What's wrong with young guys that want to bareback but comprehend the risks of STDs?

[RaKroma]

I was so furious with this 18 year old fella who contacted me and wanted to bareback. I looked at his profile and it read that he only wants bareback, loves to take loads from any age group and STDs didn't matter to him. I was shocked and thought he was just jokingly baiting guys or something. (He was a very handsome guy with a nice body, but 18 is way too young for my taste.) So I just decided to probe him and asked if he was HIV positive since he is not afraid of STDs. He replied back that he is HIV negative but doesn't care if he gets it because "he likes the "risk" of bareback and taking loads from strangers." He also said that he mostly gets "breed" by older men in their 40s and 50s." I told him you're ruining your life for dumb reasons, especially the fact that you're handsome and wouldn't have hard time picking up nice guys.

So silly me continued lecturing him about consequences of living with HIV and STDs but he replied to me saying that he is not dumb and knows everything about STDs and that he "didn't care." He continued to insist that we should "meet." I signed off out of frustration and a sense of deep anger for a boy that I don't know personally, but felt like watching a young brother dig his own grave out of stupidity and mindless horny-ness. I heard of these storied about "bug chaser guys" but this was a first one I've seen and it's quite shocking beyond belief. I'm surprised he is not HIV positive at this point and also feel angry at all of those adult guys who take advantage of his teenage stupidity to bareback him. I'm still shaking my head off after reading the stuff he told me. I just had a deep urge to grab him by his throat and beat some sense into his empty head.

 

[star-warrior]

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink...

 

[AlmondMilk]

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink...

So true. When he becomes positive, he'll end up complaining and regretting. It's unfortunate. I mean, if you and your partner are monogamous, fine, but if you're taking multiple partners, that's pretty scary. I guess he's still in the mindset of a thrill.

 

[gsdx]

As has always been, young people think themselves immortal. It usually comes as quite a surprise to them when they discover that they're not.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Is it any surprise that men in their 20s are increasing their HIV per 100,000 men while men in their 30s and 40s are staying stable? It's bad enough headway has lost steam, but it's an absolute tragedy that infections are going up for young men. Stupid is, as stupid does.

 

[DeafFoxDemon]

ugh, i know how ya feel dude.. a guy contact me for a hookup and he said he hate condoms and he only do bareback, and he is older than me! so i told him no thanks but he keep message me for a hookup

 

[diamondstar]

Only an idiot would bareback with a random person or a one night stand. Unless U been in a monogamous with your partner for about 2 years or more, keep the condom on. Simple as that.

 

[ronboy]

It's all a matter of thinking you know it all....

When I was a young slut puppy, I did a lot of foolish, unprotected, very unsafe things...

I was lucky, very lucky. And I still occasionally hold my breath when I get the results of a medical test. While I no longer am a slut pig, (and havent been for 16 years), I still worry about something showing up from years ago.

best policy.....no glove, no love.....

 

[JayHawk]

In my new found role as a dating man AND with my taste for chicken I am constantly amazed how many guys will be completely ready to meet yet when I mention condoms they back off. I didn't do so the first few times around and I was amazed when a guy walked out because I insisted on a condom...

it is a weird thing and I dont have any idea how to get the trend to change.

 

[biguy732]

I still find my self astounded by the lack of education of some people when it comes to STD's. I really must ask myself - what the F**K are they NOT teaching these kids about STD's in school and how they can kill you.

 

[maxer343]

What's wrong is lack of education. Our responsibility is not to treat them as "twinks" but to mentor them?

 

[RaKroma]

What's wrong is lack of education. Our responsibility is not to treat them as "twinks" but to mentor them?

I think you got it right. There is almost no proper role models for the young guys to look up to from older men in the gay community. These "twinks" will have tons of horny older men who will jump on the opportunity to bareback them fulfilling their own "daddy-son" fantasies. I don't think it's the problem with STD education. I didn't have a formal class on STD and prevention in High School but I was still fully aware and terrified of these diseases. Who doesn't know why condoms are used for? I think it's general atmosphere that younger guys pick up from other men, and also being exposed to all the porn out there where their only gay identity is associated from pornographic and sexual fantasies.

 

[quasar]

When we drew up the new guidelines for the Fetish forum we decided not to allow 'Gifting/Bugchasing as a fetish. There are some interesting theories out there and one of them considers gifting to being a mental illness in the vein of Munchausen Syndrome. I read this article not so long back - which made me research it further. I'm still judgemental about barebacking and gifting because I still consider it to be downright irresponsible, but I'm fascinated by the reasons people give to justify it.

 

[freefall]

^Well, for sure, CDC does not support it.

I saw a patient who had, like 5 times, got GO due to his unsafe promiscuity (he's straight, btw). He's intelligent (finished college, working as a technician) and knows very much about STIs, including HIV/AIDS, but said he didn't really care much, that things couldn't be as scary as described in the mass media. Go figure.

The problem with sex educations is not on the curriculum, but more on the implementations. There is no use jotting thousands of STIs and the risks and how to avoid them when people don't see why it is so important to avoid. Likewise the problem with smoking cessation campaign. Some people think they're immune to the disease, that even though it's real, there are little chance they could get it, or that the disease's outcomes were exaggerated, or that what's the point of having fun when you don't take risks. Or so they thought even until they got it. They won't get it, sometimes not even when they have their lives ruined by it. This mindset is the one hard to divert.

Of course if we have a mass-ranged brainwashing device, this won't be a problem. We, however, have some people who saw campaign of safe sex practice as a medium to spread free sex lifestyle.

 

[barnbuddy]

is it any different than young people & drinking and driving ?

most kids don't know anyone who died or was jailed on a DWI, so to them it's just another

parental guideline to ignore. It hasn't "happened" in their brain.


I saw people die - disappearing right before my eyes, so guys who came out in the

1980's had no choice: new rules or a horrible death

 

[justdra]

I have a friend like that. He likes to sleep with "straight" guys because he says there is less risk and I said they can play straight but most of them use that line to get gay guys and you never know what they do in their private lives. He said if he gets HIV he will just kill himself, i just looked at him and turned and walked away.

 

[Sam Blum]

...He's intelligent (finished college, working as a technician) and knows very much about STIs, including HIV/AIDS, but said he didn't really care much, that things couldn't be as scary as described in the mass media. Go figure.

The problem with sex educations is not on the curriculum, but more on the implementations. There is no use jotting thousands of STIs and the risks and how to avoid them when people don't see why it is so important to avoid. Likewise the problem with smoking cessation campaign. Some people think they're immune to the disease, that even though it's real, there are little chance they could get it, or that the disease's outcomes were exaggerated, or that what's the point of having fun when you don't take risks. Or so they thought even until they got it. They won't get it, sometimes not even when they have their lives ruined by it. This mindset is the one hard to divert.

Of course if we have a mass-ranged brainwashing device, this won't be a problem. We, however, have some people who saw campaign of safe sex practice as a medium to spread free sex lifestyle.

I'm confused after reading this post. I'm not being obtuse, and I don't expect to have anybody write flaming, aggressive shit back to me, but are you really suggesting that health programmes don't ever exaggerate the consequences of sexually transmitted diseases? THere is a long history of people treating STD's as though we are still living a hundred years ago, even though we most certainly do have meds today that resolve infections quickly and with a minimum of fuss. I'm not saying it's clever or healthy to put oneself at high risk of contracting any funghi, bacteria, viruses or parasites, but let's take the moral posturing away and recognize that most boys and men are designed biologically to have regular sexual intercourse, and also that we're talking about diseases, not going to hell.

Let's also acknowledge that most guys in their teens and 20's go through long periods of extreme risk taking. There are clear correlations with suicidal and also self-harming behaviours. Why seem surprised? I'm certainly not saying this isn't dreadfully important, but I am saying there's absolutely no surprise in boys and young men (or even older men) having unprotected sex and frequently. Are we naive? No, we're not.

And I find it curious that it was written that handsome guys shouldn't be playing with fire, and there appeared a subtext that boys less physically fortunate are more understandably going to be prone to behaviours putting them at risk of sexual infections. While this is an understandable position, it puts notions of elevation upon boys who probably already feel higher expectations to be closer to perfect and well behaved and it also says to less conventionally beautiful boys that they don't matter so much. Looks are a fluke of nature and have nothing to do with what's going on inside or what risks a person should or shouldn't take.

Why is it that here at JUB, where most of us are queer in one way or another and should therefore be more empathetic to the proclivities and predispositions of others, so many stand in moral judgement of those who would have less safe sex? We almost all claim that the governments (representatives of 'The People') have no place in our bedrooms, but here we see so often each other peering into the bedrooms of others to pass their opinions about whether those men are performing socially acceptable sex!!! Fuck off out of other people's sex lives and block advances from those you have no interest in shagging. Who are you people who feel so supreme? Fuck!

Cheers.

 

[TourDeFrance]

Well he certainly sounds irresponsible.

However, let me ask you this:

Do you ever travel by car?
Do you or have you ever smoked cigarettes?
Do you ever binge drink?
Do you ever j-walk?
Do you ever eat fast food?

Any one of these are more likely to kill you either instantly or slowly over time, than responsible unprotected sex.

 

[kallipolis]

Well he certainly sounds irresponsible.

However, let me ask you this:

Do you ever travel by car?
Do you or have you ever smoked cigarettes?
Do you ever binge drink?
Do you ever j-walk?
Do you ever eat fast food?

Any one of these are more likely to kill you either instantly or slowly over time, than responsible unprotected sex.

Please offer us your definition of responsible unprotected sex.

 

[kallipolis]

Why is it that here at JUB, where most of us are queer in one way or another and should therefore be more empathetic to the proclivities and predispositions of others, so many stand in moral judgement of those who would have less safe sex?

Cheers.

Judgements are uncalled for, and should be rejected........but, creative guidance that encourages safer sex practices is a responsible, response to those who advocate a libertarian, even self destructive approach to life that necessarily may imperil the good health, and well being of their sexual partners.