher, but you can't take the teacher out of Woodlaw :+

*****

>I think there are many who would agree that people whose own

>behavior is problematic are not the people who should be

>setting ethical standards and crying out against those who

>violate them.

 

It seems you and doogie are big on this idea, but since I haven't come across any perfect individuals, then by your standards, who would be left to establish and enforce ethical, criminal and moral codes? Not very many, if any.

[woodlawn]

>ummmm, as they say, you can take the boy

>out of the teacher, but you can't take the teacher out of

>Woodlaw

 

You've always been full of shit. So much so that I don't think we could take it out of you even if we called Roto Rooter.

 

 

>>I think there are many who would agree that people whose own

>>behavior is problematic are not the people who should be

>>setting ethical standards and crying out against those who

>>violate them.

 

 

>It seems you and doogie are big on this idea, but since I

>haven't come across any perfect individuals, then by your

>standards, who would be left to establish and enforce

>ethical, criminal and moral codes? Not very many, if any.

 

I suspect most Americans would agree with me that corporate directors who have been guilty of self-dealing in the past ought not to be the ones giving lectures on the evils of self-dealing now. That, after all, is why Dick Grasso was just forced to resign as head of the NYSE. If you have never run across anyone who isn't game for wrongdoing of this sort, that probably says a lot about the kind of company you keep.

[woodlawn]

>>Unless you contend that the use of condoms is 100%

>effective -- and you seem to be going back and forth on that issue

>--you can't deny that maintaining a promiscuous lifestyle as a gay

>>man does pose a risk to the public health.

 

>I certainly can deny that maintaining a promiscuous lifestyle

>as a gay man, while avoiding barebacking, poses a SERIOUS risk

>to the public health.

 

As Doug pointed out above, the tendency seems to be to define SERIOUS risk as that degree of risk that you aren't willing to take. But it's a highly subjective definition, and in creating it you don't speak for anyone but yourself.

 

>I don't think it's dumb luck that I've

>stayed HIV-negative all these years and I fully expect to

>continue to do so,

 

So you would be prepared to guarantee that anyone who behaves in exactly the same way as you will never become HIV positive?

 

>regardless of whatever fear-mongering you

>resort to try to talk others out of what you can't even talk

>yourself out of doing.

 

The hostility you've expressed here and elsewhere in this discussion toward those who disagree with you really makes me wonder whether your personal situation is what you say it is.

 

>I have never said that barebacking poses a "similar risk" to

>protected sex. I've said it poses a MUCH GREATER risk than

>protected sex. You're the one that wants to downplay the

>importance of safer sex, because, according to your logic,

>once someone has made the decision to be promiscuous, he might

>as well bareback while he's at it. That sounds like pretty

>fucked up logic to me.

 

Lying about what I've said in previous posts as you are doing above doesn't do anything to improve your credibility. Again, it makes me wonder why you are so angry about something that, according to you, doesn't have much to do with your own situation.

[woodlawn]

>>There's a little cliche about driving which I think is

>>applicable here: "everyone who drives faster than you is

>>reckless and crazy; everyone who drives slower than you is

>an

>>idiot."

 

>That would be applicable if anyone here were criticizing

>people for having more or fewer sexual partners than them.

 

Isn't that criticism implicit in what ncm is saying? After all, barebacking runs NO risk of infecting anyone if both participants are truly monogamous. Barebacking is risky behavior ONLY if a person BOTH engages in it AND has multiple sex partners.

 

 

>The health risk from barebacking isn't unacceptable because

>some of us have chosen not to do it. Rather, some of us have

>chosen not to do it because the health risk is unacceptable.

 

I'm afraid I don't understand this. You've looked at the information you have and based on it have deemed barebacking an unacceptable risk for you. Others who have the same information available to them as you do have reached a different conclusion. Whether barebacking is unacceptable is an individual decision, is that not true?

 

 

>You've got it backwards. The reason we think it's

>unacceptable is that HIV rates dropped dramatically after the

>gay community widely adopted safe sex practices

 

Frankly, I'm not sure this has ever been true. A recent survey by health authorities in New York reported in The Times showed that of men who had sex with other men, only 45% reported using a condom during their last sexual encounter. If a clear majority of men don't use condoms, I'm given to wonder if it's true that safe sex practices were ever widely adopted.

 

 

>Yes, indeed...however did we settle on drawing the line at

>BAREBACKING? We must have just picked it out of a hat! I'll

>repeat what I just said above: HIV rates dropped dramatically

>after the gay community widely adopted safe sex practices and

>they began rising again after a growing number of people began

>to abandon those practices in favor of barebacking. There's

>nothing abitrary or whimsical about singling out barebacking

 

There isn't? Wouldn't the risk be reduced even more if one ruled out anal intercourse altogether? So why wasn't the "line" drawn there?

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>After all, barebacking runs NO risk of infecting anyone if both

>participants are truly monogamous. Barebacking is risky

>behavior ONLY if a person BOTH engages in it AND has multiple

>sex partners.

 

That's right. I've already said that twice in this thread. Glad to see you're finally catching on. Now if barebacking is only a problem if practiced by promiscuous people, wouldn't it make sense for promiscuous people to adopt a standard amongst themselves AGAINST barebacking?

 

>I'm afraid I don't understand this. You've looked at the

>information you have and based on it have deemed barebacking

>an unacceptable risk for you. Others who have the same

>information available to them as you do have reached a

>different conclusion.

 

That's right. And I don't believe anyone has called for the criminalization of barebacking in this thread, so the right of those people reach that different conclusion is not being challenged. The conclusion itself is being challenged out of a desire not to see HIV infection rates return to where they were in the worst years of the epidemic.

 

>A recent survey by health authorities in New York reported in The >Times showed that of men who had sex with other men, only 45%

>reported using a condom during their last sexual encounter.

>If a clear majority of men don't use condoms, I'm given to

>wonder if it's true that safe sex practices were ever widely

>adopted.

 

I should have clarified that I was talking about men who have multiple sex partners. If this article's sample is as broad as "men who had sex with other men," then that conclusion isn't as striking or as worrisome as it would be if "men who had sex with multiple partners" had said they hadn't used condoms. As I've said, it doesn't matter whether monogamous people are barebacking or not (once they've both been tested and given the incubation period time to pass, etc.). What just about every article I've seen about the rise in HIV rates has attributed it to a rise in barebacking.

 

>Wouldn't the risk be reduced even more if one

>ruled out anal intercourse altogether? So why wasn't the

>"line" drawn there?

 

If condom failure were believed to be a significant factor in the rise in HIV cases, perhaps there might be reason to think about drawing it there. What has caused HIV rates to go up is barebacking. You can try all you want to obscure that fact, but there it is. To say that promiscuous people shouldn't take an interest in reducing barebacking among promiscuous people is just ludicrous and makes no sense.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>So you would be prepared to guarantee that anyone who behaves

>in exactly the same way as you will never become HIV

>positive?

 

I'd say their odds of never becoming HIV positive are better than excellent.

 

>The hostility you've expressed here and elsewhere in this

>discussion toward those who disagree with you really makes me

>wonder whether your personal situation is what you say it is.

 

I haven't expressed any hostility, woodie. You're just being oversensitive, doubtlessly because you loathe the fact that you're addicted to hiring prostitutes despite your deep shame at being unable to live up to the golden standard of monogamy.

 

>>I have never said that barebacking poses a "similar risk" to

>>protected sex. I've said it poses a MUCH GREATER risk than

>>protected sex. You're the one that wants to downplay the

>>importance of safer sex, because, according to your logic,

>>once someone has made the decision to be promiscuous, he

>might

>>as well bareback while he's at it. That sounds like pretty

>>fucked up logic to me.

>

>Lying about what I've said in previous posts as you are doing

>above doesn't do anything to improve your credibility.

 

Touchy, touchy! No one's lying about what you've said. You have indisputably argued that promiscuous people who criticize barebacking are hypocrites. It's pretty hard not to infer that you don't think it makes any difference whether they bareback or not, since, regardless of whether they do, their actions won't be 100% risk-free. And if it does matter whether they bareback or not, doesn't it make sense for other promiscuous people to criticize their actions if they do bareback?

[woodlawn]

>>So you would be prepared to guarantee that anyone who

>behaves

>>in exactly the same way as you will never become HIV

>>positive?

 

>I'd say their odds of never becoming HIV positive are better

>than excellent.

 

What does "better than excellent" mean, please? Is it 100% or less than 100%? If less, how much less? Is it 5% less? 10% less?

 

 

>I haven't expressed any hostility, woodie. You're just being

>oversensitive, doubtlessly because you loathe the fact that

>you're ADDICTED TO HIRING PROSTITUTES DESPITE YOUR DEEP SHAME AT >BEING UNABLE TO LIVE UP TO THE GOLDEN STANARD OF MONOGAMY.

 

No hostility there, eh? Really, why is it that you harbor so much hatred and anger toward those who disagree with you on this issue? The rage you express really doesn't make sense coming from someone to whom this is a largely academic discussion.

 

 

>>>I have never said that barebacking poses a "similar risk"

>to

>>>protected sex. I've said it poses a MUCH GREATER risk than

>>>protected sex. You're the one that wants to downplay the

>>>importance of safer sex, because, according to your logic,

>>>once someone has made the decision to be promiscuous, he

>>might

>>>as well bareback while he's at it. That sounds like pretty

>>>fucked up logic to me.

>>

>>Lying about what I've said in previous posts as you are

>doing

>>above doesn't do anything to improve your credibility.

 

>Touchy, touchy! No one's lying about what you've said.

 

Of course you are. You do it constantly for exactly the reason that Doug described above.

 

>You

>have indisputably argued that promiscuous people who criticize

>barebacking are hypocrites. It's pretty hard not to infer

>that you don't think it makes any difference whether they

>bareback or not, since, regardless of whether they do, their

>actions won't be 100% risk-free.

 

You can only infer that by willfully ignoring the posts in which I've acknowledged that barebacking IS riskier and therefore I DO think it makes a difference. Why ignore those?

 

> And if it does matter

>whether they bareback or not, doesn't it make sense for other

>promiscuous people to criticize their actions if they do

>bareback?

 

Not really. In my conversation with Trixie here I think I make it quite clear that I BOTH understand and accept the reality of the difference in risk represented by barebacking AND at the same time argue that promiscuous gay men are not the right ones to be admonishing barebackers about that risk due to their own risky behavior. Why do you pretend I didn't say those things? It's really very dishonest.

[woodlawn]

>>After all, barebacking runs NO risk of infecting anyone if

>both

>>participants are truly monogamous. Barebacking is risky

>>behavior ONLY if a person BOTH engages in it AND has

>multiple sex partners.

 

>That's right. I've already said that twice in this thread.

>Glad to see you're finally catching on. Now if barebacking is

>only a problem if practiced by promiscuous people, wouldn't it

>make sense for promiscuous people to adopt a standard amongst

>themselves AGAINST barebacking?

 

But why wouldn't it make just as much sense for them to stop being promiscuous?

 

>>I'm afraid I don't understand this. You've looked at the

>>information you have and based on it have deemed barebacking

>>an unacceptable risk for you. Others who have the same

>>information available to them as you do have reached a

>>different conclusion.

 

>That's right. And I don't believe anyone has called for the

>criminalization of barebacking in this thread, so the right of

>those people reach that different conclusion is not being

>challenged.

 

Well, I'm not sure that's true. In an earlier post you said that you are drawing the line there because the risk of barebacking is unacceptable, not that the risk of barebacking is unacceptable because you choose to draw the line there. You are referring to the risk as an objective standard of some sort, NOT as a simple matter of different strokes for different folks.

 

>>Wouldn't the risk be reduced even more if one

>>ruled out anal intercourse altogether? So why wasn't the

>>"line" drawn there?

 

>If condom failure were believed to be a significant factor in

>the rise in HIV cases, perhaps there might be reason to think

>about drawing it there. What has caused HIV rates to go up is

>barebacking. You can try all you want to obscure that fact,

>but there it is.

 

LOL! I thought if I waited patiently you would at some point take this position, which is totally at odds with your vigorous (and angry) defense of escorts who refuse to be "fully interactive" with clients for safety reasons. How interesting that you have now undercut a position that you once defended so vigorously!

 

 

>To say that promiscuous people shouldn't

>take an interest in reducing barebacking among promiscuous

>people is just ludicrous and makes no sense.

 

Those are conclusions, not arguments.

[woodlawn]

>Now if barebacking

>is only a problem if practiced by promiscuous people, wouldn't

>it make sense for promiscuous people to adopt a standard

>amongst themselves AGAINST barebacking?

 

>But why wouldn't it make just as much sense for them to stop

>being promiscuous?

 

 

I think there's a point here that has not been sufficiently discussed. If BOTH barebacking AND promiscuity are necessary in order that barebacking poses a public health problem, why is it that people are being criticized ONLY for barebacking? Why do I not see criticisms from ncm and you of promiscuity in videos and in real life as well? Is it fair to say that barebacking is the problem when the truth is that by itself it is NOT a problem?

 

 

>>If condom failure were believed to be a significant factor

>in

>>the rise in HIV cases, perhaps there might be reason to

>think

>>about drawing it there. What has caused HIV rates to go up

>is

>>barebacking. You can try all you want to obscure that fact,

>>but there it is.

 

Frankly, I'm not so sure it IS a fact. It's a fact that there are people who are infected without knowing it because they haven't been tested. And it is not possible to know how many people fit that description or to know whether they make up a majority or a minority of the infected population. The "rise in HIV cases" that you have referred to over and over again is in fact only a rise in the number of REPORTED cases. It is not possible to know the rise in the ACTUAL number of cases from one year to the next, therefore it is not possible to know whether the fact you keep insisting on really IS a fact. Better luck next time.

[Flower]

>I suspect most Americans would agree with me that corporate

>directors who have been guilty of self-dealing in the past

>ought not to be the ones giving lectures on the evils of

>self-dealing now. That, after all, is why Dick Grasso was

>Just forced to resign as head of the NYSE.

 

I would probably agree with you on this, but probably not for the reasons you say it, I'm sure. If his lecture was billed as Ethics 101, then I doubt his audience would be very reassured or inspired knowing his past.

However, I'd be much more interested in hearing his story if presented as just that--his story, and not an ethics lecture--more so than some goodie2shoes lecturing on sin cause that's what he's again! :+ Mr. Grasso is probably more capable than most to give such a lecture and explain the intricacies of double dealing and deceit.

 

>If you have never

>run across anyone who isn't game for wrongdoing of this sort,

>that probably says a lot about the kind of company you keep.

 

Again, you misquote, take out of context and then try to twist to make a negative point.

I simply said I've never met a perfect individual--have you?

 

If you lecture to your students with the same imprecision as with which you write your posts, then god bless 'em.

:+

[Guest ncm2169]

For anyone who isn't weary of wearysome posters beating their respective horses to death, FYI:

 

I had a long conversation this evening with a guy who is in his early 20's. We talked about about barebacking scenes in videos. To summarize his words:

 

"Oh sure, they make my friends think it's OK to bareback. I don't do it and I never will, but a lot of my friends see it or hear about it in porn and don't worry about it."

 

Anecdotal? Sure. Further proof for me? You betcha.

 

I don't retreat one inch from my position that barebacking in videos contributes to barebacking in real life. Who, with half a brain, could deny that?

[woodlawn]

>Mr. Grasso is probably more capable

>than most to give such a lecture and explain the intricacies

>of double dealing and deceit.

 

I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about, as usual. I know of no one who has accused Grasso of deceit. The problem is that he's a regulator of the securities industry and he accepted an enormous pay package from the NYSE board of directors that includes officers of the very companies he is regulating. He didn't lie to anyone about this so far as I know, he just didn't advertise it.

 

 

>Again, you misquote, take out of context

>and then try to twist to make a negative point.

>I simply said I've never met a perfect individual--have you?

 

I don't think you and your sidekick Franco know what the expression "take out of context" means. Both of you use it in situations in which it clearly doesn't apply. As for misquoting, how can I MISquote you when I did not purport to quote you at all? Is English your second language?

 

What you said is that it would be problematic if we have to leave the formulation of ethical rules to people who are perfect. But I never suggested doing that. What I've suggested is that people who don't have a clean record on a certain ethical issue are not the right ones to be lecturing others on that issue -- how can they admonish others to uphold a certain standard when they themselves haven't done so?

 

 

>If you lecture to your students with the same imprecision as

>with which you write your posts, then god bless 'em.

 

 

Again, you know nothing and will never know anything about my occupation, because I will not trust you with personal information. If your own wife couldn't trust you, how can I?

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>In my conversation with Trixie here I think I

>make it quite clear that I BOTH understand and accept the

>reality of the difference in risk represented by barebacking

>AND at the same time argue that promiscuous gay men are not

>the right ones to be admonishing barebackers about that risk

>due to their own risky behavior.

 

Well, if promiscuous gay men are not the right ones to be admonishing barebackers, then surely gay men who hire prostitutes are not the right ones to determine who should and shouldn't be doing the admonishing. According to your criteria, taylorky is the only poster on this message board qualified to broach the subject at all.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>>Now if barebacking is

>>only a problem if practiced by promiscuous people, wouldn't

>>it make sense for promiscuous people to adopt a standard

>>amongst themselves AGAINST barebacking?

>

>But why wouldn't it make just as much sense for them to stop

>being promiscuous?

 

If barebacking is so important to them that they feel they can't give it up, then it certainly would make sense for them to stop being promiscuous. I have no problem with people barebacking if they're doing so monogamously, and I have no problem with people being promiscuous if they're not barebacking. If people are trying to mix the two -- promiscuity AND barebacking, then I do have a problem with that because I believe that's a recipe for reigniting a full-blown epidemic. I'm saying they should give up at least one or the other. Therefore, I don't think it's hypocritical for barebackers who are monogamous to criticize barebackers who are promiscuous, and I don't think it's hypocritical for promiscuous people who don't bareback to criticize promiscuous barebackers. It IS hypocritical for promiscuous barebackers to criticize promiscuous barebackers, and it is also hypocritical for people who are involved in prostitution to constantly criticize other people for being involved in prostitution. But that's never stopped you before, and I don't expect that it will any time soon.

 

>>If condom failure were believed to be a significant factor

>in

>>the rise in HIV cases, perhaps there might be reason to

>think

>>about drawing it there. What has caused HIV rates to go up

>is

>>barebacking. You can try all you want to obscure that fact,

>>but there it is.

>

>LOL! I thought if I waited patiently you would at some point

>take this position, which is totally at odds with your

>vigorous (and angry) defense of escorts who refuse to be

>"fully interactive" with clients for safety reasons. How

>interesting that you have now undercut a position that you

>once defended so vigorously!

 

What are you talking about? I defend escorts' rights to draw their own boundaries for ANY reason, and nothing I've said has any bearing on that. Do you think escorts SHOULDN'T have the right to set their own limits?