Talk:Bugchasing

Significant revision

I think, for obvious reasons, this article needs to be significantly revised. There is very little verifiable information that this actually occurs, other than a bunch of stuff people put on the internet (which Wikipedia does not accept as a verifiable source, especially on something of of a public health issue). It also seems to confuse barebacking, a highly risky sexual activity, with a desire to get HIV/AID's. Like the supposed phenomena of women sabotaging their birth-control methods to intentionally mislead men, this article has blown up a handful of instances into something far more widespread than it actually is. I'm going to go through the article and judiciously edit it down to actual verifiable facts. SiberioS (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It is notable that in Maskowitz and Roloff, that the researchers indicate that there is a legitimate subculture on the internet, but to the extent that it actually practices what it claims is unknown. It makes the point of noting that bare backing subculture encourages, and generally requires, "Serosorting" ie: that negative men bareback with negative men and positive with positive. Of people who are self-conciously identified as "bugchasers" most are seemingly apathetic about it, simply expressing a preference to not know their partners sero-status, which is less an active search than a purely apathetic attitude towards whether one would get it. SiberioS (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

delete this plx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.33.94 (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the article is intending to link to, but in the links at the bottom there is one for Fluid Bonding that links to a page on Polymer Science, which is fairly off-topic! I will remove it, but don't knw what the origional poster intended to link to, as it is a term mentioned in the article.Philman132 (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Romans 6

As part of the debate on AIDS and condoms, I noticed that one epistle section commonly cited by opponents of contraception is Romans 6, especially verse 23, which contains the famous quote the wages of sin is death. [1] It seems like a very relevant quote, since this is precisely what radical groups like Act Up are talking about when they accuse the Church of sending homosexuals to their deaths. ADM (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And your point is? Do you indeed have one? Vauxhall1964 (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I Fail to see how this is relevant to the article? The talk page is for talk about improvements to the article, not to state opinions about the subject. If you think this should be added to the article, then please do so. Perhaps you could add a section about the use of condoms and the criticism it receives. Thanks Dillard421♂♂ ^{(talk to me)} 05:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me that that information would be better placed in the Condom article. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Intent

I have made several contributions to the article with citations concerning intent. As the article was, it seemed as if all bugchasers pursued this activity to contract HIV, and did so because of feelings of inevitability in contracting the illness. However, not all bugchasers are specifically intending to contract the disease, some do so for the excitement of pursuing such a dangerous activity and are not desiring to become infected - a kind of Russian roulette.

Also, there is significant research that some who engage in the activity do so as a type of rebellion against a predominantly hetero population that rejects them (see Michelle Crossley's article "Making sense of ‘barebacking’: Gay men’s narratives, unsafe sex and the ‘resistance habitus’"). I have included some more motivation for the activity, possible reasons, and drawn the distinction between those engaging for excitement and those implicitly desiring to contract the illness. The article needs more of this type of information with the corresponding relevant research to help dispel the current mindset in the population that bugchasing is done simply for "excitement" OR simply to contract the disease. It's purposes are myriad and complex. Supertheman ^(talk) 23:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

here's a book for you all

Tim Dean - Unlimited Intimacy: Reflections on the Subculture of barebacking http://books.google.com/books?id=0TA9YJ-QHn8C&pg=PT84&lpg=PT84&dq=%22bugshare.net%22&source=bl&ots=5dW-pjNteD&sig=PU6aozjPQDy_-6c5CO3FqE9zg8Q&hl=en&ei=l2ZsS4bsNYmt4QaV58WqBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAsQ6AEwATgo#v=onepage&q=%22bugshare.net%22&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.3.244 (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Culturally accepted...

"This is not culturally accepted in any current functioning society, nor in the state of Mississippi." This is the current line in the article, and although I am pretty sure it is not meant to imply that Mississippi is not a functioning society, I must admit I do not know enough about the laws of Mississippi to change it to "...nor legally accepted in the state of Mississippi." Would someone please edit that line to make it more clear what the reference is? Lecaia713 (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo-academic Gobbedly-Gook

"... due to a defensive response by gay men to repudiate stigmatization and rejection by society."

Seriously? What the fuck does that mean? What is a defensive response? What is the defensive response? How does this defensive response repudiate stigmatization and rejection by society? What does it mean for something to repudiate stigmatization and rejection by society? Is this an objective statement (i.e., the defensive response actually does repudiate stigmatization and rejection by society?') or a subjective statement (i.e., the bugchasing community perceives that defensive response to repudiate stigmatization and rejection by society?'). Or, for that matter, is it an admixture of the two, since the subjective perception leads to the objective actual repudiation?

... I can't believe I'm taking my time to write this out. Look, all of those questions are validly raised on the basis of that nonsense sentence. NOTE, I'm not suggesting that this (disturbing, if I do say so myself) article be expanded to address all those issues. Far from it. Rather, I'd be in favor of deleting the sentence in its entirety--I see it was just recently added (?August 2009?). Why? Because it isn't helpful. It obfuscates rather than explains. The fact that someone somewhere in a journal said it doesn't mean that it deserves inclusion per se. Sentences like this do a disservice to the mission of wikipedia, which is to spread knowledge and understanding of topics, not to obfuscate them behind pseudo-academic mishmosh.

Bugchasing only a homosexual phenomenon?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think bugchasing is not a solely homosexual phenomenon. The article seems to neglect this completely. --84.149.13.92 (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Normative and out of context

This article is about a somewhat apocryphal and fringe practice. The article needs to be reworked to have better context and a more neutral and measured presentation. -Craig Pemberton

Agreed. My main concern is that there's essentially no discussion at all of how prevalent this is. While I wouldn't dispute that this may have happened, and it is a problem, I see no reason to believe that this is a very widespread problem; the article makes it sound like a Big Deal. This is indeed a fringe practice which seems to gain excessive attention because of its utility in fostering anti-gay and anti-HIV+ sentiment (or, perhaps less commonly, its utility in demonstrating how far gays can be driven due to homophobia). As a result, reporting on the existence of this phenomenon (and diving quickly into the sensational stuff about "bug parties") without noting how widespread it is, violates NPOV. --Sean Patrick Santos 05:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Should we be acknowledging this?

Is this appropriate for Wikipedia? Do we run the risk of popularizing an obviously dangerous and potentially psychologically disordered behavior? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.40.86 (talk)