Is Barebacking Becoming the Norm???

[woodlawn]

>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.

 

Well, I suppose one could adopt your approach and steadfastly deny that there is anything wrong with whatever activities one happens to be involved in or happens to benefit from oneself. But to borrow a phrase favored by phage, I happen to think that a refusal to look critically at one's own behavior is the sign of a weak mind.

 

>>>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

 

As I've pointed out elsewhere, you don't know what it is that has caused HIV infection rates to go up. Since you don't know the number of UNREPORTED infections, you don't even know that rates HAVE gone up.

 

 

>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.

 

Sure it does. If one takes your statements about your "better than excellent" chances of remaining disease-free at face value, one would have to conclude that those escorts who refuse even protected intercourse for safety reasons are either dishonest or paranoid.

 

Do you think escorts SHOULDN'T have the

>right to set their own limits?

 

Once again, stating that someone has a "right" to do something is a conclusion, not an argument. A right is nothing more than an agreement members of a community make about how they will treat each other in a given situation.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>>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.

>

>Well, I suppose one could adopt your approach and steadfastly

>deny that there is anything wrong with whatever activities one

>happens to be involved in or happens to benefit from oneself.

>But to borrow a phrase favored by phage, I happen to think

>that a refusal to look critically at one's own behavior is the

>sign of a weak mind.

 

Well, I happen to think that if one has as many criticisms of one's own behavior (hiring prostitutes) as you do, that a refusal to put an end to that behavior is the sign of a far weaker mind. And weaker still to come daily to a message board devoted to that behavior to lecture other people about the danger/illegality/immorality/you-name-it of behavior YOU yourself aren't willing to stop.

 

>As I've pointed out elsewhere, you don't know what it is that

>has caused HIV infection rates to go up. Since you don't know

>the number of UNREPORTED infections, you don't even know that

>rates HAVE gone up.

 

You are really bending over backwards to downplay the link between barebacking and HIV -- it's hard to understand why. Nevertheless -- if someone BELIEVES the barebacking spreads HIV (and until you started posting on the subject I didn't realize it was such a controversial notion), it makes sense for him to criticize it -- all the more so if he is part of the affected risk group.

 

>>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.

>

>Sure it does. If one takes your statements about your "better

>than excellent" chances of remaining disease-free at face

>value, one would have to conclude that those escorts who

>refuse even protected intercourse for safety reasons are

>either dishonest or paranoid.

 

Not really, since I factored the fact that I don't bottom often into that statement. I can understand an escort either temporarily or permanently choosing not to bottom with his clients for any number of reasons, or limiting his activities in that area, and a desire to be "extra safe" might reasonably be among them. Besides, even if you think he is being paranoid, he's better off just doing what he feels comfortable doing. He's not likely to give his clients good service doing something that strikes paranoia into his heart.

 

>Do you think escorts SHOULDN'T have the

>>right to set their own limits?

>

>Once again, stating that someone has a "right" to do something

>is a conclusion, not an argument. A right is nothing more

>than an agreement members of a community make about how they

>will treat each other in a given situation.

 

I didn't know we were having an argument over whether an escort should be able to set his own limits with a client. I'll give most of the members of this online community enough credit to trust that they are in agreement with an escort's right not to offer certain kinds of services. Is that really such a controversial notion with anyone but you?

[woodlawn]

>Well, I happen to think that if one has as many criticisms of

>one's own behavior (hiring prostitutes) as you do, that a

>refusal to put an end to that behavior is the sign of a far

>weaker mind. And weaker still to come daily to a message

>board devoted to that behavior to lecture other people about

>the danger/illegality/immorality/you-name-it of behavior YOU

>yourself aren't willing to stop.

 

Yes, it must be pretty disconcerting to visit a message board chock full of starry-eyed, panting escort worshippers and come across someone who doesn't swallow your usual shtick hook, line and sinker. Finding people who think a little bit more about what they're involved in than the minimum necessary to rationalize it could come as a shock to someone who lives in the world you do, a place not known for self-examination. But I think it will be good for you to interact with at least a few people who don't fall all over themselves agreeing with anything you say because they want to fuck you. At any rate, you'll have to get used to that unless you want to be confined to one or another gay ghetto for the next few years until your sex appeal wears out.

 

 

>>As I've pointed out elsewhere, you don't know what it is

>that

>>has caused HIV infection rates to go up. Since you don't

>know

>>the number of UNREPORTED infections, you don't even know

>that

>>rates HAVE gone up.

 

>You are really bending over backwards to downplay the link

>between barebacking and HIV -- it's hard to understand why.

 

The link between barebacking and HIV is self-evident. But you have this pattern of stating something as a fact that is unproven and probably unprovable, basing your argument on it, and then demanding that the rest of us accept it as a fact and base our arguments on it. That's what you've been doing when you've made that statement about barebacking being responsible for a rise in infections over and over and over and over. I've let you get away with it half a dozen times, but I don't like the dishonesty of using dubious evidence to support an argument. I don't like it when Bill O'Reilly does it and I don't like it when you do it. You should stop using him as a role model.

 

>I'll give most of the members of this online community enough

>credit to trust that they are in agreement with an escort's

>right not to offer certain kinds of services. Is that really

>such a controversial notion with anyone but you?

 

I think the notion that anyone has a "right" to offer services of ANY kind as a prostitute is a very controversial notion for the vast majority of our fellow citizens, outside the tiny, strange little world you inhabit. I mean, isn't that rather like saying that a loan shark has a "right" to demand payment of interest daily or weekly, whichever he prefers?

 

But if we're going to pretend that there are "rights" and "rules" for prostitution, shouldn't we also pretend that they make some kind of sense? You assure everyone that the habits you adopt in your business all but guarantee that there will be no danger of HIV infection. I think it's dangerous and irresponsible for you to mislead people that way, but that is the whole basis of your lofty moral stand against those who bareback. But if what you say is true then it can't make sense for people to insist that YOUR practices are not safe enough for them. You can't agree with those practices and at the same time agree with those who insist they're inadequate. But that's what you're doing. It's not a terribly important point, but it amuses me to mention it.

[chrismac]

From what I've seen and read, I believe the simple answer to the original question is, "yes".

[chrismac]

In reading through all these threads, many filled with animosity, anger, judgment and condemnation, a quote from Mother Teresa came to mind:

 

"We cannot condemn or judge or pass words that will hurt people. We don't know in what way God is appearing to that soul and what God is drawing that soul to; therefore, who are we to condemn anybody?"

Mother Teresa (1910 - 1997)

 

The truth is, it seems everyone posting here would agree that the spread of HIV/AIDS is an alarming concept, but so much emphasis is put here in pedantic one-upmanship or semantic wrangling. Is this thread growing simply to satisfy one's desire to win an argument, catch someone in a misquote, hurl an insult, or tweeze apart messages to find inevitable contradictions of which human beings are commonly guilty? Is it not also possible for an individual to hold conflicting views, or to change one's position on a subject? One might think that the learning process is truly best demonstrated when one can in fact change views or positions, through the words of others or one's own experiences.

 

The internet provides a wonderful conduit for such exchanges - therefore, I can't condemn anyone for sharing their personal experiences, even weaknesses (as described in Argo's first post) - if someone, even the person posing the question can learn something from the exchange. I don't think we can progress with anything if we try to shut down, condemn, or insult those who are willing to share their mistakes in order that others may learn from them, even if that is not the intention of the person posting that experience.

[Argos]

Chrismac:

 

Thanks for injecting some civility into this thread. I never imagined that the original post would result in such an invective series of replies and rebuttals. I want to reiterate that I take full responsibility for the decision I made to bareback the escort. I acknowledge that I personally acted irresponsibly and trust it will never happen again. However, I do become concerned to think this is a widespread practice in the escort community and believe that consistent safe sex practices should be the norm and not the exception.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Yes, it must be pretty disconcerting to visit a message board

>chock full of starry-eyed, panting escort worshippers and come

>across someone who doesn't swallow your usual shtick hook,

>line and sinker. Finding people who think a little bit more

>about what they're involved in than the minimum necessary to

>rationalize it could come as a shock to someone who lives in

>the world you do, a place not known for self-examination.

 

I love how you try to spin your hypocritical attacks on others into a noble act of "self-examination." If self-examination were your purpose, you could simply start threads devoted to various critiques of the escort industry, and perhaps initiate discussion as to whether these flaws were universal and inherent, or whether they could be reformed, etc. You could even abandon, for a moment, your policy of not sharing anything about your personal life and just try talking openly about the conflicts, be they religious or otherwise, that you have about what you're doing when you hire escorts. It's not like such a post would be tantamount to giving out your Social Security number. You'd probably strike a chord with some people and launch an interesting conversation. But no, you prefer to raise your issues in the form of attacks on other posters, usually involving some allegation of hypocrisy, when YOU are the one who is doing something YOU think is wrong.

 

>But I think it will be good for you to interact with at least a

>few people who don't fall all over themselves agreeing with

>anything you say because they want to fuck you.

 

It's very good for me, and I interact with more than a few. People email me to take issue with things I write in the diary all the time. I have never courted a "starry-eyed" following on this board. Sure, I do the occasional bit of flirting, but I've taken opinions on this board that honest people can and do disagree on, and people often post their diagreements with my opinions.

 

>At any rate, you'll have to get used to that unless you want to be >confined to one or another gay ghetto for the next few years until >your sex appeal wears out.

 

LOL...and what ghetto are you referring to? I live in a diverse urban neighborhood where there is a sizeable gay population but the majority are straight. If you're saying that the world of people who tolerate escorts is a ghetto, let me give you a sense of how "confining" my ghetto is. All my friends, gay and straight, know what I do; I even told people at my last job (overwhelming straight) before I left it, and everyone at the non-profit where I currently volunteer (again, mostly straight, especially management) knows ("We support everyone's path," said the executive director when I told her). My priest at my temple knows. So it's not confining in the sense that I have to hide or live any kind of double life, or limit my social circles. San Francisco in general is a comfortable environment in which to be an escort, and the last word I would use to describe the city is "confining."

 

And if, when I started escorting, I entered a "ghetto," that ghetto has exposed me to more people, from a wider variety of backgrounds, who work and often excel in a wider variety of professions than I'd ever come into contact with before. All ghettoes should be as enriching (pun intended) as the one you see me "confined" to. (By the way, I think that one of the underrated virtues of a promiscuous lifestyle is the wide circle of "weak ties" it cultivates. Openly gay men often stay friendly with their former tricks, and these loose but affectionate ties enrich their lives over time in ways that go beyond "a few minutes' pleasure.")

 

So I'll concede that I come to these forums with my own cultural bias, just as you come to them with yours. And just as you think it's helpful to inject regular doses of Puritanical thinking so as to diversify the perspectives, so I think it's helpful for posters to hear from someone who does live in a world -- right here, in the US!) where the fact that one escorts is no big deal.

 

But the real reason I'll have to stay "used to" your one-note sermonizing is that your "self-examination" (read: guilt and shame) isn't likely to lead you to change your behavior any time soon, and the worse you feel about what you are doing the more we can look forward to the pleasure of your company.

 

>The link between barebacking and HIV is self-evident.

 

Excellent! That is the substance of what I was trying to say on that subject, and I apologize if I spoke with a level of precision more appropriate for a message board than a courtroom. At any rate, whether or not you believe there has actually ALREADY been a rise in HIV infections, doesn't it make sense to predict that if barebacking reaches a certain "tipping point" -- meaning a high enough percentage of men who have sex with multiple partners are barebacking -- then we will have an epidemic on our hands again? On the other hand, if promiscuous gay men universally, or at least in overwhelming numbers, adopt safe sex practices, yes, some might still get infected, but not at the rate where we'd have anything like an epidemic situation (the number of new cases would be smaller than the number of people who had HIV dying, which I believe is what the situation was for awhile before barebacking became popular -- notwithstanding your point that we're always talking about reported cases.) That's why I think there's a case to be made for promiscuous gays as a subculture to be unwelcoming of barebackers. I think social stigma should be used sparingly in the gay community; I'm all for a big tent; but if there's ANYWHERE it makes sense it's with regard to promiscuous barebacking. Now, you can debate this proposition and probably make valid arguments as to what's wrong with it. But to say that promiscuous gay men can't even participate in the debate without being hypocritical is not only profoundly unfair, but may even be dangerous: I would suggest that whether you like it or not, promiscuous gay men are more likely to listen to each other than to people who just want them to give up their lifestyle.

 

>>I'll give most of the members of this online community

>enough

>>credit to trust that they are in agreement with an escort's

>>right not to offer certain kinds of services. Is that

>really

>>such a controversial notion with anyone but you?

>

>I think the notion that anyone has a "right" to offer services

>of ANY kind as a prostitute is a very controversial notion for

>the vast majority of our fellow citizens, outside the tiny,

>strange little world you inhabit.

 

Why change the subject? I was clearly speaking of an escort's right NOT to offer certain services, not to offer them.

 

>But if we're going to pretend that there are "rights" and

>"rules" for prostitution, shouldn't we also pretend that they

>make some kind of sense? You assure everyone that the habits

>you adopt in your business all but guarantee that there will

>be no danger of HIV infection. I think it's dangerous and

>irresponsible for you to mislead people that way, but that is

>the whole basis of your lofty moral stand against those who

>bareback.

 

No, the basis of my "lofty moral stand" against those who bareback is that, as you said, the link between HIV and barebacking is clear, and I believe that if enough sexually active gay men -- I don't know how many and that's beside the point -- bareback, we will have an epidemic on our hands. If promiscuous people are instead vigilant about safer sex, then yes, on occasion a few will still be infected, just as some people are inevitably going to get killed on the highway (but we don't say nobody should drive while we do say nobody should drive drunk). But HIV would be much better contained, as the conventional wisdom seems to be saying it was after safer sex practices took hold culturally in the gay community.

 

>But if what you say is true then it can't make

>sense for people to insist that YOUR practices are not safe

>enough for them.

 

Sure it can, because I'm not saying that there aren't any shades of gray involved in making one's own risk assessment. For example, part of why I'm not willing to take on whatever risk might be associated with bottoming frequently, even with protection, is that I just don't enjoy bottoming all that much. If I was some kind of pig bottom that might affect my thinking about what kind of risk is acceptable. I'm not asking anyone to give up their lifestyle, or to give up the kinds of sex that are most important to them. I think sexual fulfillment is an important part of life. But it seems clear to me that mixing promiscuity with barebacking is a recipe for a public health disaster, and so when thinking about whether or not to do it you have to realize that you're not just taking a serious risk with your own health; you're risking fanning the flames of an epidemic, one which could also include drug-resistant strains. Maybe I've just been brainwashed by the articles I've read, but to me the link between a rise in promiscuous barebacking and a potential epidemic seems obvious enough to justify saying that it just doesn't fall within the gray area. Being promiscuous needn't commit you to a life of nihilism.

[axebahia]

>But the real reason I'll have to stay "used to" your one-note

>sermonizing is that your "self-examination" (read: guilt and

>shame) isn't likely to lead you to change your behavior any

>time soon, and the worse you feel about what you are doing the

>more we can look forward to the pleasure of your company.

 

Shouldn't you have started charging Woody for his Woody by now? He sure loves talking to you.

[axebahia]

>>But I think it will be good for you to interact with at least

>a

>>few people who don't fall all over themselves agreeing with

>>anything you say because they want to fuck you.

 

Devon, I don't want to fuck you, but I think you new pics are much hotter than your old ones!:9

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Devon, I don't want to fuck you, but I think you new pics are

>much hotter than your old ones!:9

 

Thanks, Axe. I don't want you to fuck me either, and I think you have an admirable record of NOT falling over agreeing with everything I say. This gives your statement about my new pics added credibility! :+

[woodlawn]

>I love how you try to spin your hypocritical attacks on others

>into a noble act of "self-examination."

 

I love how you consistently lie about who is attacking whom. It reminds me of the complaints by Republicans that Ted Kennedy is using "hate speech" against President Bush by saying that the war is a fraud. Let me remind you that this conversation started because you and others are attacking Aaron for making videos in which people bareback. I and others are saying that your attacks on him cannot be squared with your own participation in activities that risk spreading HIV. However far you may wander from the point, I will always bring you back to it.

 

>just try talking openly

>about the conflicts, be they religious or otherwise, that you

>have about what you're doing when you hire escorts.

 

In fact I have had several such discussions with other regulars here. You haven't read them, so you assume they never took place. That's one of the problems with being extremely self-centered.

 

 

>But no, you

>prefer to raise your issues in the form of attacks on other

>posters,

 

YOU are the one who attacked others in this thread. Please don't lie.

 

>LOL...and what ghetto are you referring to? I live in a

>diverse urban neighborhood where there is a sizeable gay

 

Blah, blah, blah, blah (with apologies to Franco for using one of his favorite words -- I hope I'm not violating his copyright).

 

>And if, when I started escorting, I entered a "ghetto," that

>ghetto has exposed me to more people, from a wider variety of

>backgrounds, who work and often excel in a wider variety of

>professions than I'd ever come into contact with before.

 

That really says something about your life before.

 

>And just

>as you think it's helpful to inject regular doses of

>Puritanical thinking

 

That's the problem -- I've never expressed any allegiance to the creed of the Puritans or to anything that could be mistaken for it even by someone whose knowledge of history comes primarily from going to the movies. It isn't what I write, it's what you see because of your own ultrasensitivity (as Doug described it). The "attacks" you perceive come from the inside of your head, not from me.

 

>the worse you feel about what you are doing the

>more we can look forward to the pleasure of your company.

 

These feelings you write about exist only in your imagination. You have never had and will never have even a clue to what I actually feel.

 

 

>>The link between barebacking and HIV is self-evident.

 

>Excellent! That is the substance of what I was trying to say

>on that subject,

 

No, it isn't. If that is all you were trying to say there was no need for you to say anything in this thread at all, since that point had already been made by ncm. The substance of what you were trying to say is that barebacking is SO MUCH MORE RISKY THAN sex with a condom that even the most promiscuous gay men who use condoms have the right to yell at barebackers for being a menace to public health.

 

>At any rate, whether or not you believe there has

>actually ALREADY been a rise in HIV infections,

 

The fact is that no one here knows whether there has been or not. This seems to be a tacit admission on your part that you've said there has been such a rise again and again even though you have no idea whether that is true.

 

>doesn't it

>make sense to predict that if barebacking reaches a certain

>"tipping point" -- meaning a high enough percentage of men who

>have sex with multiple partners are barebacking -- then we

>will have an epidemic on our hands again?

 

I have no idea, and neither do you. For all we know, there may be a point at which repeated exposure to the virus, or to different strains of it, cancels out the effect of exposure. The data is so incomplete that almost anything is possible.

 

>I would suggest that whether you like it or not,

>promiscuous gay men are more likely to listen to each other

>than to people who just want them to give up their lifestyle.

 

LOL! That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever seen on this board, and I've seen quite a few. If I have learned anything by reading this message board, it is that whoever promiscuous gay men may respect, they certainly DON'T have any respect for each other.

 

>Why change the subject? I was clearly speaking of an escort's

>right NOT to offer certain services, not to offer them.

 

That would be similar to a loan shark's right not to make loans on national holidays?

 

 

>No, the basis of my "lofty moral stand" against those who

>bareback is that, as you said, the link between HIV and

>barebacking is clear,

 

Yes, just as clear as the link between HIV and promiscuity.

 

 

>and I believe that if enough sexually

>active gay men -- I don't know how many and that's beside the

>point -- bareback, we will have an epidemic on our hands.

 

And your belief is based on what, exactly? The fact is, you don't know what the true risk differential between barebacking and condom use is. No one really knows that because the data on infection are so incomplete. You have simply decided that the differential is a large one, and on the basis of your decision you award yourself the right to excoriate those who bareback. Who does that remind me of? Oh, yes -- the Puritans.

 

>I'm not

>asking anyone to give up their lifestyle, or to give up the

>kinds of sex that are most important to them.

 

But you ARE asking people to give up promiscuous barebacking, no? If they tell you THAT is the kind of sex most important to them, then . . . . ?

 

>Being promiscuous needn't

>commit you to a life of nihilism.

 

No one is saying that it does. As I said to Trixie in this very thread, being promiscuous simply makes it much, much harder for you to tell others with any credibility that they must deny themselves the kind of sexual satisfaction that THEY seek for the sake of the public health when YOU clearly are NOT willing to deny yourself the pleasure that YOU seek.

[giovoni]

>And your belief is based on what, exactly? The fact is, you

>don't know what the true risk differential between barebacking

>and condom use is. No one really knows that because the data

>on infection are so incomplete.

 

"The condom is the only technology available for protection from sexually transmitted HIV. It is scientifically undisputed that the transmission of HIV during sexual intercourse can be prevented when condoms are used correctly and consistently. According to multiple studies, male condoms reduce the risk of contracting HIV “as much as 10,000-fold.”"

 

http://www.populationaction.org/resources/factsheets/factsheet_21.htm

 

If you google "contracting HIV while using condoms" or something similar you will find several other informative links.

 

 

>>At any rate, whether or not you believe there has

>>actually ALREADY been a rise in HIV infections,

>The fact is that no one here knows whether there has been or

>not. This seems to be a tacit admission on your part that

>you've said there has been such a rise again and again even

>though you have no idea whether that is true.

 

""When you add it all up, it does seem to paint a consistent picture," says Harold Jaffe of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "The epidemic may be on the rise among gay men."

 

HIV infections rose more than 7% from 2001 to 2002, with an overall increase of almost 18% since 1999. That was when the number of infections among gay and bisexual men bottomed out at 6,561 of the 40,000 total HIV infections estimated annually, Jaffe told CDC's National Conference on HIV Prevention in Atlanta.

 

The new figures come from 25 states that participate in a longstanding HIV-infection reporting network. The picture is incomplete because some states with the heaviest burden of HIV, California and New York among them, only recently began reporting HIV diagnoses. Reliable data on trends won't be available from those states for a year or two."

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-07-28-hiv-rate_x.htm

 

Numbers for CA seem hard to find... the link I did find that showed actual data is

 

http://www.aidsaction.org/communications/publications/statefactsheets/pdfs/california_2003.pdf

 

And for New York

 

http://www.aidsaction.org/communications/publications/statefactsheets/pdfs/newyork_2003.pdf

 

Both of these links have data older then I would have liked to post here, but taken together all of these articles and numbers obviate a rise in HIV infection. Several of the other articles you can read by googling 'hiv infection rates' and the like link condom use to preventing the spread of HIV.

 

 

 

Anyone who arms themselves with as much information as they can has every right to critique and advise people on what behaviors are risky and which ones should be discouraged more then others. Every credible study shows that there is a HUGE advantage to safer sex over unprotected sex.

 

It doesn't even seem like people are seriously arguing that safe sex is better.. just that escorts and clients have no business telling other escorts and clients that safe sex is better. This is beyond ridiculous. On this board especially, who should we wait for to come post on the matter? Saying escorts and clients of escorts are promiscuous and therefore have no right to speak on the matter is tantamount to saying you don't want to hear anything about it.

 

With the kind of evidence behind the assertion that barebacking is MUCH MUCH more risky then condoms ANYONE who points it out and offers criticism or advice to those who practice barebacking has credibility no matter what their profession is.

 

Gio in Denver

http://www.angelfire.com/co3/massagebygio

[woodlawn]

>"The condom is the only technology available for protection

>from sexually transmitted HIV.

 

Except for abstinence? Or monogamy?

 

>Both of these links have data older then I would have liked to

>post here, but taken together all of these articles and

>numbers obviate a rise in HIV infection. Several of the other

>articles you can read by googling 'hiv infection rates' and

>the like link condom use to preventing the spread of HIV.

 

I thank you for posting this information. I take it your point is that the RATE of HIV infection -- that is, the number of new infections in a given population during a given year as compared to the number of new infections in that population during the previous year -- rose for the most recent year for which data are available. That may be so. My only point is that the numbers referred to are REPORTED infections. Since the number of ACTUAL infections in any given year is not known, those who insist that an increase in the rate of infections is attributable to barebacking are making a statement that may or may not have any basis in reality. I think that is a very poor factual foundation on which to accuse anyone of "putting thousands at risk," which is one accusation that has been made in this thread.

 

>Saying

>escorts and clients of escorts are promiscuous and therefore

>have no right to speak on the matter is tantamount to saying

>you don't want to hear anything about it.

 

I suppose that would be true if prostitutes and johns are the only people one talks to about health issues. I hope that isn't the case for anyone here.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that using a condom doesn't reduce the risk of HIV transmission. I also don't think anyone is arguing that using a condom eliminates the risk of HIV transmission; only abstinence or monogamy can accomplish that. I have seen studies putting the failure rate of condoms due to both slippage and breakage anywhere from the low single digits (in percentage terms) to the mid-single digits. Some of the studies differentiate between the failure rate for perfect use, when the device is used in exactly the manner and conditions specified by the maker, and typical use, when the device is used in the manner in which most study respondents actually report using it; not surprisingly, failure rates are higher in the latter situation than in the former.

 

The position of those here who are expressing their disapproval of barebacking is that they are willing to take a certain risk of HIV transmission in order to enjoy themselves (or make money), correct? Although the risk in question is the risk of transmitting a disease that is fatal and incurable, there is a level of risk of transmission that they are willing to accept, right?

 

And they go on to say that barebacking involves a degree of risk of transmission that they find unacceptable and that those who encourage it should be reproved or pressured to change their ways. Right?

 

I certainly have no problem with people who are promiscuous taking the position that barebacking is dangerous, so long as they're honest about the fact that their own behavior also involves a genuine danger of transmitting the disease. It's when they leave out the second half of that sentence or pretend it is of no importance that I have a problem.

[giovoni]

>And they go on to say that barebacking involves a degree of

>risk of transmission that they find unacceptable and that

>those who encourage it should be reproved or pressured to

>change their ways. Right?

>

>I certainly have no problem with people who are promiscuous

>taking the position that barebacking is dangerous, so long as

>they're honest about the fact that their own behavior also

>involves a genuine danger of transmitting the disease. It's

>when they leave out the second half of that sentence or

>pretend it is of no importance that I have a problem.

 

For my part I know there is risk involved in every sexual act. I also know that it is far less a risk with condoms. I've been told by HIV testing counselors that the risk of getting infected, as a top, with a condom, is about the risk of being killed on the highway while driving. I have no idea where they get their numbers though. When pressed to present them most do not know where they're from either. Some say that the doctors in the clinics teach them, but I don't know.. I haven't tracked down any doctors that know much more then just the numbers.

 

I'm also not thrilled with the data I found above. In looking over them again especially the numbers for CA and NY the raw numbers of HIV/AIDS cases do in fact go up which is what you would expect with preserving more and more lives with therapy.... more people live longer meaning the actual number of people living with the disease rises. The 'rate' of infection is mentioned in so many reports as rising.. but I can't track down actual numbers .. Even the Denver Post today ran a front page report on HIV infection rates rising and that it was probably due to the waning of safer sex practices. But again.. no hard numbers.. just a mention that new infections are now over 42,000 cases a year after having plateaued at 40,000 for a few years, if this is true it would represent a 5% rise which to me is very alarming.

 

One way that I look at barebacking by people I know and by escorts, clients and strangers I may see at bathhouses or other places is this: Safer sex is not that difficult to practice. After a while you get used to everything you have to do and all the habits that you must cultivate in addition to just wearing condoms. Even so there is inherent risk in any sexual contact. Because of this if barebacking continues to rise and the 'rate' of HIV infection also continued to rise, then everyone's risk goes up. Even those who practice safer sex in whatever form they chose. If in a given population the rate of HIV were to go from 3% to 6% EVERYONE'S risk of contracting HIV through sexual contact no matter what precautions they take will have doubled. Therefore, as someone who practices safer sex and who is convinced that barebacking contributes to a rise in HIV infection rates I don't like the idea that this kind of behavior is making the number of people I may have contact with that have HIV rise. In other words the people who regularly bareback, spreading HIV and other diseases around the population DO have a DIRECT effect on me and my safety because I AM promiscuous. Therefore, I feel I have MORE at stake then just someone who is speaking from a public health perspective. Bottom line.. people who act irresponsibly ultimately put me and you as a client at increased risk.

 

Gio in Denver

http://www.angelfire.com/co3/massagebygio

 

Gio in Denver

http://www.angelfire.com/co3/massagebygio

[IM_Moore]

Too funny 155 responses on a topic that has been played out here over 155 times. Argos congratulations on starting the most boring thread of the year.

 

IM Moore (forget it)

[woodlawn]

>The 'rate' of

>infection is mentioned in so many reports as rising.. but I

>can't track down actual numbers .. Even the Denver Post

>today ran a front page report on HIV infection rates rising

>and that it was probably due to the waning of safer sex

>practices. But again.. no hard numbers..

 

The rate of new infections may well be rising. Without knowing the number of actual new infections as opposed to the number reported to health authorities, it's hard to say whether it's rising or not, let alone what is causing it. So I don't think it's responsible to insist that it is and to use that as a reason to condemn the behavior of others. That's what several people in this thread are doing.

 

>One way that I look at barebacking by people I know and by

>escorts, clients and strangers I may see at bathhouses or

>other places is this: Safer sex is not that difficult to

>practice.

 

If that is true then why are we having a conversation about an increase in the incidence of barebacking? I have no doubt that condoms, when used as intended by the maker, are very effective, if not totally effective, in preventing the spread of HIV. But one thing no one here seems to focus on is the fact that there is something about condoms that makes a significant number of people unwilling to use them. How else do you account for the fact that after more than a decade of educational programs intended to persuade gay men to use them, more and more seem to be refusing to do so?

 

>The effectiveness of any device or treatment is limited by the extent to which people are willing to use it. Seat belts are extremely effective in preventing fatalities in auto accidents; but they are effective only if used, so their effectiveness is limited by any design features that make some people unwilling to use them. It makes no sense to talk about the effectiveness of condoms in the absence of that factor.

[woodlawn]

>>>But I think it will be good for you to interact with at

>least

>>a

>>>few people who don't fall all over themselves agreeing with

>>>anything you say because they want to fuck you.

 

>Devon, I don't want to fuck you, but I think you new pics are

>much hotter than your old ones!

 

Devon has confided in us on a couple of occasions that he enjoys having younger men beat him up. Perhaps you would be willing to oblige him in that regard? How about if he wore an armband with a yellow star of david on it?