Should Bubble Bottom Slut Stop Barebacking?
Back in the beginning of January “Bubble Bottom Slut” started a blog about his sex life called “Staying Faithful and Being a Slut” where he tells all about the sex he’s having behind his boyfriend’s back. (He has an interesting definition of ‘faithful’)…
Anyway, since January 10th, he’s gotten fucked 90 times with a condom. In 43 of those encounters the guy came in his ass (in the rubber). It should be mentioned that most of those encounters were in sex clubs where he’d offer his ass to whoever he thought was hot… He also got fucked bareback 9 times by guys he was pretty sure were neg - getting 7 loads of cum in his ass in the process. Plus his boyfriend has fucked him bareback 8 times and shot in his ass 4 times (which explains why he’s looking elsewhere for sex).
If you read his blog he’s been a bit conflicted about barebacking with guys other than his boyfriend. He likes it, but he’s worried about the risk he’s taking. It should be mentioned that if he became poz he might have issues with his career - so becoming poz is a problem for him on many levels…
A lot of his readers are telling him to stay “safe” and always use rubbers. But my contention is that he’s safer when he’s barebacking… Why? For two reasons - 1) He doesn’t know anything about the guys who fuck him with condoms but he does a good job vetting the guys who bareback him - he makes them get tested before they can fuck him raw, and 2) Condoms fail 10% of the time…
In other words, having 90 strangers fuck you with a condom and taking “safe” loads from 42 of them is the equivalent of having backing your ass to a glory hole and having 9 guys fuck you bareback and getting anonymous loads from 4 of them. Mind you, he’s had a lot more fun over the past 5 months than he would have backing his ass up to a glory hole one or two nights (risk vs. reward), but my point is - there’s still some significant risk…
Let’s go into more detail… What I’m about say is based on an article in the January 2002 issue of Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, entitled “Reducing the Risk of Sexual HIV Transmission: Quantifying the Per-Act Risk for HIV on the Basis of Choice of Parnter, Sex Act, and Condom Use”. It was written by researchers from the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention-Surveillance and Epidemiology at the CDC in Atlanta. I encourage people to read the entire article. The article doesn’t have new findings, but it’s a compilation of what was known at that point…
IMHO, the most important part of the article is the table at the top of the second page. To figure out how much risk you’re taking you take a number from each of the three columns and multiply them together and then compare the results.
Let’s take the two scenarios for Bubble Bottom Slut…
Getting fucked “safely” by strangers has the following risk factors - 43 for gay sex with a person of unknown HIV status, 100 for receptive anal and 1 for using a condom.
Total score: 4,300 (though I’ll discuss the 43 below)…
Getting fucked bareback by someone you’ve vetted pretty well - 1 for gay sex with someone who has had a recent, negative HIV test, 100 for receptive anal, and 20 for not using a condom.
Total score: 2,000
So just looking at those numbers it seems he’s more than twice as safe when he barebacks than he is when he’s taking “safe” loads from strangers in sex clubs.
But it gets worse… If you read the article closely they discuss how they came up with the 43 number - it’s based on an assumption that 10% of the people you’re having sex with are positive. Having sex with a HIV+ person has a risk factor of 430 - 43 is 10% of 430. Bubble Bottom Slut is having anonymous encounters at a gay sex club in San Francisco. Mind you it’s not the rauchiest of sex clubs, but the percentage of poz guys is probably more like 30-40% (and that’s a conservative estimate).
That means his risk is 3-4 times higher than we thought, and instead of being about twice as safe when he barebacks, he’s actually 12 to 17 times safer barebacking than he is having “safe sex”.
But it gets even worse… If you read the article carefully you’ll see that they say the risk factor (20) for not using a condom is based on a 5% failure rate for condoms (1/20 = 5%), but they say you only achieve a 5% failure rate when the condom is used perfectly. The real failure rate is around 10% (some studies say as high as 13%). So that means in reality his risk level needs to be doubled again and he’s actually about 25 times safer getting fucked bareback than he is having safe sex.
If Bubble Bottom Slut tested HIV+ today, based on his activity since January 10th, it’s far more likely that he became positive from the “safe sex” he’s been having than the little bit of barebacking he’s been doing.
Put another way, he could have had his vetted bareback fuck buddies cum in his ass over 1,000 times and not taken the risk he’s taken getting fucked “safely” by the 43 strangers who’ve used rubbers when they shot their wads in his ass…
Even if you’re skeptical of the accuracy of those numbers, the point is that he’s a lot safer getting fucked bareback by negative guys than fucked “safely” by strangers. It’s the reason why the San Francisco Department of Health promotes the concept of serosorting.
The important part in this scenario is for Bubble Bottom Slut to really know and trust his tops… When I say ‘know’ what I mean is that he wants tops who are doing low risk activity (which can include being a bareback top with negative bottoms). My advice to him is to find 100% tops who never bottom…
The reason I say find 100% tops is because those of us who don’t bottom are at much lower risk. Insertive anal has a risk factor of 13 - compared to 100 for receptive anal - so it’s 7.7 times safer.
Frankly, ’serosorting’ will probably work better for him (as a bottom) than it will for me (as a top) because he’s so careful. I tend to trust what people put in their profiles or say something like “your neg, right?” He actually goes through a lengthy process where he makes them go get an HIV test. He is actually doing serosorting properly - I’m a bit lazy with it.
So, if you’re one of the people encouraging Bubble Bottom Slut to “be safe” and use rubbers, you’re actually telling him to engage in high risk activity. He’s actually a lot safer with his vetted bareback fuck buddies.
The question is whether he’d be as satisfied with a sex life where we was only getting fucked by a few, well vetted guys. He seems to like public sex with strangers. And if he’s going to be engaging in public sex with strangers, then he’s being as safe as he can be by using condoms when he does it.
Bottom line, he should stop worrying about the little bit of bareback sex he’s having - it’s low risk. If he wants to reduce his risk, he should start by cutting down on all the strangers who are fucking him with condoms…
Thanks for the writeup rawTOP. I’m sure there will be others out there skeptical about your analysis.
Your blog is a good read and what not….but to say that there is an actual percentage relating to being safer to bareback than to wear a rubber makes NO sense. There is nothing safe about barebacking. To each is own but that just doesn’t make sense. Everything has a failure rate and of course condoms and any other barrier used in sexual intercourse is going to have a failure rate but come on now, to just be up and done with condoms as a whole for that reason is beyond me. Im not trying to down you on what you do but I would just like to hear a justifiable reason behind barebacking and thinking its “safer”
J - but it does come down to statistics… Any epidemiologist will tell you as much…
But it’s also true that there’s a lot more variables in the equation such as the viral load of the poz guy, and if your a top, whether your circumcised or not.
What I’m trying to point out is that there are forms of barebacking that are a lot safer than what’s called “safe sex”.
In the case of Bubble Bottom Slut, his risky behavior is called “safe sex” while people tell him to stop his barebacking which is actually safer than the “safe sex” he’s having…
The data cited in the article is based on nearly 20 years of research. This isn’t a new study - what it’s saying is that all of the studies through the years are consistent and those are the results.
I’ve been in some of those studies - they ask all sorts of questions about what you’ve done sexually and then watch who becomes poz and who doesn’t. After enough observation the results become statistically valid and you can indeed make conclusions off them…
So yes, there are forms of bareback sex that are as safe or safer than “safe sex”. And the primary reason why it’s safe sex is because if your sex partner is negative there’s no way in hell they can give you HIV…
It all comes down to the probability that the guy actually is negative or the probability that the condom will break…
But I am pretty sure you are aware of the window period in regards to new infections. Just because someone had a negative test result last month does not mean they are negative today. No one is expected to get a HIV test everyday so there is no way of knowing what the actual HIV status of that person is up to the date. Its nice to know that someone tested negative recently that you are going to engage in sexual intercourse with but the fact remains that you are still basing the status off of someone’s word. I am pretty sure your quite aware of the shady characters that linger, so that pretty much kills the whole arguement
J - All those things are built into the data. The numbers are based on real-world experiences.
That said, they’re averages, and not everyone has an average experience. Some people bareback for 20 years and stay negative, other people become poz the first time out…
I’m not sure I agree with your reading of the article if you want to apply it to Bubblebttmslut.
Some of the relative risk data is built on modeling not real world experiences.
A recently negative person is defined as a person who has had a negative HIV test after their last sexual encounter, the article makes no calculations on risk related to a negative test 2, 3 or even 8 sexual partners ago. So my feeling (and at present it’s only a feeling as I’ve not had time to have a good look) is that the 2% risk quoted in the article for recent (ie unknown) infection of of “negative” individuals would be in my mind higher in the 9 men who bubblebttmslut went raw with.
You need to take into account infectivity (the author’s agree they haven’t). It becomes of greater importance in the newly infected individual as they’re at their most infectious compared to any other point during their infection.
Data about condom failure is pretty widely accepted though it does not take into account if there is failure PEP being available.
I s’pose the thing that concerns me most about this is that serosorting is not as successful if used as the only preventive measure as you seem to believe (in the same was circumcision is only partially successful).
That it is recent seroconverters (and given the US’s poor record at identifying people during seroconversion) who are most contagious and at greatest risk of passing on the virus despite their last test being negative should at least be acknowledged.
Bob - These are AVERAGES… Yes, he could encounter someone who’s newly infected, but if he’s sticking with 100% tops who don’t do a lot of risky activity, then the chances that one of his well-vetted tops is newly infected are REALLY low - really, really low…
As I pointed out, the critical element is how carefully Bubble Bottom Slut chooses his bareback tops vs the indiscriminate way he lets guys fuck him with condoms. That’s what makes barebacking safer than “safe sex” for him.
Rawtop, I would like to know what makes barebacking safer than “safe sex” with you. Im not trying to convert you in any which way. I am just curious. I would guess that I should privately chat with you on that though.
J - Do you always blindly believe everything you’re told? I don’t mean to be harsh, but think for yourself… Read the studies and see what’s really true.
People have turned “safer sex” into “safe sex”. Just using a condom isn’t safe, it’s only safer - there’s a huge difference.
And then they’ve labeled barebacking “unsafe”, and only a few brave souls (like the SF DOH) have recognized that serosorting is a form of safer sex. What I’m trying to say is that the data suggest it’s actually safer than what people call “safe sex” when practiced carefully like Bubble Bottom Slut does.
The biggest problem is that the gay community is not being told what the studies have shown. We’re still being told the guidelines that people came up with in the early 80s - before we understood much about what was going on.
“HIV prevention professionals” are using ‘FUD’ (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) to stress the fact that your partner might not know their status or be lying when you bareback, yet they conveniently ignore the fact that the condom they tell you to use will fail 10% of the time.
And then the “HIV prevention professionals” wonder why no one’s listening to them any more. Problem is there are a lot of people who don’t want to hear that they’re still having unsafe sex when they use a condom.
Anyone that thinks they can’t get HIV when they’re using a condom is a fool. Any HIV prevention professional who’d tell someone like Bubble Bottom Slut that he should stop his very careful barebacking, but his indiscriminate fucking with rubbers is OK, should not only be fired but put into jail. If we can give life sentences to poz guys who spread HIV, why can’t we hold the “professionals” criminally responsible for not telling the truth on something that has life or death consequences?
Bottom line, it’s all about odds, averages and statistics, plus understanding that averages have outliers (not everyone has an average experience).
Stop blindly following the vague guidelines you were given 25 years ago, look at the data, and think for yourself…
Fear, uncertainty and doubt is something that is normal when you put together the consequences of having bareback sex. Who wants HIV? Who wants herpes? Who wants the laundry list of other std’s that are out there that some sketchy guy may not tell you he has? Im pretty sure it runs through most people’s minds when they do it.
Its not that I believe everything that I have been told. I just dont see the reason to mention the 10% or whatever percentage of the condom’s failure rate. There isnt much products related to sex that have a 100% success rate but look at it, what about th 90%. Nothing is perfect and of course its “safer” but isn’t that how its supposed to be. Unless abstinence is practiced then a rubber is your best bet.
Very careful barebacking? lol. Its sort of like being on trial for murder and stating that you carried it out carefully. The fact still remains your barebacking with folks that owe you nothing, that can lie and not give two shits about it. Why put your life on the line like that and then call it careful? Makes no sense.
Serosorting can work if its carried out correctly but I don’t think there is much of a success rate with that, if anything, its more of a failure than the good ol rubber will ever be. Of course it is nice to know someone’s last test result but when you get tested, doesnt that reflect the past and not the present? How are you to know that someone “serosorting” which is “safer sex” so you say, is not a newly poz diagnosis? Ive never heard of anyone getting tested everyday.
The thing is, I’d rather take my own precautions rather than take someone’s word or the last test result he got. Isn’t that how it should be? That’s where a condom comes into play. Btw, whats serosorting’s failure rate?
J - What can I say? The research that’s based on the experience of thousands of gay men and hundreds of thousands of sexual encounters says you’re wrong.
Then you go and criticize those of us who bareback because you think you know better.
If you’re not actually interested in the truth, then there can’t be much of a discussion…
But to answer your question - according to the study mentioned above, serosorting’s failure rate is 1 in 430 (when it’s done really carefully, like bubble bottom slut does). Compare that to 1 in 10 for a condom…
Im married and always thinking about cheating. I dont go out looking to be with a POZguy but i do little to prevent it. I get hot thinking about being somewhat hunted by a guy that not only loves to barefuck his evil seeds into a negs guts but actually wants to have his new bag of suprises take it home to share. I imagine a guy emailing me saying he saw me on some chat room or site. Just looking to “explore” with a guy like me. And he gets me turned on to the point we meet and then spreads his gift into my unsuspecting guts.