Talk:Bugchasing/Archive 1

weasel words?

This article is full of weasel words, which is to say that it always says "some people say, some people do". If we got the info from an article, we could name these people, "A man interviewed in a blah blah article notably said" for example. The way this is isn't written up to code. Lotusduck 03:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, that's not an acceptable reason to remove half the article, which is why I've reverted your changes. Exploding Boy 07:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't? If the author of the uncited material wanted to put it back, they certainly could whether I deleted the material or put cite tags on it. Likely neither will happen. Do we constantly have to leave unencyclopedic stuff in just because it isn't reverted the first time it's added? The portions I took out will never be encyclopedic- they are all "Some people believe x, while others believe y". This has not been an indescriminate cut, and so I'm going to do it again. Lotusduck 13:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverted again. Please stop removing information wholesale. If you have an issue with the article then improve it by rewriting it, or place a tag on it requesting someone else do it instead. Please don't remove this information again. Exploding Boy 17:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't information, it's opinon. I can't re-write opinion that I can't source, and neither can anyone else. You want me to cover this article with fact tags, I guess I'm going to have to deal with that. But it'll only make everyone think the whole thing is made up. Shouldn't the burden of proof by put on the person that added all of these dubious and opinion based claims? Why not let that person be the one to try to find support for the claims instead of the rest of us having to deal with it? How can I re-write something that I obviously can't find evidence for- I can't. By this example, you would support keeping all unverifiable claims unless someone re-wrote them into different unverifiable claims. If you have an issue with this information then you can improve it by citing it, or removing it and letting someone else re-add it with citations instead- I don't want to get into an edit war, but I don't want to have to google phrases to try and find sources for some odd editors opinon. There is no way to improve upon these spurious claims besides removal- convince me otherwise.Lotusduck 19:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Some people edit things out of controvertial topics, to be sure, but it's just as bad to over-protect an article from being edited. I charge that I would have no problem removing speculative viewpoints written on the Carebears article, but on this page removing a sentance that starts with "It is thought that some men might" is removing information? If someone got this from a source, they could have stated the study that put forth this idea. Most likely, someone who didn't like what they thought the article said shoved a bunch of caveats and ideas on it from out of their head. So as I see it, leaving these comments in is unbased censorship, and taking them out is just editing, and not even neccessarily bad faith, as it doesn't stop the author to try to insert the sentances again. Lotusduck 21:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Here is some generally discussive and non-factual stuff from the article. I think this collection of thoughts is basically a discussion of some possible aspects of the idea. So as discussion, it goes in discussion.

It is thought that some men wish to become infected with HIV because they feel guilty (or even left out) because many of their friends are HIV-positive or because they feel fatalistic about becoming HIV-positive and want to stop worrying about when they might become infected ordinarily.

Clarification

Was concerned with the vague "many" which did not clarify the small extent "bugchasing" is in the gay community.

Unneeded citation

Someone has requested a citation for the statement that some gay people feel that the "bugchasing" phenomenon might give gay people a bad reputation. I am removing this request for a citation for several reasons. Firstly, a citation isn't really needed in incidents of common-sense rules. There is nothing controversial or potentially libelous about the statement; it is simply common sense. It is general knowledge that gay and lesbian people face an overwhelming amount of stigma and hatred from the global community. It is simply common sense that they would fear that a subculture within their culture wherein people are actively seeking to contract a life-threatening disease (that they then might spread to others) might make them, as a community, look bad. To insinuate otherwise would be to intimate that gay people are just plain stupid. Obviously I'm expressing some serious POV here, but I think that those you could find who DONT think voluntarily, intentionally contracting HIV is absolutely insane are in the extreme minority. Further, it is hugely documented that there are many people within the gay community at large who frown upon ANYTHING that might make them look less than "normal" to the general public, because they are afraid of discrimination and judgement; things like the leather men or drag queens. There is even a speech about it in the play/movie Jeffrey where the character Sterling says (I'm paraphrasing): "I turned on the television and there were these two men and they said 'Hi, I'm Bob, and this is my husband, Mark. And he's a construction worker and I'm a doctor. And I just want everyone watching to see us and to know that gay people are just like everyone else.' And I thought, 'Ooooh. Get HER! '" In short, the statement is based in general knowledge and echoes common sene, and requesting a citation is overzealous wiki-watching: your diligence is appreciated, but in this case, not prudent. Pacian 07:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Further, for clarification, I have edited the text to read as follows:

Further, similar to the existance of NAMBLA, it is feared by the gay community at large that the behaviours of bugchasers may contribute to a public perception that the practice is common or encouraged by all gay people, and would thus cause further ill-will towards them. Pacian 07:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

current version looks good

Good job to the editors who seem to have resolved the problems with weasel words and lack of sources.

The current version is very factual and well-sourced.

Aroundthewayboy 18:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

I'm very, very concerned about the basic factual accuracy of this article. The lone reliable source (since the Rolling Stone article has been widely discredited) is a documentary. There's widespread evidence of a hoax or a panic. At the very least, the entire first two sections need to be meticulously sourced, adn the controversy over whether this is even real needs to be front-ended. Phil Sandifer 23:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've sent an email to a good friend of mine involved in the AIDS/Cares community to see if he can get me some print and/or web sources. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Just looking around I've found three seemingly reliable web sources that say the phenomenon is real but that the numbers publicized are inflated. Personally I heard about this as long as ten years ago but I only recently read the terms 'bug chaser' and 'gift giver.' I'll be glad to help out where I can. ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 05:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I can find a general refusal to rule out the possiblity, but the cited sources (most especially the Rolling Stone article - I can't find a lot reliable on the documentary) are clearly awful. And, for obvious reasons, if this is an urban legend, it's a very hurtful one that we need to not be taken in by. Phil Sandifer 15:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Grammar and style

Most of the first paragraph after the introduction is grammatical nonsense. I can't even pull enough sense out of it to rewrite it - what the blazes is it trying to say? --DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 13:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Original research

"There are various motivations for "bug chasing" and "gift giving:"

• • Infecting a sexual partner represents the deepest possible level of intimacy.
  • The element of danger in sexual encounters of this kind (including activities like "Russian roulette") adds to the rush.
  • Once infected, the chaser feel like they finally belong to a community in which they will be accepted.
  • Once infected, the chaser will be free to practice whatever lifestyle they choose without worry of infection, including continuted promiscuity, unsafe sex, needle sharing, etc."

If ever this "info" were to be attributed, it would have to be entirely re-written to reflect the article cited. Please consider policy that all facts should be attributable or attributed, and no matter how common sense something may be to you, it ought to be provable by outside published source. Lotusduck 08:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Expansion/cutting down

Who believes there are enough possible citations to expand this article? More to the point, I think that the only sections worth keeping other than the two sentence introduction is the Press section and the medical response section. If these are removed rather than rewritten and attributed, then we've got a stub, one that may not for a long time be expanded to full article status. Could this not be merged to some other very related article? Lotusduck 17:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on citing the article and rewriting it on my user page right now. Here. Though that is admittedly slow-going, very busy in RL at the moment. I'm all for shortening it and merging it as long as long as we can find and appropriate place, if that is the best course. But it is a very controversial topic and arouses all kinds of reactions. The editors on other pages might not look kindly on a merge.--ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 17:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well in kind it would be merged with something also controvertial, like HIV in america, unsafe sex, etc. I would love if the place this was merged to was full of editors dubious on this article's veracity. It would mean a more concise and better attributed article. Lotusduck 17:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. New to this. This quote: "However the gay community does recognize this is an increasing problem[citation needed] and as a community are striving to educate people about the serious consequences of this practice.", - reeks of afterthought, opinion or maybe merely wishful-thinking. Tell us, just "WHO" is this "GAY COMMUNITY" mentioned. Is it like the "WHITE COMMUNITY"? Maybe it's like the "PET COMMUNITY"? Is it 3 guys in a shower-stall who want to make sweeping social changes? Maybe (& this is my guess) that it's the writer trying to cover up the fact that the same "GAY COMMUNITY" he writes about seems to have a live & let die mentality about it's "OWN". Of course - all I have are the mountain of articles & clips I have read on the subject in mainstream "GAY PUBS" - some cited elsewhere in the same article. The writer seems to be part of "ANOTHER GAY COMMUNITY", because the mainstream "GAY COMMUNITY", doesn't seem to give a rats arse about the practice -- because if it did, - they'd be a pile of "Oh, bad -bad..." citations from the same sorts of sources that report on the incident in the 1st place.

Is this for real?

Sorry, but the whole idea of anyone actively seeking a very protracted means of suicide like this smacks of homophobic propaganda. Are there ANY confirmed cases of this kind of activity, or is the whole thing a malicious rumor?

It is indeed real and authentic, google 'bareback exchange' for a particular forum dedicated to this practice - it's fucked up man, I hope the media get a hold of this. Apparently gay groups don't want to talk about it much because it would agree with a lot of homophobic propogandha, but it's totally true man, I've spent a few days researching it and going on the forums and it's fucked my head up.

I know it might be difficult to accept, but it's understandable from a fetishistic point of view, considering the stuff different fetishists get up to, and browsing 'bareback exchange' has definitely confirmed the genuineness of this.

http://216.246.54.218/discus/messages/3105/3105.html?1176029849

A BBC article referenced in this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4895012.stm) seems to conclude that it's mostly fantasy, but this article makes no mention of that, only taking a "confirmatory" snippet. Posts on a message board are not really evidence of anything, and I think the article seems a little biased towards the supposed reality of bugchasing.

Another quote from the BBC article:

And Deborah Jack, chief executive of the National AIDS Trust said: "There is very little evidence of people trying to get infected with HIV.David 09:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well then perhaps you should put 'uk.gay.com says 99% of what is on the internet is fantasy and the rest of the people don't want it and are only trying to dodge a bullet or have no aim in life or some other social problem'. But it's still about. Check this: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/01/29/MN29711.DTL or google 'Russian Roulette sex parties'. There's a thread on that forum about having lots of unprotected sex at the IML hotel; that sounds like there are people who seriously want to get AIDS, for whatever stupid reason.

Googling 'conversion parties' comes up with a lot of hits too - http://aids.about.com/od/safersexresources/a/barebacking.htm - and it's not a widespread thing, sure, but there you go.

I would admit that this random blogger critic - http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2005/12/from_rainbow_pa.html - disputes the media. I would also argue that there is a small amount of people who both eroticise and therefore seek HIV infection; whether they're taking control of the situation or condemning themselves or whatever they still do. Earfetish1 16:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21417601-421,00.html - there's a link to a guy who is on trial for throwing conversion parties

I've seen enough to convince me. Although everywhere I turn is someone claiming it's an invention by the religious right, it doesn't seem that ludicrous to me that some people would purposefully try to get STDs, including AIDS, because they eroticise them. Earfetish1 00:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Why

This article needs some insight into the motivation of bugchasers. I myself am very curious as to why somebody would want HIV, call me naive but surely it's a bad thing? Is there any material out there that can clear this up for me and add to the article? --213.202.143.237 17:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Gift documentary outlines three main reasons (1) a lot of promosicious people live in near-constant fear of getting HIV/AIDS, and live with the uncertainty of knowing whether or not they have it. By intentionally infecting themselves, they remove the uncertainty. (2) by infecting themselves, they no longer feel the need to practice safe sex, and can indulge in high-risk activities. The possibility of HIV cross-infection almost certainly is not a concern. (3) Also, with the advent of HAART, many of them don't see HIV as a death sentence. Raul654 21:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Cite sources!!

The opener claimed "many" gay people are afraid the mainstream would think all LGBT people want AIDS due to the actions of bug chasers. Granted I know of some very anti-gay organizations who would think that (and probably argue it before Congress), but they are complete nutjobs who hate gay people (and most other minorities as well), and the vast majority of sane, thinking individuals would never come to that conclusion; in fact the majority of people who are anti-gay wouldn't even go that far; nor do I know any gay person, including myself, who would seriously be concerned about it. If any straight people out there are ready to believe we all want AIDS then they need serious psychological help. Long story short, I had to change it to another weasel word to give another author the chance to provide a quote. Otherwise it should be deleted because it's incredibly preposterous, it's homophobic as it portrays "many" gay people as worrying about what crazy people think of us, and I doubt it has much basis in reality. Correct me if I'm wrong people.Rglong 06:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Hi, i removed the links at the bottom of the page, seen in this revision. They werent properly formatted (which could have been easily fixed), but still i didnt see the significance they contributed to the article. I felt they were spam and removed them. If you feel differently, please share. Thanks ✬Dillard421✬ ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

An embarrassment to Wikipenia

This article is downright terrible. I can deal with bondage, vore, furries, all that, but this is just terrible! With focus on the terminology section, which is probably the lowest point of Wikipedia, this article is a gleaming example of poor, poor decisions. The idea is terrible, the prevalence is negligible, the concept ridiculous. The terminology is an absolute travesty to the encyclopedic nature of this project, and "poz my neg hole" is the worst thing I've seen on Wikipedia, and that is including Penis_corrected.jpg. Anyways, getting to the point, this article should be wiped off the face of the project.

peace, 420 for lyfAgoodguyiswear (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

woops, meant to type wikipedia for the title sorry about that Agoodguyiswear (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

VOTE FOR DELETION/MERGER

this is just awful, and I think it could be summarized into a short paragraph/section in the HIV article

all who agree say "poz my neg hole" --71.122.135.63 (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)