Barebacking

[guptasa1]

>< "PS, Lest you think I was completely irresponsible, all

>actors were tested for HIV prior for the filming." >

>

>Is that the same thing as saying that the actors were tested

>for HIV and were under constant surveillance to insure they

>had no sex from the moment the test was done until they

>appeared in the barebacking scene(s)?

>

>Think about it. There is a difference. I don't know the

>answer, but my guess is that there is a time gap between

>testing and shooting the scene. If I'm wrong, I'll happily

>admit it.

 

You can do a home ELISA test and get the test results back within 3 days. I'd bet you can do it even faster at the right medical provider. I don't know about the tests that test for the virus directly or how long it takes to get results with those.

 

Again, I'm not saying what was done was completely safe. I am saying it's probably a LOT safer than if no testing was done at all.

[woodlawn]

>>Would you please explain that? Is there a blood test that

>can

>>be done prior to filming that will show that the people who

>>participate are incapable of infecting anyone with HIV at

>the

>>time of filming? If not, please explain how "testing and

>>precautions" can make this safe.

 

>If both of them are HIV positive, then there's no risk that

>they will seroconvert, since they are already HIV-positive.

 

You ignore the issue of passing on a different strain or version of the virus.

 

 

>Additionally, if the two of them are lovers and confident in

>each other's monogomy - as many lovers who bareback with one

>another are - then that's an addition way to greatly reduce

>risk.

 

Do you happen to know any professional porn models who have sex only with their lovers? I would think that would place some severe limitations on their careers.

 

 

>With regard to all testing and and all types of sex, the issue

>of risk-free sex is irrelevant.

 

It was not irrelevant to the post to which I was responding. The poster said this could be done "safely." I want to know what he meant by that. I didn't ask you, I asked him. I already know your opinion, since you have posted it on this board over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

 

> If someone waits for the

>elimination of risk in sex or anything else, they will live

>life, or not live life, they way you do - under the bad,

>scared of moving, doing nothing, seeing everything as one big

>"DANGER" sign.

 

 

Blah, blah, blah, blah. Once again, you horn in on a conversation involving other people to post some insults apropos of absolutely nothing. What a surprise.

 

By the way, where the fuck do you get off accusing ncm of obsessive behavior given the fact that whenever he posts about this you show up to yell at him? Your own behavior is as predictable as one of Pavlov's dogs.

[Doug69]

>You ignore the issue of passing on a different strain or

>version of the virus.

 

If the adults who have HIV don't think that's a big enough risk for them to worry about, who the fuck are you to tell them otherwise?

 

>Do you happen to know any professional porn models who have

>sex only with their lovers? I would think that would place

>some severe limitations on their careers.

 

Actually, many models in porn - including in Aaron's videos, it appears - are not "professional porn models." Lots of videos these days are "amateur porn," meaning guys who don't do porn for their careers but, instead, are "real guys" doing a video as a one-time way to make money or to do something adventerous or have fun.

 

For such videos, it is hardly rare to see lovers making a video, because they don't want to make a video with anyone else. In that case, what is wrong with a barebacking video?

 

>It was not irrelevant to the post to which I was responding.

>The poster said this could be done "safely." I want to know

>what he meant by that. I didn't ask you, I asked him.

 

Do you really need me to find examples where you "horn in" on "conversation involving other people"? Doing so would not exactly be difficult, and it's sort of how the Board works. Private conversations are best conducted by e-mail or phone.

 

And my point was that - as he confirmed - "safely" doesn't mean 100% risk-free. People say "safe sex" all the time meaning "fucking with condoms," even though that's not 100% safe.

 

You asked how barebacking sex could be "safe" or "responsible" and I gave you multiple ways that it could be. The person you asked provided some, but not all, of these examples in response to your inquiry, so you should really be thanking me for providing you with the information that you claimed to seek.

 

>By the way, where the fuck do you get off accusing ncm of

>obsessive behavior given the fact that whenever he posts about

>this you show up to yell at him? Your own behavior is as

>predictable as one of Pavlov's dogs.

 

I never raise this issue, so it would be a difficult to describe me as obsessive with it. It's similar to the way that you jump in with your "what-do-you-expect-of-escorts-since-they-violate-the-law?" line any time anyone complains of an escort's conduct. Everyone here has heard it a trillion times, but you keep repeating it over and over and over and over and over because you obviously feel strongly about it.

 

NCM's sermons and condemnation of barebacking videos are hypocritical, destructive, and irrational - so every time I see it here, I will point that out.

[Doug69]

>Again, I'm not saying what was done was completely safe. I am

>saying it's probably a LOT safer than if no testing was done

>at all.

 

Yes, exactly. How can any sane human being demand that sex portrayed in videos be "completely safe" - like following actors around and making sure they don't fuck before a video.

 

Is someone under the impression that fucking with condoms has no risk of transmitting HIV?? Does someone think that eating cum has no risk of HIV?? Every fucking sex scene that anyone watches in a video has some risk - and depicts sex in the delicate eyes of "impressionable gay youth" which might transmit HIV. And yet nobody thinks there's anything wrong with that.

 

All of that, of course, leaves aside the issue that: (1) adults have the right to do whatever they fucking want on videos; (2) whether adults choose to engage in "risky behavior" is their own choice, and not for anyone else to make that choice for them; (3) most of the people complaining about barebacking videos go to see movies that depict violence and anonymous sex and all sorts of destructive behaviors; and (4) the notion that "kids" watch sex videos and then copy them is absurd, and even if true, doesn't bestow on porn producers the obligation to turn their videos into sermons.

 

But all of that has been discussed ad nauseum here - just a reminder that all of those issues exist as well.

[BewareofNick]

Terry Rakolta

 

In 1989, a Michigan housewife sat down with her family to watch a sitcom and was offended by what she saw. In response, she started a national boycott of the show. Before her boycott, the show was little watched and on the verge of cancellation. After her boycott, it became a smash hit and lasted on TV for 11 seasons.

 

The network? Fox.

 

The show? Married With Children.

 

Thanks Terry!!

[Doug69]

RE: Terry Rakolta

 

>In 1989, a Michigan housewife sat down with her family to

>watch a sitcom and was offended by what she saw.

 

You're so right, Neal - I forgot all about her - funny how someone can be so intensely famous and then disappear into the netherworld - I wonder what that bitch is doing now.

 

NCM is clearly the Terry Rakolta of the Barebacking World. Go, Terry!

[woodlawn]

>>You ignore the issue of passing on a different strain or

>>version of the virus.

 

>If the adults who have HIV don't think that's a big enough

>risk for them to worry about, who the fuck are you to tell

>them otherwise?

 

I didn't "tell them otherwise," you lying piece of shit. You can't find any post of mine saying such a thing. Try it.

 

>Actually, many models in porn - including in Aaron's videos,

>it appears - are not "professional porn models."

 

Really? Which ones?

 

> Lots of

>videos these days are "amateur porn," meaning guys who don't

>do porn for their careers but, instead, are "real guys" doing

>a video as a one-time way to make money or to do something

>adventerous or have fun.

 

Interesting.

 

>In that case, what is wrong with a barebacking video?

 

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. Have you had your eyes checked lately? If so, better have your brain checked.

 

 

>>It was not irrelevant to the post to which I was responding.

>

>>The poster said this could be done "safely." I want to know

>>what he meant by that. I didn't ask you, I asked him.

 

>Do you really need me to find examples where you "horn in" on

>"conversation involving other people"?

 

 

Sure. And after you do that, you can explain how you can tell me what some other poster meant by something he wrote. That's what I was trying to find out, idiot.

 

 

>Private conversations are best conducted by e-mail or phone.

 

 

Whether a conversation is public or private, one person has no business telling another what a third person meant to say.

 

>And my point was that

 

I'm not interested in hearing from you about it. I want to hear from him. That is why I addressed my post to him, stupid.

 

>you should really be thanking me

>for providing you with the information that you claimed to

>seek.

 

I'm not going to thank you for (falsely, as it turns out) purporting to tell me what is going on in someone else's mind. Fuck off.

 

 

>Your own behavior is as

>>predictable as one of Pavlov's dogs.

 

>I never raise this issue, so it would be a difficult to

>describe me as obsessive with it.

 

Go look up the definition of "obsessive." You clearly don't know what it means.

 

>you keep

>repeating it over and over and over and over and over because

>you obviously feel strongly about it.

 

 

So?

 

>NCM's sermons and condemnation of barebacking videos are

>hypocritical, destructive, and irrational - so every time I

>see it here, I will point that out.

 

In other words, you are obsessed with denouncing his opinion on this issue.

 

There is nothing destructive about ncm's remarks, and nothing irrational. His opinion harms no one and nothing, and saying it is "destructive" is just another example of your penchant for hurling false accusations at anyone who disagrees with you -- are you sure you and Ann Coulter aren't related? You certainly have a lot in common.

[woodlawn]

>I *do* believe even barebacking can be done responsibly

>(between exclusive lovers or people VERY well-tested).

>However, I don't think it *IS* done responsibly much of the

>time, and I think doing it irresponsibly is rather dangerous.

 

Thanks for clarifyng.

[Doug69]

>>If the adults who have HIV don't think that's a big enough

>>risk for them to worry about, who the fuck are you to tell

>>them otherwise?

>

>I didn't "tell them otherwise," you lying piece of shit. You

>can't find any post of mine saying such a thing. Try it.

 

A perfect example of The Woodlawn Game:

 

"How can barebacking be done safely?"

"Barebacking is unsafe."

"I didn't suggset or imply that barebacking couldn't be done safely, liar."

 

>>Actually, many models in porn - including in Aaron's videos,

>>it appears - are not "professional porn models."

>

>Really? Which ones?

 

Lots of them. I'm not doing research for you. I've seen them. Anyone who looks at porn in any substantial way has seen them. If you don't believe it exists without having proof, who gives a fuck?

 

>> Lots of

>>videos these days are "amateur porn," meaning guys who don't

>>do porn for their careers but, instead, are "real guys"

>doing

>>a video as a one-time way to make money or to do something

>>adventerous or have fun.

>

>Interesting.

 

Yeah - interesting. And aside from being interesting, it also proves how barebacking can be done safely - which is what you pretended to want to know.

 

>>In that case, what is wrong with a barebacking video?

>

>I didn't say there was anything wrong with it.

 

You haven't ever said that there's anything wrong with producing bareback videos? Is that what you're claiming?

 

>Sure. And after you do that, you can explain how you can tell

>me what some other poster meant by something he wrote. That's

>what I was trying to find out, idiot.

 

If nobody could understand what any poster meant when they wrote something, this Board would be a rather huge waste. Everything written, for that matter, would be a huge waste. English has meaning. Consequently, I can read what other posters write and understand what they mean.

 

The fact that you can't do this - and that you think it can't be done - isn't exactly surprising.

 

>I'm not interested in hearing from you about it. I want to

>hear from him. That is why I addressed my post to him,

>stupid.

 

If you only wanted him to respond and not anyone else to respond, then you should have asked him privately. If you only wantd him to answer, it was pretty ill-conceived - and dumb - of you to ask him publicly, on a Board where it's common for others to respond to posts even though they are addressed to someone else.

 

>There is nothing destructive about ncm's remarks, and nothing

>irrational. His opinion harms no one and nothing, and saying

>it is "destructive" is just another example of your penchant

>for hurling false accusations at anyone who disagrees with you

>-- are you sure you and Ann Coulter aren't related? You

>certainly have a lot in common.

 

Trying to whip up hatred for Aaron Lawrence - as NCM does every time he takes a breath - can be quite destructive, as can shrieking about the destruction that they sow. In case you didn't know this, whipping up hatred for people by claiming that they harm children and the society at-large has, in the past, led to destructive things.

 

And for someone who spews us much vulgarity, insult, invective and anger as you do, it's more than a little bewildering that you pretend to object to Ann Coulter. Other than the fact that she's conservative, under 60, wealthy, famous, and not afraid of her own shadow, I don't see any difference between you and her at all.

[woodlawn]

>>>If the adults who have HIV don't think that's a big enough

>>>risk for them to worry about, who the fuck are you to tell

>>>them otherwise?

 

>>I didn't "tell them otherwise," you lying piece of shit.

>You

>>can't find any post of mine saying such a thing. Try it.

 

>"How can barebacking be done safely?"

>"Barebacking is unsafe."

>"I didn't suggset or imply that barebacking couldn't be done

>safely, liar."

 

Doug, you filthy, nasty, lying old poof, the above is just another example of the cavalcade of lies with which you fill this board on a daily basis. The quote "Barebacking is unsafe," above comes from you, not from me. You thought you'd slip it in there and no one would notice because you assume everyone has the same problem reading English that you do. Wrong.

 

 

 

>Really? Which ones?

 

>Lots of them. I'm not doing research for you.

 

If you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't have to do research. The fact that you say there are "lots" of these models but when challenged can't name a single one shows that you are just making shit up again. You must hang out with some awfully stupid people if they let you get away with that.

 

<If you don't believe it exists without having proof,

>who gives a fuck?

 

I certainly don't give a fuck about all the shit you make up, Doug. In fact, I don't give a fuck if you live or die. Why would I?

 

>>Interesting.

 

>Yeah - interesting. And aside from being interesting, it also

>proves how barebacking can be done safely - which is what you

>pretended to want to know.

 

You're lying again, Doug. A vague, general statement that you can't substantiate proves absolutely nothing.

 

 

>>>In that case, what is wrong with a barebacking video?

 

>>I didn't say there was anything wrong with it.

 

>You haven't ever said that there's anything wrong with

>producing bareback videos? Is that what you're claiming?

 

Yup. I have said that those who produce such videos should take some responsibility for depicting a dangerous activity in a way that makes it seem fun and exciting -- since that is what they are doing. You disagree?

 

>>Sure. And after you do that, you can explain how you can

>tell

>>me what some other poster meant by something he wrote.

>That's

>>what I was trying to find out, idiot.

 

>If nobody could understand what any poster meant when they

>wrote something,

 

Who appointed you to explain to the rest of us what any particular poster is trying to say? Don't pretend you were trying to be helpful -- no one familiar with your posts would ever believe that.

 

>>I'm not interested in hearing from you about it. I want to

>>hear from him. That is why I addressed my post to him,

>>stupid.

 

>If you only wanted him to respond and not anyone else to

>respond,

 

It didn't occur to me that anyone, even a jerk like you, would presume to take it upon himself to tell me what another person, who is a complete stranger to him, meant. Call me naive.

 

 

>Trying to whip up hatred for Aaron Lawrence - as NCM does

>every time he takes a breath - can be quite destructive, as

>can shrieking about the destruction that they sow.

 

Ncm hasn't tried to do either of those things. You're just making shit up again. What a surprise!

 

 

>And for someone who spews us much vulgarity, insult, invective

>and anger as you do, it's more than a little bewildering that

>you pretend to object to Ann Coulter.

 

It's not a pretense, Doogie. I do object to anyone who makes a living by urging Americans to hate each other because of their political differences, especially when she does it by telling a pack of lies, as Ann does. It's a rotten thing to do.

 

>I don't see any difference between

>you and her at all.

 

For one thing, I'm far better looking.

[Guest ncm2169]

< NCM's sermons and condemnation of barebacking videos are hypocritical >

 

1. I've never barebacked and I never will

2. I've never watched a barebacking video, since the appearance of HIV

3. I've never encouraged anyone to bareback

4. As evidenced by this thread, I regularly express my strong feelings against barebacking

 

How, pray tell, does that make me a hypocrite?

 

The poster who made the above allegation is once again wrong, just as he was when he accused me of being a pimp (which, when I denied it, he retreated from), and just as he was when he accused me of recruiting young guys into escorting (which again, when I denied it, he retreated from).

 

The poster referred to above is good at slinging wild vitriolic accusations. Fortunately, he's as well-thought of here as a skunk at a garden party. }(

 

Hey Woodlawn: maybe Pavlov had a skunk too? :+

 

P.S. Not that it matters a hill of beans (at least not to me), but anyone who cares to witness how much the above-referenced poster practically leaps out of his chair to attack me on unrelated topics can check out his remark in my thread about Doggy Watersports in The Lounge today.

 

< Shakes head and shrugs. > :o

[Doug69]

>< NCM's sermons and condemnation of barebacking videos are

>hypocritical >

 

>How, pray tell, does that make me a hypocrite?

 

We've been through this before. You claim that you oppose bareback videos on the ground that it harms "gay youth," and yet you are an active participant in, and enthusiast of, the prostitution of 18 and 19 year old boys. It strikes me as exceptionally hypocritical to lead public crusades where you trumpet your concern for the health and sexual well-being of young, barely legaly gay men while at the same time revelling in their prostitution to 60 year-old men.

 

>The poster who made the above allegation is once again wrong,

>just as he was when he accused me of being a pimp (which, when

>I denied it, he retreated from) . . .

 

Yes - you seem to think that my unwilligness to repeat things that which I discover are in error is some sort of character flaw. You wrote a post talking about "recruiting" 18-year-old and 19-year-old escorts, which -- combined with how actively you were promoting the services of young JasoninMpls, including posting under his name -- I understood to mean that you were "recruting" for pimping purposes, not for hiring purposes (a distinction which makes no difference for purposes of this argument). Once you denied that you were a pimp, I took you at your word and stopped saying that. Do you think it would have been more commendable to disbelieve you and continue?

 

>The poster referred to above is good at slinging wild

>vitriolic accusations. Fortunately, he's as well-thought of

>here as a skunk at a garden party.

 

You always say things and then proclaim that everyone agrees with you, without any basis whatsoever. Why do you have this need to beileve that everyone agrees with you? Why are you so willing to say things about what "most people" think without any basis for those claims?

[Guest ncm2169]

< Why are you so willing to say things about what "most people" think without any basis for those claims >

 

Just this once, I'll break my self-imposed rule about never responding to your vitriol -- only because it's just too delicious.

 

First, I read what other posters here have to say about you. In case you missed it, you have several serious detractors. But you're probably too busy looking for ways to attack other people to read and digest those posts.

 

Second, I have an emailbox filled with comments from members here who tell me what they think of you. It's not a pretty picture.

 

< Shakes head, shrugs, blows him off, and reverts to not responding to this scumbag. >

[Guest ncm2169]

< are you sure you and Ann Coulter aren't related? You certainly have a lot in common >

 

Woodlawn, that's totally unfair. :o

 

Even on her worst day, Ann Coulter -- vile scurrilous malicious cunt that she is -- has more going for her than this loser. :7

[Doug69]

WOODLAWN SAID:

 

>It's not a pretense, Doogie. I do object to anyone who makes

>a living by urging Americans to hate each other because of

>their political differences, especially when she does it by

>telling a pack of lies, as Ann does. It's a rotten thing to

>do.

 

AND YET, WOODLAWN ALSO SAID - ON THE VERY SAME DAY :

 

It was not until Saddam went off the reservation and imperiled our oil supply from Kuwait that Republicans suddenly discovered what an evil dictator he is. What a bunch of filthy hypocrites!

 

So, Woodlawn insists that he doesn't like when people like Ann Coulter incite hatred against others based upon "their political differences."

 

And yet this very same Woodlawn, on the very same day, runs aroundd saying that Republicans are "a bunch of filthy hyocrites."

 

How can anybody read this and not need a barf bag?

[Flower]

>I like the new color Flower you wear it well . You also

>bring up a excellent point about NCM's contribution. I had the

>same thought when I first read this post ... though couldn't

>put it as coherently as you have :7

 

gee--thanks, thanks, and thanks Huey:7

[BuckyXTC]

>So, Woodlawn insists that he doesn't like when people like Ann

>Coulter incite hatred against others based upon "their

>political differences."

>

>And yet this very same Woodlawn, on the very same day, runs

>aroundd saying that Republicans are "a bunch of filthy

>hyocrites."

>

>How can anybody read this and not need a barf bag?

 

To say that the Republicans are a bunch of nasty hypocrites, is, if anything, an understatement of the truth. Lying, criminal, greedy scum would be more accurate.

[Doug69]

>To say that the Republicans are a bunch of nasty hypocrites,

>is, if anything, an understatement of the truth. Lying,

>criminal, greedy scum would be more accurate.

 

I'm aware that you think this, and it's certainly your right to. Replace "Republicans" with "liberals" and you have Ann Coulter.

 

That's why you can't possibly think what you said and, at the same time, talk about how much you dislike it when people try to divide Americans based upon their "political differences" - at least you can't do that without being a reeking, rancid, freakish joke. That's what Woodlawn just did.

[VaHawk]

I guess every thread like every picture has a story to tell?

 

"I've been meanin' to phone ya"

"But from Minnesota...HELL, it's been a very long time"

"But you wear it well.."

"A little old fashioned, but that's alright"

"You wear it well"

"Madame Onassis has nothin' on you" :-) :-)

[BewareofNick]

RE: Terry Rakolta

 

With the way Doug and I are agreeing lately, I am beginning to feel like Zell Miller.

[woodlawn]

>It was not until Saddam went off the reservation and imperiled

>our oil supply from Kuwait that Republicans suddenly

>discovered what an evil dictator he is. What a bunch of filthy

>hypocrites!

 

>So, Woodlawn insists that he doesn't like when people like Ann

>Coulter incite hatred against others based upon "their

>political differences."

 

>And yet this very same Woodlawn, on the very same day, runs

>aroundd saying that Republicans are "a bunch of filthy

>hyocrites."

 

I don't see any contradiction here, Doogie. I don't urge anyone to hate Republicans because they believe in smaller government or tax cuts. There are legitimate arguments that can be made for those positions, and a sincere difference in political beliefs is no reason to hate someone. I'm not like Ann Coulter, who said that Democrats who failed to support Bush's missile defense program should be prosecuted for treason.

 

But "a sincere difference in political beliefs" is not what is going on with respect to Iraq, at least not when it comes to Republican leaders. What I have said about them is unchallengeable: some of the same people who were in the Reagan and Bush administrations when the policy was to cozy up to Saddam are now condemning anyone who opposes the Iraq policy as a supporter of the evil dictator Saddam. I suppose you're not going to lie and deny this is true?

 

Dick Cheney, for example, was one of the party's leaders when Saddam used poison gas on the Kurds in the late 80s. Did he get up in public at that time and say Saddam is a menace to world peace and we should stop supporting him? No. But now he runs around the country making speeches using that same gas attack as an example of why we needed to invade Iraq. Again, you're not going to lie and deny this, are you?

 

>How can anybody read this and not need a barf bag?

 

Let me remind you and everyone else that you are the same person who recently urged escorts to make more money by taking advantage of the increased sexual needs and carelessness with money of crystal meth users. So I don't think anyone needs to worry about offending your delicate sensibilities.

[theDCeBOY]

HEY! your new font color was my idea! you should both be thanking me! }(

[theDCeBOY]

SEVERAL people may well agree with you, but you have no rational basis for claiming that "most people" agree with you about Doug. i like him. not only do i tend to agree with him on many (not all) issues, but he provides a much needed balance to the standard gay kneejerk partisan democrat ultra-liberalism of some of the other rather fecund posters. while i'm certain that you're not alone in your dislike of doug and anything & everything he posts, i'm also sure that it isn't fair to say that most people here share your views. let's be honest: only a very small percentage of the total visitors here actually create usernames & it is but a small proportion of those members who post or send emails.

[MiamiLooker]

>We've been through this before. You claim that you oppose

>bareback videos on the ground that it harms "gay youth," and

>yet you are an active participant in, and enthusiast of, the

>prostitution of 18 and 19 year old boys.

 

Are these the same 18 and 19 year old boys you refer to as adults in your earlier post:

 

>All of that, of course, leaves aside the issue that: (1) adults have >the right to do whatever they fucking want on videos; (2) whether >adults choose to engage in "risky behavior" is their own choice, and >not for anyone else to make that choice for them;

[Doug69]

>Are these the same 18 and 19 year old boys you refer to as

>adults in your earlier post:

>

>>All of that, of course, leaves aside the issue that: (1)

>adults have >the right to do whatever they fucking want on

>videos; (2) whether >adults choose to engage in "risky

>behavior" is their own choice, and >not for anyone else to

>make that choice for them;

 

Yup - they're one and the same. That's why I don't run around crusading against people and web sites (such as this one, for instance) which promote (ahem) "escorting" by 18- and 19-year old "boys" to old men. Even though I think it is, by and large, unhealthy for these gay "youth" to be engaged in this behavior, they are adults and it's their choice what to do and I wouldn't think to crusade against the choices they make for their life.

 

That's why I find NCM's sermons against those who choose to bareback on video and those who choose to sell those videos to other adults so reprehensible.