Talk:Bareback (sexual act)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Neutrality No Longer in Dispute?

Based on reading the discussion below, I think the neutrality concerns have been addressed (i.e., the language of the article is balanced and addresses the various points of view about what barebacking means). People seem to still have problems with lack of citations and maybe the quality, but I think as written it is neutral (a separate issue from sourcing and quality).

Considering the many people who have deemed it neutral, I'm going to remove that flag. If someone objects, can you very specifically explain what is objectionable in terms of NEUTRALITY? Thanks. Aroundthewayboy 20:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There are way too many "some people believe" and "others claim that" sentences in here. There was also an entire report regarding AOL ads that lacked references or citations. I placed a "weasel word" flag on here and edited some of the language because, yet again, we have obvious agendas being furthered in this article. --Julien Deveraux 23:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm, ok, fair enough. I agree that the article needs more citations/sources. Aroundthewayboy 20:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The recommandation of particular barbacking sites, and forums, should be discouraged here, or even better removed to the external links. --Christoph Steininger (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Bug-chasing

"A small minority subculture of gay men has gone further, in fetishizing HIV infection itself, and deliberately taking part in barebacking as a way to get infected: this so-called bugchasing behavior is even more controversial."

Hello, rather new to wikipedia. Does anyone have substantial reason to take this at face value? As far as I know this is merely an urban rumor and, while I don't think such a fetish impossible, I wonder its validity.

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia.

There's substantial discussion of that topic, as well as the controversy over whether or not the phenomenon actually exists, over at the article bugchasing. - jredmond 21:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The phenomenon really does exist, though my evidence is rather anecdotal; as there are lists online for people into this behavior and an episode of Queer as Folk dealt with the topic..so..who knows. I did, however, remove the reference to this in the article because I felt it was irrelevant since there is no article called "bugchasing". Also, there were too many references to all the negative connotations surrounding this behavior and a lack of information about how the word is now used in straight porn to mean just what the phrase is supposed to mean..fucking without a condom. --Julien Deveraux 8 July 2005 08:59 (UTC)

…but there is an article called "bugchasing", and since bugchasing is intimately connected with barebacking I think the link is exceptionally relevant. - jredmond 8 July 2005 14:16 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not see that. Thanks jdremdomn

Disputed 2

The question to RFC:

Talk:Bareback and Talk:Barebacking -- an ongoing dispute about the specific meaning of the term: does it refer primarily to unprotected anal sex among gay men, or can it refer to any type of unprotected intercourse among people of any gender? 21:10, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The article:

Barebacking is a term that originated in gay slang for anal sex without the use of a condom. Though it largely retains its original meaning, the term has recently "crossed over" outside the gay community to simply mean any type of penetrative intercourse (anal, oral, or vaginal) without the use of a condom.

Now, I came here from RfC and took a look. I see an insistence that it only refers to gay sex as patently ridiculous. Any lookup of the term on the web gives you non-gay and non-anal references. Is the term bareback used for non-gay and non-anal sex? Yes, obviously, and without dispute. So are the first two lines in the article correct? Yes. Are they controversial or argumentive? No. Are there people in the world who still use it only one way? Sure, but I'm sure plenty of male Johns who hire pros only think of it another way. The way the article presents it is neutral. SchmuckyTheCat 23:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Google is not gospel, but if it were, well in the first 7 pages of results all the pages define barebacking as unprotected anal sex between men, including several health authorities (see Canadian Health Network) and AIDS organizations. Exploding Boy 01:00, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I still have a problem with this usage, and I'm not at all convinced that the sources provided are reliable or accurate, given that other sources contradict the definition(s) given. I will be changing the lead sentence to reflect that. Exploding Boy 17:16, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I see a problem here. Google is generating links between gay and barebacking because barebacking is being discussed in the context of HIV amongst gay men. The epidemic was 'a gay plague', and in the context of government and health organisations, they will be be discussing the relevance of barebacking in terms of this population. From the UK i do not know whether HIV is still a predominantly gay issue in the US. I think that in the whole of the world, it is not, but medical care is frequently a developed world issue, and the rest of the world does not get studies done about what is going on. This does not answer your debate, but it gives reason why the terms gay and bareback may frequently be linked.Sandpiper 18:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I have personally used this term to refer to unprotected hetereosexual sex, and know many others that do so. Urban Dictionary is a frequently referred to site on modern slang, and they list both definitions with 50+ votes in support of the gay only definition, but also a number of supporters for varying definitions that omit gender. Like so much slang, its usage has clearly expanded. Even if the article continues to focus primarily on gay unprotected sex, there needs to be mention of its crossover into the wider community. Kit 02:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy of origin claim

Personally, I'd never heard the term "bareback" mean anything but gay anal sex, but it seems clear that the other meaning, having sex without a condom in general, is also common enough to be notable. What's not clear is that we've assembled any evidence that the gay meaning came first. Perhaps someone with access to the OED or similarly comprehensive dictionary could look it up. Or perhaps there is another authoritative source which could be located. -- Beland 06:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Authoritative source regarding slang? Usage would vary from culture to country. I think it's clear the term can have multiple meanings, and it should be so stated. I would be hesitant to describe it as having origins in the gay community without a credible source.--inks 04:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Youll find bareback originates from riding a horse without a saddle (unprotected). An obvious cross reference to sex can be made, i.e sex with a person without protection. --PrincessBrat 10:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The use of the slang term predates HIV by decades. In fact, it predates the invention of oral contraceptives! The biggest "danger" in the early 20th century was getting an unmarried girl pregnant.--feline1 (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm glad I'm not the only one who has a clue. Bareback was a general term for condom-free sex well before the AIDs epidemic, back then a gay man would have thought using a condom utterly pointless. It did not "cross over" from gay to straight sex, in fact it went the other way, but became more associated with gays because safe sex and HIV became dominant topics in Gay circles whilst Other contraceptives made condoms less necessary in the straight community.

I'd like to see evidence that the term "bareback" was first used to refer to unprotected vaginal sex. I think part of the reason the metaphor caught on is that "back" metaphorically refers to anal sex. If I'm wrong, which is not unlikely, I'd like to "get a clue." Is your assertion based on personal experience with the term before the AIDS outbreak? --Libra1980 26 September 2010

Hetero Reference in pop culture

In the episode Carrier on Law & Order, an HIV infected man who deliberately infects women says to one "It's better bareback." SchmuckyTheCat 20:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

That's the reference I was going to add. I guess we both saw it on TNT earlier this week. The episode originally aired on April 1, 1998. Autiger 02:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Yah, Tivo. SchmuckyTheCat 02:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Major rewrite and request for discussion

In my view, there are four different referents for barebacking: 1)The practice of casual unprotected sex amongst gay men 2)The practice of casual unprotected sex amongst straight people 3)A feature that prostitutes may use to sell themselves 4)The controversy surrounding these sexual practices. This article can have sections about each of these.

I think we should examine carefully all claims about what "Barebacking: the Sexual Practice" is responsible for, because many of these claims are related to that story's sequel, "Barebacking II: The Controversy."

Please edit my edits, add epidemiological information, and, especially, pay attention to what I wrote about straight people. I don't know a lot about straight people, so I need some help with that section.

--Defenestrate 20:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Defenestrate, I have attempted to re-write many sections and re-portion the sections. Please feel free to give me feedback --Julien Deveraux 08:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Disputed 3

This article has zero sources and consists almost entirely of dubious characterizations and facts. For example, the claim that protease inhibitors caused the gay community to have more unprotected sex. Seriously? No doubt my fears are baseless and all of this information comes from some peer reviewed study in the JOURNAL OF INTERNET RUMORS. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree Savidan, I think what we have here are certain know-it-alls who have theories that they are trying to "further" as fact. --Julien Deveraux 23:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

oh, come on. anybody who has been a gay adult since the early 90s knows that barebacking exploded only after the protease inhibitors made aids a so-called manageable disease. there have been countless articles about it, and yes i am too lazy to look it up. but it's not exactly a wild internet rumor.

i agree that this article needs more sources, though.

This link should back up what you stated Aroundthewayboy - the second paragraph http://www.managingdesire.org/sexpanic/ProteaseDisInhibitors.html. --PrincessBrat 10:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Aroundthewayboy 18:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be a weasel by not citing certain sources but this is a topic that might be impossible to cite to an extent. "Everyone knows" to you and and me is a valid form of citation, but academically, I suppose it is not. The person who felt the need to require all these citations obviously doesn't live in our community and doesn't realize that people don't really WRITE about this topic. --Julien Deveraux 17:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

I strongly object to this merge proposal. Unprotected sex is a superset of barebacking. JBKramer 12:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, i feel that having a barebacking and unprotected sex article is tantamount to having an article for unprotected anal sex, unprotected oral sex, unprotected vaginal sex, unprotected fellatio, unprotected rimming, unprotected cunilingus, etc. It should be an important compnant of the unprotected sex article, alltho i do believe that unprotected sex should be merged into barebacking, and then the name should be changed to unprotected sex, or perhaps a new name such as, sex without a barrier?Qrc2006 00:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I also strongly disagree with the merger. Barebacking is a fetish and, in the age of AIDS, a social and psychological phenomenon. Barebackers are now a major subculture within the gay community. Go and have a look at bareback.com, barebackjack.com, bnskin.com, bugshare.net and the websites of bareback porn companies like Treasure Island Media, Cobra Video, Hot Desert Knights, SX Video, Tippo Sesso, Puppy Productions, and Eurocreme's Bare, Twinkz, Raw and Punkz studios to fully appreciate how barebacking and bareback sexual fantasies have totally exploded within the gay community. The Wikipedia article on barebacking conveys this.

In contrast, "unprotected sex" is an adjective and a noun. It absolutely and totally fails to convey the subculture of "barebackers" and the connotations of that word. If you merge the "barebacking" article into the "unprotected sex" article, you should merge the articles on "Christianity" into an article on "worship".

By way of analogy, Christians "worship", but self-identify as Christians and are part of the Christian movement.

In like manner, barebackers have "unprotected sex", but self-identify as barebackers and are part of the barebacking movement. [Anon User]

I also disagree with the merger proposal. This topic is significant enough for a separate article, and has more than enough content to justify having one. Owen 17:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected sex has been merged into safe sex. I'm removing the tag. --Simon Speed 21:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected sex has again been merged into Safe Sex. --Una Smith (talk) 04:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

STI / STD

As I understand it, the more comonly used clinmical term has become STI, with STD being an old term that has fallen/is falling out of usage. I recognize that the article itself is titled: "Sexually transmitted disease", and STI is redirected there. (See Talk:Sexually_transmitted_disease#STI.27s.3F__When_did_this_happen.3F) Obviously epotions both ways. SO, it is certainly debatable. Frankly I have been more familiar with "STD".

You may have asked yourself why we use the term sexually transmitted infection (STI), instead of the term sexually transmitted disease (STD). The term "infection" more accurately describes conditions where sexual partners may not have symptoms and may not be aware that they have an infection, and because many of these infections are actually curable. The term "infection" carries less of a social stigma than the term "disease." The term STI is also being used by leading sexual health organizations such as Planned Parenthood.[1]

Use of term STI by health orghanizations and such[2]

I searched google scholar for ther terms, and in 1996, there were 224 papers with the term STI, and 2210 about STD. In 2006 (10 years later) there were 2000 papers with the term STI and 3010 with the term STD. In raw numbers, STD is still used, and used slightly more freqently that STI, but in percentage, STI was only 9% of the time, and last year, 40%. There is no place that standardizes the uses of the term, but STI will likely be the predominant term a few years from now, and 10 years from STD will be considered to be archaic. Atom 22:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Loadtaking

Where would the best place be to mention the "Load-taking" phenomenom, Since barebacking doesn't have a condom in use when and where a man ejaculates is often a question. Many craigslist ads mention "Loadtaking bottom" or "Please pull out" I think this merritts inclusion.qrc2006/email 00:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont believe this warrants a mention on the article. Id say the terms are fairly self explanatory --PrincessBrat 12:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, someone reading this article is trying to learn about the subject. It can't be assumed that "load-taking" would be self-explanatory to an uninformed reader who is likely uninformed because people use encyclopedia to inform themselves on the sum of human knowledge.Ah0000000ga (talk) 07:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo

I think this article could use some pictures. It's relatively long and images usually make articles more interesting.

True, I agree. Of course pictures of people having sex will cause an uproar, so maybe photos of some posters and stuff about barebacking, or maybe even a newspaper headline that has "barebacking controversy" or summat in the headline? JayKeaton 16:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Weird link

Whi in earth the phrase ejaculation in the rectum redirects to Asspie?--ometzit<col> 18:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It shouldnt and I have amended the article so that link no longer applies --PrincessBrat 17:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Proof, please

"Heterosexual barebacking is arguably less dangerous than its counterpart. This is simply due to the nature of the act: anal intercourse is far more likely than vaginal intercourse to result in abrasion or bleeding."

Proof? Data? Research? Citations? I am well aware that many early studies, especially here in Germany, erroneously concluded that heterosexuals were not at risk for this infection. More recent, less emotional and christianist biased as well as more rigidly conducted research clearly disagrees with this dangerous statement.

For example, already in 2001, Dr.BEENA VARGHESE, et al. present evidence arising from studies conducted in accord with established scientific protocols in their paper "Reducing the Risk of Sexual HIV Transmission Quantifying the Per-Act Risk for HIV on the Basis of Choice of Partner, Sex Act, and Condom Use: For every five new infections resulting from unprotected anal-receptive sex, there is one for vaginal.

Weasel words like "arguably" when applied to a risk spread this close are unacceptable and should not be used.

To put it in simple terms, this is a higher risk than involved in Russian Roulette! In receptive sex with an infected partner, every second anal intercourse leads to infection; every fifth vaginal intercourse leads to infection. One need not trouble the statistical data on incidence and frequency of various forms of receptive intercourse to see the risk inherent in both forms.

Either show clear evidence based on scientifically rigorous research proving this to be true or please withdraw this.Panthera germanicus 22:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

image

the debated image, please do not remove this from teh discussion, it is vandalism to remove peoples comments, and destructive and counterproductive to this debate.

i think the image adds a lot to the article, for instance see autofellatio, this image is characteristic of other sex related articles on wikipedia and is allowed. Wikipedia is not censored. WP:NOTCENSORED. Clearly images have precedent to be in any article, as long as it corresponds with the article in hand. Obviously this article which is about bareback sex should have an image of just that if it is to have an image, therefore the image in question is logically appropriate for this article. It is an image of unprotected anal sex, which is the most widely known practice to be referred to as bareback, the image is of just that. So i really don't see any problems. Whether or not it is obscene is irrelevant since that is both subjective, and not a wikipedia policy. Personally i find war and paris hilton to be obscene but their articles should have pictures of them anyways. I don't find sex to be obscene that is also irrelevant because wikipedia policy states that sexually illustrative images have their place in their appropriate articles just like any other picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ah0000000ga (talk • contribs) 02:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Drawings would be preferable. Wikipedia is not censored, but it's also not porn.--Loodog (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are drawing preferable? Would you rather have a drawing of the twin towers falling or a photograph of the real thing? I dispute that this image is "porn", just as the pictures of penises on the article penis of which there are seven (7) and two diagrams are not porn. The purpose is to illustrate bareback sex, not to provide masturbation material, the main objective of porn. See also anal-oral contact which uses a similarly so-called "porn" image in its article in addition to about a dozen other languages use said image. See also autofellatio. A picture of the real thing is much more academic, you woulnt find drawings of gonorrhea in a biology book or medical encyclopedia. you would find images such as these commons gonorrhea gallery. see what i mean?Ah0000000ga (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trolling! The article is better without that picture. Wikipedia is uncensored, but Wikipedia avoids profanity which includes offensive, profane, or obscene words and images. The image is really unencyclopaedic (as I'd remind you that we're here to write encyclopaedia, not a porn website), because the image adds nothing to the article in question and it only destroys Wikipedia as a credible encyclopaedia. Your history of adding the same image at sodomy law and human sexual behaviour has proven that the edits were unhelpful. So again, please stop trolling here with that image. Dekisugi (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not trolling, I simply added an image i uploaded to everywhere i thought it would be useful. How is the article better off without it? What about similar images on other article, mentioned in my previous comments. Why are those articles better off with photos and this one is not? Articles are always better off with images. Do you have a better image? According to Wikipedia:Profanity says it all "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if they are informative, relevant and accurate, and should be avoided when they serve no other purpose than to shock the reader. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." Now the image in question is informative, relevant and accurate.

(1.) An image of barebacking is clearly relevant to an article on Barebacking.
(2.) The image at hand is clearly depictive of unprotected anal copulation and barebacking is unprotected (typically anal) sex, therefore it is accurate.
(3.) The image increases knowledge of bareback sex and contributed to the correct interpretation of bareback sex, and it is therefore informative.

WP:PROFANITY is policy, WP:PORN IS NOT policy. It is the opinion of some, and it has no standing in this discussion. It has been said the image is unencyclopedic, but what is encyclopedic. Encyclopedic means pertaining to an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias strive to be comprehensive sources of all knowledge. The article for bareback is considered encyclopedic so images of it are also encyclopedic. An image of barebacking is not unencyclopedic simply because someone does not like to see or read about it. Wikipedia is not censored, and this article should not be censored.

All concerned should see the following articles:

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, Anus, Ejaculation and see these articles in other languages, there is broad precedent for the inclusion of these pictures. Perhaps we can compromise on a situation similar to anal-oral contact.? How does this image make wikipedia not credible? I don't think anyone would believe wikipedia is being unreliable or of poor quality for such an image. Wikipedia is amateur by its nature. Who would think this is false? The image is very accurate. How does it not add anything? I challenge that wholeheartedly. Removing an informative image adds nothing!Ah0000000ga (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore WP:PROFANITY states "Words like "pornography" or "censorship" tend to inflame the discussion and should be avoided." Also "it is vital that all parties practice civility and assume good faith." So don't call me a troll.Ah0000000ga (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

All the above articles that you gave have images, but their shock value is not nearly as strong as the image you gave, which is indeed quite pornographic. WP:PORN might not be policy, but it brings up a good point. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

According to who is the image "shocking" and according to who is this shock value less or more? Whether or not it is pornography or how pornographic it is isn't of any concern with regards to policy. Shock value is subjective. This discussion is simply to determine that the image is appropriate or not. It clearly is according to policy. Whether it is shocking or not. You could say barebacking is shocking. Should we delete the article? I find the Abu Ghraib article's images much more shocking. Or images of WWII concentration camps. But they are part of human knowledge aren't they?. I think the image of ejaculation has more "shock value" than this picture. The tongue isn't even actually touching the anus.Ah0000000ga (talk) 07:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC) What point does it bring up? Why is it relevant? And again, that point is moot here. Its an opinion. How is it overboard, and how does that related to policy. Do you honestly think its aesthetically displeasing as compared to other pictures? Or does it repulse you personally. And you just want it to go away. What alternatives are there out there? Please find them and show them here and lets talk about it.

Also note: Wikipedia:Image use policy states "Images should depict their content well (the object of the image should be clear and central)." Does anyone dispute that this image depicts the subject well? At WP:IMAGE (specifically: Wikipedia:Image#Image_choice_and_placement it is clear that there is no consensus whether photographs are superior to drawings with the exception of birds. But it does state that photographs or drawings are sometimes more informative than the other. I think that a photograph is much more informative than a drawing, since drawings tend to be black and white and not show something like a condom or lack thereof and the details of the human anatomy very clearly and thoroughly as a photograph can.

I'd also like to say, encyclopedias are an academic affair. Ask yourself, would a sociology class think this image was useful in their studies? Put yourself in that place. Even if you hate the picture and it makes you gag.

Please don't be a dick. Dekisugi (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ask yourself, would a sociology class think this image was useful in their studies? Actually, I think you've hit the nail on the head with this statement. Academic textbooks frequently contain images which contain nudity, but I doubt the images would be this explicit. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Human Sexuality and sociology and cultural anthropology classes show hardcore porno films, actually, which is fare more "explicit". Thanks dekisugi, "don't be a dick" that's real mature and encyclopedic, why not take the suggestions of the essay itself and tone down the title to the less confrontational, don't be an egg.71.142.81.232 (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Try to play a game in here, huh? Why do you use two users to make your point? Dekisugi (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how answering two recent comments together is WP:GAME, if you think im playing WP:GAMEs i assure you my efforts are in the good faith (which should be evident by my impartial request for comment) of maintaining consensus and not making any points. I didn't answer the two posts separately because this is a discussion, i am not talking to you, i am talking about the use of this image. If you would like me to reply to your comments separately in the future please ask me to. I cite policy because you are supposed to cite policy with regards to these debates and not use opinion as arguments. I don't like it is an unjustified argument, and pointing that out is not wikilawyering, i was just informing you that such an argument has no standing here, it not how wiki works. You never even acknowledge the points i make about policy and precedent regarding this issue. All you say its "obscene" or "unencyclopedic" which come off as lazy and impulsive emotional responses to me. Your most recent posting completely disregards the discussion, and doesnt even mention it. You state the very confrontational "Try to play a game in here, huh?", that huh, is very aggressive man. If you would like me to read those essays ask me to, tell me you feel i am being overly narrow, but take you own advice and narrow it down by Not being an egg yourself.Ah0000000ga (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I support the use of explicit images to illustrate topics that require visual elaboration. (I even enjoy them.) But this article doesn't need any image (photo or drawing) to illustrate it, nor would one improve it substantially. If you understand what anal sex is (and that article appropriately and successfully illustrates it), it doesn't take any imagination whatsoever to visualize it without a condom. - JasonAQuest (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Precedent has developed to accept that all articles benefit from visual elaborations. All the other articles about sex display images, and they do so in most languages too, which supports the broad consensus of these pictures encyclopediacy. I can also understand what drinking beer would look like having only drank water, but that does not make an image of drinking beer in the article about beer inappropriate. Visual aids substantially improve peoples understanding of unfamiliar topics, not everyone knows what anal sex or unprotected anal sex would look like. This is an encyclopedia and people who look this stuff up look it up out of a desire for comprehensive information and curiosity of subjects that they are unfamilair with. A picture is worth a thousand words, and "we don't even really need a picture" is a lousy logic which is likely motivated by personal aversion to the particular image. Does anyone have any alternative images which could be used?Ah0000000ga (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That particular image has been listed for deletion here. Please comment on the images for deletion page if interested. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

How about if it appears like so:

Image:Meandmybf.jpg
File:Meandmybf.jpg

A photograph of bareback anal sex.

This unsigned comment was added by ?Ah0000000ga (talk).

I have no aversion to the photo whatsoever. I love a nice butt-fucking shot, so if the reason you're being so stubborn in your campaign is because you think you're struggling against puritanism, you're wrong. I just don't think it serves any encyclopedic purpose here. If you think a photograph of anal sex is necessary on the article about anal sex, then propose adding it there, where it might be instructive. You will, however, find that Wikipedia policy and precedent call for an illustration rather than a photograph. Shoving cock photos down people's throats against that policy is probably not the best way to change it. - JasonAQuest (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

i think the foto is great for the meantime, hopefully a image some people dont like but have to put up with will encourage such people to find the perfect image for this article, a picture is better than none in the interim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.8.83.9 (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This image was recently nominated for deletion. The deciding admin opted to keep, despite consensus to delete. Please participate in the discussion by following the link below.

Category:Articles on deletion review

Exploding Boy (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

WTF @ Image

I was researching information on the topic of people who actively try and seek becoming HIV infected ("Bug chasing"), and the legality of it earlier today in college (Not using wikipedia as a source but maybe to point me towards some substantial articles or drop me some leads to published materials) and the main article kept talking about "barebacking" without offering an explanation, so I followed the link through to see what barebacking was talking about and I ended up with the admin breathing down my neck for inadvertantly downloading gay pornography (This articles picture) over the college network.

What the hell is wikipedia thinking posting images like that on a public site where there are no age restrictions or warnings that you are about to download material that is unsafe for work or may even be illegal in some countries. --85.62.18.8 (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

clearly its vandalism. im removing it BBnet3000 (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not surprising that there should be explicit images in an article devoted to a sexual practice. However, the repeated deletion of the images indicates that many users are very uneasy with them. While that is not itself a valid criterion for deletion, I suggest retaining only one of the two images, the screenshot with the text "We do it like God intended us to." This image serves a clear purpose, namely, to document a claim made in the article—a claim that it would be difficult to verify without the image. I have placed the image in the notes to make it less central to the article itself. GBataille (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so in the referance section the image that has been discussed is back. The problem is that I cannot find the test to delete it. If anyone can, please do so. :) Azcolvin429 (talk) 08:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Fluid bonding (sexual practice)

The article on Fluid bonding (sexual practice), a topic related to polyfidelity, was deleted recently due to a chronic lack of sources. Here is a mirror copy."www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Fluid-bonding" If good sources can be found I suggest starting a section in this article and then spinning it off again once it's developed. Will Beback talk 07:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I just checked and found that several article have links to Fluid bonding, an article about materials science. I'm going to redirect the links to a section here. Bareback (sex)#Fluid bonding. I'm going to write an unsourced short paragraph just defining it. Please improve the text. Will Beback talk 07:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

~~This is to do with fluid bonding, not bareback, so whay would it be in here?~~ Mish (just an editor) (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I get it - but needs some better sources I suspect. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

WTF is this other image?

This is in a new section because it appears to be a different image then the one described in the first WTF at this image section.

Why the hell is there a user-made picture of two guys having anal sex, captioned with "No condom is used during bareback sex"? Do I need to see an explicit picture of gay anal sex to understand what "not wearing a condom" means? That illustration seems unnessescary and makes the article NSFW. I'm asking it be deleted. Heilingetorix (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It's so good a drawing that you have not noticed that it's a man and a woman. The image that the previous talk referred to was a clear explicit photo. As far as I know all the photos have been removed from the human sexual articles (and there were plenty) are replaced by one or two drawings. Most editors are now reasonably happy with the current status - although we do get the occasional complaint - you cannot please all the people all of the time. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there should be a real picture to more accurately depict the action, i dont feel that picture cuts it. It seems more like a joke a real photo should be added to meet Wikipedia's gold standards. 96.244.254.20 (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for not noticing that that is a drawing of a man and a woman having bareback anal sex and not a man and a man. I admit I didn't look at it very throughly. My point remains valid and my question unanswered. Why does one need an image - either photo or a drawing - to explain what 'not wearing a condom' means? These pictures would seem suitable in the articles for sex positions, but 'barebacking' is not a sex position, it's an unsafe sex practice. Explain to me the what this picture is doing for the article, besides making it NSFW.Heilingetorix (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

As much as I personally enjoy the image, and even though I strongly oppose the censorship of sexuality, I have to agree. This image is not illustrative of this subject; it does not add to the reader's understanding of what "bareback" sex is. Any reader who can understand the phrase "not using a condom" can immediately grasp the subject without an image of what that might look like. Perhaps if there were a Wikipedia for those who do not read written languages, the image would be beneficial there, but here it is simply because-we-can gratuitous. It does not contribute to the substance of the article itself; it is purely decorative, not informative. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm only raising the issue 'cause I was looking at Gay Slang on Wikipedia in a library and pulling up that image was kind of embarassing. Heilingetorix (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I should probably be editing Archaic Greece if I want to spend too much time on Wikipedia, however! Unless someone's got a good reason for keeping the explicit buttsex picture in this article I'll continue removing it. Heilingetorix (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record, here's the relevant policy from WP:IMAGE#Offensive_images: "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate..." I don't find the image obscene, but I'm not a "typical Wikipedia reader". :) Clearly some Wikipedians do find it objectionable, and I don't see how the article is any less "informative, relavant, or accurate" without it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You missed out "... and no equally suitable alternative is available." :-). This photo has only been here since 1st May, so it's not as if users are removing an established image. WP pages are built on consensus, if the majority of editors want it removed then so be it. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't miss it; I left it out (like I left out most of the policy page) because it wasn't relevant. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a reasonable consensus to me. Wikiwind should write a note here if he thinks that picture _is_ doing something for the article.Heilingetorix (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't speak English well, but this argument seems meaningless: "I'm only raising the issue 'cause I was looking at Gay Slang on Wikipedia in a library and pulling up that image was kind of embarassing."

So, we need to remove the picture just because someone is ashamed? Come on, wikipedia is not censored. Also, first you must achieve a consensus and then remove picture, and not vice versa. I apologize for my bad English.--В и к и в и н д T a L k 10:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Your English is pretty good, it's no problem. Let me explain, I don't want that picture out of this article because I saw it at the library. That was just what made me think 'what is this picture doing for this article'? And I couldn't think of anything, it just seemed to be there for the sake of itself. I don't think the definition of barebacking is any less clear without the picture, so why does it need to be there? Heilingetorix (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Two reasons have been given for removing the image: 1) It provides no useful information about the subject. 2) It is likely to offend people. The only reason for keeping the image is... I haven't seen one, actually. Just "wikipedia is not censored". Right, it's not. But it is edited, and that's what we're trying to do here. We don't include images of buttfucking on every article that mentions buttfucking, because it is unnecessary to have them; if someone wants clarification of what that is, we have a buttfucking article, where they can see numerous illustrations, and I will fight to keep them there. Of the two reasons I listed, the first is most important: the image serves no encyclopedic purpose, and that alone is reason enough to edit an image out of an article. (An image of a horse without a saddle would serve no purpose either, so I'd remove that too.) The second reason is not reason enough by itself, but in combination with the first reason, that makes it somewhat important to edit it out, which is why I'm taking the trouble to support that decision. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sex in gay porn that "looks like" barebacking (but isn't)

I just added this to the first graf of the section about gay pornography:

Also, mainstream studios that consistently use condoms for anal sex scenes may sometimes choose editing techniques that make the presence of condoms somewhat ambiguous and less visually evident, and thus may encourage viewers to fantasize that barebacking is taking place, even though the performers are following safer-sex protocols. (In contrast, some mainstream directors are conscientious about using close-up shots of condom packets being opened, etc., to help clearly establish for the viewer that the sex is not bareback.)

I would welcome improvements in the exact wording, but I think that the "magically appearing condom" phenomenon in gay porn videos is worth including somehow in the article. My argument here is that the (idealized) Best Practice For Promoting Safer-Sex In Porn would be that every instance of anal sex would be preceded by establishing close-ups of the condom being removed from the packet, of the condom being unrolled onto the penis, and of condom-safe lube being generously applied to the rubber-covered dick and the butthole -- and if at all possible, the condom should be Day-Glo orange with black stripes, so that its presence is constantly obvious! That would be the (admittedly unrealistic) ideal, but the farther that the studios stray from this idealized scenario, and the more that they attempt to make the condoms "visually unobtrusive", the closer they come to presenting "simulated barebacking" for the viewer's enjoyment -- which in my opinion amounts to subtly promoting and glamorizing bareback sex under the guise of following safer-sex practices. Роберт МакГи (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Some directors and studios will cut off the ends of condoms so it looks like a condom is used when in reality it's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.251.239 (talk) 08:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

girlfriend experience (GFE)

What on earth does GFE have to do with barebacking? This is a term used in call girl advertisements, but usually signifies something else - a willingness to at least feign romantic affection, such as kissing on the lips. The pros claiming to be "GFE" for the most part are not offering bareback penetration in any form, because to do so is a dangerous, career-ending move. K7L (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I've removed that and the other rather dubiously sourced content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hetero barebacking

Most porn films use unprotected bareback sex (homo/hetero/etc), this should be covered in this article -- 70.24.244.51 (talk) 05:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Breeding and Seeding

Both interchangeable terms are really enjoyable and is related to barebacking, as a slang often used vice-versa. Just because you bareback it does not mean you will get HIV and AIDS. Proper knowledge, contact and updated health information is now available to prevent such risks and still enjoy the act.

Also, monogamous relationships can be qualified for safe barebacking, also threesomes as long as they maintain continuous safe contact. 2606:6000:80C1:6900:BC60:B403:7105:5885 (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)