cum sucking/bareback

[Jayman01]

Two things I hear that really disturb me:

You're only as safe as your last test. No, you're not. The test is meaningless until the HIV seroconversion and that can take as long as 30 days, even six months and, in rare cases, 12 months, but transmission of the disease can occur during that time. So you're only as safe as all the sex you've had in the last twelve months and your partners have had in the last twelve months and their partners have had in the last twelve months. Okay. Use a rubber.

We all take risks every day. Yes, we do. But only a fool plays golf in a thunderstorm or swims in shark infested waters or eats unwashed fruit off a supermarket shelf or walks into a fenced yard with a sign that says "Beware the Pit Bull." We do takes risks when we get out of bed - but we don't take them deliberately and fucking outside a long term committed relationship without a condom is taking a deliberate risk.

I have to admit my point of view is skewered. I know some of the models. I wouldn't want anything to harm them. They're good, nice kids. I can't imagine how horrible it would be to have even one of them become ill because his desperation was taken advantage of and deliberately risky behavior was bought for somebody's viewing pleasure.

The rare cases that have been documented for 6 mos. and beyond are based on not being able to determine the exact date or mode of exposure. It is believed that the inaccuracy of this data is based on the subject not being entirely accurate or truthful with the evaluator about dates and times of engaging in risky behaviors. Rifle, you are so right. in 90 percent of the cases seroconversion takes place with 2-4 weeks. 6 mos. is the recognized maximum window time period by the CDC. However; since we developed the p24 antigen test in 1996 this test can detect before seroconversion. It is about 80% accurate for HIV positive accuracy.

 

[tampa24]

I also have to be honest and say I didn't realise that there were some barebacking vids on Broke Straight Boys Who were in these?

There are a few:

Erik & Ross May 12, 2007
Tyler & Jacob Feb 2, 2008
Alden* & Robert January 31, 2009

*Alden starts out with a condom and ends without one.

There's possibly one or two more that I'm not aware of or have forgotten.

 

[joninliverton]

There are a few:

Erik & Ross May 12, 2007
Tyler & Jacob Feb 2, 2008
Alden* & Robert January 31, 2009

*Alden starts out with a condom and ends without one.

There's possibly one or two more that I'm not aware of or have forgotten.

And interestingly enough they all got good ratings. People in glass houses etc etc...

 

[vicekid]

There are a few:

Erik & Ross May 12, 2007
Tyler & Jacob Feb 2, 2008
Alden* & Robert January 31, 2009

*Alden starts out with a condom and ends without one.

There's possibly one or two more that I'm not aware of or have forgotten.

Tampa,

After reviewing the Alden/Robert episode you mention, you appear to be correct regarding Alden. He loses the condom the first time but does put it back on for the second time. He loses it again around 15:15 into the show and it immediate cuts to him back inside Robert. About 6 seconds later he is out and ready to cum on Robert. It does not appear that he took off a condom and there is no way of telling if it came off again at that moment, but that could have been a possibility we could not see.

I also doubled checked the Eric, Ross and Wes taping, but Eric did not top. So I think you have listed the only episodes of barebacking.

Live Long and Prosper,

Vicekid

 

[zyl84]

Zyl84 - Bless your heart. Dude you summed up pretty much everything I was going to say. Thank you for sharing we can never get enough real education about our choices that we make when bare-backing. It is nice to have someone else that shares my point of view. Welcome to the Forum...

My job allows me to see/understand things most people won't ever. I'd also like to stress what Rifle said and provide some more insight. Seroconversion refers to your body producing antibodies to HIV to a detectable level. It takes time for your body to even recognize that it is infected and more time to develop the antibodies. We don't test for the virus, we test for the antibodies to the virus. Transmission CAN occur at this time!

Further to the point, there are some people out there who have a natural "immunity" to HIV (I use immunity lightly here, as there is no 100% guarenteed immunity at this point). They lack a receptor (CCR5 for those who are curious) on their cells that allow HIV use as a main route to infiltrate. These people carry the virus, will never get sick from it but can still infect others. HIV could possibly find another receptor to infiltrate by, but CCR5 is the main route. Think of them as you would Typhoid Mary.

 

[Jayman01]

My job allows me to see/understand things most people won't ever. I'd also like to stress what Rifle said and provide some more insight. Seroconversion refers to your body producing antibodies to HIV to a detectable level. It takes time for your body to even recognize that it is infected and more time to develop the antibodies. We don't test for the virus, we test for the antibodies to the virus. Transmission CAN occur at this time!

Further to the point, there are some people out there who have a natural "immunity" to HIV (I use immunity lightly here, as there is no 100% guarenteed immunity at this point). They lack a receptor (CCR5 for those who are curious) on their cells that allow HIV use as a main route to infiltrate. These people carry the virus, will never get sick from it but can still infect others. HIV could possibly find another receptor to infiltrate by, but CCR5 is the main route. Think of them as you would Typhoid Mary.

You go Zyl84. Dude you are awesome. Then there is the significance of the Jefferson Study in 1986 that showed that recreational drugs like alcohol, cocaine, and heroine make the CD8 killer T- cells more prone to infection. This was a significant discovery because typically the CD4 T- cells were the cells most prone to infection.

I know that you are referring to HIV above. There are things out there that are more likely STD's like those listed on this web site:

http://www.avert.org/stds.htm

 

[zyl84]

You go Zyl84. Dude you are awesome. Then there is the significance of the Jefferson Study in 1986 that showed that recreational drugs like alcohol, cocaine, and heroine make the CD8 killer T- cells more prone to infection. This was a significant discovery because typically the CD4 T- cells were the cells most prone to infection.

I know that you are referring to HIV above. There are things out there that are more likely STD's like those listed on this web site:

http://www.avert.org/stds.htm

Yes. A good portion of STD's don't even show any symptoms on a male, but the wrong bacteria in the wrong area (if you catch my drift? hehe) could be problematic. Be safe guys!!

 

[rifle]

I suppose the glass houses implies complicity in the bareback broadcast brought on by the high ratings. It's interesting to note, however that Alden/Robert scored a 4.5 in their BB scene on 1/2/09 and 4.5 on the non BB scene on 10/11/08. While Tyler/Jacob scored 4.6 on 2/2/08 in a BB scene, they never performed together again, but Tyler certainly appeared several times in non BB scenes and scored 4.6 including once with C.J. on 7/8/08. Now Erik/Ross did score 4.6 on 5/12/07 (their best) but both their other appearances were 4.5 on 5/2 and 6/9. It would appear if there were a glass house it had nothing to do with barebacking, but, instead, had to do with the performers themselves.

Might be nice to remember that several months ago David and Mark both declared a moratorium on BB on Broke Straight Boys, the great majority of forum members declared opposition to BB on Broke Straight Boys, and people who throw stones outside of glass houses sometimes get hit by flying glass, too.

 

[joninliverton]

I suppose the glass houses implies complicity in the bareback broadcast brought on by the high ratings. It's interesting to note, however that Alden/Robert scored a 4.5 in their BB scene on 1/2/09 and 4.5 on the non BB scene on 10/11/08. While Tyler/Jacob scored 4.6 on 2/2/08 in a BB scene, they never performed together again, but Tyler certainly appeared several times in non BB scenes and scored 4.6 including once with C.J. on 7/8/08. Now Erik/Ross did score 4.6 on 5/12/07 (their best) but both their other appearances were 4.5 on 5/2 and 6/9. It would appear if there were a glass house it had nothing to do with barebacking, but, instead, had to do with the performers themselves.

Might be nice to remember that several months ago David and Mark both declared a moratorium on BB on Broke Straight Boys, the great majority of forum members declared opposition to BB on Broke Straight Boys, and people who throw stones outside of glass houses sometimes get hit by flying glass, too.

Rifle, I was just trying to be devil's advocate here and state that the BB films mentioned by Tampa did get good ratings, as did the cum eating films of recent. So it is quite obvious that the membership likes that bit extra in films otherwise the voting wouldn't be so high. The moratorium you refer to I canno remember however, if the majority of the members agreed then that's fair enough.

For those who like to watch BB, and a few have stated this, then there are other sites within the Bonus sites that show this porn. I also applaud those that have stated their stance irrespect of which side of the fence they sit.

 

[rifle]

And I would like to make it clear that no matter how much the devil would like to advocate the popularity of bareback - of the many scenes which rate at, near, or above 4.6 on Broke Straight Boys only those two and one/third contain BB. Just to clear up that argument which I seem to hear a lot: there are forty one scenes on Broke Straight Boys which rate a 4.6 and only three have bareback. That's 7%. I would not say that's indicative of any form of membership preference. It doesn't prove a dislike, a distaste, or a resounding hurrah. It doesn't prove anything. We can argue, as my grandfather used to say 'till the cows come home': science says bareback’s a no-no, morality says it's a no-no, common decency says it's a no-no, and, on April 17, 2009, Mark said: It is not worth it and I couldn't live with myself if one of our models got infected. I really don't think watching sex with a condom is really that big of a deal. I will not put my models at risk.

It’s just another of those silly little arguments we keep hashing out every few months and never seeming to conclude. I will tell you this, when the cure is found and I can look an 18 year old in the face and not see the faces of all those whose hands I’ve held, whose coffins I’ve carried, whose friends and family I’ve consoled, I might consider changing my views – but only, of course, when herpes and the new strains of syphilis have also fallen by the wayside.

 

[joninliverton]

Rifle, this isn't an argument it is a discussion. The 3 bb films you mention of ratings 4.6 are, according to Tampa, the ONLY 3 BB scenes on Broke Straight Boys (I do not have the time to confirm this), which means that 100% of BB films are within the 41 films over 4.6.

The rest of your post I cannot disagree with and the cows have now come home.

 

[rifle]

Your are absolutely right, Jon. So, we can finally discuss the idea that nearly every time this topic has been brought up your evidence always seems to fall on the opposite side of the fence to your claimed stance. Yes, the cows are home - perhaps Dan Dairies out on Astley Way can help in processing. They make a lovely soft cheese and soured cream. I meant that to be funny, Jon, nothing more. It's my warped western sense of humor. I will stand perfectly still while you toss one back at me and we shall lay this to rest. I should make an easy target. I am old, fat, bald, and ugly, and I have a large sign around my neck which reads "93% of the most popular scenes on Broke Straight Boys feature condoms."
Ta, luv. Perhaps we can meet one day for a shopping duel on Briggate!

 

[slimvintage]

Rifle, this isn't an argument it is a discussion. The 3 bb films you mention of ratings 4.6 are, according to Tampa, the ONLY 3 BB scenes on Broke Straight Boys (I do not have the time to confirm this), which means that 100% of BB films are within the 41 films over 4.6.

The rest of your post I cannot disagree with and the cows have now come home.

Jon, so called "bareback" sex used to be pretty much the only kind of gay anal sex there was. It was far more natural, way more sensual, much much more romantic, and felt 95% better. When it first became known that HIV infection was less likely to occur during fucking if the top rolled a rubber onto his dick, gay sex turned, for a time, into a clumsy, prissy, embarrassing, often abortive exercise in how not to love another man. Over time people like me, who were sexually active with other guys in the early 80's, got used to it, more or less. I was lucky to be in an LTR when the news began to break, so as long as it lasted we just went on as we were. But later, and single, I just squidged a whole bunch more lube into the rubber before I put it on, and that at least helped with the loss of sensation provoked by a condom right out of it's little foil envelope. Since my hard dickhead was slithering around against the latex, inside the slippery condom, it was easier to tell I was fucking something, so both psychologically and physically, lube helped. But all the rest of it, the inevitable slight clumsiness, the occasional wilting and jacking back to erection, the moment of cooling off, was pretty sad.

I think there is a tremendous aesthetic charge to seeing two guys who are in love fucking without a condom. I don't want any models to get AIDS or any other stds just so I can enjoy a condom free scene. But when I do see one, usually vintage porn from the 70s, it brings back memories of the time when gay guys who wanted to show the affection they felt for each other in that specific way didn't have to stop and get medically armored before making love.

What is comforting is that kids who became sexually active once condom use was obligatory, don't seem to notice they're missing anything. I've talked to younger forum members who don't find rubbers at all awkward and have a horror of anal sex without them, rather like feeling uncomfortable without your seat belt snapped on before you start the car. Maybe they feel squeamish seeing bareback gay porn as well. Maybe it's PC to decry it. I really like it a lot and may have contributed to the high ratings those three episodes garnered.

Just to be clear, I am pro safer sex. I abhor the idea of anyone, anywhere, who isn't at this instant infected, becoming so through carelessness. I can't help liking to see two guys fuck without a condom, that's all.

 

[joninliverton]

Hi Slim, I share your views but obviously I'm too young to remember the 80s - was born in 87 lol. I appreciate you being "brave" enough to state your stance of which I share but as many members have said - the models health is most important.

 

[rifle]

Gentlemen, may I say that slimvintage's description of barebacking is withdoubt the most accurate and sensible I've ever read. It is a road down which we travelled without thought or care. Now, in our fondness for romanticizing its wonders, we can't afford to make it so appealing that young people, who've become accustomed to the safety of the expressway, want to go back and risk the pot holes and blind curves and narrow bridges for the sake of a couple of thrills. I think it's called glamorizing the risk.

To me, it's even more than the model's health. The bigger picture is a whole generation. The numbers are going up again and, with the growing invisiblity of the gender barriors of modern youth, that means more young men and women in this country. Africa and Asia are in horrible crisis.

Jon and Slim, I raise my glass to you. You have put a whole generation first in a way that's a lot more difficult than giving up cigarettes or gas guzzling cars or sugar rich soda.

 

[Jayman01]

Jon, so called "bareback" sex used to be pretty much the only kind of gay anal sex there was. It was far more natural, way more sensual, much much more romantic, and felt 95% better. When it first became known that HIV infection was less likely to occur during fucking if the top rolled a rubber onto his dick, gay sex turned, for a time, into a clumsy, prissy, embarrassing, often abortive exercise in how not to love another man. Over time people like me, who were sexually active with other guys in the early 80's, got used to it, more or less. I was lucky to be in an LTR when the news began to break, so as long as it lasted we just went on as we were. But later, and single, I just squidged a whole bunch more lube into the rubber before I put it on, and that at least helped with the loss of sensation provoked by a condom right out of it's little foil envelope. Since my hard dickhead was slithering around against the latex, inside the slippery condom, it was easier to tell I was fucking something, so both psychologically and physically, lube helped. But all the rest of it, the inevitable slight clumsiness, the occasional wilting and jacking back to erection, the moment of cooling off, was pretty sad.

I think there is a tremendous aesthetic charge to seeing two guys who are in love fucking without a condom. I don't want any models to get AIDS or any other stds just so I can enjoy a condom free scene. But when I do see one, usually vintage porn from the 70s, it brings back memories of the time when gay guys who wanted to show the affection they felt for each other in that specific way didn't have to stop and get medically armored before making love.

What is comforting is that kids who became sexually active once condom use was obligatory, don't seem to notice they're missing anything. I've talked to younger forum members who don't find rubbers at all awkward and have a horror of anal sex without them, rather like feeling uncomfortable without your seat belt snapped on before you start the car. Maybe they feel squeamish seeing bareback gay porn as well. Maybe it's PC to decry it. I really like it a lot and may have contributed to the high ratings those three episodes garnered.

Just to be clear, I am pro safer sex. I abhor the idea of anyone, anywhere, who isn't at this instant infected, becoming so through carelessness. I can't help liking to see two guys fuck without a condom, that's all.

Slim you really said a mouth full. AIDS and STD'' certainly impacted our culture and the freedom of condom free sex. I think many of us who grew up in those days have always looked for that special relationship where we could trust our partner not to engage in sex with anyone but us. So, we can once again relive those condom free days and experience that incredible sexual freedom. Thanks for sharing.

 

[slimvintage]

Gentlemen, may I say that slimvintage's description of barebacking is withdoubt the most accurate and sensible I've ever read. It is a road down which we travelled without thought or care. Now, in our fondness for romanticizing its wonders, we can't afford to make it so appealing that young people, who've become accustomed to the safety of the expressway, want to go back and risk the pot holes and blind curves and narrow bridges for the sake of a couple of thrills. I think it's called glamorizing the risk.

To me, it's even more than the model's health. The bigger picture is a whole generation. The numbers are going up again and, with the growing invisiblity of the gender barriors of modern youth, that means more young men and women in this country. Africa and Asia are in horrible crisis.

Jon and Slim, I raise my glass to you. You have put a whole generation first in a way that's a lot more difficult than giving up cigarettes or gas guzzling cars or sugar rich soda.

What's in that raised glass Rife? I only ask because your last sentence, about the gas guzzler, is a puzzler. Clarify?

 

[rifle]

I guess I spoke too soon again. I was complimenting you on your support for condoms - a position which, because of its sexual nature is much more difficult to take than the other current politically correct positions: opposing the smoking of cigarettes, the driving of gas guzzling cars, and drinking of highly sugared beverages, all of which require much less in the way of personal commitment and determination. Raising a glass, to the best of my knowledge has always been synonymous with toasting. If it has another meaning, then it has escaped my fifty plus years of literary endeavors and therefore it matters not what the glass contains, it is the gesture that counts.

I won't withdraw the sentiment or the intent, but I am withdrawing from this thread. If I'm that difficult to understand, I don't deserve to be discussing something this important.

 

[joninliverton]

Raising a glass does mean toasting and we Brits normally accompany the action with the word "cheers". So Rifle was actually agreeing with your stance albeit his literary prowess doth confuseth even us English.

Rifle - love your English dude - but this is a Broke Straight Boys thread not Macbeth.

 

[rifle]

And, I suppose, Jon, on such a site, the acceptance of such a compliment, with such an insult, would more appropriately be responded to with the raising of a hand with gesture full blown. It doesn't take much to confuse pretense. Please don't speak for the English. I do so love and respect them. Oh, yes, and "dude" as a noun, where I come from, is someone totally out of his depth, maybe even on Macbeth.