Would you TRUST a guy saying he's "HIV+ undetectable" and bareback with him?

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

    Jan 03, 2015 2:20 PM GMT
    You meet a guy that says he's HIV+ but undetectable and wants to bareback with you; would you do it? Would you trust that's his real status?

    Same with men saying they're "negative", would you believe them? Would you bareback with them?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2015 2:43 PM GMT
    NO and NO
    but
    if someone is positive he possibly knows more about testing and how the virus works. i would tend to believe him more. Still; the tests are not conclusive and dont tell you anything about a man's last 3 months worth of partners.

    i guess you dont love your self, its ok
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2015 2:46 PM GMT
    Never. The definition of having Safe Sex is treating everyone like they've got a communicable disease. A guy saying he's got an "undetectable" viral load is no better than the guy who tells you that he's completely negative.

    Because even he may not know his true status at that moment, either in terms of an STI or viral load. Practicing Safe Sex means assuming EVERY guy has got SOMETHING, where he or you know it or not.
  • PE_Mike

    Posts: 75

    Jan 03, 2015 3:09 PM GMT
    sorry to be crass, but the risk depends heavily on who is top and who is bottom. I am hiv- and my last 2 relationships (the current one 6 years) were both with hiv+ bottoms.

    call it erectile dysfunction or whatever, but I can feel jack through a condom so bareback or bugger all is what works for me.

    would I allow a guy - especially a stranger - to bareback me? absolutely not and neither should you, no matter what he says or how hot he looks above the sling....think about your status for a minute as well - there are more STI than just HIV, and putting an extra load on either of your immune system's is not a good idea.

    skin to skin is the reason why South Africa (where I live) has the highest rate of heterosexual new infections in the world - is the fuck worth becoming another statistic?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2015 4:03 PM GMT
    PE_Mike saidsorry to be crass, but the risk depends heavily on who is top and who is bottom. I am hiv- and my last 2 relationships (the current one 6 years) were both with hiv+ bottoms.

    call it erectile dysfunction or whatever, but I can feel jack through a condom so bareback or bugger all is what works for me.

    would I allow a guy - especially a stranger - to bareback me? absolutely not and neither should you, no matter what he says or how hot he looks above the sling....think about your status for a minute as well - there are more STI than just HIV, and putting an extra load on either of your immune system's is not a good idea.

    skin to skin is the reason why South Africa (where I live) has the highest rate of heterosexual new infections in the world - is the fuck worth becoming another statistic?

    It's interesting (and depressing) how you point out how barebacking is the main reason of new HIV infections yet you say you do it yourself. I hope you know that even if you're a top you still have chances of becoming infected, even if your partner is undetectable.

    The rate of infections for a top in a monogamous relationship with a HIV+ undetectable partner is 12.8% in the period of 10 years. - source link
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14345

    Jan 03, 2015 4:07 PM GMT

    Absolutely no. Barebacking is stupid and dangerous regardless of the partners HIV status.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 03, 2015 4:48 PM GMT
    No bareback sex before marriage.icon_evil.gif
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jan 03, 2015 9:54 PM GMT
    Always assume that everybody's positive.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2015 10:07 PM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle saidSure, why not?


    Psst, your agenda is showing lol
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2015 10:22 PM GMT
    David3K said
    PE_Mike saidsorry to be crass, but the risk depends heavily on who is top and who is bottom. I am hiv- and my last 2 relationships (the current one 6 years) were both with hiv+ bottoms.

    call it erectile dysfunction or whatever, but I can feel jack through a condom so bareback or bugger all is what works for me.

    would I allow a guy - especially a stranger - to bareback me? absolutely not and neither should you, no matter what he says or how hot he looks above the sling....think about your status for a minute as well - there are more STI than just HIV, and putting an extra load on either of your immune system's is not a good idea.

    skin to skin is the reason why South Africa (where I live) has the highest rate of heterosexual new infections in the world - is the fuck worth becoming another statistic?

    It's interesting (and depressing) how you point out how barebacking is the main reason of new HIV infections yet you say you do it yourself. I hope you know that even if you're a top you still have chances of becoming infected, even if your partner is undetectable.

    The rate of infections for a top in a monogamous relationship with a HIV+ undetectable partner is 12.8% in the period of 10 years. - source link


    I've cited the same article.

    "Given that couples were having condomless sex about once a week, it is extremely likely that the 10-year risk of HIV transmission is somewhere between 0 and 17.9% for receptive anal sex. While it is still possible that the “true” risk is zero, or only slightly higher than zero, the study could not rule out the possibility that the risk is as high as 17.9%.

    As the PARTNER study continues to follow couples who continue to have sex, the upper confidence limits will become “tighter” and move closer to zero—assuming that no HIV transmissions occur. (NO HIV transmissions have occurred to date.) This will allow the investigators to more confidently conclude that the risk of HIV transmission is “extremely low” for all types of vaginal and anal sex. The PARTNER study will continue to follow heterosexual couples until April 2014. Same-sex male couples will be followed until 2017 and the investigators plan to enroll 450 more gay male couples."

    As the Partners Study said: PROBABLY ZERO.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2015 10:30 PM GMT
    The whole point of this thread by our illustrious Sydney was to separate POZ from NEG.

    The scenario was a set up. What about people who are in long term discordant relationships, who KNOW their status?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2015 3:09 AM GMT
    hentailover said
    MuchMoreThanMuscle saidSure, why not?


    Psst, your agenda is showing lol


    I wonder if he's aware of how obvious he is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2015 3:49 AM GMT
    timmm55 saidThe whole point of this thread by our illustrious Sydney was to separate POZ from NEG.

    The scenario was a set up. What about people who are in long term discordant relationships, who KNOW their status?


    The point of this thread is to know if people would TRUST what others claim about their status - as you can see most wouldn't. Good for them.
  • aaron123dodo

    Posts: 28

    Jan 04, 2015 4:08 AM GMT
    For a hook up, just play it safe. Avoids more problem than just potential HIV infection. Less clean up work, for example.

    For a long term relationship, well, why not? If you trust him enough to plan the rest of your life with him, you should trust that he either won't be hooking up with random guys OR even if he does he'd at least use a condom.

  • AMoonHawk

    Posts: 11406

    Jan 04, 2015 8:21 AM GMT
    I don't trust anyone for any reason. No human can ever be trusted. We're all on our own. Always error on the side of safety.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2015 3:15 PM GMT
    No, no, no. Can't be too safe.

    "No glove no love." icon_smile.gif
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jan 04, 2015 3:46 PM GMT
    What is HIV "undetectable" really? I mean it can be argued it means this or that, but has the term been used to somehow create the impression of safety?
    I would find out MUCH more before I'd ever consider anything beyond condom use.

    In the end, he has something you don't. I'd rather not bank my health on the desire for a sexual connection.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2015 4:05 PM GMT
    The bottom (lol) line is, surround yourself with people who have the same ideas of condom use as you.

    If you *never* use condoms, then have sex with people who don't use them either.

    If you *always* use condoms, then have sex with people who always use them too.

    If you sometimes use them, but sometimes don't, then have sex with people who do that too.

    People who are heavily staunch one way or another aren't going to suddenly change their mind because of one post on Realjock...so why post with so much heavy intention to do that? This isn't that hard of a concept to grasp. It's not like you're really going to persuade anyone to change their belief system.

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

    Jan 04, 2015 4:36 PM GMT
    David3K said
    timmm55 saidThe whole point of this thread by our illustrious Sydney was to separate POZ from NEG.

    The scenario was a set up. What about people who are in long term discordant relationships, who KNOW their status?


    The point of this thread is to know if people would TRUST what others claim about their status - as you can see most wouldn't. Good for them.


    Why two threads on this?

    Edit

    Actually I see a difference fro yours and Sydney's. You include a 'stated Negative'.

    In both, regardless of stated status, Negative OR Undetectable, I agree with "NO". Not that you can't somewhere down the line. But you'll both need to be tested.....hopefully together, before deciding on how you will, as a couple, progress.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2015 4:50 PM GMT
    willular saidThe bottom (lol) line is, surround yourself with people who have the same ideas of condom use as you.

    If you *never* use condoms, then have sex with people who don't use them either.

    If you *always* use condoms, then have sex with people who always use them too.

    If you sometimes use them, but sometimes don't, then have sex with people who do that too.

    People who are heavily staunch one way or another aren't going to suddenly change their mind because of one post on Realjock...so why post with so much heavy intention to do that? This isn't that hard of a concept to grasp. It's not like you're really going to persuade anyone to change their belief system.



    There are so many things wrong with your concept!

    Again here's the ACON position on What is Safe(r) Sex:

    1.The use of Condoms during
    casual encounters between men of unknown or discordant serostatus.
    2.HIV negative men taking effective pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).
    3.Men living with HIV who only have sex without condoms when they have a sustained undetectable viral load (UVL) and in the absence
    of sexually transmissible infections (STIs).
    4.Effective use of serosorting between HIV positive men.
    5.Effective negotiated safety agreements.

    http://www.acon.org.au/sites/default/files/What-is-Safe-Sex-Position-2014.pdf

    I follow the above EXACTLY.

    Effective Serosorting
    (pos/pos men)
    Serosorting is a strategy that aims to limit condomless sex to people of the same HIV status. In order for this risk reduction strategy to be effective, men must not only know their own status but also the status of their partners.


    This can not be stressed enough:

    ACON does not endorse serosorting in casual sexual encounters as an effective HIV prevention
    strategy for HIV negative men, on the grounds that ascertaining the current HIV negative status of
    even a familiar casual partner is inherently unreliable.



    But it does work for pos/pos.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2015 5:04 PM GMT
    timmm55 said
    willular saidThe bottom (lol) line is, surround yourself with people who have the same ideas of condom use as you.

    If you *never* use condoms, then have sex with people who don't use them either.

    If you *always* use condoms, then have sex with people who always use them too.

    If you sometimes use them, but sometimes don't, then have sex with people who do that too.

    People who are heavily staunch one way or another aren't going to suddenly change their mind because of one post on Realjock...so why post with so much heavy intention to do that? This isn't that hard of a concept to grasp. It's not like you're really going to persuade anyone to change their belief system.



    There are so many things wrong with your concept!

    Again here's the ACON position on What is Safe(r) Sex:

    1.The use of Condoms during
    casual encounters between men of unknown or discordant serostatus.
    2.HIV negative men taking effective pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).
    3.Men living with HIV who only have sex without condoms when they have a sustained undetectable viral load (UVL) and in the absence
    of sexually transmissible infections (STIs).
    4.Effective use of serosorting between HIV positive men.
    5.Effective negotiated safety agreements.

    http://www.acon.org.au/sites/default/files/What-is-Safe-Sex-Position-2014.pdf

    I follow the above EXACTLY.


    My point is, that you should interact with people who follow the same guidelines (or whatever you want to call it) as you.

    If you follow the stuff above, and you want to have sex with someone who doesn't follow that stuff above, then you shouldn't be having sex with them.

    I'm not debating what the definition of "safe sex" is. i'm just saying that if someone doesn't share the same values of sex, then you shouldn't be having sex with them.

    In other words, you and the original poster shouldn't be fucking.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2015 5:26 PM GMT
    willular said
    timmm55 said
    willular saidThe bottom (lol) line is, surround yourself with people who have the same ideas of condom use as you.

    If you *never* use condoms, then have sex with people who don't use them either.

    If you *always* use condoms, then have sex with people who always use them too.

    If you sometimes use them, but sometimes don't, then have sex with people who do that too.

    People who are heavily staunch one way or another aren't going to suddenly change their mind because of one post on Realjock...so why post with so much heavy intention to do that? This isn't that hard of a concept to grasp. It's not like you're really going to persuade anyone to change their belief system.



    There are so many things wrong with your concept!

    Again here's the ACON position on What is Safe(r) Sex:

    1.The use of Condoms during
    casual encounters between men of unknown or discordant serostatus.
    2.HIV negative men taking effective pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).
    3.Men living with HIV who only have sex without condoms when they have a sustained undetectable viral load (UVL) and in the absence
    of sexually transmissible infections (STIs).
    4.Effective use of serosorting between HIV positive men.
    5.Effective negotiated safety agreements.

    http://www.acon.org.au/sites/default/files/What-is-Safe-Sex-Position-2014.pdf

    I follow the above EXACTLY.


    My point is, that you should interact with people who follow the same guidelines (or whatever you want to call it) as you.

    If you follow the stuff above, and you want to have sex with someone who doesn't follow that stuff above, then you shouldn't be having sex with them.

    I'm not debating what the definition of "safe sex" is. i'm just saying that if someone doesn't share the same values of sex, then you shouldn't be having sex with them.

    In other words, you and the original poster shouldn't be fucking.


    THAT would never happen! lol

    Here's where GOOD MANNERS and Risk Management agree. If someone says "condoms only" and the other party say "anything goes" the person with the more stringent definition is the final line. That is non-negotiable. Any pressure of anything else more is rude, and dangerous. If verifiability Negative or Undetectable, it doesn't matter! At that point I consider it rape. It's not a matter of HIV.

    "If you sometimes use them, but sometimes don't, then have sex with people who do that too."

    That will not prevent HIV. look at what ACON says about serosorting....not recommended for Negative guys.
  • aaron123dodo

    Posts: 28

    Jan 04, 2015 6:01 PM GMT
    [quote]
    Here's where GOOD MANNERS and Risk Management agree. If someone says "condoms only" and the other party say "anything goes" the person with the more stringent definition is the final line. That is non-negotiable. Any pressure of anything else more is rude, and dangerous. If verifiability Negative or Undetectable, it doesn't matter! At that point I consider it rape. It's not a matter of HIV.
    [/quote]

    If "anything goes" is indeed the case, there shouldn't ever be "any pressure of anything else more" to begin with. Clearly here we have a case of "condoms preferred" vs "preferably no condoms", not a broad vs stringent definition case.

    In the case of "condoms only" vs "no condoms", well no agreement no sex, I doubt they'd even want to if both of them are insistent enough about their ideologies.

    In the case of "condoms preferred" vs "preferably no condoms", it's then a complex function of many variables. Most people in this thread (and else where) prioritize safety and HIV prevention and hence suggest either "always given priority to the party that prefers condoms" or a version without the "always". But not everyone have the same priorities, for the better and for the worse. So I think the "stick with people of your own philosophy" argument is sound enough.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2015 6:34 PM GMT
    timmm55 said
    Here's where GOOD MANNERS and Risk Management agree. If someone says "condoms only" and the other party say "anything goes" the person with the more stringent definition is the final line. That is non-negotiable. Any pressure of anything else more is rude, and dangerous. If verifiability Negative or Undetectable, it doesn't matter! At that point I consider it rape. It's not a matter of HIV.


    Yeah, that's what I was referring to -- just plain being in the same realm of thought on sexuality is all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2015 6:53 PM GMT
    HndsmKansan saidWhat is HIV "undetectable" really? I mean it can be argued it means this or that, but has the term been used to somehow create the impression of safety?
    I would find out MUCH more before I'd ever consider anything beyond condom use.

    In the end, he has something you don't. I'd rather not bank my health on the desire for a sexual connection.


    Good questions!
    But first you need to know what TasP is. Undetectable and TasP is like the difference between Micro and Macro Economics.


    The Facts About Treatment as Prevention (TasP)


    While TasP was initially seen as an advocacy tool when first introduced in 2006 (by Dr. Julio Montaner of the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS), it was only in 2010 that evidence from the HTPN 052 Trial suggested that it could be implemented as a public health measure to reduce transmission rates from a population-based perspective.
    http://aids.about.com/od/hivpreventionquestions/a/Treatment-As-Prevention-tasp.htm

    What is Undetectable?

    On a personal level: Good News

    You can live a healthier and longer life.Using ART to reach an undetectable viral load means that there is less HIV in your body. Less HIV means less damage to your immune system, allowing you to stay healthier and live longer.

    A video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tSL5LDcpAK8

    Dr. Julio Montaner is my HERO! he has deserved every accolade.....and will receive many more. he has literally saved MILLIONS of lives. including mine.

    "Beginning in the1980s with his early work at ST. Paul's Hospital, when HIV was an as-yet unknown enemy, Montaner gradually pioneered the antiretroviral therapy (HAART), that has now become the international standard of care allowing patients with HIV/AIDS to enjoy longer, healthier live."

    Is it merely an impression of safety?

    The 052, Partners and Swiss study (and soon the Australian Study I predict) say it is verifiable science and not a fluke.
    Is 'Undetectable' the New Safe Sex?


    The landmark Partner study that everyone is talking about—which tracked HIV transmission risk through condomless sex if the HIV-positive partner is on suppressive antiretroviral medication—has so far found not even one case of an HIV-positive person with an undetectable viral load transmitting the virus to a partner. But people in your everyday life may still be a little disbelieving.

    http://www.hivplusmag.com/sex-dating/2014/09/15/undetectable-new-safe-sex#


    "In the end, he has something you don't."
    I absolutely agree. Which is why TasP is so important. HIV is something I don't want anyone to get. Neither does the CDC, ACON, WHO, Dr. Fauci, Dr Montaner....all who endorse TasP.

    "I'd rather not bank my health on the desire for a sexual connection."

    Yet every Gay man does. Every time we have sex. 53% of us don't use condoms. And 50,000 new HIV cases happen every year. 1 in 5 don't know they are HIV infected.


    I don't think 1 in 5 lie about being Negative, nor do I think 1 in 5 lie about being Undetectable.
    It's estimated the "1 in 5" who "don't know" are responsible for 80+ percent of new HIV transmissions. They don't get tested, they just don't know. There's been several "not Undetectable Yet" cases, where they were on meds, but not fully suppressed yet. It's 6 months AND Undetectable, NOT just 6 months on ART.