even now, folks are basically saying fuck condoms and having safe sex with the whole "PreP" and whatever. overall, the gay male community has an anti safe sex mentality and with that going around, you can't be too sure of which gay man has what.
God, STFU already. Talkin' shit like you're somebody with actual life experience. It's plainly obvious you're a self-loathing gay.
Always hyperbole coming from you and your dimwitted long winded contributions.
Why don't you refute him based on facts instead of trotting out the tired old "you are a self-loathing gay" slogan?
Or perhaps you can provide us with facts to support all the hoopla that spazz keeps perpetuating in the forums. You both have dismal opinions about gay men so I'm not surprised by your response here.
The CDC stopped referring to sex without condoms as "unprotected sex" last year now it is simply "condomless sex" .....why? Because the CDC recognizes that other forms of risk reduction are "PROTECTION".
NO Stigma. Safe sex terminology has changed drastically in the last year.
The same for ACON (Australian Health Dept.)
There are now at least five strategies that reasonably constitute‘safe sex’,provided that certain parameters are met.
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.
Even the "and in the absence of sexually transmissible infections (STIs)" has come under scrutiny. In the UK PROUD PrEP study, other STDs were not a co-factor.
The FDA says:
"FDA's primary responsibility with regard to blood and blood products is to assure the safety of patients who receive these life-saving products. FDA uses multiple layers of safeguards in its approach to ensuring blood safety, which include donor screening and deferral based on risk factors, blood testing for markers of infection, inventory controls, and deferral registries. The use of these multiple layers helps to assure the safety of the products in the event that one layer fails."
The Red Cross:
"You should not give blood to get tested for AIDS. Using blood donation as a way to get tested could put the blood supply at risk and endanger patients. HIV antibodies may take a few weeks to develop after infection with the virus. If you were recently infected, you might have a negative test result, yet be able to infect the recipient of your donation. That is why you must not give blood if you are at risk of getting AIDS or other infectious diseases. Individuals at risk for contracting HIV should contact their local health department for AIDS testing."
It is their first basic line of defense and screening. But then I'd wonder how bad their screening/testing is.
Is it stigma, or just bending to politics? They depend on blood donations. Mostly 98 percent from the straight community. It isn't enough to guarantee a safe blood supply....they simply need THE vast majority of blood donors to not feel threatened.
I get it. I don't agree with it. But I understand the trade off.