Does "Person X" bareback?

[Boston Guy]

I find the various "Does X bareback?" threads understandable, I guess, but also a bit like the kinds of questions the junior high school girls used to run around the halls asking each other in high-pitched, breathy voices: "Did you hear who was going out with Bobby?"

 

Viewed over time, these threads seem to ask two questions, often with a type of false surprise:

 

1. Can you believe -- can you even imagine! -- that X barebacks?

 

2. Can you believe -- can you even imagine! -- that X lies about it?

 

I'm not referring, specifically, to either of the recent "barebacking" threads, including the one that was just locked. They're just the latest incarnations. Instead, I'd like to address the general issue.

 

First, we're talking about sex. And then were talking about talking about sex. Taken in reverse order, men have been lying about sex for as long as there have been men. Not all men. But certainly many. And maybe most, sooner or later.

 

"This won't hurt a bit." "You're the best there ever was." "I did not sleep with her!" "I slept with Janice last night! Boy, she was hot!" "I'll pull out in time." We've all heard countless lines just like these, straight and gay. My point is that people lie about sex. I don't exactly know why and there are probably a million reasons. Maybe it has to do with the various prohibitions society throws up about sex. But, for whatever reason, lots of people lie about sex at least occasionally and I believe that men do it far more often than women.

 

Then, getting back to sex, the urge is primal. As adults -- especially young adults -- it's one of the strongest urges we have. We think we control sex but sometimes it seems the other way around. How many times have we heard men warned "not to think with your little head?" It's because guys so often do. Once they start having sex or even get close to it, well-reasoned and well-intentioned guys often end up doing things that they later feel sheepish -- or worse -- about.

 

Barebacking is something a lot of guys like. And it's something that society now looks down on. But considered from a sexual, rather than a health, point of view, if you believe gay sex is natural then barebacking must also be natural; after all, we weren't born with condoms on our dicks. So it's something that is natural, that lots of guys like a lot and that society now looks down on. That seems to me to be the perfect setup for a million situations where guys are going to lie about what they did, are going to do or want to do. Call me cynical if you want, but I think it's true.

 

So you end up back at these "barebacking" threads. If one believes that lots of guys like barebacking, which I do believe, then one has to be extremely naive to think that everyone has stopped barebacking. And if one believes that lots of guys lie about sex in general and especially about barebacking, then it's no surprise at all, either, that various escorts and clients fall into that group.

 

In point of fact, I think it's likely that barebacking and lying about barebacking are so common as to be something almost not worth discussing in the specific sense. In other words, while it's probably worth discussing as a societal issue, I'm not sure it's worth much discussion when it comes to a particular escort or client, except in one very particular case: when an escort or client tries to bareback someone in the face of specific instructions by the other person not to do so. That's almost criminal, I think, and should be reported.

 

Other than that, we ought to just assume that everyone is barebacking and lying about it. It's the only safe set of assumptions to work with. Believing almost anyone who tries to convince us that it's not true about them is putting our health in the hands of some guy who insists he's telling the complete truth about his sex life. Yeah, right. That's a really smart course of action.

 

When I have sex with someone, I don't want to know his sexual history. I assume everyone is HIV+, I play safe and I most certainly won't engage in barebacking. I think those choices are the ones that give me the greatest chance of staying healthy. But they're choices I make for myself. They're not dependent on what my partner has done in the past or says he has done in the past. As I said above, I think anything any guy says about his sexual history needs to taken with a large grain of salt. Any guy in particular may be telling the complete truth. But how do we know who's lying and who's not?

 

And, so, if that's true, then what's the point of the barebacking threads? Why would someone want to start a thread about the "shocking" behavior of an escort who may bareback (with clients or only in his non-escorting life) and who may lie about it? Perhaps the threads are started by people who naively think they can control their risk of HIV or other STD's by only having sex with guys who say they don't bareback. But since I think you have to assume everyone is lying, that doesn't really hold water. The guy you're thinking of having sex with may simply not have been caught yet by one of the eagle-eyed denizens of this site.

 

Instead, I've come to believe that when some starts this kind of thread, they're really doing it to attack the escort publicly, in a kind of "J'Accuse!" Like the junior-high girls, their real intention may be more related to titillation or character assasination than to honestly seeking information.

 

BG

[Doug69]

RE: Does "Person X" bareback?

 

>And, so, if that's true, then what's the point of the

>barebacking threads? Why would someone want to start a thread

>about the "shocking" behavior of an escort who may bareback

>(with clients or only in his non-escorting life) and who may

>lie about it?

 

The following are facts:

 

(1) Some people make decisions about whether they'll hire an escort and/or what type of sex they'll have with the escort based upon the escort's claims about whether he is or is not HIV-positive and whether he does or does not engage in safe sex. You may think it's dumb that they do that, but there are people who do it.

 

(2) Knowing that this is the case, there are escorts who claim that they are HIV-negative and that they engage only in safe sex. Why do they claim this? Because they know that there are lots of clients who only want to hire HIV-negative escorts who only engage in safe sex.

 

(3) Many of the escorts who claim that they are HIV-negative and/or that they engage only in safe-sex are lying when they claim that. They are lying for the same resaon that any sales person commits fraud or lies about their product - because they want to deceive people who care about these things into buying their product, i.e., hiring them.

 

(4) People who make decisions about whether to hire an escort or what type of sex they'll have with escorts based upon such claims can end up getting seriously hurt by escorts who lie about their HIV-status or their barebacking activities. That's because such people may end up engaging in some form of unsafe sex based upon the belief that the escort was telling the truth about their HIV-status or safe-sex activities.

 

(5) People, including escorts, don't have the right to lie to other people about the product they are selling, especially when such lies can put other people in danger.

 

(6) Even "safe sex" has HIV risks. While you may discount those risks as too marginal to care about, others have the right to decide for themselves what risks are worth taking. There are people who only want to hire HIV-negative escorts who engage in safe sex EVEN IF the client is going to engage only in safe sex (because no sex is totally safe), and they have the right not to be lied to and tricked into taking risks they don't want to take.

 

The problem here is that you are assuming everyone thinks and acts like you do. They don't. It may be smart for everyone to assume that every escort they hire (and every sex trick they find) is HIV+ and therefore only have safe sex. That's what I do, and it's what you say you do. But that's not what everyone does.

 

For some people, it IS important to know if the escort is HIV-positive and if they engage in safe sex. If you have any doubts about that, read posts here where people say exactly that. And, escorts obviously know that it's true because many of them volunteer things about their HIV-status and safe sex activities. Why would they do that if it wasn't important to many clients when making hiring decisions?

 

I agree that if an escort makes no claims at all about their HIV-status or safe sex activities, then it's nobody's business if they are HIV-positive or if they bareback.

 

But when an escort goes around affirmatively lying to prospective clients about these things - knowing that the prospective clients make sex and health choices based on those lies - than the behavior becomes no different than some used car salesman defrauding people into buying cars that are older, more dangerous and more screwed up than the salesman said.

 

It becomes outright deceit and fraud. And it can be dangerous. And it's truly amazing to me that there are people here - lots of them - who defend an escort's right to engage in this sort of fraud, and even want to help them do it by preventing them from being exposed - even where it puts other people's health at risk.

[Boston Guy]

Doug,

 

Your argument seems to boil down to three things:

 

1. Some people do base their decisions and actions on what they believe to be other guy's HIV status and take what escorts say about it seriously.

 

2. Escorts don't have any right to lie about their actions because people are going to base their actions on what the escorts says.

 

3. Even safe sex has risks.

 

 

I agree with #1; some people seem to do this. I certainly agree with #3. Everyone should be aware of this. And I'd certainly prefer that escorts and other people don't lie about things, including their HIV status. But it's also a fact, based on recent studies, that many HIV+ guys in America don't know it.

 

So when one of these threads pops up, should we just acquiesce and treat it like a serious question, to be answered seriously? I don't think that's a responsible course of action, for it inherently tends to validate #1 above.

 

The only reasonable, responsible course of action, in my mind, is to tell people, as many times as necessary, to just assume that everyone is HIV+, no matter what they say; to have safe sex; and to know the risks involved in even safe sex.

 

Regarding whether someone says they are this or that or do this or that, if you're only having safe sex with each person, it doesn't matter a bit. And if you're going around trying to only have sex with HIV- people and you're choosing from people who have lots of sex with lots of guys, you're deluding yourself. At least some of the people you think are HIV- won't be.

 

Finally, I go back to my original conclusion. I think the creation of these various threads is not based on a desire to bring valuable information to the fore. Instead, I think there's usually a desire to slam the escort.

 

BG

[woodlawn]

>Doug,

>

>Your argument seems to boil down to three things:

>

>1. Some people do base their decisions and actions on what

>they believe to be other guy's HIV status and take what

>escorts say about it seriously.

 

>So when one of these threads pops up, should we just acquiesce

>and treat it like a serious question, to be answered

>seriously? I don't think that's a responsible course of

>action, for it inherently tends to validate #1 above.

 

Excuse me, but who are you to decide that it is unreasonable for clients to take into account their beliefs (and an escort's statements) about HIV status in making hiring decisions? What happened to the idea that each of us is supposed to decide for himself the level of risk he is willing to accept in making such decisions?

 

And if it is unreasonable for anyone to take seriously anything an escort says about his HIV status, then is this site going to stop providing publicity to escorts who use such statements in their ads? When is it going to do that?

 

>Regarding whether someone says they are this or that or do

>this or that, if you're only having safe sex with each person,

>it doesn't matter a bit.

 

You and deej really need to stop spreading this fallacy that having 'safe sex' with a gay man means the risk of infection if he is positive is exactly the same as the risk if he is negative. Only if that were true would it be true that "if you're having safe sex with each person, it doesn't matter a bit."

 

But that is NOT true, as you know. If your partner is negative, the risk of infection for you is zero. If he is positive, the risk is greater than zero. Got it?

 

>Finally, I go back to my original conclusion. I think the

>creation of these various threads is not based on a desire to

>bring valuable information to the fore. Instead, I think

>there's usually a desire to slam the escort.

 

That is what sellers and their advocates always say when someone tries to provide consumers with information that might discourage some consumers from buying what the sellers are selling. But in fact consumers are ALWAYS better off with MORE, not LESS information about what they are buying. That is what this site is SUPPOSEDLY about, remember?

 

Let me remind readers of this thread that you are on record as advocating that this site cease publishing escort reviews altogether because, in your opinion, the review process is susceptible of manipulation to create false negative reviews of escorts. Your bias in the matter is quite clear; and if you had your way, this site would cease to serve the purpose for which it was created and become nothing more than another escort ad site.

[Doug69]

RE: Does "Person X" bareback?

 

(NOTE: I wrote my post as Woodlawn was writing his, and posted it before I had the chance to read his. To the extent some of the points made in our respective posts overlap, that'st the reason).

 

>So when one of these threads pops up, should we just acquiesce

>and treat it like a serious question, to be answered

>seriously? I don't think that's a responsible course of

>action, for it inherently tends to validate #1 above.

 

I don't think it's your role, or mine, to decide that other adults shouldn't have information they believe is important simply because you or I think the information is unimportant.

 

If some people want to base their choices about sex or hiring on whether or not an escort has HIV or only has safe sex, I think they have the right not to be lied to about it - or to have forums allow escorts to tell the lies but not allow others to share the evidence that the escort is lying. I'm surprised people find that to be a controversial statement.

 

>The only reasonable, responsible course of action, in my mind,

>is to tell people, as many times as necessary, to just assume

>that everyone is HIV+, no matter what they say; to have safe

>sex; and to know the risks involved in even safe sex.

 

You're free to tell them this. But you're not their Father, and so you have no right to deny them the information they think they should have because you think that it's not important that they have it.

 

>Regarding whether someone says they are this or that or do

>this or that, if you're only having safe sex with each person,

>it doesn't matter a bit.

 

This is where you're so very, very wrong. You yourself recognized that even "safe sex" is not 100% safe and entails some risk of HIV transmission, no matter how unlikely.

 

Therefore, to SOME people, they prefer to have sex only with escorts who are HIV-negative and/or who only engage in safe sex, EVEN IF they are only engaging in safe sex with those escorts, because they don't want to take the risk of having even safe sex with someone who barebacks.

 

Who are you to tell them that they have no right make that assessment for themselves of what risks they're willing to engage in. And worse, how can you justify escorts who lie to such people - or forums which help them to do so - knowing that those lies are going to cause them to take risks that they actually don't want to take?

 

>Finally, I go back to my original conclusion. I think the

>creation of these various threads is not based on a desire to

>bring valuable information to the fore. Instead, I think

>there's usually a desire to slam the escort.

 

Congratulations on developing the ability to read people's minds and to discern their secret motives. It's amazing that you're able to know that people who come and correct escorts' lies about their sexual activities aren't offended by the escort's misconduct or concerned about the well-being of clients who might unwittingly make dangerous choices based on those lies.

 

Nope, you're able to know, using your magic powers, that the real motive is dislike of the escort. Are you going to write a book sharing the secrets of your psychic powers?

[Boston Guy]

>>Regarding whether someone says they are this or that or do

>>this or that, if you're only having safe sex with each

>person, it doesn't matter a bit.

>

>This is where you're so very, very wrong. You yourself

>recognized that even "safe sex" is not 100% safe and entails

>some risk of HIV transmission, no matter how unlikely.

>

 

My point, Doug, is that I don't think it matters a bit, not because safe sex is 100% safe -- it's isn't -- but because I don't think anyone should be placing much credence in what other guy's say about their HIV status, especially guys they don't know very, very well.

 

Further to your other points, you seem to think that I have said that someone cannot post information here about what an escort does or does not do or says or has not said. You seem to think I've advocated some kind of restriction on free speech.

 

If you re-read my posts a bit more carefully, you'll find that I said no such thing nor have I advocated it. You and Woodlawn like to put words in other people's mouths and then criticize them for the words you put in theirs mouths.

 

My point is and has been that I think it's not responsible to take actions that encourage other people to think that what an escort says about his HIV status is important or something that should in any way be counted on or used in making a decision about having sex with that person. People who still do that think they're making good, informed decisions. Perhaps an argument could be made that someone who is told by another person that they are HIV+ would be able to use that information but even that has a logical fallacy in it, since I think we should assume everyone is HIV+, all of their statements to the contrary notwithstanding. Encouraging people in any way to look at what an escort has or hasn't said about their HIV status and then believe it or trust it and make decisions on it is not, in my opinion, being kind or responsible to the person who is seeking the advice.

 

You say I'm not people's father. Quite true, thank God. But people come here for advice. It's part of what this board exists for. I have as much right to post my opinion as anyone else. Because you don't like what I say, you try to make it sound like I'm suggesting people can't say or post something. Unfortunately for you, I think I may believe in freedom of speech even more strongly than you do.

 

But there's a vast difference between suggesting a responsible course of action when people make a request for info and saying someone cannot post something. It's a distinction you don't choose to highlight since doing so would weaken the case you keep trying to build.

 

And yes, I'm free to hold any opinion I want on why people create these threads about escorts who bareback. I do and will continue to believe it's an effort to slam an escort until I see something that causes me to change my opinion.

 

BG

[Boston Guy]

>>So when one of these threads pops up, should we just

>acquiesce

>>and treat it like a serious question, to be answered

>>seriously? I don't think that's a responsible course of

>>action, for it inherently tends to validate #1 above.

>

>Excuse me, but who are you to decide that it is unreasonable

>for clients to take into account their beliefs (and an

>escort's statements) about HIV status in making hiring

>decisions? What happened to the idea that each of us is

>supposed to decide for himself the level of risk he is willing

>to accept in making such decisions?

>

 

Who am I? Someone who has every right to hold whatever opinion he thinks is valid and to post that here, within the context of the rules. It's freedom of speech, something you're usually on the side of.

 

And, by the way, my statements above are consistent with the recommendations that have been offered by safe sex organizations and agencies for years. I will continue to promote the truth: decisions that someone makes based on what they think is another person's HIV status implies that they would do one set of things with someone who they view as HIV- and another set of things with people they think are HIV+. That's very, very dangerous territory because you just can't tell who is positive or not, at least in the kind of context we're discussing. So, yes, I'll continue to say that it's not responsible to promote these kinds of decisions.

 

I'll be the first to say that each person needs to make up their own minds about what they do, the level of risk they are comfortable with, and how to proceed when they have sex with escorts or other people. But part of the bigger struggle is to keep getting the facts out there in front of people, reminding people over and over again and even making sure that people who are knew to the game get to see them for the first time. It's not responsible for any of us to suggest that unhealthy courses of action may, in fact, be healthy. And it's not responsible for either you or Doug to suggest otherwise. In so doing, you do a grave disservice to other people.

 

 

>And if it is unreasonable for anyone to take seriously

>anything an escort says about his HIV status, then is this

>site going to stop providing publicity to escorts who use such

>statements in their ads? When is it going to do that?

>

 

I have no idea what this site will or won't do, nor am I in (or want to be in) any position to speak for the site in any way. My only suggestion would always be the same: treat everyone equally within published guidelines or rules.

 

 

>>Regarding whether someone says they are this or that or do

>>this or that, if you're only having safe sex with each

>person,

>>it doesn't matter a bit.

>

>You and deej really need to stop spreading this fallacy that

>having 'safe sex' with a gay man means the risk of infection

>if he is positive is exactly the same as the risk if he is

>negative. Only if that were true would it be true that "if

>you're having safe sex with each person, it doesn't matter a

>bit."

>

>But that is NOT true, as you know. If your partner is

>negative, the risk of infection for you is zero. If he is

>positive, the risk is greater than zero. Got it?

>

 

Yes, you're right, of course. But who is negative and who is positive? Unless you are in a committed relationship with one other person who you know for certain hasn't cheated on you and you take multiple HIV tests with that person over a period of time, you cannot and will not know the HIV status of the people you have sex with. Many guys who are positive don't know it and will claim to their dying day that they're negative. Other guys do know it and will just lie about it. So you cannot know -- simply, literally, cannot know -- the HIV status of people you have sex with.

 

Therefore, in all practical terms, the only safe way to proceed is to assume that every single one of your partners is HIV+ and to act just as you would with a person you knew for sure was HIV+. Suggesting another course of action to a sexually-active gay man is not responsible. It's not responsible of you to suggest otherwise.

 

 

>>Finally, I go back to my original conclusion. I think the

>>creation of these various threads is not based on a desire

>to

>>bring valuable information to the fore. Instead, I think

>>there's usually a desire to slam the escort.

>

>That is what sellers and their advocates always say when

>someone tries to provide consumers with information that might

>discourage some consumers from buying what the sellers are

>selling. But in fact consumers are ALWAYS better off with

>MORE, not LESS information about what they are buying. That

>is what this site is SUPPOSEDLY about, remember?

>

 

Buyers are always better off with more information unless the information is deceptive. Or presented in such a way that someone can be led to make a decision that seems good but is, in fact, based on bad facts or false premises.

 

 

>Let me remind readers of this thread that you are on record as

>advocating that this site cease publishing escort reviews

>altogether because, in your opinion, the review process is

>susceptible of manipulation to create false negative reviews

>of escorts. Your bias in the matter is quite clear; and if

>you had your way, this site would cease to serve the purpose

>for which it was created and become nothing more than another

>escort ad site.

>

 

 

Thank you. I'm happy you posted this and I'm always happy to discuss it. I bring it up from time to time on my own.

 

I do believe the reviews are based on a flawed process and are subject to great manipulation by people who are trying to promote an escort and people who are trying to hurt an escort. The only reviews I would ever give any credence to at all would be reviews offered by someone who was a poster here in the Message Center whose history led me to give credence to his views. Even then, I take the reviews with a large grain of salt.

 

Fortunately for M4M, lots of people don't feel this way and find the reviews helpful to them. That's great; more power to the people who feel this way and feel the reviews have helped them.

 

Freedom of speech and all that: we're all able to have and hold our own opinions. Remember?

[woodlawn]

>Who am I? Someone who has every right to hold whatever

>opinion he thinks is valid and to post that here, within the

>context of the rules. It's freedom of speech, something

>you're usually on the side of.

 

It's BECAUSE I'm on the side of freedom of speech that I object to your suggestion that a certain type of thread should not be published here because, in YOUR opinion, it serves no good purpose. That is why you started this thread, remember?

 

>I will continue to

>promote the truth: decisions that someone makes based on what

>they think is another person's HIV status implies that they

>would do one set of things with someone who they view as HIV-

>and another set of things with people they think are HIV+.

 

You left something out. Such decisions may mean that a person is willing to have 'safe sex' with someone they view as HIV- and NO sex with someone they view as HIV+. Anything about that inconsistent with the recommendations of public health agencies?

 

>That's very, very dangerous territory because you just can't

>tell who is positive or not, at least in the kind of context

>we're discussing. So, yes, I'll continue to say that it's not

>responsible to promote these kinds of decisions.

 

I've just demonstrated above that you're wrong.

 

> It's not responsible for any of us to suggest that

>unhealthy courses of action may, in fact, be healthy. And

>it's not responsible for either you or Doug to suggest

>otherwise. In so doing, you do a grave disservice to other

>people.

 

It is YOU who are doing a disservice to the readers of this board by trying to suppress information that they may use to make themselves even safer than they already are.

 

>I have no idea what this site will or won't do, nor am I in

>(or want to be in) any position to speak for the site

 

But based on the positions you've taken here you cannot do other than advocate that this site shun escorts who are providing potential customers with what YOU regard as misleading and dangerous information. For you to take any other position would be completely inconsistent with what you've already said.

 

 

>Therefore, in all practical terms, the only safe way to

>proceed is to assume that every single one of your partners is

>HIV+ and to act just as you would with a person you knew for

>sure was HIV+. Suggesting another course of action to a

>sexually-active gay man is not responsible. It's not

>responsible of you to suggest otherwise.

 

It is YOU who are being irresponsible. And misleading. The truth is that "the only safe way to proceed" if you think someone may be HIV+ is NOT TO HAVE SEX WITH HIM AT ALL. That is the ONLY course of action that guarantees there is ZERO chance that he will infect you. Providing clients with information indicating a higher probability that a given escort is HIV+ can help them decide to simply avoid sex with that escort completely -- which is the safest alternative of all. And you would suppress such information. Shame on you.

 

>Freedom of speech and all that: we're all able to have and

>hold our own opinions. Remember?

 

You are the one who has the memory problem, not me. I remember what YOU seem to have forgotten: freedom of speech is not the freedom to have and hold our own opinions, but the freedom to EXPRESS those opinions. And, not for the first time, YOU want to curtail that freedom.

[Guest alanm]

This is an important topic and am enjoying the interaction, just was not prepared for such heated discussion so soon after the message center

come back on line, on this topic and so many others. Don't worry, I'll get over it.

 

I read most reviews and often make hiring decisions based on the reviews. I would not hire someone based on a few reviews by a first-time reviews. But many escorts have multiple reviews from people who had a track record (sometimes as many as a dozen reviews). I barely missed the debating society here, but did miss the opportunity to discuss escorts on this site (and through e-mail). Sorry for the interuption, go at it again guys.

[Boston Guy]

>

>>Who am I? Someone who has every right to hold whatever

>>opinion he thinks is valid and to post that here, within the

>>context of the rules. It's freedom of speech, something

>>you're usually on the side of.

>

>It's BECAUSE I'm on the side of freedom of speech that I

>object to your suggestion that a certain type of thread should

>not be published here because, in YOUR opinion, it serves no

>good purpose. That is why you started this thread, remember?

>

>

 

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I have never expressed an opinion as to whether such threads should be published. I questioned -- and do question -- the motives of those who start them. And I suggested how I think they should be responded to by anyone who is interested in the health of other gay men.

 

If asked if I think they should be published or not, my answer is simple: I don't think any thread that doesn't violate the rules should be banned. M4M has always been great at allowing all sorts of things to be published, including much that I don't agree with. I think that's terrific and I encourage a continuation of that policy.

 

So, to repeat, just to make sure you understand: I am not advocating that threads that question if someone barebacks be banned. Nor am I advocating that any other kind of thread that doesn't violate M4M's rules be banned. You and Doug keep saying that I advocate suppression of speech or the banning of threads. On the contrary, I keep saying that I don't and I say it because it's what I believe.

 

 

>>I will continue to

>>promote the truth: decisions that someone makes based on

>what

>>they think is another person's HIV status implies that they

>>would do one set of things with someone who they view as

>HIV-

>>and another set of things with people they think are HIV+.

>

>You left something out. Such decisions may mean that a person

>is willing to have 'safe sex' with someone they view as HIV-

>and NO sex with someone they view as HIV+. Anything about

>that inconsistent with the recommendations of public health

>agencies?

>

 

Yes, in fact there is. And it's precisely the danger that I have been trying to get across. People who take that approach decide to have sex with guys who they FALSELY believe to be HIV-. I say "falsely" because, as I've said above, there is simply no way for anyone to know if almost any other person -- and certainly any escort -- is actually HIV-. So basing a decision to have sex with someone on the false assumption that he is HIV- is very dangerous, because it could easily lead someone to do something with someone that they wouldn't do with someone else they thought was HIV+ -- when, in fact, the person they're having sex with IS HIV+.

 

No matter how carefully they pick and choose, guys who have sex with enough escorts will end up having sex with HIV+ guys. It's far better to assume they're all HIV+ and to act however you want to act with that in mind than to use some other decision-making process that may lead you to believe someone's negative. You just cannot know for sure that someone is negative. Not in this context.

 

 

 

>>That's very, very dangerous territory because you just can't

>>tell who is positive or not, at least in the kind of context

>>we're discussing. So, yes, I'll continue to say that it's

>not

>>responsible to promote these kinds of decisions.

>

>I've just demonstrated above that you're wrong.

>

 

No, Woodlawn, you haven't. You're wrong here and it's a dangerous mistake and one many people make. It's the whole issue, really, underlying my concern with these barebacking threads: the false assumption that by somehow exposing people who are HIV+, people can then choose from the other guys who must be HIV-. It's literally a dangerous mistake to make and could lead someone to behavior that causes them to get infected.

 

 

>> It's not responsible for any of us to suggest that

>>unhealthy courses of action may, in fact, be healthy. And

>>it's not responsible for either you or Doug to suggest

>>otherwise. In so doing, you do a grave disservice to other

>>people.

>

>It is YOU who are doing a disservice to the readers of this

>board by trying to suppress information that they may use to

>make themselves even safer than they already are.

>

 

<sigh> No. I'm not trying to suppress anything. You keep saying I am but no matter how many times you say it, it still won't be true. What I am trying to do is bring up something that safe-sex agencies have been trying to get across for going on 20 years: the only safe approach is to assume everyone is HIV+. What you do with that information is up to each person. But no clever detective work is going show for sure that someone is HIV-. Or, for that matter, HIV+. There are negative guys out there who bareback because they like it. I think they're nuts but it's their life and their decision.

 

 

>>I have no idea what this site will or won't do, nor am I in

>>(or want to be in) any position to speak for the site

>

>But based on the positions you've taken here you cannot do

>other than advocate that this site shun escorts who are

>providing potential customers with what YOU regard as

>misleading and dangerous information. For you to take any

>other position would be completely inconsistent with what

>you've already said.

>

 

I do not advocate that this site shun escorts. Any escorts. I've never said that and you know it. You clearly don't like the position I'm taking so you keep claiming that I've said things that I haven't. I don't advocate shunning of escorts, banning of threads or any other thing not prohibited by M4M's rules. I do believe that all of us should take every opportunity to help point out health risks. The fact that you, who is an educated guy, would take the positions that you are taking in this thread only points out more strongly the need to keep putting the facts in front of people. If you don't get it, certainly there are lot of other guys who don't get it either.

 

 

>

>>Therefore, in all practical terms, the only safe way to

>>proceed is to assume that every single one of your partners

>is

>>HIV+ and to act just as you would with a person you knew for

>>sure was HIV+. Suggesting another course of action to a

>>sexually-active gay man is not responsible. It's not

>>responsible of you to suggest otherwise.

>

>It is YOU who are being irresponsible. And misleading. The

>truth is that "the only safe way to proceed" if you think

>someone may be HIV+ is NOT TO HAVE SEX WITH HIM AT ALL. That

>is the ONLY course of action that guarantees there is ZERO

>chance that he will infect you. Providing clients with

>information indicating a higher probability that a given

>escort is HIV+ can help them decide to simply avoid sex with

>that escort completely -- which is the safest alternative of

>all. And you would suppress such information. Shame on you.

>

 

Again, you can say it as many times as you want but I don't advocate suppressing anything. That's something you made up to try to make your argument stronger.

 

If you think that the only "safe way to proceed" is "NOT TO HAVE SEX WITH HIM AT ALL" in the case of someone who may be HIV+, then you probably should not have sex with escorts. Otherwise, you're just kidding yourself.

 

 

>

>>Freedom of speech and all that: we're all able to have and

>>hold our own opinions. Remember?

>

>You are the one who has the memory problem, not me. I

>remember what YOU seem to have forgotten: freedom of speech

>is not the freedom to have and hold our own opinions, but the

>freedom to EXPRESS those opinions. And, not for the first

>time, YOU want to curtail that freedom.

>

>

 

Nope. For something like the fourth or fifth time, you've repeated that. It still isn't true. And you know it.

 

BG

[Boston Guy]

>This is an important topic and am enjoying the interaction,

>just was not prepared for such heated discussion so soon after

>the message center

>come back on line, on this topic and so many others. Don't

>worry, I'll get over it.

>

 

:-) So far, I think, we're all staying within the rules. Nothing there against heated discussions, thankfully.

 

By the way, it's nice to see you back posting again!

 

BG

[Rick Munroe]

RE: Does "Person X" bareback?

 

>(NOTE: I wrote my post as Woodlawn was writing his, and

>posted it before I had the chance to read his. To the extent

>some of the points made in our respective posts overlap,

>that'st the reason).

 

Doug, I love it when thou speaketh Olde English.

[woodlawn]

>So, to repeat, just to make sure you understand: I am not

>advocating that threads that question if someone barebacks be

>banned.

 

Well, thanks for clearing that up. So, if I understand you, you started this thread to express your disapproval of such threads and of the motives of those who create them, but if people continue to create them and this site continues to publish them that is perfectly okay with you, right? Splendid.

 

>>You left something out. Such decisions may mean that a

>person

>>is willing to have 'safe sex' with someone they view as HIV-

>>and NO sex with someone they view as HIV+. Anything about

>>that inconsistent with the recommendations of public health

>>agencies?

>>

>

>Yes, in fact there is. And it's precisely the danger that I

>have been trying to get across. People who take that approach

>decide to have sex with guys who they FALSELY believe to be

>HIV-.

 

Now it is YOU putting words in MY mouth rather than the other way about. We are looking at two alternative situations. In the first, clients ignore what escorts say or anyone else says about the HIV status of escorts, assume that all escorts are HIV+, and take 'safe sex' precautions with every escort they hire. The second situation is the same as the first, EXCEPT that if clients come upon information suggesting a greater likelihood that a given escort is HIV+ -- information suggesting that he barebacks on a regular basis, for example -- they may decide not to hire that escort at all. Which of these two situations seems more likely to you to lead to fewer new infections? My guess would be the second.

 

> So basing a

>decision to have sex with someone on the false assumption that

>he is HIV- is very dangerous, because it could easily lead

>someone to do something with someone that they wouldn't do

>with someone else they thought was HIV+ -- when, in fact, the

>person they're having sex with IS HIV+.

 

Now here is where we disagree. You seem to be assuming that if a client has no particular reason to think an escort is HIV+, he'll assume, and behave as if, the escort is HIV-. Why do you make such an assumption? I don't. Since, as we all know, it's very difficult for any sexually active person to be certain of his HIV status at any particular point in time, I think rational clients will not fail to take precautions with any escort.

 

What this discussion is about is whether it is a good idea to circulate information about escorts suggesting that they are more likely to be HIV+. No one in his right mind would assume that an escort is negative simply because he has no specific information to the contrary, but the idea that people WILL make that assumption underlies the argument you are making here. In my view, it's utter nonsense.

 

>No, Woodlawn, you haven't. You're wrong here and it's a

>dangerous mistake and one many people make. It's the whole

>issue, really, underlying my concern with these barebacking

>threads: the false assumption that by somehow exposing people

>who are HIV+, people can then choose from the other guys who

>must be HIV-.

 

I defy you to find any post of mine (or anyone else's) which states or suggests that "by exposing people who are HIV+, people can then choose from the other guys who must be HIV-." Well? You can't find such a post because there is none. I know of no one on this board who has ever suggested that exposing escorts who bareback somehow conveys that the rest of the escorts are HIV negative -- except you. Where did you get this weird notion? I know it wasn't from me.

 

 

> I do believe that all of us should take every

>opportunity to help point out health risks.

 

Then I don't understand why you would object to the posting of information that a particular escort engages in high-risk, unsafe behavior.

 

You can't deny that people who have unprotected sex with multiple partners have a higher risk of infection than those who don't. You seem to saying -- I don't want to put words in your mouth of course -- that such information about an escort adds nothing to a client's decision-making process because he should simply assume that all escorts are HIV+ and make his decision on other grounds. What I am saying is that the more information a client has suggesting that a given escort is HIV+, the more likely he is to eliminate that escort from consideration as a potential sex partner. It cannot logically be denied that the client's chances of having intercourse with an HIV+ escort will be reduced if he eliminates from consideration each escort about whom he has such information. Neither I nor anyone else I know of has said that the client should ALSO assume that escorts about whom he has no such information are negative. Why would anyone say that?

 

> The fact that

>you, who is an educated guy, would take the positions that you

>are taking in this thread only points out more strongly the

>need to keep putting the facts in front of people. If you

>don't get it, certainly there are lot of other guys who don't

>get it either.

 

Again, this statement seems to be based on the weird notion that paying attention to information suggesting that a given escort barebacks ALSO means one will assume other escorts are HIV-. Again, neither I nor anyone else has ever suggested such a thing, so where you got it I really do not know.

[Guest Jesse Dane]

RE: Does "Person X" bareback?

 

Very good topic!

 

I have to say that I agree with the view of assuming that every sexual partner is HIV+. You never know who is and only by taking precautions with each and every partner can you protect yourself as well as possible.

 

But with that said, I still believe that honesty is such an important thing! It really upsets me when I see other escorts lying about things as it casts an image upon the entire escorting community that we are all dishonest and will say whatever we need to get work. I guess there is really no way to know who is telling the truth and it is safer to assume everyone is lying. But there really are an abundance of up front and honest guys out there working.

[Doug69]

RE: Does &quot;Person X&quot; bareback?

 

>But with that said, I still believe that honesty is such an

>important thing! It really upsets me when I see other escorts

>lying about things as it casts an image upon the entire

>escorting community that we are all dishonest and will say

>whatever we need to get work.

 

I agree with you totally on all counts, Jesse. And it's great to see an escort willing to condemn escorts who lie about their HIV-status or barebacking activities.

 

For me personally, it does not matter at all if an escort claims to be HIV-negative or have only safe sex, because I assume everyone is HIV-positive and only have safe sex, regardless of what they claim. I never ask if they're HIV-positive or if they bareback, because whatever they say won't affect my actions with them.

 

But not everyone thinks this way, and they have that right. Some people do not want to take the risk - however small - of having sex with an escort they know is HIV-positive or who barebacks. Other people DO change what they're willing to do or not do sexually based on an escort's claims about their safe sex practices. Knowing there are such people out there, it really borders on CRIMINAL for an escort to lie about this to prospective clients and/or for a site like this to help or allow them to do so by censoring information that shows the escort is lying.

 

The excuse BG is using - "well, they all lie, so what's the big deal?" - is just false. Lots of escorts, including some on this site, are extremely honest about their HIV status. They are to be commended.

 

By contrast, escorts who lie about their HIV status or who falsely claim here to only have safe sex while they crawl around the Internet looking for loads in their ass are engaged in serious acts of deceit and fraud which can be quite dangerous. The fact that some here - and, on ocassion, this site itself - helps them to do so by allowing them to lie this way while suppressing information that shows they're lying makes them complicit in these horrendous, truly indefensible acts.

[Guest Jesse Dane]

RE: Does &quot;Person X&quot; bareback?

 

> Knowing there are such people out there,

>it really borders on CRIMINAL for an escort to lie about this

>to prospective clients

 

Aren't there places where laws are being passed making it illegal to lie about your HIV status? I thought I remembered reading something about that in the past.

[Boston Guy]

>But not everyone thinks this way, and they have that right.

>Some people do not want to take the risk - however small - of

>having sex with an escort they know is HIV-positive or who

>barebacks. Other people DO change what they're willing to do

>or not do sexually based on an escort's claims about their

>safe sex practices. Knowing there are such people out there,

>it really borders on CRIMINAL for an escort to lie about this

>to prospective clients and/or for a site like this to help or

>allow them to do so by censoring information that shows the

>escort is lying.

>

>The excuse BG is using - "well, they all lie, so what's the

>big deal?" - is just false. Lots of escorts, including some

>on this site, are extremely honest about their HIV status.

>They are to be commended.

>

 

Putting words in my mouth again, huh, Doug? Please show me where I said "well, they all lie, so what's the big deal?" You can't, of course, because I didn't say it and you know it. Can't you argue on the strength of your own argument alone? Do you really have to continually rely on misrepresenting what someone else said in order to bolster your own argument?

 

Never would I say this subject isn't a "big deal." I've had way, way too many friends die from HIV to ever think it isn't a big deal. Nothing you can say will ever change that.

 

Second, you want to make it seem that I'm offering some kind of "excuse" for something. I'm not sure what that would be. I've already made it clear that I'm not advocating suppressing any threads or any kind of free speech. So it cannot possibly be an excuse for those kinds of things, since I'm not proposing them.

 

Reading what you wrote above, someone might be led to believe that I was suggesting or recommending some kind of censorship. Since I've made it abundantly clear above that I am not recommending any kind of censorship, I wonder what "excuse" you could be referring to.

 

Perhaps you're talking about "excusing" this site's censorship of information about barebacking escorts. Oh, right, it can't be that either: this site doesn't censor that information. So what could it possibly be?

 

How about an excuse for you to try to attack this site one more time, from any angle you possibly can. Even when you have to resort to manipulating language to make it appear people said things they didn't say and support positions they don't support. Not very honest, Doug, to say the least.

 

Finally, regarding the first paragraph copied above, where you state:

 

>Other people DO change what they're willing to do

>or not do sexually based on an escort's claims about their

>safe sex practices. Knowing there are such people out there,

>it really borders on CRIMINAL for an escort to lie about this

>to prospective clients and/or for a site like this to help or

>allow them to do so by censoring information that shows the

>escort is lying.

 

What's criminal, Doug, if anything is supporting the logic by which people "DO change what they're willing to do or not do sexually based on an escort's claims about their safe sex practices."

 

It may seem to someone to make sense to avoid guys who bareback and others who seem likely to be HIV+. And it may seem logical to "change what [one is] willing to do or not do sexually based on an escort's claims about their safe sex practices."

 

But it's not logical and it's not smart. Trying to choose escorts on the basis of "I think this one is more likely to be HIV- because ..." is faulty. You simply cannot make an educated guess about someone's HIV status. Even forgetting the fact that people lie about their status, negative guys engage in risky behavior and lots of positive guys don't know they're positive.

 

Worse, it's not logical to change your behavior based on what you think someone's status is. To condone this type of logic leads to a type of group mentality that lets people slip into very risky behavior.

 

You say you don't do this personally. But you're willing to support lines of logic that lead to the conclusion that it's sensible for other guys to try to select negative escorts and do different things with the guys they think are negative. That's either incredibly naive on your part or, worse, behavior that is so uncaring about other guys as to be almost unbelievable.

 

The only message that is reasonable is (a) assume everyone is HIV+; (b) no matter who you are with, only do those things that you would do if you knew for sure the other guy is HIV+. Because you know what, sooner or later -- probably sooner rather than later -- he will be HIV+.

 

Either you or Woodlawn mentioned married guys trying their best to find guys likely to be HIV-. Nice try, but the answer is the same. You simply cannot use any normal logic to figure out who is negative or positive. Unless you're the first sexual partner another person has ever had, you cannot assume he's negative. People have gotten HIV on their very first sexual experience. That nice-looking, clean-cut quiet escort in the small town is just as likely to be HIV+ as the barebacking guy in San Francisco.

 

Don't believe it? If not, on what basis? Some other person either is HIV+ or he's not. One or the other. There are no shades of gray. You can get it after one sexual encounter. Few escorts have had only one sexual encounter. So every escort has a chance of being HIV+. Some chance greater than zero. Each and every one of them. Assuming that you know enough about someone by their looks or what you've found out on the Internet or what they say to assume they're negative is just asking to get infected. And I'll say it as many times as I need to.

 

And another thing, while we're on the subject. Guys who are willing to alter their behavior with escorts they think are HIV- -- how many of them know their own status for sure? How do they know that they aren't the one who is about to infect the escort? How many of the guys who come to M4M get tested regularly themselves? Any epidemiologist would place us all in a high-risk category for infection.

 

So, Doug, you can keep distorting the facts. But I'll keep telling people: no matter what you think you know or don't know, just assume everyone is HIV+ and act accordingly.

 

BG

[Doug69]

RE: Does "Person X" bareback?

 

It may be time to take a deep breath there, BG. I wouldn't want you to cross the blurry line you just drew as the Forum Rules and have your any of your posts deleted.

 

 

I SAID: >>The excuse BG is using - "well, they all lie, so what's the

>>big deal?" - is just false. Lots of escorts, including some

>>on this site, are extremely honest about their HIV status.

>>They are to be commended.

 

YOU SAID: Putting words in my mouth again, huh, Doug? Please show me

>where I said "well, they all lie, so what's the big deal?"

>You can't, of course, because I didn't say it and you know it.

> Can't you argue on the strength of your own argument alone?

>Do you really have to continually rely on misrepresenting what

>someone else said in order to bolster your own argument?

 

So you didn't say that everyone lies about sex and barebacking, so what's the big deal? Really? You should tell Daddy, then, that someone has stolen your password, because the person posting as Boston Guy began this thread by writing:

 

"In point of fact, I think it's likely that barebacking and lying about barebacking are so common as to be something almost not worth discussing in the specific sense. "

 

That's almost verbatim what I attributed to you. Why are you denying that you said that? It's much more noble if you feel that a point you made is wrong to just admit that, rather than denying that you said it.

 

>Never would I say this subject isn't a "big deal." I've had

>way, way too many friends die from HIV to ever think it isn't

>a big deal. Nothing you can say will ever change that.

 

LOL! You said it was so common that it's "almost not worth discussing." Isn't that the same as saying that it's not a big deal?

 

>Perhaps you're talking about "excusing" this site's censorship

>of information about barebacking escorts. Oh, right, it can't

>be that either: this site doesn't censor that information.

 

Actually, you're mistaken here. A few weeks ago, I posted evidence showing that a certain escort here - who had just written a post claiming that he only engaged in safe sex - in fact, looks for bareback sex as a bottom on recretaional sex sites. That thread got deleted and was never put back.

 

Why are you claiming that this site does not suppress evidence that certain escorts bareback (even escorts who falsely claim not to) when that just isn't true. This site does do that, and I think it's profoundly wrong and definitely dangerous.

 

>What's criminal, Doug, if anything is supporting the logic by

>which people "DO change what they're willing to do or not do

>sexually based on an escort's claims about their safe sex

>practices."

 

I don't support the logic they use. I think they should not rely on escorts' representations when making hiring and sex choices - I think they should assume everyone is HIV+ and only have safe sex - and I point that out.

 

But guess what? Not everyone listens to what I say and agrees with it. Despite what you or I think about this, there ARE lots of people who rely on escorts' representations about their HIV-status and whether they engage in safe sex. There ARE also lots of people who don't want to have sex with a barebacking escort. That's just a fact.

 

And knowing that this is a FACT, it's disgusting to allow escorts to trick people like that into hiring them by lying about their HIV-status or safe-sex activities. It's just as simple as that.

 

There's a real irony here. Your position is almost identical to the position of the Religious Right when it comes to things like condom distribution in the schools or handing out clean needles to addicts.

 

Like you, the want to ignore REALITIES that they don't like. Like you do with people who make sex decisions based on an escorts' claims about their HIV-status, the Religious Right wants to preach to sexually active kids and drug users that they shouldn't do that, instead of recognizing the reality that they DO it and will do it and then giving them the tools (condoms and clean needles) to protect themselves.

 

The Religious Right argues exactly what you are arguing here about giving people information about barebacking escorts: that if you give them condoms and clean needles, you're validating or encouraging that behavior. Instead - say the Religious Right and you - you should just tell them not to do it and hope it works, and deny them the means to be safer if they don't listen.

 

The reality is that there are people who make decisions about sex and hiring based on an escort's claims about HIV and safe sex. You may wish it weren't true, but it is. Knowing that it is, it is truly irresponsible to allow escorts to lie to those people.

[Boston Guy]

RE: Does "Person X" bareback?

 

>It may be time to take a deep breath there, BG. I wouldn't

>want you to cross the blurry line you just drew as the Forum

>Rules and have your any of your posts deleted.

>

>

>I SAID: >>The excuse BG is using - "well, they all

>lie, so what's the

>>>big deal?" - is just false. Lots of escorts, including

>some

>>>on this site, are extremely honest about their HIV status.

>>>They are to be commended.

>

>YOU SAID: Putting words in my mouth again, huh, Doug?

>Please show me

>>where I said "well, they all lie, so what's the big deal?"

>>You can't, of course, because I didn't say it and you know

>it.

>> Can't you argue on the strength of your own argument alone?

>

>>Do you really have to continually rely on misrepresenting

>what

>>someone else said in order to bolster your own argument?

>

>So you didn't say that everyone lies about sex and

>barebacking, so what's the big deal? Really? You should tell

>Daddy, then, that someone has stolen your password, because

>the person posting as Boston Guy began this thread by

>writing:

>

>"In point of fact, I think it's likely that barebacking and

>lying about barebacking are so common as to be something

>almost not worth discussing in the specific sense. "

>

>That's almost verbatim what I attributed to you. Why are you

>denying that you said that? It's much more noble if you feel

>that a point you made is wrong to just admit that, rather than

>denying that you said it.

>

 

Of course you conveniently forgot to include the next sentence, which begins with "In other words, while it's probably worth discussing as a societal issue, ...". But that didn't fit in with your point, did it?

 

 

Oh, well. I'm going to let you and Woodlawn have the last word. Perhaps you should both use it to attack this site one more time. It's good that the rules allow you to do that, isn't it? Good that M4M permits so much unrestrained speech, even speech that is critical of M4M itself?

 

BG

[woodlawn]

RE: Does "Person X" bareback?

 

>Oh, well. I'm going to let you and Woodlawn have the last

>word. Perhaps you should both use it to attack this site one

>more time. It's good that the rules allow you to do that,

>isn't it? Good that M4M permits so much unrestrained speech,

>even speech that is critical of M4M itself?

 

It's not like you to run away from a fight. But we all get old eventually, right?

 

For the record, I don't think you can find anything in my posts in this thread that attacks this site. It is YOU, on the contrary, who are complaining about what is being posted here. If that wasn't the point of starting this thread, what the hell was?

[seaboy4hire]

RE: Does &quot;Person X&quot; bareback?

 

Jesse you are correct there are laws out there saying if one does not disclose his or her status and the other person becomes infected it is a criminal act. Recently there was a straight guy here in Seattle that intentionaly infected a number of woman. As a result he was found guilty and was sentanced.

 

Hugs,

Greg

Greg Seattle Wa seaboy4hire@yahoo.com

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/gregseattle.html

http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com

[Doug69]

RE: Does &quot;Person X&quot; bareback?

 

>Jesse you are correct there are laws out there saying if one

>does not disclose his or her status and the other person

>becomes infected it is a criminal act.

 

How about people who help them deceive other people about their status? Can they be held criminally liable for aiding and abetting?