Hiv Positive Assumption

winesthel945

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Posts
559
Media
13
Likes
1,896
Points
313
Location
San Francisco (California, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Not at all. They might be on PrEP which, when taken according to the recommended regimen, still has over 99% record of preventing HIV infection.

Remember also that you can be HIV+, but if you're on your meds and maintaining an undetectable status, then you are incapable of transmitting the virus to another.

To put it another way: an HIV- person on PrEP who has unprotected sex with an HIV+ undetectable person is, statistically speaking, safer from contracting HIV than if you plucked two random people from the population and made them have sex.

For reference, here's the Centers for Disease Control statement about Undetectable = Untransmittable. HIV Treatment as Prevention | HIV Risk and Prevention | HIV/AIDS | CDC
 

Nudistpig

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 26, 2017
Posts
1,596
Media
5
Likes
3,699
Points
258
Location
Toronto (Ontario, Canada)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
"When I lost my virginity to my breeder he lies to me and I got knocked up by him"

Lost virginity...breeder...knocked up.

That's very interesting language for someone who was "lied" to.
 

Infernal

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Posts
3,565
Media
7
Likes
5,139
Points
593
Age
54
Location
Phoenix, Arizona, United States of America
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I see people saying they are "clean" and while they may not have HIV, they have other STI's that they are spreading around. Herpes won't kill you, but that doesn't mean I want it. I also see people who are HIV+ saying they are negative because they are on PreP. It's not the same thing. Figure out what the acceptable risk is for you, and own the choices you make. I don't care how hot your ass or cock is, I won't bareback with anyone. I leave that for porn.
 

Pistol

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 22, 2018
Posts
74
Media
40
Likes
1,977
Points
193
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
69% Gay, 31% Straight
Gender
Male
As someone who works with and advocates a lot for the HIV community, I will say this: there are people who will not have sex with a person with HIV, regardless of using condoms, regardless of using PrEP (which makes the risk essentially zero), and regardless of U=U (i.e., a person with HIV having undetectable viral load being completely incapable of spreading the virus). In other words, regardless of the risk, and even without a conversation about the risk, people with HIV are automatically rejected a significant portion of the time. Meanwhile, people who think they are negative a responsible for about half of all new infections, but "negative" people are not stigmatized.We all need to examine our own biases and eliminate HIV stigma so that this thread is unnecessary because people are having honest conversations without fear of harmful othering.(This is not directed to anyone on this thread, by the way.)

Assume everyone has HIV... nothing wrong with that. And protect yourselves in whatever way you feel is appropriate--just as long as you're not an asshole about it based on someone's HIV status, known or unknown. (Again, not directed at anyone here.) That solves a lot of the problem.

Thanks for listening.
 

Nudistpig

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 26, 2017
Posts
1,596
Media
5
Likes
3,699
Points
258
Location
Toronto (Ontario, Canada)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
As someone who works with and advocates a lot for the HIV community, I will say this: there are people who will not have sex with a person with HIV, regardless of using condoms, regardless of using PrEP (which makes the risk essentially zero), and regardless of U=U (i.e., a person with HIV having undetectable viral load being completely incapable of spreading the virus). In other words, regardless of the risk, and even without a conversation about the risk, people with HIV are automatically rejected a significant portion of the time. Meanwhile, people who think they are negative a responsible for about half of all new infections, but "negative" people are not stigmatized.We all need to examine our own biases and eliminate HIV stigma so that this thread is unnecessary because people are having honest conversations without fear of harmful othering.(This is not directed to anyone on this thread, by the way.)

Assume everyone has HIV... nothing wrong with that. And protect yourselves in whatever way you feel is appropriate--just as long as you're not an asshole about it based on someone's HIV status, known or unknown. (Again, not directed at anyone here.) That solves a lot of the problem.

Thanks for listening.

100%. And the failure rate for condoms in anal sex is MUCH higher than the failure of PrEP (which statistically has no failures at three known cases in hundreds of thousands of users/acts etc, all three of which have explanations not related to the effectiveness of the treatment itself). Condom failure is measured from 4 to 12% in a recent, wide ranging, methodologically sound study. That is, over the millions of annual uses, and the epidemic's length a staggering number of transmissions.
 

SpeedThePlow

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Posts
113
Media
0
Likes
179
Points
88
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Some very good posts above. Quite a lot of this seems to be common sense, but it's really bad how much common sense just flies out of the window in relation to this.

Obviously the sensible (and the *only* sensible) assumption if having sex with a person you don't know well enough to trust is that they may be +. Unless they were tested yesterday (no, scrub that, *even* if they were tested yesterday) *and* they are being 100 percent honest, there's a risk. It's *our* responsibility to decide whether we will take that risk, and to do the things (condoms, PrEP) that reduce or eliminate it. And to campaign, wherever we can, to make those things widely available and widely understood. It's a scandal that anyone is infected nowadays, and it's a scandal based on the fact that in many places gay sex is still stigmatised. Can you believe that in England, on the NHS, you can't just get PrEP by going to your GP? Can you believe that I recently met a general practice doctor who didn't even know what it was?

But *because* that's the sensible and the only sensible assumption, we should not be stigmatising people who are + and say they are by treating them as pariahs. These are risks for all of us that we can all manage and take responsibility for. The insistence (which I'm afraid is all too common) that + people should be responsible for "warning" the "clean" guys (look at the language, and how it drips with judgment) is completely off beam. I daresay that apps like Grindr think they are being responsible encouraging people to "share" this information, but really it's sort of the reverse: it encourages a totally false sense of security (where none is justified) and a totally false judgmentalism (where none is justified). When we stigmatise those who are + we are just contributing to the vicious cycle in which people -- often especially young vulnerable people -- put their head in the sand and the problem ends up getting worse. If we could get everyone who needs it on PrEP, get everyone to test often, and get those who test + onto the right drug regimen quickly we could more or less lick this thing, and we won't do that unless these outdated and ill-informed and moralistic attitudes are finally trashed. We'd still have a deal of work to do on other STDs, but at least that would be progress.

So to answer the OP's question. If someone asks for only bareback sex, it means they want only bareback sex. No point speculating whether they are or are not +. They could well be. They might not be. It's not worth trying to figure it out, and you can't. You have to decide if it's a risk you are prepared to take.
 

Pistol

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 22, 2018
Posts
74
Media
40
Likes
1,977
Points
193
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
69% Gay, 31% Straight
Gender
Male
Ever heard of "informed consent"?

"Informed consent" is a made-up legal term used to punish people who have HIV. And yes, I am a lawyer.

Ever wonder why "informed consent" is not applied to other medical conditions? Ever wonder why the burden is on the person with HIV to "protect" another person (by mandatory disclosure, rather than other means), people who can make their own choices? Did you know that "informed consent" has been used to send people with HIV to jail, sometimes for decades, even though they could not and did not transmit the virus--indeed, did not even place anyone at risk, either because they responsibly used a condom and/or had an undetectable viral load? Did you know that while things like "informed consent" force people with HIV to disclose their status, nothing prevents the recipient of that information from using it against them, including by committing violence or publicly disclosing it (often leading to additional adverse outcomes, like the loss of family and friends and the loss of jobs). Did you know that things like "informed consent" place people with HIV in legal jeopardy because spiteful or jilted former lovers sometimes lie and, even though they gave "informed consent" all along, tell police that they did not? And that no one ever believes the word of a person with HIV over a person who does not have HIV?

I'm guessing you did not wonder or know those things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mister2101

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,358
Media
30
Likes
6,518
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
So how is it relevant here again? Must've missed that.

Informed consent has become a broadly agreed upon ethical standard, including for sexual ethics. If one has sex with someone without informing them of extraordinary risks involved, then one is not doing one's partner the courtesy of providing them information that is relevant to making an informed choice. I am of the opinion that everyone with such a relevant condition should be informing their sexual partners as a norm. That doesn't just include HIV (I'd be more sympathetic if it's someone who is diligent with their medication and consistently shows up with an undetectable viral load), but any significant STI, or other extraordinary conditions relevant to sex (say, if one has a heart condition with considerably odds of having a heart attack in a sex act). If one refuses to inform one's sex partners of conditions one knows may impact them, then I will not withhold making judgmental remarks about it. I anticipate some HIV+ individuals will complain about how much less sex they would be having if they were expected to do this, but I don't care. Inconvenience is no excuse for being inconsiderate.