Jump to content

Talk:Bugchasing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 87.91.51.235 (talk) at 18:23, 30 June 2020 (→Name: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Some of the sources used for evidence are suspect. The sentence about contracting HIV in order to qualify for Social Security disability benefits does not relate to the source. Also, a source would verify that automatically contracting HIV does not entitle someone to disability benefits. Rosebox (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it say "bareback subculture" in the title? Just say people who have unprotected sex... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.147.234 (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Why should someone who isn't chasing the bug (in your words, "desiring to contract the illness") identify or be identified as a bugchaser? There are many motivations for barebacking, and the conscious desire to get pozzed probably only applies to a small minority of barebackers. The article contradicts itself on this point: Barebackers engage in unprotected intercourse because they prefer the sensation of it but generally take pains to avoid contracting STIs. While actual activity is the same for both groups the two do not share the same psychology when before it stated that all bugchasers are barebackers, so we don't actually have two disjoint groups but a group and its subgroup, so obviously the bugchasing motivation does apply to some barebackers. Is there a scientific source for the generalization that barebackers "take pains" not to be infected? Many of those I know don't. --88.73.27.201 (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

+1 on this... 3 years afterwards.

Rdavout (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No "bug chasing" is not something that only gay men do. I'm sure that people of all orientations do this but the media seems to only claim that it's something that only bisexual and gay men do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.147.4 (talk) 07:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.198.207 (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing on the interweb, Jedediah? Get you back outside, thar's hay what needs bailin' 75.81.15.101 (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is purely a homosexual male phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.88.223 (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantheory (talk • contribs)

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)

Yes, let's delete all articles about dangerous things and psychological disorders, it will surely make the world better. WP:CENSOR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.27.201 (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about checking that this is actually real. Has anyone tried verifying this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.168.251 (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation not needed in description

unless motivation is a defining factor (i.e. if ALL bugchasers want to get AIDS) the reason a person does the activity should not be in it's definition or general description but rather relegated to a sub section of its own.

with that understanding, and as a person who came here to find out about a term i had never heard of (relating to a community that I have little contact with), I came here and received the idea that bugchasing is actively pursuing an active sexual relationship with a person who has contracted the AIDS virus. period. so unless that is too broad or too narrow a definition I would vote to use something similar for your introduction with just a non committal reason (ie For various reasons).... adding the suggested subsection on motivation.... and removing the introduction disclaimer. when i came here i didn't want to read a dissertation on the subject i just wanted to know the definition --Qazwiz (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

== Bugchasing in mainstream media

Bugchasing in mainstream media needs to be revised; do refs 8-11 actually include statements by Wenner? Otherwise, "remains behind the story" is redundant with the later "stood behind them", and one sentence should describe both refusals to retract.

Has Rolling Stone, (or National Inquirer for that matter) ever retracted anything where the writer declined to do so and they were not legally required, by threat of lawsuit, to do so? If not, then any reference to "standing behind the story" should be removed; they don't actually make the distinction that the New York Times does. They may be a source, but not a reliable source as required by Wikipedia. If the quotations were repudiated in reliable sources (reputable newspapers) then for purposes of fact the information in the Rolling Stone article is false. The article should be mentioned in the context of the impact of the article, not the facts therein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.155.167 (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a documentary, for those who wish to pull the wool over their own eyes on this sick, demonic, degenerate fetish: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RfTNO15tZs 68.198.104.107 (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Research section of article possibly biased?

The research section of the article only mentions men. However, there may exist female bugchasers too. However, the research author seemed to have ignored that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.179.61 (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can only report on research that has happened. If no research on non-male bugchasers has been done, there's no bias in reporting only what research has been done. Of course, if a reliable source draws attention to said lack of research, Wikipedia could certainly report that; otherwise, it's just outside our area. - Vague | Rant 14:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links to Rolling Stone article

Previously references 1 and 3. I've added the reference - it's obviously this article; the quote "the ultimate taboo, the most extreme sex act left" is found in it. (This article already cited in another reference.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deisenbe (talk • contribs) 02:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

La Belle Ferroniere

I was wondering if the legend of La Belle Ferroniere would fit in the article. It is said the king Francis I of France had an affair with the woman in Da Vinci’s portrait, and her husband sought revenge by visiting whorehouses to infect himself with syphilis. He infected her and eventually infected the king with the disease that allegedly led to his death.--Omar35880 (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really good story. It's so good, that I question it. The article on La Belle Ferroniere says it's a "legend" and does not cite any source. As a legend I don't know that it would improve this article by being mentioned here. deisenbe (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bugchasing. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bugchasing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How prevalent actually is this problem?

The article goes into intense detail on this supposed scourge among gay men, but no one has bothered to add a single reliable source to describe its actual prevalence in the ten years since the last users remarked about it—perhaps because there are few reliable sources on the prevalence at all. I'm going to see if I can add some to the intro section. Spacemarine10 (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this? Per WP:Lead, it shouldn't be in the lead without being covered lower first. Also, it's best to stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Why this name?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bugchasing&oldid=965332503"