For those who wondered where all the unsafe sex
came from after the 1996 introduction of the
protease inhibitor cocktail drugs for HIV ... well
here's a clue.

susie

A timeless, sage quote from the POZ article that follows:

  "Just  writing about skin-to-skin is so exciting that
   I want to take a break right now and j.rk off."

============
POZ June 1997 p64-65

                    Riding Bareback

     Skin-on-skin sex -- been there, done that, want more

                   by Stephen Gendin

A year and a half ago at a conference, I heard a talk by a
really cute positive guy on the fun of unsafe sex with other
positive guys. He was beautiful, the subject was exciting,
and I soon ended up getting f.cked by him without a condom.
When he came inside me, I was in heaven, just overjoyed.

I'd had unsafe sex before, but never intentionally. Those
experiences were guilt-ridden because I worried -- both
during the sex and afterward -- about exposing my partner to
HIV. This was different. Knowing the guy was positive made it
empowering, not guilt-inspiring. I relaxed into my desires
instead of fighting them and felt good doing so. On a purely
physical level, the experience wasn't extraordinary, but
emotionally everything purred so fine.

I'm not the only gay man who's developed a taste for such
contact. Or gone looking for it. A quick search of America
Online member profiles revealed 118 guys into condomless sex,
25 of whom identified as positive and four as negative, with
the rest undisclosing. In fact, as the practice has spread, a
whole slang vocabulary has sprung up to describe it: f.cking
raw. Riding bareback. Skin-to-skin. With such delicious
images, it's easy to stop thinking of it as unsafe sex.

I can't comment on a negative guy's decision to go raw, but
for us positive men, the benefits are obvious. The physical
sensation is much better. The connection feels closer and
more intimate. The sharing of cum on the physical level
heightens the sense of sharing on the emotional and spiritual
planes. Then there's the satisfaction of knowing that
seroconverfing has its advantages. (Or, to use American
Express-speak, "Membership has its privileges." It's a tasty
revenge.

There' even something empowering about the idea of sharing
someone else's HIV. It's like being thrown into jail for life
and then, while serving your time, having the warden threaten
to extend your sentence. The threat has no power because
nothing can make a life sentence any worse. You can laugh at
the threat, even spit in the warden's face. That time I got
f.cked by another positive guy, I felt I didn't have to fear
HIV any longer. I could taunt it, challenge it by taking it
into my body without being further hurt.

I know reinfection is a danger. Tons of positive men
(including me) are walking storehouses of mutant, multidrug
resistant (MDR) virus. It certainly isn't smart to pick up
one of those mean, cross-resistant monsters -- I'm now
"immune" to every antiretroviral on the market. "Regular" HIV
("wildtype" in scientific terms) may not be an automatic
death sentence anymore, but some of those loathsome MDR
babies probably are. Then there's the issue of STDs, some of
which are very nasty. Hepatitis B, for example, can kill a
person with HIV. Even the relatively easy-to-get-rid-of bugs
like gonorrhea can activate HIV, causing viral load to go up,
perhaps permanently. So even positive guys still have a lot
to lose.

But for some of us, that's beside the point, and reinfection
isn't a major worry. It's such a vague concept. And not easy
to measure: How do you know if you've been reinfected anyway?
And who can say that getting f.cked without a condom by a guy
whose virus has gone undetectable isn't less risky than
sucking off someone with a high viral load? No one can say,
because no one knows. (See page 92 for more on just how
little scientists understand about what an undetectable viral
load means.)

This f.cking-raw craze could fade. As positive men understand
resistance better, there may be more reluctance to pick up a
new form of the virus. In the same way that some negative
guys have sex only with each other, positive guys might start
making decisions about risk based on which viral type their
partner has. Proof of "wild type" HIV might be required
before entry. Plus, men who know they have MDR virus might
not find it so easy to ride raw anymore; the fear of passing
on a more virulent strain could shatter barebacking's shining
image.

But if barebacking's hold on my own sexual fantasies is any
indication, it'll take a lot even to tarnish that idea. Just
writing about skin-to-skin is so exciting that I want to take
a break right now and j.rk off. Part of the joy of sex is its
obsessive, all-encompassing irrationality, but condoms have
prevented me from exploring that side. Riding bareback with
other positive men is a less guilt-ridden way to indulge in
that exploration.

I've only gone raw with a positive guy that one time. This
has mostly to do with the fact that I'm in a monogamous
relationship with a negative guy. .If I weren't, I think I'd
actively pursue barebacking as do many of my positive friends
-- and feel OK about it.

It's a tricky situation. Already resistant to all approved
nucleoside analogs and protease inhibitors, I worry little
about being reinfected with a more dangerous virus. I
understand that I do present a threat to most positive guys I
f.ck raw with.

How do I justify pursuing acts with other positive men that
many would describe as callous, even malicious? Am I guilty
of skirting the facts in pursuit of pleasure? Or is the
reinfection science shaky enough that it's not irrational for
positive men to go skin-to-skin? With the risks so hazy and
the benefits so brilliantly clear, no wonder riding bareback
is all the rage. For me, being infected in the first place is
such a doomful event that any act that brings pleasure, even
a risky one, is worth grabbing for. Or so it often feels.