An inconvenient truth For the bareback lobby

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

    Nov 29, 2014 7:53 AM GMT
    Read this article please as you will have some real perspective on what the BB "free love" agenda is really starting to do to our community.

    http://www.aidsmeds.com/articles/STI_risk_condoms_2042_26103.shtml

    For those who are impatient I've posted the important bits

    emailprint
    September 4, 2014

    Busting The Myth That Condoms Don’t Protect Gay Men Against STIs
    by Benjamin Ryan
    In the age of using antiretrovirals to prevent HIV transmission, some gay men have started to believe that condoms don’t matter at all, even for sexually transmitted infections.

    Now that science is showing us that antiretrovirals can prevent the transmission of HIV, a new conversation about the place of condoms in gay men’s sex lives is taking place. This is thanks, for example, to a study published in July that estimates that Truvada (tenofovir/emtricitabine) as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) lowers the risk of acquiring HIV by 100 percent if gay men take it daily as directed. And other research has suggested that having an undetectable viral load makes HIV-positive guys virtually uninfectious. Hearing all this, some gay guys are questioning whether latex is even needed anymore.

    Sure, when it comes to the threat of HIV transmission, condoms might not be required to officially have “safer sex”—so long as you’re an HIV-negative guy on daily PrEP, or you’re a positive guy who has an undetectable viral load or who’s having sex with another positive guy. But then there’s the threat of other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), which neither PrEP nor antiretroviral treatment for HIV protects against. (Although research suggests Truvada apparently does lower the risk of herpes by about a third.)

    Such an inconvenient truth seems to have spawned a reactionary philosophy among some gay men, which usually goes something like this: “Well, condoms don’t really make any difference when it comes to STIs, because you can get them from oral sex anyway.” In other words, unless you use condoms during blowjobs, then you’re not at a heightened risk of STIs if you ditch the rubbers for anal sex.

    This claim is partly built on fact, but at the end of the day is a myth. Indeed, you can get almost all the major STIs in your throat or around your mouth. (The exceptions are LGV and trichomoniasis.) And those infections can then transmit to another man’s urethra, in the case of bacterial infections, or to his genital area or anus in the case of ulcerative STIs that infect the skin. But the bottom line is this: Using latex for anal intercourse lowers the overall risk of transmitting STIs.

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

    Nov 29, 2014 1:51 PM GMT
    The article is wrong in at least one glaringly important way. The use of Truvada does not reduce the risk of acquiring HIV by 100%; it reduces it by 92%. Yes, the 92% figure is fairly impressive, but I wouldn't want to be amongst the significant 8% who still gets HIV.

    In addition, Truvada has serious side effects. Worse, since it is new, no one knows about the long-term side effects.

    Truvada is apparently a significant advance and may be appropriate for some people; it is clearly not a panacea or replacement for "safer sex".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2014 2:48 PM GMT
    justin_pal saidThe article is wrong in at least one glaringly important way. The use of Truvada does not reduce the risk of acquiring HIV by 100%; it reduces it by 92%. Yes, the 92% figure is fairly impressive, but I wouldn't want to be amongst the significant 8% who still gets HIV.

    In addition, Truvada has serious side effects. Worse, since it is new, no one knows about the long-term side effects.

    Truvada is apparently a significant advance and may be appropriate for some people; it is clearly not a panacea or replacement for "safer sex".

    +1000

    And thank you. I might add a particular concern of mine with barebacking:

    The "unprotected sex with an undetectable guy is safe" myth is not only factually incorrect, but relies upon the truthfulness of the poz guy. How do you KNOW he's undetectable? Because he says he is? Like the guys who tell you they're negative, when they aren't?

    And even if he shows you a lab report, when was it done? Viral loads fluctuate. And are measured in the blood, whereas seminal fluids may retain higher levels of the virus for longer. What is his SEMINAL FLUID viral load THIS MINUTE, as he's about to top you?

    I doubt he can honestly & accurately answer that. I don't know that anyone can. Yet guys should risk their future health on such feeble proofs? I know I never would.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2014 6:00 PM GMT
    David3K saidThese discussions are unexistant in the heterosexual world. If you ask any woman or man they will tell you no way they're even having sex with a HIV+ person just in case, and most use condoms as a rule in hook ups. HIV infections among heterosexuals keep decreasing while infections among GAYS with all the PrEP and "undetectable viral load" keep INCREASING.

    Its unthinkable in the heterosexual world for an HIV+ man or woman to advocate bareback sex like we see gift givers do here.
    Only gays are so deperate for sex and cum to the point of risking their health 'to get a load'. And only HIV+ gays can be so bitter and selfish to put their personal confort above the health and safety of others, like Timmm and MuchMoreThanMuscle do.


    Nice rant, but quite untrue. I know loads of straight folks that don't use condoms - when she is on the pill.

    Also, I volunteer at the local LGBT Center, where we dispense free condoms. You can't imagine how few people use that opportunity to stock up. Also, you can follow yourself the sales of condoms in supermarkets etc. Fact is, condoms are sadly not used as much as they should.

    So, if you abstain from sex, you're safe no matter what. If you consistently use condoms, you are most likely safe. You can tell others to use condoms, but you know that many won't.

    I don't know why they don't, either, but offering them an opportunity to do as they do and still stay relatively safe seems a no-brainer. That's what I don't get about PrEP and TraP deniers: you are sowing doubts or outright dismissing what might have been the last barrier to infection, all in the name of a better option that you already know is not being used.

    In some sense, that's no better than telling people (as they did in the 80s) to just not have gay sex, instead of telling them to use condoms.

    If you were using condoms, continue using condoms. If you weren't using condoms, for crying out loud get on TraP and do everyone a huge favor.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2014 6:36 PM GMT
    "That's what I don't get about PrEP and TraP deniers: you are sowing doubts or outright dismissing what might have been the last barrier to infection, all in the name of a better option that you already know is not being used."


    PRECISELY! I have a friend who is as sexually active as any prostitute. Safe sex is very important to him and HE USES A CONDOM---"MOST OF THE TIME" he says.

    He has great insurance, and also he's rich enough to afford the cost on his own----but he refuses to take Truvada because he's concerned there could be a downside.

    And yet he's comfortable with the very obvious downside of his current sloppy approach to safe sex.



    If I or my partner were sexually active with others, we'd be on PrEP...AND USE CONDOMS!

  • Endyxy1

    Posts: 12

    Nov 29, 2014 8:30 PM GMT
    I REALLY don't get it. Many gays are crazy over PrEP. Most gays are switching to PrEP. My burning question for those gays are: Did you research about PrEP?? What about side effects? No condoms to protect from other STIs?

    What is most interesting responses I received from awesome homos: "NO F**KING WAY I go on Prep!" "PrEP? No thanks. Condoms only." "PrEP does not protect STIs." "PrEP creates us kidney issues." They clearly did their homework.

    I still don't get it. I stock condoms at home and some in backpack. I play safer.

  • goodguyrjr

    Posts: 18

    Nov 29, 2014 9:18 PM GMT

    I think the point of all the different prevention options,( condoms, PrEP, using drugs to lower viral load), is to multiply and add together any options people find best to use for themselves by choice alone or in any combination since none are perfect. On the reliability of condoms here's one recent study:


    HIV Transmission among Men Who Have Sex with Men due to Condom Failure
    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0107540
    summary:
    The proportion of HIV infections related to condom failure appears substantial and higher than previously thought. That 51% of transmissions occur despite condom use may be conservative (i.e. low) since we used a relatively high estimate (87.1%) for condom effectiveness. If condom effectiveness were closer to 70%, a value estimated from a recent CDC study, the number and proportion of HIV transmissions occurring despite condom use would be much higher. Therefore, while condom use should continue to be promoted and enhanced, this alone is unlikely to stem the tide of HIV infection among MSM

    It's like any health choice, - drugs or condoms -if you use it right all the time it works, if you dont use it, it doesnt work.
  • vhotti26

    Posts: 287

    Nov 29, 2014 9:47 PM GMT
    Unfortunately nothing of this sort will convince the bareback faction of their idiocy.

    HIV overshadows all other STIs by too large a margin for them to make any impression on the lowbrows.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2014 1:44 AM GMT
    pazzy saidfuck PreP and truvada. what is the point of taking those pills? seriously, it doesn't even protect you from hiv and other stds especially other stds and on top of that, those pills will damage your insides up. doesn't truvada damage the liver or kidney? so what exactly is the point? is sex or bareback sex that good where people are willing to put their lives on the line for it?

    The point is that HIV+ people like MMTA and Timmmm use these meds as a excuse to convince people to bareback with them. At the same time horny gays that love cum in their ass like to believe they're being protected while barebaking. And on top of everything the companies that make the meds are making billions. Of course HIV rates among gays keep increasing but at least these 3 sectors are happy.

  • Unnamed6

    Posts: 1149

    Nov 30, 2014 2:56 AM GMT
    justin_pal saidThe article is wrong in at least one glaringly important way. The use of Truvada does not reduce the risk of acquiring HIV by 100%; it reduces it by 92%. Yes, the 92% figure is fairly impressive, but I wouldn't want to be amongst the significant 8% who still gets HIV.

    In addition, Truvada has serious side effects. Worse, since it is new, no one knows about the long-term side effects.

    Truvada is apparently a significant advance and may be appropriate for some people; it is clearly not a panacea or replacement for "safer sex".


    Well I don't have the actual numbers concerning Truvuda and how the numbers were ascertained, and I could care less about the actual accuracy of my own math that I will be doing, haha, but if rates of HIV transmission per random sex act from someone supposedly infected is something like .01% already, for example (which is actually quite accurate...), and with Truvada it might go something like .009%, and that's something like a "92%" decrease in the transmission of HIV with those using the drug on an already low incidence of HIV transmission among people. Whatever the faults of the "HIV bareback lobbyists of RJ" have, it may not be the science that they cite but rather what they might aim to promote and peddle, like promiscuity for everyone (but also find condom users promoting the same sexual advice as well)... But at least one of those "RJ bareback lobbyests" who seems to deter somewhat from this crowd realizes the dangers of permanent skin infections (strains of major infections will all likely be antibiotic-resistant in the next couple of decades) that are more likely to be transmitted in the future than what current numbers would suggest now. That's what people need to be afraid of than what "RJ's bareback lobbyests" supposedly have, especially when "safe sex" may actually lead to permanent skin infections on a massive scale and would physically disfigure many, leading some to insanity and ultimately killing others.
  • Unnamed6

    Posts: 1149

    Nov 30, 2014 3:00 AM GMT
    The key word here is urethra, or openings or tears in the skin or lining of the anus and sphincter that makes blood to blood, fluid to fluid contact possible with a virus. Bacterial skin infections which can be as deadly as viruses, just require skin to skin contact!

    Repeat and internalize the following
    :

    Condoms can't protect against bacterial infections.
    Condoms can't protect against bacterial infections.
    Condoms can't protect against bacterial infections.

    Bacterial infections will become drug-resistant.
    Bacterial infections will become drug-resistant.
    Bacterial infections will become drug-resistant.
  • Rhi_Bran

    Posts: 904

    Nov 30, 2014 4:53 AM GMT
    I thought it was common sense that you don't want to be in a situation where you need to receive medication anyway, preventative or otherwise. What's with this new mindset that it's okay to fuck and fuck so long as you take some new drug? Don't people realize that this cavalier approach to drugs is EXACTLY how antibiotic resistance developed so quickly? News flash: viruses can do exactly the same thing, and they can do it even quicker because each replication produces six digits worth of new virus particles.

    Don't bareback with people of uncertain disease status. It's not a difficult thing to understand.

    Bacterial infections will become drug-resistant.

    Some already are. I believe I read something about syphilis making a comeback and having very resistant strains. If you're sexually active, please get a full STD spectrum screening at least once or twice a year. Bacterial infections can deal permanent damage before your body manages to rid itself of them, if it can at all.

  • Sincityfan

    Posts: 409

    Nov 30, 2014 7:33 AM GMT
    lol@bareback lobby.
    Tons of people do it. Not all are open about it though
    "Safer sex?: Always"
    Yeah right.

    justin_pal saidThe article is wrong in at least one glaringly important way. The use of Truvada does not reduce the risk of acquiring HIV by 100%; it reduces it by 92%. Yes, the 92% figure is fairly impressive, but I wouldn't want to be amongst the significant 8% who still gets HIV.

    92% at best.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2014 11:56 AM GMT
    goodguyrjr said
    I think the point of all the different prevention options,( condoms, PrEP, using drugs to lower viral load), is to multiply and add together any options people find best to use for themselves by choice alone or in any combination since none are perfect. On the reliability of condoms here's one recent study:


    HIV Transmission among Men Who Have Sex with Men due to Condom Failure
    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0107540
    summary:
    The proportion of HIV infections related to condom failure appears substantial and higher than previously thought. That 51% of transmissions occur despite condom use may be conservative (i.e. low) since we used a relatively high estimate (87.1%) for condom effectiveness. If condom effectiveness were closer to 70%, a value estimated from a recent CDC study, the number and proportion of HIV transmissions occurring despite condom use would be much higher. Therefore, while condom use should continue to be promoted and enhanced, this alone is unlikely to stem the tide of HIV infection among MSM

    It's like any health choice, - drugs or condoms -if you use it right all the time it works, if you dont use it, it doesnt work.


    Wow you are truley the most evil of all the agenda focused men who post on here. You fu***n idiots all rely on studies that include self-reporting OH MY GOD. I'm giving all of the idiots who believe these studies about 12-18 months which allows for the ugly ones who don't get much action before you get HiV yourselves. Go anc kid yourself with made up agenda laden statistics and let's enjoy the next epidemic of HIV
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2014 3:36 PM GMT
    Wow! I dontt usually respond much on this site and especially on threads about HIv and safe sex. There seems to be a lot of hatred being thrown around instead of civil academic discussion. I am HIV+ and I have been so for over 10 years. Two of my medications I have used since my diagnosis which are Viread and Emtrivia the ingredients that make up Truvada. I have not had major health side effects except for watching my diet because cholesterol is a problem for me.

    As many of you have mentioned, we cannot consistency say we know for sure we are 'undetectable'. However,, I have been taking blood tests for 11 years now and they always come back the same 'undetectable'. I have the years of blood tests to prove it. Some of us are not lying and do not have an agenda but I do understand that many of you cannot simply take us at our word.

    Regardless of all that, I would never knowingly intentionally have an agenda to infect someone or knowingly bareback with someone who was Negative. I am open with anyone who may be in personal contact with me about my status and it usually ends in lots of rejection and very little bed room antics because of my honesty.

    Even if that person told me they were on PReP , I would plan to use a condom.

    I say all this because many generic comments about those with HIV are being made like we have a 'agenda' , or our status is not truthful or honest, not verified. I just want to point out that it's not always true, I support safe sex and for me that involves theuse of a condom.

    Many of us are not lying, cheating, and manipulating our way to free, fun sex. Please be careful how you label those of us who are HIV positive.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2014 4:22 PM GMT
    jpopenb saidWow! I dontt usually respond much on this site and especially on threads about HIv and safe sex. There seems to be a lot of hatred being thrown around instead of civil academic discussion. I am HIV+ and I have been so for over 10 years. Two of my medications I have used since my diagnosis which are Viread and Emtrivia the ingredients that make up Truvada. I have not had major health side effects except for watching my diet because cholesterol is a problem for me.

    As many of you have mentioned, we cannot consistency say we know for sure we are 'undetectable'. However,, I have been taking blood tests for 11 years now and they always come back the same 'undetectable'. I have the years of blood tests to prove it. Some of us are not lying and do not have an agenda but I do understand that many of you cannot simply take us at our word.

    Regardless of all that, I would never knowingly intentionally have an agenda to infect someone or knowingly bareback with someone who was Negative. I am open with anyone who may be in personal contact with me about my status and it usually ends in lots of rejection and very little bed room antics because of my honesty.

    Even if that person told me they were on PReP , I would plan to use a condom.

    I say all this because many generic comments about those with HIV are being made like we have a 'agenda' , or our status is not truthful or honest, not verified. I just want to point out that it's not always true, I support safe sex and for me that involves theuse of a condom.

    Many of us are not lying, cheating, and manipulating our way to free, fun sex. Please be careful how you label those of us who are HIV positive.

    This HIV+ lobby was specifically aimed at RealJock's gift givers: Timmm55 and MuchMoreThanMuscles. Both are HIV+ and advocate bareback sex. Timmm55 even has in his profile "undetectable is the new negative! Google it!". Both posters have a transparent agenda and put their personal confort above others safety, they been doing this for a long time.

    Fortunately not every HIV+ person is like them. Many like you care about others and are willing to enjoy their sexuality without compromising others.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Nov 30, 2014 10:55 PM GMT
    The issue of adequate protection during oral sex remains unaddressed. So far as I know, even though oral sex remains common, condoms are rarely used. Many think that oral sex is safe, but it is not.

    It is unclear why this matter remains unaddressed and is apparently considered taboo.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2014 7:26 AM GMT
    FRE0 saidThe issue of adequate protection during oral sex remains unaddressed. So far as I know, even though oral sex remains common, condoms are rarely used. Many think that oral sex is safe, but it is not.

    It is unclear why this matter remains unaddressed and is apparently considered taboo.

    There is not final proof whether oral sex can transmit HIV or not, if anything the chances of infection are much lower. Of course if you have a little sense you should use a condom during oral sex in hook ups too, but yeah this practice is not very popular.

    Just some info; whores will suck dick with condom only (my friends told me icon_cool.gif )
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2014 9:02 AM GMT
    jpopenb said

    I say all this because many generic comments about those with HIV are being made like we have a 'agenda' , or our status is not truthful or honest, not verified. I just want to point out that it's not always true, I support safe sex and for me that involves theuse of a condom.

    Many of us are not lying, cheating, and manipulating our way to free, fun sex. Please be careful how you label those of us who are HIV positive.


    I personally have been outspoken about a few guys on here who I view as being pro-bare backing and I have stated many times that I have no issue with PLHIV and have had sexual relations with Poz guys in relationships and in casual situations.

    My beef is the insistence that undetectable is the new safe sex and the focus in particular of shifting the burden to the HIV negative population. Disclosure with me doesn't lead to stigmata like a few guys claim & muddying the waters by mentioning oral sex potential of HIV.

    The comments are for most if not all guys at the minority of HIV persons who are bitter about thier lives not people such as yourself who sound like you are a very reasonable and more typically considerate person. Pity the others tar you with their agenda.