Barebear Rant
Feb. 3rd, 2003 02:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nfotxnI usually try to respect the differing choices of others but one thing I CANNOT tolerate is people who bareback. It's RECKLESS and IRRESPONSIBLE, arguing that it's some sort of lifestyle choice is equally as vapid and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding how diseases NOT JUST HIV spread.
Sticking other dicks up your butt is like sharing needles.
Sticking other dicks up your butt is like sharing needles.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
In full agreement.
Date: 2003-02-03 11:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-02-03 11:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-02-03 11:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-02-03 11:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-02-03 11:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-02-03 11:39 am (UTC)I've tried to stick my own dick up my butt, but it doesn't reach that far so I've had to resort to using others.
Adding to the list..
Date: 2003-02-03 11:39 am (UTC)Thanks for the courage to bring this topic up when I was too pussilanimous to do so myself.
For me it's the discovery of how rampant it is amongst people I thought I knew well.. and the number of bears that are littering the bareback newsgroups, irc channels, chat areas, and bareback websites.
When the next wave of the epidemic hits we're going to be left holding the "you stupid idiots did it to yourselves, KNOWINGLY"-bag.
*sigh*
"Sex-neutral"
Date: 2003-02-03 12:30 pm (UTC)The real demon here isn't so much barebacking. Barebacking is a symptom of the real disease-- the idea of "sex positive" that the gay community has used to shroud such dangerous activity.
"Sex positive" was an important tool to bouncing back from the AIDS crisis of the late 80's and early 90's-- a way of saying "it's okay" after having so many years of the media warning us about having sex...even with yourself. We needed that global coaking out of our head to toe bodycondoms and back into eachother's beds.
But, in classic gay excess, that term--"sex positive"--began to evolve, and evolve, and evolve. Soon, it went from being a term for getting your rocks off with someone without guilt, to a carte blanche for every form of sexual activity (and some that might not necessarily be sexual, but are kinks none the less) in the Masters and Johnson Manual.
"What? You're not into fisting? You're not sex-positive! Shame, shame, shame..."
"What? I can't piss in your mouth? You're not sex-positive! Shame, shame, shame..."
"What? You won't rim a dirty asshole? You're not sex-positive! Shame, shame, shame..."
"What? I can't punch-fuck you? You're not sex-positive! Shame, shame, shame..."
"What? You don't bareback? You're not sex-positive! Shame, shame, shame..."
And it was then, when terms like "sex nazi" and "sex fascist" became fashionable in the gay community to describe those that wouldn't lie down and submit to everything in the book, that the inmates took control of the asylum. Rumors began. Whisper campaigns circulated. It's a permutation of that same, tired, 80's activist mentality--If you don't completely agree with me, you're homophobic! Now, it's If you won't share my kinks with me, you're not sex-positive; and you're nothing more than a sex-nazi! Until we see some limits (ala, the BDSM community's notion of "safe, sane, consentual") on the idea of "sex positive," the inmates are going to continue to run the asylum.
I really wonder how many people are in the bareback scene because they want to be there, and not because they're afraid of being "branded" and losing potential playmates over it.
Puh-leeze.
Date: 2003-02-03 01:35 pm (UTC)"What? I can't piss in your mouth? You're not sex-positive! Shame, shame, shame..."
"What? You won't rim a dirty asshole? You're not sex-positive! Shame, shame, shame..."
"What? I can't punch-fuck you? You're not sex-positive! Shame, shame, shame..."
"What? You don't bareback? You're not sex-positive! Shame, shame, shame..."
Give me a break. You equate low risk sexual activities (http://www.hivchannel.com/prevention/safesex/lowrisk.shtml) such as fisting and watersports with high-risk activities like barebacking and rimming a dirty asshole.
Re: Puh-leeze.
Date: 2003-02-03 01:52 pm (UTC)It's not the activities. It's the fact that "you won't do my kink" equates to "you're not positive about sex"--which is what the bareback community often uses to justify their activity.
Sorry if I hit a raw nerve with some pet kinks you might have, but you might want to re-read that, and look at those examples within the context they were presented instead of just firing off on a defensive, knee-jerk reaction....
Re: Puh-leeze.
Date: 2003-02-03 02:10 pm (UTC)Evidence, please? Anything?
Sorry if I hit a raw nerve with some pet kinks you might have, but you might want to re-read that, and look at those examples within the context they were presented instead of just firing off on a defensive, knee-jerk reaction....
Perhaps I was a bit defensive. But not hypocritical.
Re: Puh-leeze.
Date: 2003-02-03 05:54 pm (UTC)Then again, he thinks he's an animal. I probably shouldn't take him too seriously anyway.
Misinterpreted
Date: 2003-02-03 07:44 pm (UTC)Do you use phrases like "in classic gay excess," meant to imply that "gays" can't leave anything simply and always have to spin things dramatically out of control -- because you know "gays" are all drama queens!
If someone black writes something like "just like always, those blacks were stealing cars," wouldn't you think there's some self-loathing going on?
no subject
Date: 2003-02-03 11:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-02-03 03:04 pm (UTC)bareback madness
Date: 2003-02-03 11:50 am (UTC)i was in a bathhouse situation recently where a few guys were hanging out in slings letting any guy who wanted to come by and fuck them with or without condoms. i was fooling around with one guy when the two guys next to us started barebacking each other. it's like watching someone commit suicide, as far as i'm concerned, and yet i couldn't bring myself to say anything.
for some reason i've equated this behavior to men with low self esteem in need of love, matter what the cost. but the men i've seen barebacking have all been super hot muscle boys who could have anyone they wanted. proof again that muscles don't buy happiness.
anyway, anytime i've been with a guy who wanted to bareback, i've immediately thrown him out of my house of left the situation. why would i continue? it's startled each of them everytime.
fuck that shit. life is too cool.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-03 01:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-02-03 01:56 pm (UTC)when i worked as a canvasser, i was taught that there are 3 kinds of people - definite "yesses", definite "noes", and in-betweeners. you spend as little time as possible selling to the definites - either they'll side with you right away, or you'll waste good time trying to convert someone. you focus your time on the in-betweeners; these are the people who don't have an opinion, or have a loose opinion. you try win them over to your side, especially since there are so many of them.
i encourage everyone to roll on, insert in, or lay on a piece of latex, but in the end, each person decides for her/himself
no subject
Date: 2003-02-04 07:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-02-05 03:23 am (UTC)futhermore, is a latex-sheathed barebacker ultimately different from anyone else wearing a rubber at the moment? ok, so he probably has a bigger chance of being poz, and he's probably not accepting to condom too well, but if it's on, it's on. it's up to each party involved to protect himself and know his limits. if you can't get yourself to trust a barebacker when he uses a condom, i say don't. get yourself out of the situation and find someone - poz or neg - who prefers condomized fucking.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-03 02:00 pm (UTC)On the other hand - we used to talk about condom burnout or safe sex fatigue, people who'd been ultra-conscientious about condoms & water sol lube & dental dams & bleeding gums & ejaculate & The Question & getting tested for 10 or 15 years, deciding it was all too much and they were going to fuck bareback and to hell with the consequences. It's very common in my age group. Very common. Some estimates range as high as 60% for occasional barebacking, others say even that's unrealistic. A big part of creating this mindset has been the With Us Or Against Us idea that you either are or are not safe, no middle ground, no controlled risk factors, either all the way safe or not safe at all. I think a lot of people who have gone all the way over to unsafe sex could very well live with safer (if not all the way safe) practises, if they were supported in making these better choices. And I hope you'll agree, safer is better than totally unsafe.
I see this black-and-white thinking as a great problem. It creates a group of people who bareback just to rebel. But much worse, in my experience, it makes for a large group of men who talk about condoms in public situations (because there is a social expectation of mouthing the words) but who don't actually use condoms. This kind of doubletalk is very dangerous - it's quite a different thing to have someone say to you in a bar, hey, let's fuck bareback! and to have someone lying in bed next to you pressing a prodigious hardon against your thigh, stroking your chest, whispering in your ear c'mon, don't you trust me? it's so much better... IMO, being told don't don't don't! is not all that helpful, what is really needed is the information this is safer than that, and this other thing is safer still.
I would like to see a situation where we can all be be honest about our behaviour without getting the With Us Or Against Us treatment. Then at the very least people could learn the consequences of behaviours by observing.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-03 03:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-02-03 03:21 pm (UTC)What I'm concerned about is those guys who don't always use ... I want to be sure they can hear about safer alternatives, rather than just abandoning safer practises altogether because they didn't work in one particular situation - for instance, statistically it's much safer to be fucked bb by one person exclusively, with whom you have a mutual testing agreement, than to be fucked bb by numerous anonymous partners; that's a tradeoff that works for some people. Or perhaps knowing that sucking dick & swallowing is much safer than taking a load up the ass will reduce a person's likelihood of bbing. That kinda stuff. That kind of thing gets omitted when all the messages are simply "always use a condom".
thanks.
Date: 2003-02-04 12:22 am (UTC)