Pozzers/Breeders - AIDS ON PURPOSE

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
creamyfanta said:
3. bug chasing is not something that actually really happens ever, besides the few crazies here and there. It was sensationalized by a nearly fabricated article in Rolling Stone which has since been refuted.
Click to expand...

I've never seen that RS article. I have, though, seen pictures people posted on these sites of their own assholes after applying brushes to them to make them bleed and be more receptive. And similar highly detailed things. Some people are clearly actually doing this.

I wouldn't be surprised if others are trolls, lying for some other reason, or making up bizarre fantasies, but it isn't all pure fiction.
 
I think this is the Rolling Stone article but I didn't read it, just a critique on it
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/in-search-of-death-20030206

And here is one of many critiques on the article, calling it out for its shoddy journalism and rampant sensationalism
http://www.thebody.com/content/art32304.html

Here is an interview with a self proclaimed bug chaser
http://www.thebody.com/content/73956/the-bug-chasers-tale-an-interview.html

I'm not saying it's pure fiction. I'm just saying that it's a tiny minority of fucked up people who do this, and that the reasons behind it aren't just "lol I want to give you AIDS teehee! " or "sad face I can't get turned on without some crazy deviancy mmmm"

The amount of people bug chasing is probably in the triple digits. Maybe. I think they're just vocal because it gets them attention (and how many of the vocal ones are straight up lying anyways?)

Also...bloody asshole =/= being brushed by a metal toothed comb necessarily. Some butt just be ugly already, and slap some ketchup on there...now you've got some click bait!
 
Note: Corrected to make it clear I was quoting the critique and not the Rolling Stone article being criticized.

creamyfanta said:
And here is one of many critiques on the article, calling it out for its shoddy journalism and rampant sensationalism
http://www.thebody.com/content/art32304.html
Click to expand...

Which says this, among other things.

Credible studies estimate that one to two percent of infected gay men sought out infection, nearly always in rash behavioral decisions that they later regretted. Oops.
Click to expand...

About a million people, to take a very conservative estimate, have the HIV virus, over half of those, let's just say a half a million to be on the very, very low side, are gay men. One percent of those would be 50,000.

It seems there are enough of those to be concerned about.

Since I never even saw the RS article, but only the sites where people who claim to be doing this congregate, what those people are doing is more relevant than RS's shoddy journalism.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
I posted the Rolling Stone article in the post above your last one :)

Rolling Stone said that 25% of new HIV infections are from bug chasers. Awhat. BS.

Your quote of 1 to 2% of gay men intentionally getting aids is from the same article that said this
hat aside, Freeman's estimate of the number of bug chaser-related cases of HIV infection ultimately discredits him. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that there are roughly 40,000 new HIV infections in the United States each year. For his calculations, Freeman uses the made up 25 percent figure and merely applies it to the CDC's 40,000 statistic. From that, he concludes that 10,000 gay men a year are deliberately getting infected with HIV. Apparently, Freeman failed to realize the 40,000 statistic is for all people, male and female, regardless of sexual orientation. According to the CDC, male-to-male infections only make up 42 percent of the overall 40,000, or roughly 16,800. Not only does Freeman's 25 percent figure have no basis in reality, but he also applies it to a statistic he doesn't even understand. America's mainstream media has never been very good at reporting on HIV. Gregory Freeman's Rolling Stone article on bug chasers is a vivid example of how not to write a story about HIV, and yet it's typical. The interpretation of HIV statistics requires scientific precision; Freeman is all about buzzwords, faulty number crunching and groundless conclusions. - See more at: http://www.thebody.com/content/art32304.html#sthash.R8qJtaZQ.dpuf
Click to expand...

so 1 percent of 16800 is 168, which, like I hypothesized, is in the triple digits. Which doesn't concern me too much!

And if you want to use your number 50000, 1% of that still remains in the triple digits. So if only 100 to 500 crazy ass guys are intentionally giving themselves aids in a year I think I can sleep happy.

I mean, there are WAY more pedos than that out there who I find a lot more concerning and damaging. It's just a lot more fun to talk about people who give themselves aids! :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think what is being lost at the current cul-de-sac that this discussion has pulled into is that while no one has hard numbers (and based on that our discussion strays more into the realm of assumptions than facts), it is true that this happens. Getting lost in the magnitude of frequency does no one any good. I am inclined to believe that this is a problem that is insignificant within the scope of the population of AIDS carriers and even the sexually active AIDS carriers. I would venture to say that passing based on ignorance of having the disease or passing based on not caring are much more prevalent than those who seek to pass and that those who seek to pick it up would be confined to a small sector of the population. Everything is insignificant from a quantitative standpoint, but as curious human beings who are shocked that anyone would do this, it qualifies as phenomenon worthy of discussion.

So regardless of the numbers or whether it is common or not, I think that the main point that everyone sees in discussion here is just that it happens, period.
 
yawning sneasel said:
I think what is being lost at the current cul-de-sac that this discussion has pulled into is that while no one has hard numbers (and based on that our discussion strays more into the realm of assumptions than facts), it is true that this happens. Getting lost in the magnitude of frequency does no one any good. I am inclined to believe that this is a problem that is insignificant within the scope of the population of AIDS carriers and even the sexually active AIDS carriers. I would venture to say that passing based on ignorance of having the disease or passing based on not caring are much more prevalent than those who seek to pass and that those who seek to pick it up would be confined to a small sector of the population. Everything is insignificant from a quantitative standpoint, but as curious human beings who are shocked that anyone would do this, it qualifies as phenomenon worthy of discussion.

So regardless of the numbers or whether it is common or not, I think that the main point that everyone sees in discussion here is just that it happens, period.
Click to expand...

I suggest reading the interview I posted with a person who is a bug catcher. It's really interesting and will hopefully de cul-de-sac the discussion. I just wanted to illustrate to anOminous that his number was VASTLY incorrect.
 
creamyfanta said:
Rolling Stone said that 25% of new HIV infections are from bug chasers. Awhat. BS.
Click to expand...

Then it was full of shit. But the critique cited 1 to 2 percent, which is still a substantial number. And some of the people on the forums being discussed in this thread are at least some of them.

creamyfanta said:
I suggest reading the interview I posted with a person who is a bug catcher. It's really interesting and will hopefully de cul-de-sac the discussion. I just wanted to illustrate to anOminous that his number was VASTLY incorrect.
Click to expand...

That wasn't my number. That was the number if the critique of the RS article is correct. It said

"Credible studies estimate that one to two percent of infected gay men sought out infection, nearly always in rash behavioral decisions that they later regretted. Oops."

The figures on the number of infected gay men is based on the CDC's figures.

"At the end of 2011, an estimated 1,201,100 persons aged 13 and older were living with HIV infection in the United States, including 160,300 (14%) persons whose infections had not been diagnosed." (CDC)

Of those, over half were MSM, or men who have sex with men. Also from the CDC.

"At the end of 2011, an estimated 500,022 (57%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men, or gay and bisexual men who also inject drugs." (CDC)

I'm not endorsing the 1-2% number. I don't know where the critique got it. I'm just pointing out what it would imply if it were true. If 1% of MSM with HIV got it in some deliberate manner, that would be well over 50,000.

So it could very well be that neither the Rolling Stone article nor its critique are particularly credible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think this is one of those cases where the pool really needs to be closed.
 
AnOminous said:
That wasn't my number. That was the number if the critique of the RS article is correct. It said

"Credible studies estimate that one to two percent of infected gay men sought out infection, nearly always in rash behavioral decisions that they later regretted. Oops."

The figures on the number of infected gay men is based on the CDC's figures.

"At the end of 2011, an estimated 1,201,100 persons aged 13 and older were living with HIV infection in the United States, including 160,300 (14%) persons whose infections had not been diagnosed." (CDC)

Of those, over half were MSM, or men who have sex with men. Also from the CDC.

"At the end of 2011, an estimated 500,022 (57%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men, or gay and bisexual men who also inject drugs." (CDC)

I'm not endorsing the 1-2% number. I don't know where the critique got it. I'm just pointing out what it would imply if it were true. If 1% of MSM with HIV got it in some deliberate manner, that would be well over 50,000.

So it could very well be that neither the Rolling Stone article nor its critique are particularly credible.
Click to expand...
Actually it'd be 5000.
.01x500000=5000. :p
 
Teh derps happen to us all. :)

Yah it's still super fucked that it happens at all. I wonder if stealthing is a real thing...like I've read interviews of bug catchers but no one has admitted to stealthing. Proooobably cuz it's illegal
 
Pardon my lack of content to bring to an update/bump to the thread, maybe some of you poor sods/brave souls can post some for me but christ alive I'm almost entirely certain this forum and the pozzing thing in general is still really active, and in this day and age of activity and all that other, assorted bullshit, it'd be interesting to have someone who is less afraid of reading awful things than I am look through and see what the hell's been going on there?

https://breeding.zone/ is the place, it's really goddamn NSFW too but you should already know that, especially if you've read the thread
that's it that's my pointless, flacid call to arms
go nuts

post edit explanation: if you're new to the thread, breeding zone is a poz-positive forum
it's about getting and then spreading HIV/AIDS to as many people as possible it's pretty awful
 
Surprised this is new to y'all but have some old old old content.

jun28_01.gif


jun28_02.gif


jun28_03.gif


jun28_04.gif


jun28_05.gif


jun28_06.gif


jun28_07.gif


jun28_08.gif


jun28_09.gif


jun28_10.gif


jun28_11.gif


jun28_12.gif


jun28_13.gif


jun28_14.gif


jun28_15.gif


jun28_16.gif


jun28_17.gif


jun28_18.gif


jun28_19.gif


jun28_20.gif

Hell, have some more.

jun28_21.gif


jun28_22.gif


jun28_23.gif


jun28_24.gif


jun28_25.gif


jun28_26.gif


jun28_27.gif


jun28_28.gif


jun28_29.gif


jun28_30.gif


jun28_31.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since this thread has been bumped, I'd like to add that from what I've seen there's a huge crosspolination between bug chasers and p&p assholes (party&play, which basically means tweaker nation-ish guys who do meth and then have unprotected sex).

These guys are the cancer killing the lgbtq community. As awful as SJWs and genderspecials are, bug chasers have them beat in terms of awfulness.
 
Android raptor said:
Since this thread has been bumped, I'd like to add that from what I've seen there's a huge crosspolination between bug chasers and p&p assholes (party&play, which basically means tweaker nation-ish guys who do meth and then have unprotected sex).

These guys are the cancer killing the lgbtq community. As awful as SJWs and genderspecials are, bug chasers have them beat in terms of awfulness.
Click to expand...
Yeah at least SJWs are not out to infect you with a horrible, incurable STD. Bug chasers are a public health hazard, while SJWs are a public menace.
 
Bugaboo said:
This shit has to be illegal to some degree
Click to expand...

Generally, causing serious physical harm to another is not legal even if it is with consent. Some participants in extreme bondage practices have been prosecuted even despite the person injured not supporting the prosecution.

I believe there are also some federal laws on knowingly spreading pathogens.

I haven't heard of any actual prosecutions of chasers, though I also haven't looked into it.

Those who deliberately infect others without their knowledge, though, have been prosecuted for serious crimes. Some laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom