Dissecting the homosexual and the pedophile

Satyr wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Satyr wrote:

In Christianity the proposition of a God, an absolute masculine entity,

Its the proposition on the part of the priests that's masculine or considering how its done through soft seduction, the tactic is really feminine,, the god himself is presented as beyond all categories.

Yes, but in monotheistic dogmas the entity of God is representative of order, the absolute...which is a masculine trait...towards ordering.

In paganism Deities are asexual, and are given a sexual identity to relate them to this ordering.

Right. I am talking from the point of view of the "devout" to whom God is presented as the simultaneous trinity - father/mother/spirit which was orthodoxed along pagan lines into the symbol of a family unit - father, mother and child,,, but originally jesus was father [jehovah], jesus is mother [mary/madonna], jesus is spirit [holy ghost/angel], etc. The Blank state is featured here.

If God is Order, then his Creation, us, are malleable to His will.

This is where the idea of nature (the feminine), chaos, being ordered by an absolute Will comes from.
When God is secularized and redefined as the Idea(l), the institution becomes this power that can shape nature.
That's how we come to Modernity.

Surrender to God, becomes a surrender to the Institution, the idea(l)...there salvation is found. From nature/the past.
Through God, now the Idea(l) "liberation" from the worldly is achieved as a projected future, a Paradise now turned into an immanent Utopia...God as Immanence.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

How is the above a low evaluation?
The value of a female is elsewhere.
A female is also a combination of ma/female attributes.
A male as well.
Some males, especially in this day and age, are more feminine in their thinking and emoting than above average females.
You can find a lot of them on ILP.

Woman differs from man in mind and function as yin differs from yang.

And?

@Satyr, I understand. But what this Order was, was

"For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." [Galatians 3]

New version has it as,

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

This "order" without any irony is beyond all category. Pure.

The pure "inner blessedness of heart", this Pure Love is what Whitman politicized his homo-Comradeship as "democracy of the heart" and the communists secularized into One Brotherhood.
They were continuing the "Creator's" Tradition.

Ancient homosexuality as the "one-sex model":

Quote :

"Thales . . . used to say there were three blessings for which he was grateful to Fortune: ‘‘First, that I was born a human being and not one of the brutes; next, that I was born a man and not a wom- an; thirdly, a Greek and not a barbarian.’’

—Diogenes, Thales, 1.33

This expression of gratitude reported by Diogenes of the pre-Socratic philosopher, Thales, provides an apt gateway into the hierarchal world that we are about to enter. A person ranks higher than an animal, a man higher than a woman, and a Greek higher than a non-Greek; and, by the time of the Principate, a Roman higher than a non- Roman.1 To these oppositions we could also add that of free versus slave—slaves, too, were like animals, women, and foreigners insofar as they lived lives of submission. In short, understanding what it meant to be a man in the Greco-Roman world meant understanding one’s place in a rationally ordered cosmos in which free men were placed at the top and what fell beneath could all be classified as ‘‘unmen.’’

As Carlin A. Barton puts it, ‘‘one was ontologically a male but existentially a man. Born a male (mas) or a human (homo), one made oneself a man (vir). A vir was not a natural being.’’

In this sense, the body was ultimately not of primary importance in the achievement of ideal masculinity. While the male body launched one on the way toward this goal, it provided no guarantee of success. Indeed, from the an- cient perspective, the body lacked stability; there was no certainty that a mas- culinity earned was a masculinity saved. The specter of lost manliness, of a slide into effeminacy, was frequently raised before the eyes of the literate male audience.

Perhaps one reason this fear was evoked so regularly was that from an Aristotelian perspective, the male body did not provide assurance of being completely different in kind from the female body. Instead, the male body was viewed as the perfected, more complete body when compared to the female. As Aristotle explains:

In human beings the male is much hotter in its nature than the female. . . . It is due to this . . . that the perfecting of the female embryos is inferior to that of male ones (since their uterus is inferior in condition). (Gen. an. 775a)

So, too, writing in the second century c.e., the physician Galen comments:

Now just as mankind is the most perfect of all animals, so within mankind the man is more perfect than the woman, and the reason for his perfection is his excess of heat, for heat is Nature’s primary instrument. (On the Usefulness of the Parts, 2.630)

In other words, from the perspective of these influential authors, there was actually only one set of reproductive organs, ‘‘one sex,’’ as Laqueur argues.6 Biologically, in this view, the difference between male and female anatomy amounted to the presence of adequate heat. Indeed, pointing to the essential sameness of male and female reproductive organs, Galen encourages his reader to imagine the male genitalia turned outside in and the woman’s re- productive organs inside out. The biological implication of this thought ex- periment is that ‘‘instead of being divided by their reproductive anatomies, the sexes are linked by a common one.’’

The pervasiveness of this perspective can be seen in the way a Hellenistic Jewish writer like Philo readily assimilates this view in the context of his biblical commentary. Explaining the sex-specific requirement for the Passover lamb, Philo remarks, ‘‘Male . . . because male is more perfect than female. . . . [I]t is said by the naturalists that the female is nothing else than an imperfect male’’ (QE 1.7; cf. also Spec. Laws 1.200–201). One could hardly find a more con- cise statement of the Greco-Roman understanding of sex/gender categories. Maleness is associated with completion and perfection. ‘‘Female’’ is a non- category apart from its definition as imperfect male.8

For the ancient authors, the disturbing implication of this ‘‘one-sex model’’ of humanity, to borrow Laqueur’s term, is the possibility of gender slippage, particularly from male to female. If women were not different in kind, but simply a lesser, incomplete version of men, what was there to keep men from sliding down the axis into the female realm? As John Winkler has pointed out, the fear behind this question created an ethos in which the cultural polarity between the genders was made internal to one gender, the male.9 It was not enough to be clear that one was a man rather than a woman. One also needed to ensure that one was a manly man rather than a womanly man. As Maud Gleason argues, one’s masculine status had to be constantly maintained and proven through a demonstration of manly deportment. In her words, ‘‘Man- hood was not a state to be definitely achieved but something always under construction and constantly open to scrutiny.’’

Highlighting this link between body and character (or ‘‘soul’’), the earliest treatise on physiognomy posits, ‘‘For no an- imal has ever existed such that it has the form of one animal and disposition of another, but the body and soul of the same creature are always such that a given disposition must necessarily follow a given form."
Both the instability of the body and the danger of gender slippage can also be seen in this text, as the author notes, ‘‘It seems to me that the soul and body react on each other; when the character of the soul changes, it also changes the form of the body, and conversely, when the form of the body changes, it changes the character of the soul.’’
In other words, if one behaved badly, demonstrating weakness of character, the body would react in turn: it would become more womanly.
While sexual anatomy does not necessarily make the man, certain physical characteristics reveal him." [Colleen Conway, Jesus and Greco-Roman Masculinity]

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

and.............

Quote :

The value of a female is elsewhere.

which is .............................................

In her representation of nature, and the Will to life.
Woman is what ground male ingenuity, imagination, spirit of overcoming in the earthly, in reality.
Woman is what forces man to deal, to cope, to endure.
Woman is the perpetual "yay- saying" as Ludovici says (echoing Nietzsche), to life.

It is men who are driven to the extremes, one of which is Nihilism, and its Marxism, Feminism, outcrops.
These masculine ideals seduce the lowliest, female - the sickly, the ugly, the desperate. These become females dedicated to annulling life.
They are women corrupted...dis-eased.

Aristotle argued by comparison to man, woman is "more mischievous, less simple, more impulsive ... more compassionate, ... more easily moved to tears,... more jealous, more querulous, more apt to scold and to strike ... more prone to despondency and less hopeful... more void of shame or self-respect, more false of speech, more deceptive, of more retentive memory and ... also more wakeful; more shrinking and more difficult to rouse to action."  

One could argue the reason why the Roman empire fell, was Roman men had become effeminate, unwilling to live a tougher, "manly" military lifestyle.

Although Ludovici rejoiced in Nietzsche's blasts at Christianity, he still believed that some of the Church's traditional teachings had originated in ancient wisdom and were therefore sound.

The Scriptures nominate the highest standards and positions for women.  On the other hand, the feminist movement degrades and exploits women, takes away their femininity and their role in the home and society.  It has for some destroyed a woman's "given" position and role, that of being a help mate with her husband.    And God said, It is not good for man to be alone.  Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.   1 Corinthians 11:9

It is logical to consider not only the differences between male and female, but also their relatedness.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

Some males, especially in this day and age, are more feminine in their thinking and emoting than above average females.

You can find a lot of them on ILP.

One wonders why you contributed for so many years on that Forum.

Perhaps the reason was singularly........ amusement.

At first it was to connect with minds from around the world who had the potential to break free from the modern bullshit...
A need to find people like me, the usual social instinct.
I found some along the way, in many different forums over the years.
But not many. Too few to justify the time I was expending with what I thought were well thought out positions.
When I saw the level I was dealing with in these non-participating venues I became discouraged.  
Then it was simply to amuse myself and to see my ideas, concerning human psychology, in practice.
Particularly the modern mindset which I encounter daily was more easily manipulated and observed on these on-line forums where repercussions were minimal.

Sometimes I could observe in silence, and when things became dull I could insert a spark to get things rolling again. The spark was not hypocritical. All it took was to express my real views, openly and clearly, amongst those living in sheltered delusion...and off they went.

Over time it becomes tiresome.
There's no real reason to engage such minds.
All they have are emotional words, accusations with no substance which they consider a challenging counter-argument to whatever you say.
Over time this "bigot," "racist," "sexist," "homophobe," counter-offensive, followed by the typical infantile "I destroyed your positions", or "I proved you wrong" becomes predictable.
Not fun any more.    
They are not salvageable, and I lack the kind of moral grounding to think that all could, or should, be saved.

You saw it displayed with Only_Humean where he demands indisputable proof,base don his stringent philosophical mind, from anyone challenging the norm, but shows a not so surprising leniency when it comes to any moron with a view which is in line with the fundamental principles of modernity...exposing his own quality of mind and what this "rational stringency" is all about.
They want numbers participating to make them feel like something important is going on there.
Instead you have the usual reduction of every post to name-calling, innuendoes, and sexual undertones....All other posts are of a casual, shooting the shit nature, with nothing valuable - platitudes and banter.   
At some point you begin asking yourself "What's the point?"

I've faced the same shit from so many different brain-dead morons, that at this point I just give them my standard responses, not wanting to waste my time.
They don't really address the topic, nor my arguments, they simply repeat the common repertoire of modern emotional defensiveness, sprinkled with some famous names, some references to famous theories, which they do not fully grasp, some sexual insults, and the usual comedic, feigned aloofness, when the going gets tough.

ILP is not the only forum of the kind. I've come across at least half a dozen, and the same process repeats itself.
Sciforums was my earliest experience and before that KillDevilHill forums.
Same shit different cesspool of retards who think philosophy is not about making value judgements, or that its about making people feel good and never hurting anybody's feelings.  
At first they underestimate me, thinking I'm some common red-neck, or skinhead, a Nazi, or someone they can easily deal with - some sort of modern caricature they feel they can ridicule reaffirming their own "value".
Then they begin getting stressed when they cannot deal with me on that level and they turn to insult, duplicitous dismissals, patronizing commentary, ignoring me, declarative statements, put-downs, sexual innuendoes, and so on...what they call "trolling".
The usual crap.
All fun...but when I respond in kind, they they turn all civil-rights on me, remembering about polite discourse...and in come the moderators to save them from Satyr.
  
Meh, who cares?

Lyssa, I am stating that same gender sex is not normal. Now let me define what is normal.
If you know the truth and do it you are wise.
If you know the truth and ignore it you are foolish.
Wisdom benefits the individual that follows it.
Living so as to improve ones life is commonly accepted as normal.
It is encouraged by social groups that ones life also benefit the group.
Such benificial activities become normal for that social group.

In the arena of sex, normal(beneficial) sexual partnerships that preserve this normality are between a male and female producing offspring. This family, provides nurturing, intimacy and a social imprint that preserves and encourages this template.
Homosexuality is in conflict with this "normal" cycle.

This is a very simplified piece of a much larger construct, a very well thought out version of which is expressed in Satyr's remarks.

To summarize my views -
Homosexuality is a trait, a psychology. All psychological and physical phenomena are based in genetics, the body, and develop depending on environmental factors, the nurturing, within its genetic/physical limitations. The rigidness or malleability is again depending on the individual's innate constitution and its upbringing.

Genetically, homosexuality is a mutation which occurs in social animals. It's likely a spectrum and social animals which organize in a feminized way, like a herd, like sheep for example, seem to show a higher likelihood of developing homosexual individuals.

And so I see homosexuality and its increasing valuation in society to be a result and a positive reinforcement for creating an increasingly feminized society.

The restrictions on homosexuality in various societies over the ages, or lack of said, are therefor a good indication of the grade of feminization of its individuals. For example, there should be a positive correlation between flat hierarchy and homosexuality. (meh!)

DPro wrote:

Lyssa, I am stating that same gender sex is not normal.

I got that. But you phrased it like this, "Why should one male and one female join together in a promise to forsake others and bind themselves together until death do us part?"

The 'should' gives the feeling as though one had a Choice in the matter; this normative cannot be preached to a homo. because he is wired differently and his state in the genuine case, is not a lifestyle choice.

Quote :

Now let me define what is normal.
If you know the truth and do it you are wise.
If you know the truth and ignore it you are foolish.
Wisdom benefits the individual that follows it.
Living so as to improve ones life is commonly accepted as normal.
It is encouraged by social groups that ones life also benefit the group.
Such benificial activities become normal for that social group.

In the arena of sex, normal(beneficial) sexual partnerships that preserve this normality are between a male and female producing offspring. This family, provides nurturing, intimacy and a social imprint that preserves and encourages this template.
Homosexuality is in conflict with this "normal" cycle.

'Natural' Anomalies have their uses too maybe; my guess as to why ancient homosexuality and warrior cultures co-existed together is prob. to regulate and slow down the excessive killing and dying of the fiercest men in war maybe, and effeminacy is like the funneling of a sand-glass, making deaths trickle slowly, regulating the barbarism.
So on the one hand, ancient homosexuality encouraged the rearing of braver and beautiful individuals [tutorship, etc.], and the decadent side to this double-edge process helped thwart the "quick" over-flowering of boys into brave men. It slowed down the pace to the advantage of overall species-survival.

What is Ab-Normal and Sub-Normal today is the Forced Agenda of effeminizing; the intent-ional promotion.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

Instead you have the usual reduction of every post to name-calling, innuendoes, and sexual undertones....I've faced the same shit from so many different brain-dead morons, that at this point I just give them my standard responses, not wanting to waste my time.

Satyr was not entirely blameless.

I recall my first encounter with him.  

He was fearsome, daunting, formidable, despite all this, his wilfulness was a great part of his charm.

Does not all energy proceed from opposition.

reasonvemotion wrote:

Satyr was not entirely blameless.

You met Satyr after he had decided to go with it.
It became part of Satyr's on-line persona.
Wanderer was the first moniker I used when I still thought these internet forums could lead to some interesting discussions...but I was soon corrected.
Then the same shit played out in various other forums...and I realized what was going on.
I adapted.

"Blameless"?
No.
It became so predictable to me that I almost wished the other would start going personal with it.
How else could I tolerate morons and waste my time with these long posts where I tried to cover all the bases, only to have them make declarations, sexual accusations, blah, blah blah...?

reasonvemotion wrote:

I recall my first encounter with him.  

He was fearsome, daunting, formidable, despite all this, his wilfulness was a great part of his charm.

Does not all energy proceed from opposition.

Yes.
I used it to test my arguments. It helped me flesh out my views, by forcing me to cover all the bases.
I had to think of a subject from many directions.

Now, after years of it, I just get the same old shit, and I have nothing new to gain from it...so I give the stock response.
One which most of these fucks still have nothing to say that challenges it.

Why would I change what they cannot respond to?
Why would I bother?
They offer nothing new, and so I have nothing new to say.
My positions stand.
Not as an absolute, but as superior...most probable.

Amazing....

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Homosexual love can never be reciprocal, Proust argued, because a male homosexual desires a “real man”, that is, a man who is incapable of responding to homosexual desire.  Those who would respond positively to homosexual desires are “unmanly” and thus cannot arouse or satisfy fully homosexual desire.  Proust wrote of the impossibility of homosexual love: “since loving only those men who are completely manly, men who are single-sexed, it is only with such a man that it can appease a desire it ought not to feel for him, and which he ought not to feel in return – if the need for love were not an arch-cheat, and did not make it see in the most ignominious pansy the likeness of a man, of a real man like other men who by a miracle would feel love for it, or stoop to it…” In his notebooks, Proust wrote: “A homosexual is not a man who loves homosexuals, but a man who, seeing a soldier, immediately want to have him as a friend.”  The conclusion is: “Shared love, for them is so beset with special difficulties, in addition to those which hamper all mankind, that one may fairly describe the satisfying encounter, rare in the case of most human beings, as being for them an impossibility.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The Vikings and Homosexuality

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The banner of “choice” (freedom)

Sexual orientation isn’t a choice ( i.e. the urge is inherently uncontrollable, an uncontrollable urge to consume that necessitates accommodation by a consumer system), sexual urges(to consume too soon) become precedent, the power of sexuality isn’t channeled toward a height but spread out/softened/dissipated within a system of domestication…your sexuality is only “free” then within this system. Sexuality divorced from violence. Violence as something cold, mechanical and detached (a “necessary evil”) to keep everyone “in-line” for undisturbed consuming (at the trough). The specter of violence, the gloom of consumer culture. The restless pain of human interaction when the wild nature in man is destroyed. A culture that perpetually re-enforces a disconnect between violence and sexuality, making “connecting” with another person difficult. You may only invest yourself in system that doesn’t offer healthy divesting possibilities. A private(locked door) nakedness, a tidy war. A “violent nature” as pejorative. Violence treated as something “terrible”(absolutely) while simultaneously being treated nonchalantly… Mass disassociation.

Guest wrote:

Quote :

How would you classify homosexuals?

A woman (and I would think most women), can identify almost immediately, whether a man is homosexual, perfect abs or not.  These "men" do not live up to the inner concept of masculinity, which is present in the heterosexual man -  the very "essence" of a man, which he learns as a boy - is absent in the homosexual and may cause him to question his self esteem.  

Why do gay men, when they advertise on line, give the impression of being ultra masculine.  Is it not an apparent public display of the characteristics, typically belonging to the heterosexual male, the characteristics of which the homosexual male does not possess.

This concept would of course naturally exclude gay men as they defile the rudimentary criteria for being masculine.  They are foppish and their romantic attractions and affections are for other men.

The reality is that the concept and this lack of "essence" - can and does affect how a gay man feels about himself, in spite of considerations or expectations to the contrary, he is his own product.

perpetualburn wrote:

The banner of “choice” (freedom)

Sexual orientation isn’t a choice ( i.e. the urge is inherently uncontrollable, an uncontrollable urge to consume that necessitates accommodation by a consumer system), sexual urges(to consume too soon) become precedent, the power of sexuality isn’t channeled toward a height but spread out/softened/dissipated within a system of domestication…your sexuality is only “free” then within this system. Sexuality divorced from violence. Violence as something cold, mechanical and detached (a “necessary evil”) to keep everyone “in-line” for undisturbed consuming (at the trough). The specter of violence, the gloom of consumer culture. The restless pain of human interaction when the wild nature in man is destroyed. A culture that perpetually re-enforces a disconnect between violence and sexuality, making “connecting” with another person difficult. You may only invest yourself in system that doesn’t offer healthy divesting possibilities. A private(locked door) nakedness, a tidy war. A “violent nature” as pejorative. Violence treated as something “terrible”(absolutely) while simultaneously being treated nonchalantly… Mass disassociation.

Yes that's good.

If we look at lust like hunger then we see an inherent drive to satisfy a biological need - mortality. But are all able to satisfy this need directly, naturally, healthily? (Health here defined as heterosexual desire for the purpose of reproduction)

Yet the need persists and it is extremely powerful. If the direct avenue of satisfaction is not accessible, one is forced to redirect desire to whatever is available. This can be seen in prisons.

But outside the institutional environment, where an external force restricts access to sexual fulfillment, what of the sexually inadequate, the socially retarded, the unattractive, the unfit? Must these not also redirect that irresistible animal urge towards what is accessible for them? What of those whose internal forces conspire to deny them the satisfaction of their own desires?

Must they not also redirect to what is accessible, compromise, take what they can get... or give? The nature of this compromise does much to show an individual's response to his inherent limitations - by the manner in which he copes with them.

...

My position is that there are no real choices available to an individual. We are each the products of our pasts, the continuing manifestation of past processes as we move into the future. This past permits us to exist at all, but it also limits us, defines us within parameters of possibility.

Blacks and the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] phenomenon;

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Also, the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Bugchasing: a slang term for the practice of pursuing sexual intercourse with HIV-infected individuals in order to contract HIV. Individuals engaged in this activity are referred to as bugchasers.

Bug a neg: intentionally infect someone with AIDS through gay sex

What's interesting and ironic in the article below, if you read the rest of it via the link, is how academics and health workers tried to persuade the journalist not to write the article, as it only applied to a minority of people in the gay community.

Quote :

In Search of Death
Gregory A. FreemanPosted Jan 23, 2003 12:00 AM

To bug chasers, HIV isn't a ruthless killer. It's a gift - the most beautiful a man can willingly receive - spread through a secret breeding ground.

Carlos nonchalantly asks whether his drink was made with whole or skim milk. He takes a moment to slurp on his grande Caffe Mocha in a crowded Starbucks, and then he gets back to explaining how much he wants HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. His eyes light up as he says that the actual moment of transmission, the instant he gets HIV, will be "the most erotic thing I can imagine." He seems like a typical thirty-two-year-old man, but, in fact, he has a secret life. Carlos is chasing the bug.

"I know what the risks are, and I know that putting myself in this situation is like putting a gun to my head," he says. Some of that mountain music that's so popular is playing, making the moment even more surreal as a Southern voice sings, "Keep on the sunny side of life" behind Carlos. "But I think it turns the other guy on to know that I'm negative and that they're bringing me into the brotherhood. That gets me off, too."

I met Carlos in New York's Greenwich Village, the neighborhood where he usually hangs out. He is tall, with a large build, and plenty of gay men find him attractive. His longish, curly-wavy hair is jet-black with golden highlights, and his face is soft and just a bit feminine. He has a very appealing smile and laugh, and he's a funny guy sometimes. The conversation veers from the banal -- his fascination with the reality show The Amazing Race -- to his desire for HIV. Carlos' tone never changes when switching from one topic to the other.

When asked whether he is prepared to live with HIV after that "erotic" moment, Carlos dismisses living with HIV as a minor annoyance. Like most bug chasers, he has the impression that the virus just isn't such a big deal anymore: "It's like living with diabetes. You take a few pills and get on with your life." Carlos spends the afternoon continually calling a man named Richard, someone he met on the Internet. They met on barebackcity.com about a year ago, while Carlos was still with his boyfriend. That boyfriend left because Carlos was having sex with other men and because he was interested in barebacking -- the practice of having sex without a condom. Carlos and Richard are arranging a "date" for later that day.

Carlos is part of an intricate underground world that has sprouted, driven almost completely by the Internet, in which men who want to be infected with HIV get together with those who are willing to infect them. The men who want the virus are called "bug chasers," and the men who freely give the virus to them are called "gift givers." While the rest of the world fights the AIDS epidemic and most people fear HIV infection, this subculture celebrates the virus and eroticizes it. HIV-infected semen is treated like liquid gold. Carlos has been chasing the bug for more than a year in a topsy-turvy world in which every convention about HIV is turned upside down. The virus isn't horrible and fearsome, it's beautiful and sexy -- and delivered in the way that is most likely to result in infection. In this world, the men with HIV are the most desired, and the bug chasers will do anything to get the virus -- to "get knocked up," to be "bred" or "initiated into the brotherhood."

Like a lot of sexual fetishes and extreme behaviors, bug chasing could not exist without the Internet, or at least it couldn't thrive. Prior to the advent of Web surfing and e-mail, it would have been practically impossible for bug chasing to happen in any great numbers, because it's still not acceptable to walk up to a stranger and say you want the virus. But the Internet's anonymity and broad access make it possible to find someone with like interests, no matter how outlandish. Carlos surfs online about twenty hours a week looking for men to have sex with, usually frequenting sites such as bareback.com and barebackcity.com, plus a number of Internet discussion groups. Most of the Web sites use the pretense that they actually are about barebacking, which is in itself risky and controversial but still a long way from bug chasing. For the Web sites, that distinction is at best razor-thin and more often just an outright lie. "We got Poz4Poz, Neg4Neg and bug chasers looking to join the club," the welcome page to barebackcity.com, which claims 48,000 registered users, up from 28,000 about a year ago, recently said. "Be the first to seed a newbie and give him a pozitive attitude!"

Within this online community, bug chasers revel in their desires, using their own lingo about "poz" and "neg" men, "bug juice" and "conversion" from negative to positive. User profiles include names such as BugChaser21, Knockmeup, BugMeSoon, ConvertMeSir, PozCum4NegHole and GiftGiver. The posters are upfront about seeking HIV, even extremely enthusiastic, possibly because the Web sites are about the only place a bug seeker can really express his desires openly. Under turn-ons, a poster called PozMeChgo craves a "hot poz load deep in me. I really want to be converted!! Breed me/seed me!" Carlos' profile on one Web site lists his screen name as ConvertMe, and he says he wants a man "to fill me up with that poison seed." His AOL Instant Messenger name is Bug Juice Wanted.

It's not uncommon to see people post replies to the profiles encouraging the men to seek HIV. One such comment reads, "This guy knows what he wants!! I would love to plant my seeds ) Come and join the club. The more we are, the stronger we are." A Yahoo! spokeswoman confirms that the company shuts down such sites when it receives notice that the subscribers are promoting HIV infection or any other kind of harm to one another, but the company doesn't go looking for bug chasers in its thousands of discussion groups, most established by subscribers themselves. Recently, it was easy to find two discussion groups on Yahoo! that promoted bug chasing, one called barebackover50 and one called gayextremebareback. The first discussion group was established in 1998 and had 1,439 members at the end of 2002. Yahoo! closed the group after Rolling Stone inquired about it.

Condoms and safe sex are openly ridiculed on bug-chasing Web sites, with many bug chasers rebelling against what they see as the dogma of safe-sex education; constantly thinking about a deadly disease takes all the fun out of sex, they say, and condoms suck. Carlos agrees and says getting HIV will make safe sex a moot point. "It's about freedom," he says. "What else can happen to us after this? You can fuck whoever you want, fuck as much as you want, and nothing worse can happen to you. Nothing bad can happen after you get HIV."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Isn't it easy to see, given the above behavior, how gays could well have been responsible for the transmission of SIV from primates to human HIV via sexual intercourse in the first place?

I've come across other shit, but to be honest it's too disgusting to post.

In fact, as to whether is too disgusting or not I'll let you make your own minds up.

According to some posters at 4chan this is fake:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]