- Joined
- May 8, 2022
Diseased Bugchasers / Bugchasing / Extreme Kinks / Curious Chaser / Breeding.zone - The discussion of extreme kinks that any normal person would never consider
- Thread starter Osama Bin Laden
- Start date
Beastie
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2024
They're talking about viral load. The higher it is the more at risk you are in catching it from them and it's medically accepted that below a certian amount it's almost impossible to infect someone else (aka undetectable).also what does this mean
Viral load = the amount of HIV in your blood. His 7200 would mean 7200 copies per milliliter of blood.
I honestly don't know because I would never fuck a homeless person.
- Joined
- May 8, 2022
i actually don't know which i find more disgusting
you've never met or knew a gay man that banged a homeless person?
Beastie
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2024
Not that I'm aware of. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I've just never personally run across someone who has or who has admitted to it.
- Joined
- May 8, 2022
so turns out curiouschaser responded to the UK documentary made on them lol
When you watch a documentary, the intention is to learn something about a particular subject based on information that is factual. If you would like to watch a documentary about bug chasing hoping to be informed from a neutral standpoint, I would not recommend the documentary recently released by Channel 4 that was produced by Future Studios, as this 20 minute documentary provides some insight into bug chasing, including a selection of facts that are overshadowed by a significant amount of bias that will most likely lead to a large percentage of viewers ridiculing those who are gay or HIV-positive and create stigma due to the way this documentary was presented.
Channel 4 is a publicly owned British free-to-air public broadcast television channel owned and operated by Channel Four Television Corporation that receives no public funding and is funded entirely by its commercial activities, including advertising. Future Studios is a production company based in London that makes documentaries and factual TV for Netflix, Channel 4, the BBC, Snap Originals and others. The producer of this documentary admitted on film to infiltrating online communities to find bug chasers and learn more about bug chasing, and shared that it was difficult to find bug chasers and gift givers, due to the small percentage of people who do actually chase and gift, yet when the presenter did find 2 people to talk to, he admitted to being disturbed by how open and honest they were.
“Bug Chasers: The Men Who Want HIV” was released by Channel 4 Documentaries via their YouTube Channel on March 8, 2024 and is presented by HIV-activist Nathaniel Hill. Nathaniel revealed in the documentary that he became HIV-positive at age 16 following a sexual encounter in a church yard, which would have been at a time before PrEP became available in the United Kingdom. Being infected with a lifelong virus at such a young age would understandably have affected the presenter’s mental wellbeing, which still appears to be the case due to the tears and him breaking down during the production and as such, it would be naturally difficult for him to remain impartial, as he’s too close to the subject and it’s a very personal issue for him.
As many HIV-positive people know, the stigma surrounding HIV can be consistently intense, even in this day when more information is known about HIV/AIDS, such as the virus being untransmittable when a person is undetectable and there’s also medication available for those who want to protect themselves from becoming infected with HIV if they choose to. It may have seemed like a great idea for someone who became HIV-positive unintentionally to present a documentary about those who want to become HIV-positive intentionally, but when the presenter appears to be still affected by what happened to him several years ago, it’s going to be difficult for this person to maintain journalistic objectivity, which is what has happened in this case.
Another issue is the length of the documentary. Bug chasing is a very complex issue, so a 20 minute documentary is not even going to scratch the surface of something that involves a lot of emotion and thought processes. Bug chasers don’t just wake up one day saying they want to become a bug chaser and go out later that same day seeking the virus, they will often consider why they feel this way and research this over a significant period of time (sometimes years) to help them understand themselves before they even consider such a thing. For this reason, those involved with producing the documentary missed an opportunity to provide more information about HIV, why some people desire the virus and being able to explore a deeper insight into bug chasing and gift giving, even though the production team had access to a number of people who were able to provide this insight.
Many bug chasers use Curious Chaser to help them understand themselves better, but the producers decided to use small portions of this website to add controversy to their documentary. They failed to include or acknowledge other information from the articles or forum threads here that include important information on the subject and instead chose a couple of posts to help sensationalise the issue to support their agenda. When you’ve got a plethora of forum posts (currently over 7,500), with many of these threads providing information giving a better understanding into bug chasing and instead chose to feature a couple of posts to support the viewpoint the producers took the documentary in shows reckless journalism, yet this is one of the most important tools the media will use to promote and market themselves.
As Channel 4 is a British public broadcast service that derives their income from advertising, they need to attract an audience, which puts pressure on the producers to make content that will captivate an audience, so to do this, they need to explore subjects that can be controversial, which will attract attention and create a discussion that will lead to more attention to keep the advertisers happy and to keep the establishment funded and those within the establishment employed. This happens at the expense of others and makes it more difficult for the broadcaster to provide quality productions that explore subjects based on full facts and not just a selection of facts overshadowed by a significant amount of bias.
The viewers of this documentary will likely have responses of disgust towards gay people and those who are HIV-positive, not only bug chasers or gift givers due to the way this documentary was presented, so the presenter has actually done a disservice to those in his own community through his involvement in this documentary even though the presenter stated that he was trying to smash stigma. By trying to highlight something without presenting all the facts to viewers, those watching will form an opinion based on what they have seen, which is a problem and it makes me wonder what the intention of the presenter was with this documentary, especially when others were interviewed and their contributions were not included in the documentary.
In addition to this, Channel 4 Documentaries released a further documentary on March 15, 2024 called “I Contracted HIV on Purpose”, which involves 3 people intensely questioning a gift giver, again making a further spectacle of HIV-positive people, which gives an opportunity for these people to spew disgust in the direction of the person who was trying to be honest with them. I stopped watching this partway through due to the agenda Channel 4 seems to have about bug chasers and gift givers at this present time. I urge all bug chasers and gift givers to immediately stop participating in interviews and research projects, because people cannot help themselves and continue to introduce bug chasing to their audience in a style that’s controversial and devoid of all the facts at our expense.
I actually question whether this should be called a documentary, as there’s a lot of personal opinion squeezed into the 20 minute video. Perhaps it should be referred to as a short film rather than a documentary, as it doesn’t completely meet the criteria to be considered a documentary, as it doesn’t contain all the key ingredients that make up a documentary, which is all the facts presented to the viewer to help the viewer learn from what they have seen, this only includes a selection of facts overshadowed by personal opinion, disbelief and grief. What viewers will learn from a documentary like this is how to be judgemental and ignorant, so if this was the intended outcome, then well done to those involved with producing it.
Everyone involved in this production should be ashamed of themselves due to the damage they have done to the gay community and also to HIV-positive people, who are likely going to be put under the microscope as being potential gift-givers. So what has happened is someone who appears to have been affected by HIV and stated in the documentary that he has tried to breaking down stigma and shame is now going to share the burden with others who have most likely had to struggle with the issue themselves and instead of educating people, this video is just stirring up mud and creating a murky discussion that sets back advances people may have made with their coping mechanisms.
The presenter was also quick to point the finger about the bug chaser costing the NHS money as a result of the medication he will eventually need to take, yet when you consider issues such as people taking drugs, eating too much, drinking too much, smoking too much, the costs associated with these issues completely dwarfs the costs a bug chaser might incur to the taxpayer, yet bug chasers are being scapegoated in this documentary as a burden to society and are being seen as taking a large chunk of NHS resources, which is not the case when you consider the number of people intentionally seroconverting, compared to those who are experiencing other health conditions as a direct result of their own actions.
According to an article released by The Health Foundation, the projected total number of diagnosed cases for the 10 conditions with the highest impact on health care use and mortality among those aged 30 years and older includes health conditions relating to drugs, diet, smoking and alcohol, with nothing on this list directly relating to HIV/AIDS conditions, so people need to stop associating HIV-positive individuals with taking resources away from the NHS and instead look more closely at others who are draining the system through other actions if this is something they want to do. In fact, people need to stop judging people altogether.
The video player splash image that was selected showing the gift giver wearing a mask is an image that portrays someone who looks frightening, which is an angle the producers appear to have been aiming towards. As the gift giver is being interviewed, and the bug chaser too, the presenter’s facial expressions showed his disturbed inner thoughts and feelings, which reinforces the fact that he was unable to maintain a neutral viewpoint and should not have been involved with this project, in fact, this project should never have been given the green light. The presenter also indicated that those who are participating in cruising are being exposed to HIV by the gift giver, yet he failed to mention that any of those men can immediately protect themselves by taking PrEP, yet he put the responsibility of the actions solely on the gift giver, which is wrong.
The documentary also failed to explore HIV exposure statistics, leading viewers to think that the moment someone is fucked bareback by an HIV-positive individual, they will became HIV-positive as a result. This is not the case and according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the estimated probability of acquiring HIV from an infected source for receptive bareback anal sex is 138 cases per 10,000 exposures, or 1.38% and for insertive bareback anal sex is 11 cases per 10,000 exposures, or 0.11%. These number can increase based on other factors, such as 1,001 cases per 10,000 exposures (10.01%) for receptive anal sex where there is an acute HIV infection and 2,651 cases per 10,000 exposures (26.51%) for receptive anal sex when there is a sexually transmitted infection and acute HIV infection involved.
According to the National Health Service (NHS), PrEP is 99% effective against HIV transmission when taken correctly. For those who are going to get barebacked, taking a first double dose of PrEP 2 hours prior to getting raw fucked provides protection against the transmission of HIV, as PrEP prevents HIV from replicating inside the body. For those who fail to take PrEP 2 hours before getting barebacked; if they’re not already taking a daily dose of PrEP, can also protect themselves by taking a course of PEP by starting it within 72 hours of being exposed to HIV, something else that was also not discussed in the documentary.
This means those who wish to protect themselves from HIV prevention have the tools to do so, which is why it’s important for everyone to be responsible for protecting themselves, if this is what they want to do. Anyone who has bareback sex needs to understand and accept that sexually transmitted infections are commonplace (whether this involves heterosexual sex or homosexual sex), so if a person doesn’t want to become exposed to STIs, then they should use a condom or disengage from having sex and derive pleasure from an alternative source.
The presenter became infected by HIV at an early age, which was when PrEP was not yet available in the United Kingdom, however, this has now changed and more information is also known about HIV, due to people being more open to having discussions about sexual health, although documentaries like this might make people be afraid to speak or have conversations due to being concerned about being judged. PrEP became available in Scotland and Wales in 2017, in Northern Ireland in 2018 and in England in 2021, which was a long time after it became available in the United States, which was in 2012.
As PrEP is more widely available around the world, those who wish to protect themselves from HIV have a tool they can use. PrEP can be an important way to protect a person from those who stealth, who are people who intentionally lie about their HIV or deceive others, such as Daryll Rowe, who was convicted in the United Kingdom for deliberately transmitting HIV to people by deceiving them, which is a completely different situation to those who are giving their consent to be infected, however, other laws need to be considered about whether this is lawful, so it’s a more complex case and something that wasn’t thoroughly explored in the documentary.
Those who are HIV-positive can take antiretroviral medication to make their viral load undetectable, which is then considered to be untransmittable, which is a further way to reduce the spread of HIV, and it’s important to note that PrEP is 99% effective against the transmission of HIV from those who are detectable, so everyone has the ability to protect themselves if they choose to do so. As pointed out in the documentary, only a small number of people (less than 1% according to the academic featured briefly in the documentary) are bug chasers and gift givers, so this is not a massive public health issue like people might be thinking, so the cost to the taxpayer is not significant in comparison to other costs being spent on other health conditions, as demonstrated in the graphic above.
It’s important to reinforce that only a small number of people who are HIV-positive intentionally acquired HIV through bug chasing. I do feel for the presenter and many others became HIV-positive unintentionally and are now living with a life-long health condition that requires them to take antiretroviral medication for the rest of their lives when some people are trying to contract the virus intentionally. HIV is a serious health issue that can be managed through medication, which can be costly and is something anyone who is intentionally seeking the virus needs to consider as part of the decision as to whether they want to actively chase the bug before taking the next step. I also believe the presenter did have the best of intentions being involved with this documentary, but the documentary ended up being presented with bias, which is not something a documentary should incorporate.
What some may not know is that at least one person who offered to be interviewed was asked to undertake a psychiatric evaluation before participating in the documentary. This is rather disturbing and again highlights how invasive the producers were being to present their argument by alluding to bug chasers having a mental health condition, which again incorporates stigma and shame into the thought processes of others. I know a number of people who offered their valuable time to participate in this documentary, including Tim Tyler being one of them, yet their contributions were disregarded. Tim’s interview sadly didn’t make it into the documentary, which is a shame, as when you think about bug chasing, Tim Tyler is someone you will immediately think of.
Tim has a lot of knowledge and experience as a bug chaser and he recorded his interview and has asked for us to share this recording with you, which we are able to do, after checking with my friend who is a lawyer. We have been advised that because Tim made the recording of this conversation and due to all parties involved being aware that the conversation was being recorded, we are able to share Tim’s recording with you. In addition to this, the producers did not use any of Tim’s interview in their documentary and even if they did, the law would still have permitted for us to share Tim’s recording with you, as he has given us permission to do so. Just to reiterate, we are sharing Tim’s personal recording involving a conversation where all parties knew the conversation was being recorded and Tim has given us permission to share his personal copy of this recording with you.
Channel 4 is a publicly owned British free-to-air public broadcast television channel owned and operated by Channel Four Television Corporation that receives no public funding and is funded entirely by its commercial activities, including advertising. Future Studios is a production company based in London that makes documentaries and factual TV for Netflix, Channel 4, the BBC, Snap Originals and others. The producer of this documentary admitted on film to infiltrating online communities to find bug chasers and learn more about bug chasing, and shared that it was difficult to find bug chasers and gift givers, due to the small percentage of people who do actually chase and gift, yet when the presenter did find 2 people to talk to, he admitted to being disturbed by how open and honest they were.
“Bug Chasers: The Men Who Want HIV” was released by Channel 4 Documentaries via their YouTube Channel on March 8, 2024 and is presented by HIV-activist Nathaniel Hill. Nathaniel revealed in the documentary that he became HIV-positive at age 16 following a sexual encounter in a church yard, which would have been at a time before PrEP became available in the United Kingdom. Being infected with a lifelong virus at such a young age would understandably have affected the presenter’s mental wellbeing, which still appears to be the case due to the tears and him breaking down during the production and as such, it would be naturally difficult for him to remain impartial, as he’s too close to the subject and it’s a very personal issue for him.
As many HIV-positive people know, the stigma surrounding HIV can be consistently intense, even in this day when more information is known about HIV/AIDS, such as the virus being untransmittable when a person is undetectable and there’s also medication available for those who want to protect themselves from becoming infected with HIV if they choose to. It may have seemed like a great idea for someone who became HIV-positive unintentionally to present a documentary about those who want to become HIV-positive intentionally, but when the presenter appears to be still affected by what happened to him several years ago, it’s going to be difficult for this person to maintain journalistic objectivity, which is what has happened in this case.
Another issue is the length of the documentary. Bug chasing is a very complex issue, so a 20 minute documentary is not even going to scratch the surface of something that involves a lot of emotion and thought processes. Bug chasers don’t just wake up one day saying they want to become a bug chaser and go out later that same day seeking the virus, they will often consider why they feel this way and research this over a significant period of time (sometimes years) to help them understand themselves before they even consider such a thing. For this reason, those involved with producing the documentary missed an opportunity to provide more information about HIV, why some people desire the virus and being able to explore a deeper insight into bug chasing and gift giving, even though the production team had access to a number of people who were able to provide this insight.
Many bug chasers use Curious Chaser to help them understand themselves better, but the producers decided to use small portions of this website to add controversy to their documentary. They failed to include or acknowledge other information from the articles or forum threads here that include important information on the subject and instead chose a couple of posts to help sensationalise the issue to support their agenda. When you’ve got a plethora of forum posts (currently over 7,500), with many of these threads providing information giving a better understanding into bug chasing and instead chose to feature a couple of posts to support the viewpoint the producers took the documentary in shows reckless journalism, yet this is one of the most important tools the media will use to promote and market themselves.
As Channel 4 is a British public broadcast service that derives their income from advertising, they need to attract an audience, which puts pressure on the producers to make content that will captivate an audience, so to do this, they need to explore subjects that can be controversial, which will attract attention and create a discussion that will lead to more attention to keep the advertisers happy and to keep the establishment funded and those within the establishment employed. This happens at the expense of others and makes it more difficult for the broadcaster to provide quality productions that explore subjects based on full facts and not just a selection of facts overshadowed by a significant amount of bias.
The 2 people who appeared in this documentary answered questions honestly and were most likely hoping that the documentary would be presented in a respectful and neutral manner, which the producer indicated “would take place in a safe and non-judgmental/stigma free environment”. I’m sure these people were also disappointed by how the documentary was presented and may now feel like victims of the media. I will say this again: it’s difficult for a person who has been deeply affected by HIV, who is an HIV-activist to present a documentary like this to consider the pros and cons of bug chasing and present the facts in an impartial manner so the audience can consider complete information and not just selected segments of information.
The viewers of this documentary will likely have responses of disgust towards gay people and those who are HIV-positive, not only bug chasers or gift givers due to the way this documentary was presented, so the presenter has actually done a disservice to those in his own community through his involvement in this documentary even though the presenter stated that he was trying to smash stigma. By trying to highlight something without presenting all the facts to viewers, those watching will form an opinion based on what they have seen, which is a problem and it makes me wonder what the intention of the presenter was with this documentary, especially when others were interviewed and their contributions were not included in the documentary.
In addition to this, Channel 4 Documentaries released a further documentary on March 15, 2024 called “I Contracted HIV on Purpose”, which involves 3 people intensely questioning a gift giver, again making a further spectacle of HIV-positive people, which gives an opportunity for these people to spew disgust in the direction of the person who was trying to be honest with them. I stopped watching this partway through due to the agenda Channel 4 seems to have about bug chasers and gift givers at this present time. I urge all bug chasers and gift givers to immediately stop participating in interviews and research projects, because people cannot help themselves and continue to introduce bug chasing to their audience in a style that’s controversial and devoid of all the facts at our expense.
I actually question whether this should be called a documentary, as there’s a lot of personal opinion squeezed into the 20 minute video. Perhaps it should be referred to as a short film rather than a documentary, as it doesn’t completely meet the criteria to be considered a documentary, as it doesn’t contain all the key ingredients that make up a documentary, which is all the facts presented to the viewer to help the viewer learn from what they have seen, this only includes a selection of facts overshadowed by personal opinion, disbelief and grief. What viewers will learn from a documentary like this is how to be judgemental and ignorant, so if this was the intended outcome, then well done to those involved with producing it.
Everyone involved in this production should be ashamed of themselves due to the damage they have done to the gay community and also to HIV-positive people, who are likely going to be put under the microscope as being potential gift-givers. So what has happened is someone who appears to have been affected by HIV and stated in the documentary that he has tried to breaking down stigma and shame is now going to share the burden with others who have most likely had to struggle with the issue themselves and instead of educating people, this video is just stirring up mud and creating a murky discussion that sets back advances people may have made with their coping mechanisms.
The presenter was also quick to point the finger about the bug chaser costing the NHS money as a result of the medication he will eventually need to take, yet when you consider issues such as people taking drugs, eating too much, drinking too much, smoking too much, the costs associated with these issues completely dwarfs the costs a bug chaser might incur to the taxpayer, yet bug chasers are being scapegoated in this documentary as a burden to society and are being seen as taking a large chunk of NHS resources, which is not the case when you consider the number of people intentionally seroconverting, compared to those who are experiencing other health conditions as a direct result of their own actions.
According to an article released by The Health Foundation, the projected total number of diagnosed cases for the 10 conditions with the highest impact on health care use and mortality among those aged 30 years and older includes health conditions relating to drugs, diet, smoking and alcohol, with nothing on this list directly relating to HIV/AIDS conditions, so people need to stop associating HIV-positive individuals with taking resources away from the NHS and instead look more closely at others who are draining the system through other actions if this is something they want to do. In fact, people need to stop judging people altogether.
The video player splash image that was selected showing the gift giver wearing a mask is an image that portrays someone who looks frightening, which is an angle the producers appear to have been aiming towards. As the gift giver is being interviewed, and the bug chaser too, the presenter’s facial expressions showed his disturbed inner thoughts and feelings, which reinforces the fact that he was unable to maintain a neutral viewpoint and should not have been involved with this project, in fact, this project should never have been given the green light. The presenter also indicated that those who are participating in cruising are being exposed to HIV by the gift giver, yet he failed to mention that any of those men can immediately protect themselves by taking PrEP, yet he put the responsibility of the actions solely on the gift giver, which is wrong.
The documentary also failed to explore HIV exposure statistics, leading viewers to think that the moment someone is fucked bareback by an HIV-positive individual, they will became HIV-positive as a result. This is not the case and according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the estimated probability of acquiring HIV from an infected source for receptive bareback anal sex is 138 cases per 10,000 exposures, or 1.38% and for insertive bareback anal sex is 11 cases per 10,000 exposures, or 0.11%. These number can increase based on other factors, such as 1,001 cases per 10,000 exposures (10.01%) for receptive anal sex where there is an acute HIV infection and 2,651 cases per 10,000 exposures (26.51%) for receptive anal sex when there is a sexually transmitted infection and acute HIV infection involved.
According to the National Health Service (NHS), PrEP is 99% effective against HIV transmission when taken correctly. For those who are going to get barebacked, taking a first double dose of PrEP 2 hours prior to getting raw fucked provides protection against the transmission of HIV, as PrEP prevents HIV from replicating inside the body. For those who fail to take PrEP 2 hours before getting barebacked; if they’re not already taking a daily dose of PrEP, can also protect themselves by taking a course of PEP by starting it within 72 hours of being exposed to HIV, something else that was also not discussed in the documentary.
This means those who wish to protect themselves from HIV prevention have the tools to do so, which is why it’s important for everyone to be responsible for protecting themselves, if this is what they want to do. Anyone who has bareback sex needs to understand and accept that sexually transmitted infections are commonplace (whether this involves heterosexual sex or homosexual sex), so if a person doesn’t want to become exposed to STIs, then they should use a condom or disengage from having sex and derive pleasure from an alternative source.
The presenter became infected by HIV at an early age, which was when PrEP was not yet available in the United Kingdom, however, this has now changed and more information is also known about HIV, due to people being more open to having discussions about sexual health, although documentaries like this might make people be afraid to speak or have conversations due to being concerned about being judged. PrEP became available in Scotland and Wales in 2017, in Northern Ireland in 2018 and in England in 2021, which was a long time after it became available in the United States, which was in 2012.
As PrEP is more widely available around the world, those who wish to protect themselves from HIV have a tool they can use. PrEP can be an important way to protect a person from those who stealth, who are people who intentionally lie about their HIV or deceive others, such as Daryll Rowe, who was convicted in the United Kingdom for deliberately transmitting HIV to people by deceiving them, which is a completely different situation to those who are giving their consent to be infected, however, other laws need to be considered about whether this is lawful, so it’s a more complex case and something that wasn’t thoroughly explored in the documentary.
Those who are HIV-positive can take antiretroviral medication to make their viral load undetectable, which is then considered to be untransmittable, which is a further way to reduce the spread of HIV, and it’s important to note that PrEP is 99% effective against the transmission of HIV from those who are detectable, so everyone has the ability to protect themselves if they choose to do so. As pointed out in the documentary, only a small number of people (less than 1% according to the academic featured briefly in the documentary) are bug chasers and gift givers, so this is not a massive public health issue like people might be thinking, so the cost to the taxpayer is not significant in comparison to other costs being spent on other health conditions, as demonstrated in the graphic above.
It’s important to reinforce that only a small number of people who are HIV-positive intentionally acquired HIV through bug chasing. I do feel for the presenter and many others became HIV-positive unintentionally and are now living with a life-long health condition that requires them to take antiretroviral medication for the rest of their lives when some people are trying to contract the virus intentionally. HIV is a serious health issue that can be managed through medication, which can be costly and is something anyone who is intentionally seeking the virus needs to consider as part of the decision as to whether they want to actively chase the bug before taking the next step. I also believe the presenter did have the best of intentions being involved with this documentary, but the documentary ended up being presented with bias, which is not something a documentary should incorporate.
What some may not know is that at least one person who offered to be interviewed was asked to undertake a psychiatric evaluation before participating in the documentary. This is rather disturbing and again highlights how invasive the producers were being to present their argument by alluding to bug chasers having a mental health condition, which again incorporates stigma and shame into the thought processes of others. I know a number of people who offered their valuable time to participate in this documentary, including Tim Tyler being one of them, yet their contributions were disregarded. Tim’s interview sadly didn’t make it into the documentary, which is a shame, as when you think about bug chasing, Tim Tyler is someone you will immediately think of.
Tim has a lot of knowledge and experience as a bug chaser and he recorded his interview and has asked for us to share this recording with you, which we are able to do, after checking with my friend who is a lawyer. We have been advised that because Tim made the recording of this conversation and due to all parties involved being aware that the conversation was being recorded, we are able to share Tim’s recording with you. In addition to this, the producers did not use any of Tim’s interview in their documentary and even if they did, the law would still have permitted for us to share Tim’s recording with you, as he has given us permission to do so. Just to reiterate, we are sharing Tim’s personal recording involving a conversation where all parties knew the conversation was being recorded and Tim has given us permission to share his personal copy of this recording with you.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
Why did I read this thread after having lunch.
Unstable Diffusion
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2023
I support adding Sniffies to the OP, I've seen photos of this app ever so rarely in X whenever someone was talking about how fucking disgusting the homos are but I never knew its name.
It takes some effort to set-up a server and a community with xenforo for this shit. It's a whole entire fucking different level to set-up a whole app and service for hooking up and in-the-spot orgies.
I sometimes tell my friends "the gays are fucking disgusting and they are all over social media to do hook ups and orgies" - I knew of bugchasing but I didn't know enough to start mentioning these forums or the app - and they'd look at me and tell me "you're making that up" or "gay people aren't that gross" or "that's just stories that far right chuds make up"
Oh the little they do know. I wish this OP / thread can become like the tranny threads that make people question and even reject going through HRT, but for homos.
It takes some effort to set-up a server and a community with xenforo for this shit. It's a whole entire fucking different level to set-up a whole app and service for hooking up and in-the-spot orgies.
I sometimes tell my friends "the gays are fucking disgusting and they are all over social media to do hook ups and orgies" - I knew of bugchasing but I didn't know enough to start mentioning these forums or the app - and they'd look at me and tell me "you're making that up" or "gay people aren't that gross" or "that's just stories that far right chuds make up"
Oh the little they do know. I wish this OP / thread can become like the tranny threads that make people question and even reject going through HRT, but for homos.
- Joined
- May 8, 2022
it's my first time hearing about it if you want me to be honest. ill do more research and include in the OP
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2022
I have a bisexual buddy from back in the day. While he thankfully never encountered a bugchaser, he would talk about how many gay men ONLY cared about sex. Like, any chats were just a matter of getting laid. Little to no relationship values there. I recall the sheer vitriol he had talking about their obsession. One of the only times I heard someone IRL use "faggot" as an outright slur without chuckling about a bundle of sticks. I've maintained since that day it's a mixture of a fetish and bizarre pride. Like, if you catch an STD, it PROVES you're not a gay virgin or something.
Bugchasers should single-handedly force us to re-evaluate the idea of evolution; they wouldn't have been around for 30 years if we were evolving as a species.
Bugchasers should single-handedly force us to re-evaluate the idea of evolution; they wouldn't have been around for 30 years if we were evolving as a species.
Beastie
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2024
Every platform is a potential hookup platform, not just the well known apps specifically for that. I'm not going to be tmi about my personal life, but you can trust me when I say this.
It's a fetish and mental illness. Bugchasers are profoundly unwell people who need(ed) serious psychological help, but instead found online communities of fucked up people like them.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2024
I've been chasing this bug for years, this must be the thread for me.
What do you mean "breeder"?
What do you mean "breeder"?
- Joined
- May 8, 2022
“Breeding.zone sounds like a cool website to learn how to make insects reproduce!”
Unstable Diffusion
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2023
Well I am aware that the most popular platforms, the head being Tinder, are hookup platforms, but you cannot compare me "90% of women being whores with most if not all pics showing her tits with the e-girl camera angle with the purpose of fucking a 180cm chad" to "I'll create a meet up spot right now and literally any stranger can show up with the purpose of drinking piss and cumming inside each other". The later is magnitudes worse IMO.
- Joined
- May 8, 2022
i know the answer is obvious but what the fuck has to happen in your life to where you a bottoming cum dumpster faggot that rant and raves about spreading AIDS like it’s gospel
it makes you want to stay away from faggots for a very long time
it makes you want to stay away from faggots for a very long time
UsedUp
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2021
Destiny enters the thread.
Hellbound Hellhound
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
This is true. The crucial reason you don't see the same level of depravity among straight people is because female vigilance and sexual selectivity normally act as a kind of gatekeeper against it. It's not that heterosexual men are less likely to be hypersexual deviants with self-destructive desires than gay men are (you only have to look at the disturbing things which are popular in the porn that straight men consume to know this), it's simply that there is far less opportunity to turn said fantasies into reality when your only option for an accomplice is a woman.
The problem the gay community has is that it lacks the same degree of self-regulation for the reasons above, at least on an individual level. LGBT organizations will often try to provide some surrogate regulation in the form of information campaigns about the dangers of risky sexual practices (like the ones in this thread), but the community really should be doing more. Nobody should be catching HIV from consensual sex in 2024.
- Joined
- May 8, 2022
okay i think im done with this thread
let me know if there's any more work to be done
I'm pozzed out
let me know if there's any more work to be done
I'm pozzed out
- Joined
- May 26, 2024
thank you for another round of excellent work.
Still, why aren't HIV-negatives just called neggars?