Would you ever bottom bareback for a person who is HIV+ and 'undetectable'

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2014 12:42 AM GMT
    Receptive anal sex is the highest risk of transmission of HIV, given the confidence of the medical fraternity of their new drug treatments, (insert your own minimum time scale you would consider bare back for an HIV- guy). If you are HIV neg I especially am interested in your responses
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2014 1:21 AM GMT
    Would you ever bottom bareback for a person who is HIV+ and 'undetectable'

    Never. What's my assurance that he's undetectable RIGHT NOW? Or that he's EVER been undetectable, except his own word for it? Is that like letting a guy bareback you because he TELLS you he's completely negative?

    And what does "undetectable" mean? Merely that his viral load is below detection thresholds. It does NOT mean he no longer is carrying the virus. You wanna take that chance with him?

    My poz partner used to top me, but wearing a condom. Meaning that I don't have an inordinate fear of HIV, or a prejudice. But letting a poz guy bareback me is totally out of the question.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 08, 2014 9:30 AM GMT
    I also wouldn't do it but there seems to be some big claims about how undetectable HIV positive is safe and wouldn't enduce transmission so I think it's worth seeing who would 'put their money where there mouth is' and take the ultimate leap of faith that some of them have been saying others should take
  • vhotti26

    Posts: 287

    Oct 08, 2014 12:23 PM GMT
    Definitely no. I wouldn't do bareback ever, anyway.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 09, 2014 12:17 AM GMT
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 saidI also wouldn't do it but there seems to be some big claims about how undetectable HIV positive is safe and wouldn't enduce transmission so I think it's worth seeing who would 'put their money where there mouth is' and take the ultimate leap of faith that some of them have been saying others should take

    Some of the guys pushing the strongest for barebacking are in fact already positive themelves. Selfish personal agenda, maybe? From guys whose own past judgment must be called into question.

    Though I'm glad to note that many poz guys are in fact the greatest advocates for following proven safe sex practices, as recommended by the majority of the medical community.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 09, 2014 12:23 AM GMT
    How about bottoming for somebody who is HIV negative...but Hepatitis C positive?
    Or, for somebody who has herpes?
    Or, for somebody who has...(fill in the blank)?

    Just because HIV is a "chronic manageable condition" doesn't mean there aren't other STDs out there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 09, 2014 1:08 AM GMT
    I totally agree but the absence of responses of the RJ members who where advocating that an undetectable status is safe to bareback is deafening. Seems when the real question is put out there the selfish retoric disappears
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Oct 09, 2014 6:00 PM GMT
    Eww, no. Why would I flirt with disaster? First, science is not perfect. Second, there are other diseases besides HIV that you could catch.

    I would ONLY bareback in a monogamous relationship, after we'd both quartined the requisite months and then tested negative for HIV, hepatitis, etc., before I'd barebcak. And even then, I readily admit you're literally placing your life/health in the hand's of your "boyfriend" or partner/husband. It's a calculated risk, and one I've only take once in my life (my current B/F). We still regularly test (OraQuick oral swabs every four months or so, 40 bucks a test but cheaper than HIV meds) and remain open and honest, reaffirming our commitment to monogamy, or to telling the person if/when we slip/cheat. It's a gamble for sure.

    But bareback with a poz guy? That literally sounds like subconscious suicide or weird-masochism.

    And this is coming from a guy who WOULD have anal sex with poz guy on meds who wore a condom.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 09, 2014 9:45 PM GMT
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 saidI totally agree but the absence of responses of the RJ members who where advocating that an undetectable status is safe to bareback is deafening. Seems when the real question is put out there the selfish retoric disappears


    On this site? Please!

    I hope you don't think in anyway this is a scientific "study".

    As I've pointed out there is a dearth of POZ people on here in general.....1%. There isn't even a "undetectable" check mark for profiles. Here slut shaming and anti-POZ statements run rampant. This site is NOT POZ friendly.

    That you think "undetectable" is selfish rhetoric says it all. It isn't selfish! It protects the negative partner.


    From the CDC: "In addition to the positive impact it can have on a person’s health and well-being, people who start and continue treatment are 96 percent less likely to transmit HIV to others. Treatment for health and prevention is a key element in CDC’s HIV prevention toolkit."

    I do know Negative guys who BB with Undetectable men, only. And they are still negative. I don't fuck with negative guys...too many mental hang ups, poor HIV education and a phobia/bias generally.

    Ask MMTM's partner. Aren't they in a sero-discordant relationship?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 09, 2014 10:16 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 saidI also wouldn't do it but there seems to be some big claims about how undetectable HIV positive is safe and wouldn't enduce transmission so I think it's worth seeing who would 'put their money where there mouth is' and take the ultimate leap of faith that some of them have been saying others should take

    Some of the guys pushing the strongest for barebacking are in fact already positive themelves. Selfish personal agenda, maybe? From guys whose own past judgment must be called into question.

    Though I'm glad to note that many poz guys are in fact the greatest advocates for following proven safe sex practices, as recommended by the majority of the medical community.


    Art Deco, that's one problem you can't seem to understand. I'm not "pushing" anyone to bareback! 53% already do. That is a mathematical and social FACT.
    TasP is a strategy that is effective even without condoms. Condomless sex has never gone away. And the whole "Condoms Only" campaign was a flawed strategy. But it was all we had then. In combination TasP has, for the first time ever, reduced HIV transmissions across the globe. 33% here. 41% in S Africa, 73% in Malawi.

    You should be ashamed at your shut shaming (From guys whose own past judgment must be called into question.) Did you slut shame your ex-lover for being positive? Was it daily, weekly? Was he aware you thought his judgements were always questionable.

    This thread is an insult to all the people involved, Gay and Straight, in the Swiss and Partner's Study. The implication being they are stupid and ignorant in their relationships. In the Partner's Study alone there were over 40,000 sexual acts.....and no HIV transmissions. Chances are "at most 4%". So if this was Russian Roulette, it might be 1 bullet in a 100,000 chamber gun. Not "literally sounds like subconscious suicide or weird-masochism."

    No transmissions is not the same as zero chance of transmission. The researchers calculated the 95% confidence intervals for the results seen. What this means is that they calculated the odds of zero transmissions being the ‘true’ figure and what the maximum possible risk of transmission was, given the results seen.

  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Oct 10, 2014 2:03 AM GMT
    "This thread is an insult to all the people involved, Gay and Straight, in the Swiss and Partner's Study. The implication being they are stupid and ignorant in their relationships. In the Partner's Study alone there were over 40,000 sexual acts.....and no HIV transmissions. Chances are "at most 4%". So if this was Russian Roulette, it might be 1 bullet in a 100,000 chamber gun. Not "literally sounds like subconscious suicide or weird-masochism."


    Or if this were a Russian Roulette, it'd be, like 1 bullet in a 25 chamber gun, or 4,000 bullets in a 100,000 chamber gun.

    Math and all.
  • vhotti26

    Posts: 287

    Oct 10, 2014 2:31 PM GMT
    timmm55 said Here slut shaming and anti-POZ statements run rampant. This site is NOT POZ friendly.


    Not barebacking with an undetectable poz guy and saying so is NOT being anti-poz. it is being responsible.

    This site is not unfriendly to poz guys, but it is definitely (and rightly so) unfriendly to pozzers advocating bareback sex; at least as far as I am concerned.

    I am advocating condoms. Not sure why anyone in his right mind would consider this slut shaming or anti-poz.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 10, 2014 2:56 PM GMT
    It is friendly to poz guys and this 'slut shamming' is something timms55 made up. I make no pretence that as a single gay male I have plenty of sex like many do. I also do not discriminate people who are poz provided protection is used. This is not aimed at people who are doing the right thing, it's aimed at those who simply don't care if they pass it on and the things that they want in place to provide protection to get away with poor behaviour. They are a minority but they are around and due to this idea being spread that undetectable means you can't pass HIV on is ludicrous and should be exposed as so
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 10, 2014 5:38 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said"This thread is an insult to all the people involved, Gay and Straight, in the Swiss and Partner's Study. The implication being they are stupid and ignorant in their relationships. In the Partner's Study alone there were over 40,000 sexual acts.....and no HIV transmissions. Chances are "at most 4%". So if this was Russian Roulette, it might be 1 bullet in a 100,000 chamber gun. Not "literally sounds like subconscious suicide or weird-masochism."


    Or if this were a Russian Roulette, it'd be, like 1 bullet in a 25 chamber gun, or 4,000 bullets in a 100,000 chamber gun.

    Math and all.


    Math? What is 0:40,000?

    "This represents an average follow-up of 14 months for each couple, although average follow-up for heterosexual men and women was longer than for gay male couples. The interim analysis estimated that the true risk of transmission lies somewhere between zero and 1% a year for anal sex generally. In the case of anal sex with ejaculation where the HIV-negative partner was receptive the risk is estimated to lie between zero and 4% per year; as follow-up continues, our estimate of the true likelihood may edge nearer to zero.

    The researchers report that if the HIV-positive partners had not been on treatment in this group, a median of 86 transmissions would have been expected in the gay couples, and 15 transmissions in heterosexual couples."

    There were 282 gay couples.

    The 4% is the upper confidence level

    Insight into HIV transmission risk when the viral load is undetectable and no condom is used
    "One way of measuring certainty is to use confidence limits. Confidence limits take into account the potential effects of chance and suggest a range of values that likely encompass the “true” risk. In the PARTNER study, investigators calculated upper confidence limits for the risk of HIV transmission per sex act and over time. The “upper confidence limit” provides an estimate of the highest possible transmission risk that is consistent with the study results.

    For this study, upper confidence limits can be interpreted as follows:

    It is extremely likely that the “true” risk is somewhere between 0% and the upper confidence limit.
    It is extremely unlikely that the “true” risk is above the upper confidence limit.

    The upper confidence limit is particularly important when a study finds zero risk because it gives some indication of how close to zero the “true” risk is likely to be."

    http://www.catie.ca/en/catienews/2014-04-10/insight-hiv-transmission-risk-when-viral-load-undetectable-and-no-condom-used
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 10, 2014 5:47 PM GMT
    Your agenda is very clear thank you for re-enforcing what all the members here already know which is that you are attempting to advocate BB sex between poz tops and negative bottoms well done
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 10, 2014 6:42 PM GMT
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 saidIt is friendly to poz guys and this 'slut shamming' is something timms55 made up. I make no pretence that as a single gay male I have plenty of sex like many do. I also do not discriminate people who are poz provided protection is used. This is not aimed at people who are doing the right thing, it's aimed at those who simply don't care if they pass it on and the things that they want in place to provide protection to get away with poor behaviour. They are a minority but they are around and due to this idea being spread that undetectable means you can't pass HIV on is ludicrous and should be exposed as so


    So the CDC is "ludicrous"?
    "“Today, not only can HIV treatment save lives, it can help stop a national epidemic in its tracks,” said Jonathan Mermin, M.D., M.P.H., director of CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention. “Our goal is to help everyone with HIV know the tremendous health benefits treatment offers to them and the protection it provides to their partners.

    In addition to the positive impact it can have on a person’s health and well-being, people who start and continue treatment are 96 percent less likely to transmit HIV to others. Treatment for health and prevention is a key element in CDC’s HIV prevention toolkit. ”

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/2014/HIV-Treatment-Works-press-release.html

    If you are HIV POZ, ART Therapy (TasP) is the "right thing to do" in becoming undetectable. If you are POZ and detectable do not rely on condoms alone. With a failure rate of 20% condoms are NOT that safe.

    I have absolutely no intention of ever passing on the HIV virus. 1) I am undetectable 2) I don't date Negative men.
    To say I "don't care if I pass it on" is ludicrous, spurious and contemptuous. Because you don't agree with me about TasP, you resort to Slut Shaming, as Larry Kramer has done with Truvada "Whores". I didn't make it up. BTW If you are having sex with detectable POZ guys, top or bottom, even with condoms, you are MORE at risk.

    Larry Kramer is anti-sex. "By burying these voices, “The Normal Heart” in effect attacks the memory of all those who suffered along with Kramer (without the foresight to share his position). The incongruity of settling old scores now, the insistent focus on the unique and exemplary suffering of white gay men and the vilification of sex as the true culprit are untenable as histories. They can serve only to spotlight a personal story about a mass event and cast the rest in shadow."
    http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/5/probing-larry-kramersnormalheart.html

    One pro Truvada comment:
    "What if.... and I'm just saying, what if everyone was taking this drug and it eventually wipes the disease out? Wouldn't that be a good thing? Calling men cowards for using the pill and not a condom is a bit, well ok, very stupid. How are you a coward for being cautious?"

    An equally stupid slut shamer, Michael Weinstein from the AHF says "If something comes along that's better than condoms, I'm all for it, but Truvada is not that," he said a few weeks ago. "Let's be honest: It's a party drug."
    http://instinctmagazine.com/post/president-largest-hiv-aids-foundation-us-stands-labeling-truvada-party-drug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 10, 2014 7:21 PM GMT
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 saidYour agenda is very clear thank you for re-enforcing what all the members here already know which is that you are attempting to advocate BB sex between poz tops and negative bottoms well done


    My "Agenda"? Attempting to advocate? The earth is round?

    My agenda is for you to stay out of other people's bedrooms and quit attacking their choices. Participants in the Partner's Study, all magnetic couples, Gay and Straight were all consenting and informed.

    And no HIV was transmitted. That's very clear from several studies. That's science. If "all the members here" know that PrEP and ART Therapy will prevent HIV transmission then NO ONE on this site should become POSITIVE!

    You, on the other hand are at a much higher risk.

    1) You have sex indiscriminately but with condoms. They break and slip. Good 80% of the time. Not so good 20%!

    2) You seem to distinguish top/bottom and poz/neg in the sexual roles. While it is somewhat safer to be a Neg Top, don't rely on that.

    "It’s technically less likely to be infected as the top than the bottom, although the risk isn’t eliminated. According to a study in Australia, around 1 in 5 men who recently contracted HIV were tops. In a research study published in 2007, among a sample size of 102 gay and bi men who were recently diagnosed HIV-positive, 10 of them were infected despite ‘strategic positioning’."

    http://thesexyouwant.ca/guys-on-top-and-hiv.html
    Even with a condom, factoring in a 10-20% failure rate.....these are the risk factors you and all of us choose.

    Maybe it's one, two or three preventative things. PrEP, serosorting, Undetectable, condoms, ‘strategic positioning' are all effective...to some degree. Serosorting alone is actually dangerous by itself.

    If you asked me, "Can a monogamous long term couple, Neg/undetectable have "natural" sex?" First of all, it's up to them and their doctor. But yes, TasP has proven to be effective and safe. Is it 100%? No, but It seems to be near if not actually zero. If you disagree that's fine. There's always blips and spikes, but that doesn't seem to have caused any HIV transmissions. Everyone has a comfort level. That isn't science though.

    The CDC has weighed in with it's opinion: "In addition to the positive impact it can have on a person’s health and well-being, people who start and continue treatment are 96 percent less likely to transmit HIV to others. Treatment for health and prevention is a key element in CDC’s HIV prevention toolkit."

    But to accuse me of a "BB Agenda" (that sounds so Right Wing silly!) is just Slut Shaming and disingenuous. And definitely NOT scientifically based.
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4433

    Oct 10, 2014 7:46 PM GMT
    Sydneyrugby starts two or three of these threads every day. He insults anyone who disagrees with him (in his mind) and is just generally a rude, intrusive presence on this site. He's totally Westboro. Admin needs to start weeding out these repetitious, unpleasant jerks with their suspect agendas. My guess is he was the worst slut in Sydney and is POS. And feels it is now his crusade against anyone who acts like he did. What an asshole.

    (Watch, he'll now accuse me of advocating all kinds of behaviors he wants to bitch about.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 10, 2014 8:25 PM GMT
    Destinharbor saidSydneyrugby starts two or three of these threads every day. He insults anyone who disagrees with him (in his mind) and is just generally a rude, intrusive presence on this site. He's totally Westboro. Admin needs to start weeding out these repetitious, unpleasant jerks with their suspect agendas. My guess is he was the worst slut in Sydney and is POS. And feels it is now his crusade against anyone who acts like he did. What an asshole.

    (Watch, he'll now accuse me of advocating all kinds of behaviors he wants to bitch about.)

    I think you nailed it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 10, 2014 8:36 PM GMT
    timmm55 said

    [Art Deco] Did you slut shame your ex-lover for being positive? Was it daily, weekly? Was he aware you thought his judgements were always questionable.

    My late husband was betrayed by a previous partner he believed to be monogamous. That partner cheated and became poz, and then infected my future husband.

    My late husband was never a slut, but monogamous. I've told that story here before, to stress that even when you bareback with a long-term partner, you place your life in his hands, as he does with you. If one of you cheats, the other may also pay the consequences.

    But your erroneous assumptions are insutling & hurtful. My husband did nothing wrong, except to trust in his partner. He literally died in my arms, after I cared for him daily for an extended period. I expect an apology.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 10, 2014 9:00 PM GMT
    vhotti26 said
    timmm55 said Here slut shaming and anti-POZ statements run rampant. This site is NOT POZ friendly.


    Not barebacking with an undetectable poz guy and saying so is NOT being anti-poz. it is being responsible.

    This site is not unfriendly to poz guys, but it is definitely (and rightly so) unfriendly to pozzers advocating bareback sex; at least as far as I am concerned.

    I am advocating condoms. Not sure why anyone in his right mind would consider this slut shaming or anti-poz.


    Most bigots don't consider themselves racist, because "I loved my black Mammy!" But by God if they want to be equals the world is going to hell, over my dead body!

    As long as I agree to the Condoms, only then am I responsible? So a couple from the Partner's Study is being irresponsible by not using condoms.....and NOT transmitting HIV?

    Never mind what the CDC says: "In addition to the positive impact it can have on a person’s health and well-being, people who start and continue treatment are 96 percent less likely to transmit HIV to others. Treatment for health and prevention is a key element in CDC’s HIV prevention toolkit.

    HIV Treatment Works is the latest campaign of CDC’s Act Against AIDS initiative, a national communication campaign to combat complacency about HIV in the United States. The campaign also advances the National HIV/AIDS Strategy, which includes decreasing the number of new infections, reducing stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV, and educating Americans about the threat of HIV and how to prevent it."
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/2014/HIV-Treatment-Works-press-release.html

    (and rightly so) unfriendly
    As a statement that says you feel perfectly happy and justified in your limited knowledge to be judgmental and ill informed.

    Dumb and proud!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 10, 2014 9:04 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    timmm55 said

    [Art Deco] Did you slut shame your ex-lover for being positive? Was it daily, weekly? Was he aware you thought his judgements were always questionable.

    My late husband was betrayed by a previous partner he believed to be monogamous. That partner cheated and became poz, and then infected my future husband.

    My late husband was never a slut, but monogamous. I've told that story here before, to stress that even when you bareback with a long-term partner, you place your life in his hands, as he does with you. If one of you cheats, the other may also pay the consequences.

    But your erroneous assumptions are insutling & hurtful. My husband did nothing wrong, except to trust in his partner. He literally died in my arms, after I cared for him daily for an extended period. I expect an apology.


    You say SHIT like this to discredit any POZ people who disagree with you: "Some of the guys pushing the strongest for barebacking are in fact already positive themelves. Selfish personal agenda, maybe? From guys whose own past judgment must be called into question."

    You trot out your dead ex for sympathy at the drop of a hat. So he's innocent and anybody who disagrees with you deserves AIDS? You've lied about his condition to promote your theories.

    YOU WANT AN APOLOGY?

    You FIRST! You've been an absolute ass to me ever since I brought up undetectable.

    art deco:
    "You are a fucking nut case. I think you need to just give it up, along with your campaign for negative men to have bareback sex, and go away. Any seconds to that?"

    "....his twisted imagination, because we won't endorse his sick campaign for bareback sex with poz guys."

    "I think there's an old adage that too much information can be a dangerous thing. Especially in the hands of those who aren't smart enough to understand it. I think we've witnessed a classic example of it right here in this thread, and in a few others on this topic. "

    "... if I knew about a man like that I would report him to the health authorities. That would be saving other lives. Hate to sound so Right Wing and Conservative (me of all people) but there's a greater good involved here. Your friend, as you describe him, is a health menace. He should be stopped."

    (Below, This may be the GOLD standard of ignorance!)

    "So all this BS about sex being safe with an undetectable poz guy is just medical talk dealing with controlled conditions. That has no application, bearing or relevance to the real world situations in which you & I actually operate. And such basic medical research shouldn't be misinterpreted to be providing guidance as to how gay men should behave sexually with each other."

    "....but are you saying he now endorses a full-blown looney like you?"

    "So also an interesting clash building between theantijock and timmm55, if I'm able to follow this stuff correctly. I recall a movie called "Clash of the Titans"; perhaps this is the "Clash of the Turds"."

    All the above is from ONE thread! Countless other accusations and insults.

    "From guys whose own past judgment must be called into question."
  • vhotti26

    Posts: 287

    Oct 10, 2014 9:22 PM GMT
    timmm55 said

    So the CDC is "ludicrous"?


    YOU are ludicrous. And sad. And just another reason to bang my head against a brick wall. People like you are the reason why HIV is spreading faster than ever with young guys.
    Bareback porn is bad enough for putting the images out there, but people like you who are actively trying to persuade others that it's okay to fuck a poz guy (or anyone for that matter) without a rubber should be forbidden.

    So please, please go back to the nuthouse where you belong and don't bother us with your bullcrap every other day.

    In no way am I discriminating HIV+ guys. In no way am I 'slut shaming'. I am a huge slut myself, I am promiscuous and have been so for years now. I have had sex with well over a hundred different men since I first started having sex and there was absolutely no way at all I could have been sure that there was no HIV+ guy among them.

    But I always used protection. Regardless of status. Using a condom on a guy whose status I don't know and not using it with someone who is undetectable is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.
    I use a condom. Always. No exception. If you are even proposing barebacking, I won't get down with you. Using a condom should be a total matter of course for anyone who is even remotely sleeping around.

    And you know what? You might find this preposterous, but there are more STIs than HIV. Stuff that, with todays good HIV medication, is just as bad as HIV.

    And, breaking news, you could have that. How would I know? Maybe you don't even know yourself. How do I know if you are telling me the truth? I can't and that's why I will always use a condom.

    And no, not even if I were in a monogamous relationship with him would I go bareback with a HIV+ partner. Why? Cause the chance is still there. That's what you don't seem to get. It is diminished, but it is still there. Wake up, fuckhead. One medication mistake, one day of less than optimal health condition and boom. Contracted. Thanks, but no thanks.

    You can quote your studies as long as you want to, but you will always remain an absolute imbecile. I wish more young gays would stand up and say no to tools like you. But instead they see this crap in porn and think 'oh well, that's okay for me too I guess'.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 10, 2014 9:25 PM GMT
    vhotti26 said
    timmm55 said

    So the CDC is "ludicrous"?


    You can quote your studies as long as you want to, but you will always remain an absolute imbecile.


    I believe that makes YOU a fool.

    Not sure why you are so defensive.
    NO ONE is telling you not to use a condom, you know that, right? It isn't either/or.

    That ranks right up in the with Art Deco's

    ""So all this BS about sex being safe with an undetectable poz guy is just medical talk dealing with controlled conditions. That has no application, bearing or relevance to the real world situations in which you & I actually operate. And such basic medical research shouldn't be misinterpreted to be providing guidance as to how gay men should behave sexually with each other."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 10, 2014 9:33 PM GMT
    vhotti26 said
    timmm55 said

    So the CDC is "ludicrous"?


    YOU are ludicrous. And sad. And just another reason to bang my head against a brick wall. People like you are the reason why HIV is spreading faster than ever with young guys.
    Bareback porn is bad enough for putting the images out there, but people like you who are actively trying to persuade others that it's okay to fuck a poz guy (or anyone for that matter) without a rubber should be forbidden.

    So please, please go back to the nuthouse where you belong and don't bother us with your bullcrap every other day.

    In no way am I discriminating HIV+ guys. In no way am I 'slut shaming'. I am a huge slut myself, I am promiscuous and have been so for years now. I have had sex with well over a hundred different men since I first started having sex and there was absolutely no way at all I could have been sure that there was no HIV+ guy among them.

    But I always used protection. Regardless of status. Using a condom on a guy whose status I don't know and not using it with someone who is undetectable is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.
    I use a condom. Always. No exception. If you are even proposing barebacking, I won't get down with you. Using a condom should be a total matter of course for anyone who is even remotely sleeping around.

    And you know what? You might find this preposterous, but there are more STIs than HIV. Stuff that, with todays good HIV medication, is just as bad as HIV.

    And, breaking news, you could have that. How would I know? Maybe you don't even know yourself. How do I know if you are telling me the truth? I can't and that's why I will always use a condom.

    And no, not even if I were in a monogamous relationship with him would I go bareback with a HIV+ partner. Why? Cause the chance is still there. That's what you don't seem to get. It is diminished, but it is still there. Wake up, fuckhead. One medication mistake, one day of less than optimal health condition and boom. Contracted. Thanks, but no thanks.

    You can quote your studies as long as you want to, but you will always remain an absolute imbecile. I wish more young gays would stand up and say no to tools like you. But instead they see this crap in porn and think 'oh well, that's okay for me too I guess'.


    So oh WISE ONE, what do YOU propose the CDC do for the 53% who don't use condoms?