I watched a documentary (which was a repeat apparently) a couple of weeks ago on BBC Three about this chap in London who has HIV.
I found the whole documentary facinating, but at the same time disturbing. It revealed the phenomenon of 'bug chasing'. The bloke in the documentary created a profile on Gaydar called 'BugBoy' and he received dozens of responses from gay men wanting to be infected with the HIV virus.
Now, I'm well aware of the effects that HIV and AIDS has on the human immune system (gradually weakening it until it is no longer able to fight off the most simple of bacterial infections), so why on earth would anyone actively seek out to be infected with HIV? It's totally beyond my comprehension.
I know there are at least two people who use Metropol who have been affected either directly or indirectly by HIV/AIDS, and I wondered what people's thoughts were.
I mean, how are we going to stop this most horrible of viruses from spreading around the world if there are such irresponsible people who are actively seeking out infection and then passing it on to others. It's terrible.
If someone has intentionally saught to infect themselves with the HIV virus, then perhaps a slow and painful death is what they wanted to achieve. Again, I find it beyond my comprehension.
Thoughts and opinions welcome on this facinating topic.
Disturbing documentary on BBC Three
Unfortunatly there are quite a few bug chasers out there. Most of thses people dont realise what they are actuly doing and in some cases they tend to be very self destructive.
On the other hand there are those that go out and "spread thier seed" so to speek, and organises bug parties where 3 or 4 of them intentionaly go out to infect others. Thses people tend to not be able to cope with the fact that they have become HIV + and again go on a destructive spree trying to infect as many people as possable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugchaser
When I say there are a few I dont mean every gay man is a bug chaser - Its just they are more common than you would think.
For some chasers it is a form of mental ilness for others its just a fetish and they are not fully aware of the risks.
On the other hand there are those that go out and "spread thier seed" so to speek, and organises bug parties where 3 or 4 of them intentionaly go out to infect others. Thses people tend to not be able to cope with the fact that they have become HIV + and again go on a destructive spree trying to infect as many people as possable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugchaser
When I say there are a few I dont mean every gay man is a bug chaser - Its just they are more common than you would think.
For some chasers it is a form of mental ilness for others its just a fetish and they are not fully aware of the risks.
-
Gavin Scott
- Admin
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Its rather interesting that I discussed with friends some years ago that there ought to be a documentary which explored this issue regarding Gaydar in particular.
The issue to me was not about so called "bug chasers", who make up a tiny percentage of the thousands of members, but of the "Safe Sex?" question, (which allows for an Always/Never/Sometimes answer).
The vast majority answer (the default) "Always". But there are many who answer "Never" or "Sometimes".
A huge proportion of men say when polled (no pun intended), that they prefer sex without a condom than with a condom. That probably makes sense to all of you reading this. It certainly explains why there are so many unwanted/unexpected babies in the world. A gay man's preference for sex without a condom is no different to a straight mans.
For some, there is an added excitement. The excitement is greater when one knows there is a risk attached.
Who knows why a small number of people actively seek infection? They may have psychological issues relating to self worth, or a need for attention.
I don't think the readership of Metropol are going to be in a position to answer those questions without knowing the individuals better.
Your understanding of HIV/AIDS, James, is a little bit out of date, or makes reference to those who suffer without treatment.
The majority of (HIV) antibody positive people in the UK are given anti-retroviral treatment (daily tablets) which starves the virus of the food it needs to replicate and multiply. The virus then lies dormant in certain hard tissues of the body, and is largely "undetectable".
Most people will go on to live normal lives (bar the tablets), with a lifespan not dissimilar to an antibody negative person.
However, the medication puts strain on most of the body's organs, so should not be viewed as a miracle cure. A healthy lifestyle is the only way to counter this strain.
The issue to me was not about so called "bug chasers", who make up a tiny percentage of the thousands of members, but of the "Safe Sex?" question, (which allows for an Always/Never/Sometimes answer).
The vast majority answer (the default) "Always". But there are many who answer "Never" or "Sometimes".
A huge proportion of men say when polled (no pun intended), that they prefer sex without a condom than with a condom. That probably makes sense to all of you reading this. It certainly explains why there are so many unwanted/unexpected babies in the world. A gay man's preference for sex without a condom is no different to a straight mans.
For some, there is an added excitement. The excitement is greater when one knows there is a risk attached.
Who knows why a small number of people actively seek infection? They may have psychological issues relating to self worth, or a need for attention.
I don't think the readership of Metropol are going to be in a position to answer those questions without knowing the individuals better.
Your understanding of HIV/AIDS, James, is a little bit out of date, or makes reference to those who suffer without treatment.
The majority of (HIV) antibody positive people in the UK are given anti-retroviral treatment (daily tablets) which starves the virus of the food it needs to replicate and multiply. The virus then lies dormant in certain hard tissues of the body, and is largely "undetectable".
Most people will go on to live normal lives (bar the tablets), with a lifespan not dissimilar to an antibody negative person.
However, the medication puts strain on most of the body's organs, so should not be viewed as a miracle cure. A healthy lifestyle is the only way to counter this strain.
There is another group of people, generally on the more extreme end of things, who see the precautions as kind of "cramping their style". They seem to prefer the idea of having the virus and not caring about safe sex to having to constantly think about what they are doing.
I suspect it's a case of thinking with their dicks in the most extreme way.
I suspect it's a case of thinking with their dicks in the most extreme way.
Thanks for that Gavin, and yeah perhaps my understanding of HIV/AIDS needs to be brought up to date, a little. I keep thinking Mark Fowler from Eastenders... :roll:
I'm very glad to know that now at least there is a chance for people diagnosed with HIV to lead longer and happy lives and isn't necessarily a death sentence.
10 or 20 years ago having HIV would have meant being dead within 5-10 years. Just look at how quickly Freddie Mercury declined. He was diagnosed with HIV in 1987, and he was dead by Christmas 1991.
It's a bit like cancer nowadays. Being diagnosed with cancer (providing you catch it early), then your chance of survival is very high.
1 in 3 of us will get cancer at some point in our lives. Sobering thought. All said, life must be boring if you're over the age of 70. Although... my uncle... 87 years old and he and his wife smoke, drink and holiday in the med 4 times a year and are as fit as fiddles. Cancer seems to have alluded them entirely! I hope I've got their genes!
I'm very glad to know that now at least there is a chance for people diagnosed with HIV to lead longer and happy lives and isn't necessarily a death sentence.
10 or 20 years ago having HIV would have meant being dead within 5-10 years. Just look at how quickly Freddie Mercury declined. He was diagnosed with HIV in 1987, and he was dead by Christmas 1991.
It's a bit like cancer nowadays. Being diagnosed with cancer (providing you catch it early), then your chance of survival is very high.
1 in 3 of us will get cancer at some point in our lives. Sobering thought. All said, life must be boring if you're over the age of 70. Although... my uncle... 87 years old and he and his wife smoke, drink and holiday in the med 4 times a year and are as fit as fiddles. Cancer seems to have alluded them entirely! I hope I've got their genes!
-
Gavin Scott
- Admin
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Notably, Mark in EastEnders chose not to take the medication, because he beleived it would make him more ill.
When treatment was in its infancy, they gave elephant-sized doses of AZT, which would have made anyone poorly. Things have come on a long way.
Freddie Mercury was likely to have been positive for years prior to diagnosis, but its a great shame he did not have access to such amazing medical developments.
When treatment was in its infancy, they gave elephant-sized doses of AZT, which would have made anyone poorly. Things have come on a long way.
Freddie Mercury was likely to have been positive for years prior to diagnosis, but its a great shame he did not have access to such amazing medical developments.
I don't read or need lads mags.nodnirG kraM wrote:See this month's FHM jokes page.Jamez wrote:life must be boring if you're over the age of 70. Although... my uncle... 87 years old and he and his wife smoke, drink and holiday in the med 4 times a year and are as fit as fiddles. Cancer seems to have alluded them entirely! I hope I've got their genes!
It is interesting and disturbing. Having just come back of holiday in Gran Canaria where there was a 'dark room' backing on to most of the bars, it is always unsurprising that HIV remains the issue most affecting gay men. Especially when the issue still affects gay men more than anyone else. I wonder if one of the negative effects of the AIDS campaigns over the past 25 years is the complacency it has built up in the gay community?
I also wonder how many gay men think about the potential dangers aside from unprotected anal sex such as un-protected oral sex? The risk is low according to most text books, but the risk is still there all the same.
I think we maybe loosing touch with the awareness of HIV AIDS in the developed world. I notice that the recent declassification of HIV to that of a Chronic Illness instead of a terminal one was largely ignored…for good reason. The last thing we would want is more complacency no matter how great the advances in Anti-retroviral treatment has come.
I also wonder how many gay men think about the potential dangers aside from unprotected anal sex such as un-protected oral sex? The risk is low according to most text books, but the risk is still there all the same.
I think we maybe loosing touch with the awareness of HIV AIDS in the developed world. I notice that the recent declassification of HIV to that of a Chronic Illness instead of a terminal one was largely ignored…for good reason. The last thing we would want is more complacency no matter how great the advances in Anti-retroviral treatment has come.
I say it only because I'm good looking...