Matt doin bareback

[Guest Jesse Dane]

>I am certainly not a medical professional or a biologist, but

>it would seem to me that if there is more than one strain of

>the HIV virus going around, there could be harm in two HIV+

>persons having unprotected sex, if one can become infected

>with a different strain or a mutation.

>

>Anyone out there with the up-to-date biology?

 

I am not joining this argument on either side, but I saw this and just wanted to give some information since this is an area I know very much about. (I have received the same information on this issue from the SF city health department, the Stop AIDS Project, and a leading doctor in the fild of HIV research just in case people want to know where my information comes from)

 

The idea that people can get multiple strains of HIV that combine to create a mutation or a "super virus" as many people refer to it is still just that, an idea and theory. There have been no definite results to prove that it can happen and many tests are still being done currently to try and prove or disprove the theory.

 

What they have concluded is that IF it is possible, it is only possible for roughly the first year after HIV seroconversion. After that point the HIV has taken hold of a persons cells enough that it would not let any other strain enter them.

 

So after a year of having HIV the risk of getting another strain through unprotected sex is not there. However there is still risk of contracting other STD's which can weaken the immune system of an HIV positive person.

[+ Tom Isern]

Yes, as a matter of fact I am, ICEFIRE. My last boyfriend and I practiced safe sex for six months, then we were tested together, and then had unsafe sex between us. We harmed no one and we were a threat to no one. We had unsafe sex between us and safe sex with others. We are both HIV-NEGATIVE.

 

So, you've sidestepped my question entirely. As did Rockhead--who seems to enjoy throwing around inflammatory, moralistic, and highly-postured ignorance rather than thinking.

[bigguyinpasadena]

RE: Tom Isern's nostalgic longings.

 

>Knowing how she longs for the euphoria of the filthy piers

>and the days of sexual abandon gone by, did you really have to

>ask, IceFireWizard?

I long for those days also--The kids just do not belive the stories.

Just for the record I am negative-despite having a wicked,wicked past :o

[augustman]

The review should stand as is and not be edited in any form which includes pulling it. Please take the shocked looked off of the faces too. What better way to continue the discussion regarding the down side of this activity than have reviews posted which indicates this behavior does continue. I do agree with one notion that in posting this review I hope the escort is well aware that is has been posted. Because I agree that once branded a BB it sticks. That said being the bottom he is I wonder if Matt's business will suffer?

 

I believe this activity takes place more often than we wish to acknowledge. A tour of some of the bareback video studios like Treaure Island can find several current escorts engaging in this activity at some point in their career.

 

This site is designed to educate so that we the consumer can make the best choice. How can we do that if we ignore a legal popular alternative. We are adults and we make our own choice.

[SAdler]

RE: And another one falls through the cracks

 

>The phrases"pump and dump""breed""and "planted my seed deep

>inside his bowels"all infer unsafe sex practices-albeit they

>are couched in phrasology to make this homocidal/suicidal

>action"hot"

 

WOW. Especially in this thread I know it opens me up to lots of horrible accusations. I hate to think what fiction Rico, et. al. can cook up based on my response but here it goes. I disagree with expection to my favorite word, context. Yes, all those things infer UNSAFE sex practices which I don't currently engage in nor do I promote with the exception of in a strictly monogamous long term relationship.

 

>It is not hot-it is at least unwise and at the most criminal.

>You and your friend could agree it would be"hot"for one of you

>to shoot,stab,poison the other.You could write out a contract

>to this effect.One of you will most likely stand trial/go to

>jail for this-please tell me how this is different?

 

Comparing unsafe sex as shooting or stabbing in INSANE. Would you say a straight couple haveing sex for the sake of procreation is ANY different than two gay men having sex for the sake of establishing their love of one another? Granted unsafe sex in monogamous couples is a FAR stretch from unsafe sex between escort and client but your comments (and those offered here) have been a BIT harsh. If someone KNOWINGLY has HIV and has unsafe sex with someone then your argument holds water, but until that premise has been set -- your comparison seems out of line.

 

AGAIN .. I am not advocating or admitting to unsafe sex. I'm just saying it's something I think ANYONE strives for to be able to have completely pure love with their partner. UNFORTUNATELY for gay men we do have one issue that is more prominent than straight people, bacterial infections because of WHERE we're shoving our equipment versus the female zone which is designed for such penetration.

[SAdler]

VERY well said.

 

I as an assistant to a consumer would want to know such issues as well. For instance, when I look for a threeway I don't want someone positive or who barebacks for that reason.

[RockHard]

RE: Tom Isern's nostalgic longings.

 

"My last boyfriend and I practiced safe sex for six months, then we were tested together, and then had unsafe sex between us. We harmed no one and we were a threat to no one. We had unsafe sex between us and safe sex with others.

 

Are you fucking kidding me? Talk about denial and wishful thinking. And to think she has the nerve to call me ignorant.

 

"We are both HIV-NEGATIVE.

 

I tend not to believe queens who scream to get their point across. Buyer beware.

[+ deej]

>Deej-I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that this fella is

>not going to identify himself,ever.

 

And therefore, based on your assumption, you as grand ruler of all written communications everywhere get to decide which bits of reality submitted by a third party that you do not know about an encounter you did not experience should be censored based on your personal sensibilities.

 

Got it.

[IceFireWizard]

wishful thinking

 

Isn't surprising that the reviewer describes himself as "HIV neg"? His status is more likely "unknown" at this point.

[IceFireWizard]

RE: Tom Isern's nostalgic longings.

 

>I tend not to believe queens who scream to get their point

>across. Buyer beware.

 

RockHard, to quote one of my favorite posters:

 

"The truth will come out naturally sooner or later"

[bigguyinpasadena]

Why would it be presumptive of me to think that whoever is putting up the reviews these day would not want to encourage unsafe sex practices by not allowing such a review to be posted?

As I am NOT the grand poobah of all written communications I must rely upon those persons who have control of things like this.

Is this case IMO very poor judgement was used.

[+ deej]

>Why would it be presumptive of me to think that whoever is

>putting up the reviews these day would not want to encourage

>unsafe sex practices by not allowing such a review to be

>posted?

 

I have no idea where you get the encourage part. I didn't see a banner saying "HEY EVERYONE! GO OUT AND FUCK RAW!". I think any intent you ascribe here is coming solely from you.

 

So you'd rather have it ignored and swept under the rug. You may like to have YOUR head buried in the sand. I don't. I don't want someone "protecting" me by hiding information. I don't want my news sanitized. I'd rather make my own decisions, thank you, based on ALL the facts.

 

>Is this case IMO very poor judgement was used.

 

I think you're very, very, very wrong.

 

I also think you're being very condescending and insulting to posters here and to the people who run this site, but that's not a discussion for this thread.

[Lookin]

To get back to your original questions, verymarried, yes, I do feel a little sad for Matt - actually, more than a little. He’s a young guy, and is making some pretty bad decisions at this point in his life. He wouldn’t be the first inexperienced kid to do something reckless. I think his best hope is for someone with more experience, and a little compassion, to spend some time with him. His client was not that person. Scott has reached out to him once before, and intends to do so again. Matt is lucky to have that help. Each of us may one day get a chance to mentor someone like Matt.

 

As far as what this site could or should do to discourage dangerous activity, I think it would be both appropriate and humane for the site to be an advocate for the health of all site users, but especially for the health of young escorts. I don’t think restricting content of the reviews is the way to do it. That may just cause barebackers to hide. I think a reminder that we’re all in this together, and maybe a banner promoting safe sex would help get the message across.

 

There are quite a few creative people on this site, some of whom are posting on this thread. How about we come up with some banner ideas, pick a few good ones, and send them to Daddy? I’ll throw out a few for starters, hoping that I will be quickly topped. ;-)

 

 

Taking good care of each other since 1998!

 

Stay Healthy. Stay Hot.

 

It’s your butt. Own it.

 

We can’t afford to lose you.

 

Treat him well. He may be on top next time.

[jackhammer91406]

I am going with VAHAWK and the others who have said posting the review is enough warning for any thinking adult. There are some who would have accused the management here of hiding the inforamtion if the review was not published or censored and since the review speaks for itself, there's no need for any additional warning or notice.

[bigguyinpasadena]

Sorry JH-but If the review had NEVER been published,and there is no reason IMO for it to have been published-Let alone be spotlighted as coverboy-none of us would have been the wiser.

No,the fact that is that it was put up,in the featured spot no less,with no warning flag.the way it is written is not as a cautionary tale,rather it attempts to be highly erotic in its depiction of an unsafe sex practice.

If the depiction of murderous/suicidal practices is depicted as "sexy"or"hot"(as is done in this review)than that just fuels a slowly growing trend in porn,and unfortunately in real life,that this type of behaviour is ok,and if you want the hottest stuff out there than unprotected anal sex is just the ticket.

 

I guess there just have not been enough tragedy out there,not enough young men have died.I ,for one,have shed too many tears,comforted too many of my sick friends to let this stand without speaking up.

 

All of this exploitation of unsafe sexual acts,just so some sick son of a bitch came make a buck off of another sick fuck getting his rocks off is simply inexcusable.And shame on those of you hiding behind the argument of free will.The will of the weak,the poor,the unimpowered.and the desperate is pretty easy to break.Men have done heinous acts out of desperation-acts which,at the time,seem far more dangerous than fucking without a condom.Of course most regret it,befor,during,and most certainly after the act is commited.But it is usuaaly too late,the damage is done.

 

It saddens me more than I can say too see that all of the years of volunteer work,all of the dollars I have spent on AIDS education,and all of the tears I have shed over the fate of friends who are living with an incurrable disease,or those that have died from the same,all because of a moment of bad judgement-or of ignorance have meant so little in the long term.

[bigguyinpasadena]

I think there could have been a different( better) option

[bigguyinpasadena]

Deej wrote"I have no idea where you get the encourage part. I didn't see a banner saying "HEY EVERYONE! GO OUT AND FUCK RAW!". I think any intent you ascribe here is coming solely from you.

 

<<No Deej,that is incorrect-please see the original post of this thread>>

 

"So you'd rather have it ignored and swept under the rug. You may like to have YOUR head buried in the sand. I don't. I don't want someone "protecting" me by hiding information. I don't want my news sanitized. I'd rather make my own decisions, thank you, based on ALL the facts."

 

>>But all of the facts were not present in this review,and if this review had never had been published none of us would have been the wiser<<

 

>Is this case IMO very poor judgement was used.

 

" think you're very, very, very wrong."

>>at of course is your opinion>>

 

" also think you're being very condescending and insulting to posters here and to the people who run this site, but that's not a discussion for this thread."

 

>>sorry-but I must disagree.I find it insulting that that particular review was posted,as it stands against some of my core principles regarding safe sex-i.e. that the exploitation of unsafe sex practices is wrong<<

 

 

 

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

[Epigonos]

The one thing that I have learned in the sixty-five years I have been on this earth is that the more important the decision I am about to make the more information I need to accrue. This site is, for me, a valuable source of information which looses that value if Daddy and the moderators choose to omit or censor reviews for any reason. I may NOT like some of the information I read here but if I've got a brain in my head I damn well better read it and use it. Please allow me to read the "facts" as presented and please allow me to make my own decision. I do NOT need nor do I want a big brother or an Anita Bryant making decisions for me which he, she or it consider in my best interest.

[+ deej]

http://www.dfapam.com/angermanagement.gif

[jackhammer91406]

BG,

You are not the only one who has shed tears for lost friends, worked in a volunteer capacity and mourned the burgeoning reappearance of unsafe sex. We disagree on the reviews impact.

 

There are many ways to highlight or draw attention to a serious subject. Placing the review in the number one slot is one way. By doing so, attention is drawn to the unsafe practices of one escort. Yes the review itself could be seen as salacious, but if it had been buried in the list, many would have never read it possibly because the escort in question is not in their city. Also, the sexy nature of the review does not in any way ameliorate the main reaction to the unsafe sex. I think many more buyers read the review precisely because it was the cover boy and many more are now warned that this escort practices unsafe sex (a fact the escort in question may not alert his other clients about).

 

No, having the review printed was the best way to alert potential buyers who would otherwise have gone without that info and as such the review provides a strong caution to other buyers.

 

I too grieve at the growing trend in unsafe sex and I am sure I am not the only one who can see past the trashy porn style of the writing to see the real truth of the review.

 

We will just have to disagree on this one.

[Txpaytoplay]

ROTFLMAO.....}( }(

That's a good one Deej!

[+ deej]

>I think there could have been a different( better) option

 

Why not share with the class what that option would be?

[bigguyinpasadena]

And what are your others hobbies dearrie

[RockHard]

M4Mscorts ain't Vanity Fair, assholes.

 

"Making him Coverboy suggests that this site endorses, or at least condones unsafe sex among escorts."

 

What an absolutely absurd and asinine assumption! Too many contributors here have really "small" brains. Given the well-known criteria for being selected, I fail to see any "endorsement" activity whatsoever.

 

Not that this will matter to those who think otherwise but I never viewed the Coverboy position as anything special, beyond a mere highlight, a daily feature. The page is so cluttered with other distractions only an egotistical fool would find placement there representative of some queenly throne.

 

Is Chanel endorsing cocaine by using Kate Moss in their recent Vogue ad? Is Bazaar endorsing pregnant nudity among trailer-park trash who-can't-sing by placing Brittany Spears on its cover?

 

Would somebody give me a break from the bullshit in life?

[+ BenjaminNicholas]

RE: M4Mscorts ain't Vanity Fair, assholes.

 

Bingo... And a great subject line btw.

 

Coverboy is not an endorsement, plain and simple. Its original concept was to feature a good-looking guy that HB found foxy and hopefully pull people into the site, looking for more.

 

Daddy has done quite a good job in now featuring a more diverse look amongst his Coverboys. To that i say WHOOHOO!

 

Regarding the barebacking review: I find it rather amusing (but not particularily surprising) that the people who are yelling the loudest against this particular escort (and his Coverboy status) are some of the same who vehemently supported another LA escort recently who was caught, review-style, with his hand in the bareback cookie jar. If memory serves me correct, this particular guy has also been named Coverboy of the Day on several occasions.

 

Pot. Kettle. Black. When it comes to sexual responsibility, there's no gray area.

 

 

 

BN