Bareback

[Nudistpig]

It's ok, I'm not offended or taking anything personally when we discuss things. I hope you feel the same way.

I'm just going by statements made by the other organizations which put the effectiveness as low as 92 percent.

I'm don't think it's disingenuous to question study methodology. I am basically agreeing with you.

People lie, they say they take PrEP consistently and don't. Their positive results contaminate the data. So basically I was leaving the door open to an effectiveness higher than low 90s. Your examples of ruling out outliers is essentially an example of questioning the data as well.

K. The caveat is always you need to take the treatment correctly in order to for it to work. Clinical trials don't put the data from those who didn't follow the protocol in effectiveness. PrEP is 99.99% effective if you take the damn shit.

If you don't... then it don't work. Let me explain how the controls on this study work. They gave the drugs to patients DAILY. They took bloods frequently to measure the levels of the meds. The reliability of the data is impeccable. The study was conducted this way precisely for reasons you raise. No one not taking their meds nor lying was included in the data. That is such a serious charge of academic misconduct it is almost criminal. I would very much like to see where this info you are citing is from. It's nonsensical.

 

[Nudistpig]

It's ok, I'm not offended or taking anything personally when we discuss things. I hope you feel the same way.

I'm just going by statements made by the other organizations which put the effectiveness as low as 92 percent.

I'm don't think it's disingenuous to question study methodology. I am basically agreeing with you.

People lie, they say they take PrEP consistently and don't. Their positive results contaminate the data. So basically I was leaving the door open to an effectiveness higher than low 90s. Your examples of ruling out outliers is essentially an example of questioning the data as well.

And no. Those three cases are not ruled out. They are included. Statistical insignificance. They were contextualized so folks might understand why they happened. No excluding.

 

[Brodie888]

K. The caveat is always you need to take the treatment correctly in order to for it to work. Clinical trials don't put the data from those who didn't follow the protocol in effectiveness. PrEP is 99.99% effective if you take the damn shit.

If you don't... then it don't work. Let me explain how the controls on this study work. They gave the drugs to patients DAILY. They took bloods frequently to measure the levels of the meds. The reliability of the data is impeccable. The study was conducted this way precisely for reasons you raise. No one not taking their meds nor lying was included in the data. That is such a serious charge of academic misconduct it is almost criminal. I would very much like to see where this info you are citing is from. It's nonsensical.

This came up in quick google search.

Is Truvada, the Pill to Prevent H.I.V., 99 Percent Effective? Don’t Be So Sure

Concerns Raised as Two Men on HIV Prevention Pill Get Infected

Preventing HIV Transmission: How Effective Is PrEP?

 

[uncut7in]

I prefer the feel of bareback though normally use a condom as I have casual contacts. Must admit I did fuck a guy bareback today - he sat on my cock before I reached for the condoms. Didn't seem much point after that, so I finished off fucking him bare and doggy.

 

[bwhip1011]

YES! Always take it bareback.

 

[pwrdick]

A relevant tangent: Those of us who are HIV+ and are undetectable because of our medication regime do not infect their partners, even if there are no condoms involved. The recently published study below found ZERO HIV transmissions after 89,000 sex acts without condoms. Undetectable Meant Zero HIV Transmissions After 89,000 Condomless Sex Acts

Even though I am very compliant with my meds and the HIV level in my blood is undetectable, I continue to only play with other HIV+ guys. After 25 years of eliminating the chance of infecting someone by only playing with other poz guys (and then only without condoms), it's a preference that I remain very comfortable with.

PrEP makes total sense for those who prefer barebacking but are HIV-. The VAST majority of new HIV infections come from people who do not know they are HIV+ and, as previously shared, men will sometimes lie about just being tested. And even if they play with HIV+ guys, they cannot always be sure their partners always remember to take their meds (especially if they are using drugs).

 

[Submissivebottom]

I

How many of youlike it / prefer it / actually do it. Just say yes or no.

I prefer being fucked bareback but always use a rubber with random hook ups it's safer that way

 

[fellatio4ever]

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

 

[LICNYCgay]

I am on PREP and still use condoms. Though I’m going to experiment with an internal (i. e. “Female”) condom next time I go to a sex party. I messed up last time and allowed a guy (who also claimed to be on PrEP) to top me bare. You can read about it on my blog. So I mess up now and then too. But I don’t buy the “I-can’t-feel-anything-with-a-condom” defense of barebacking. If your cock is so desensitized you can’t feel anything when having sex with a condom on, there may be something wrong with your organ. Or it’s psychological.

Now, if I can trust the guy, I love doing it bare too. But not because of lack of physical sensation with a condom. Because I think it’s hot to be injected with cum. So for, I guess, psychological reasons.

 

[1141702]

Those flesh light things designed to anchor into your ass are pretty bad ass, not sure what they are called...

I didn’t even know they existed, someone used one on me and I didn’t even know it. Lol

 

[jdoe86]

Bareback all the way.

 

[1141702]

Fort Troff - Raw Pup

 

[Brodie888]

Fort Troff - Raw Pup

Do you find you still need to douche before using those?

 

[1141702]

Do you find you still need to douche before using those?

I did anyway so not sure, and I would anyway, prostate responds better and you’ll probably be more comfortable.

Technically, probably not. Again, not sure.

 

[Auggiecakes]

Nope. Bareback isn’t something I’m going to be doing anytime soon.

There’s been a massive spike of other STIs since PrEP has been made available on the provincial health plan (i.e. free). Too many people have decided that with HIV basically neutralized, it’s open season again. But PrEP is useless against gonorrhoea, syphilis, herpes, hep C, chlamydia and a couple more STIs.

Using a condom will help reduce most of these other infections and crank the effectiveness of truvada up to essentially 100%. To not use condoms is putting yourself - and your future partners - at risk, willingly.

It’s certainly your choice if you want to go the no-condom route.

For me, however, the choice is pretty damn obvious: I’d rather not contract a bunch of diseases, some still not curable, if I can avoid it. And putting on a condom means I’m reducing the chance of getting them very dramatically. So I’ll stick to that process.

My roommate got prep and eventually I did too. He doesn’t have axe bareback expect with one guy he knows for a very long time and as for myself a though I would take the plunge and do bareback with my fb but last minute I told him to put a condom on.

 

[Thedrewbert]

I bareback. I'm neg and in PrEP. I keep records of my pills and have only missed 3 does in the 2.5 years I've been on it. I also do my testing like clockwork.
. That said, I'm not out fucking around with just anyone. The number of partners I've had in the past 24 months can be counted on one hand. 2 of those partners are poz undetectable and I feel most comfortable getting with them because the risk is at its most minimal.

 

[aries303]

I bareback. I'm on PrEP and get tested regularly as is required when you're on it.

 

[Andrue]

Those flesh light things designed to anchor into your ass are pretty bad ass, not sure what they are called...

I got a Hump Gear version. I think they're calling them "penetrable butt plugs" though that seems to be rather a mouthful. I'm sure there's a more direct name for them by now. They've been around since 2013.

These guys are made of "SilaSkin" a very soft & stretchy material which is considered a semi-porous material. It's about ¼" thick at minimum, yet they state that it is NOT a substitute for a condom. Not sure how the little spermy guys would get through that relatively thick wall of silicone-ish material but that's their claim.

"Remember, this is not a contraceptive or a substitute for a condom. This product is not compatible with latex products. (So much for using this WITH a typical condom) Hump Gear is safe with all lubes... This product is porous. Perfect Fit Brand Products ... are not intended for medical use and have not been clinically tested. No medical claims are warranted or implied by the use of these products."

Maybe it's strictly a way to cover their ass and avert any potential legal issues further on: "But your Honour, we have written right on the package that it isn't a condom substitute!. The Plaintiff really has no case to stand on here if he used it and expected it to be so, contrary to the stated instructions."

It's also VERY easily damaged if left in contact with other toys; make sure to wrap it separately so there's no reaction to other materials.

But it is a nice toy!!

 

[Kosmic]

ABSOLUTELY NOT. I'm not taking that chance.

 

[Big_Dick_Bottom]

Crave it