Why is the reality of Gay Men taking Prep, increasing their risk compensation not being acknowledged

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

    Oct 20, 2015 4:48 PM GMT
    The strain of HIV most prevalent in Western Countries is not killing people like in the 80's so the increase in condom-less sex has been a flow on to the perception that even if sero conversion occurs aside from medication, no change in life expectancy but free to not take precautions. My first knowledge of this medication used in this way came from Men taking the Prep who said they were able to do bareback receptive sex with multiple men because of taking Prep. Why is it that these men and there are plenty more are not being surveyed or is there something more sinister going on??
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2015 5:20 PM GMT
    I was in a PreP research study and decided it was not for me. I don't understand the phrasing of your question, but it seems to me there are MANY more risks than people on it are willing to admit. We also don't yet know it's long-term effects on the body in general.

    It is anything but a panacea for STD's and I would not be surprised if STD's other than HIV are on the rise due to it's usage... but I could be wrong. I'm not saying to not use it - what I am saying is: there are many things about it we still don't know - and it's not for everyone.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2015 6:39 PM GMT
    manboynyc saidI was in a PreP research study and decided it was not for me. I don't understand the phrasing of your question, but it seems to me there are MANY more risks than people on it are willing to admit. We also don't yet know it's long-term effects on the body in general.

    It is anything but a panacea for STD's and I would not be surprised if STD's other than HIV are on the rise due to it's usage... but I could be wrong. I'm not saying to not use it - what I am saying is: there are many things about it we still don't know - and it's not for everyone.


    It's hard to understand Sydney because is starting from a position of extreme thoughts and prejudices. For example: "The strain of HIV most prevalent in Western Countries is not killing people like in the 80's.....

    [Why bother with the distinction of HIV 1 and HIV 2?]


    so the increase in condom-less sex has been a flow on to the perception that even if sero conversion occurs aside from medication, no change in life expectancy but free to not take precautions.


    [Aside from medication? What does that even mean? If it weren't for medication life expectancy would not have increased.]

    My first knowledge of this medication used in this way came from Men taking the Prep who said they were able to do bareback receptive sex with multiple men because of taking Prep.

    [This line of thinking is totally anecdotal. It may or may not be true. It may be a complete fabrication.]


    ..... Why is it that these men and there are plenty more are not being surveyed


    [Who says they are not being surveyed? It has been mentioned there is an increase in condomless sex, for some. Others use PrEP as an additional layer of protection.]


    ........or is there something more sinister going on??

    [Sydney thinks there is a "BB Agenda" and the whole world is in on it!

    What is the definition of paranoia?]

    Enough about him LOL

    PrEP/Truvada has been around for 15 years+. The ingredients are emtricitabine and tenofovir. There are risks, many as you say. But most do not have a problem with it. As you say it is not for everyone.

    Condom use has been going down regardless of PrEP. How much more it is going down because of PrEP is unknown. And STDs have increased. But with PrEP doctor's 3x a year supervision is required.....and regular testing of STDs. That should lessen STDs to some extent. The wild card has always been those who don't test....for anything, until something is apparently wrong.




  • Whipmagic

    Posts: 1481

    Oct 20, 2015 9:09 PM GMT
    My understanding is that Prep is really recommended as a back-up plan, it's not proven reliable enough to be the only barrier to infection, nor do we know enough about long-term (decades of use) side effects. It's certainly great for situations where the odds are that condom failure will eventually do you in. An example would be a serodiscordant couple with an active sex life, or the guy who goes to the bathhouses multiple times a week. It also is a viable better-than-nothing option for those who tend to forget to put a condom on when the action starts, typically your meth head. I don't see any reason why someone to whom this does not apply would rationally choose to just go on Prep and have risky bareback sex with multiple partners regularly and not take advantage of the additional protection offered by condoms. While there will always be a few irrational ones, I believe the overall net benefit of Prep, if prescribed with good conciling is very much worth it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2015 9:37 PM GMT
    @Tim and @wip: sage and reasonable evaluation. YES - it should be monitored and patients should be checked regularly. I just hope they actually ARE. Time will tell...
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Oct 20, 2015 10:28 PM GMT
    robbaker saidthe best way to have safe sex is to have no sex icon_wink.gif


    Certainly that is the most effective way, but does that necessarily mean that it is the best way? Surely there could be discussion on that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2015 10:48 PM GMT
    FRE0 said
    robbaker saidthe best way to have safe sex is to have no sex icon_wink.gif


    Certainly that is the most effective way, but does that necessarily mean that it is the best way? Surely there could be discussion on that.


    Monogamy is the only safe sex. No sex is simply no sex and there is no point of being gay if you aren't sexual.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2015 11:12 PM GMT
    Alpha13 said
    FRE0 said
    robbaker saidthe best way to have safe sex is to have no sex icon_wink.gif


    Certainly that is the most effective way, but does that necessarily mean that it is the best way? Surely there could be discussion on that.


    Monogamy is the only safe sex. No sex is simply no sex and there is no point of being gay if you aren't sexual.
    Anyone can stand under the banner of gay now days. But if your a Bona Fide homosexuals and not having sex, so long as if you do, and it w2ill always be with a man, you will always be a Bona Fide Homosexual. It may be different for the gay's in the village?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2015 11:31 PM GMT
    manboynyc said@Tim and @wip: sage and reasonable evaluation. YES - it should be monitored and patients should be checked regularly. I just hope they actually ARE. Time will tell...


    It's typically only given in 90 day supplies and providers are supposed to test for HIV every 3 months before a new script.

    Trials showed no increase in unprotected sex but who knows in reality. Daily use showed 99% effectiveness while it was about 76% effective in people who took it twice weekly. Condoms alone have been shown to be about 80% effective and depends on the user. The number needed to treat in the trials (number of people treated with PrEP to prevent an HIV infection) was 60 but is believed to be fewer in compliant, daily users.

    The CDC has a survey of who would benefit most from PrEP. PrEP certainly isn't for everyone but is a good option for those at increased risk.
  • EDRock

    Posts: 20

    Oct 21, 2015 12:09 AM GMT
    In short, I believe I've read they are 2 or 3 years into studying PREP results and it's been extremely effective so far.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2015 2:13 AM GMT
    SFLsoftball said
    manboynyc said@Tim and @wip: sage and reasonable evaluation. YES - it should be monitored and patients should be checked regularly. I just hope they actually ARE. Time will tell...


    It's typically only given in 90 day supplies and providers are supposed to test for HIV every 3 months before a new script.

    Trials showed no increase in unprotected sex but who knows in reality. Daily use showed 99% effectiveness while it was about 76% effective in people who took it twice weekly. Condoms alone have been shown to be about 80% effective and depends on the user. The number needed to treat in the trials (number of people treated with PrEP to prevent an HIV infection) was 60 but is believed to be fewer in compliant, daily users.

    The CDC has a survey of who would benefit most from PrEP. PrEP certainly isn't for everyone but is a good option for those at increased risk.


    Just take a survey of guys on Scruff. PrEP and bareback are synonymous

  • FitBlackCuddl...

    Posts: 802

    Oct 21, 2015 3:57 AM GMT
    Alpha13 said
    No sex is simply no sex and there is no point of being gay if you aren't sexual.


    What an interesting comment to make...
  • Edepic

    Posts: 88

    Oct 21, 2015 9:30 AM GMT
    There is no one size that fits all in life.
    Some gay men do decide to be asexual, Oliver Sacks for 35 years, for example.
    Some men in the opposite direction have the desire to have as much sex with as many men as they can.
    Others are dating and hoping to find a partner.
    If you are dating realize many men don't really know their status and you are vulnerable.
    Condoms can fail and some men can't use them.
    Prep is not for everyone but in some situations it useful to have as a choice that is available for consideration. And it does not have to be forever.
    Certainly it can help protect the man who is looking for a partner and who will take it for a limited time till he finds monogamy with a trusted partner.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2015 10:32 AM GMT
    Alpha13 said
    SFLsoftball said
    manboynyc said@Tim and @wip: sage and reasonable evaluation. YES - it should be monitored and patients should be checked regularly. I just hope they actually ARE. Time will tell...


    It's typically only given in 90 day supplies and providers are supposed to test for HIV every 3 months before a new script.

    Trials showed no increase in unprotected sex but who knows in reality. Daily use showed 99% effectiveness while it was about 76% effective in people who took it twice weekly. Condoms alone have been shown to be about 80% effective and depends on the user. The number needed to treat in the trials (number of people treated with PrEP to prevent an HIV infection) was 60 but is believed to be fewer in compliant, daily users.

    The CDC has a survey of who would benefit most from PrEP. PrEP certainly isn't for everyone but is a good option for those at increased risk.


    Just take a survey of guys on Scruff. PrEP and bareback are synonymous



    IThat's my point about thisî whole promotion. I also don't like this false statistical manipulation about the effectiveness of condoms. I used them during a 3.5 year relationship with,100%,effectiveness. The fact that some people aren't compliant with condom use, is not an excuse to demonise its effectiveness. I support the use of prep for gay men in serodiscordent couples but it seems the promoters of this treatment are a little precious about any thing questioning the validity of Some assertion about Prep
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2015 6:08 PM GMT
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 said
    Alpha13 said
    SFLsoftball said
    manboynyc said@Tim and @wip: sage and reasonable evaluation. YES - it should be monitored and patients should be checked regularly. I just hope they actually ARE. Time will tell...


    It's typically only given in 90 day supplies and providers are supposed to test for HIV every 3 months before a new script.

    Trials showed no increase in unprotected sex but who knows in reality. Daily use showed 99% effectiveness while it was about 76% effective in people who took it twice weekly. Condoms alone have been shown to be about 80% effective and depends on the user. The number needed to treat in the trials (number of people treated with PrEP to prevent an HIV infection) was 60 but is believed to be fewer in compliant, daily users.

    The CDC has a survey of who would benefit most from PrEP. PrEP certainly isn't for everyone but is a good option for those at increased risk.


    Just take a survey of guys on Scruff. PrEP and bareback are synonymous



    IThat's my point about this î whole promotion. I also don't like this false statistical manipulation about the effectiveness of condoms. I used them during a 3.5 year relationship with,100%,effectiveness. The fact that some people aren't compliant with condom use, is not an excuse to demonise its effectiveness. I support the use of prep for gay men in serodiscordent couples but it seems the promoters of this treatment are a little precious about any thing questioning the validity of Some assertion about Prep


    How scientific is Grindr/Scruff as a base line? It represents a portion of the community. They are sex hook up sites. They are not representative of everyone.

    You talk of "false statistical manipulation" yet you think your anecdotal "3.5 year relationship" is more significant.

    You demonize anyone who disagrees with you. Releasing information that is contrary to yours is not demonizing. YOU say I DO. But I'm not....at all. What works for someone may not work for another.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2015 9:36 PM GMT
    One does not say this lightly, or without heart; but........

    One was to work in my city's largest gay bathhouse starting in 1980. I was there when the hysteria of the Gay Plauge Era began. I stood by the gay community I was involved in, when so many fleed. I'd has numerous sexualising encounters with HIV- men; Yet never ever got told hay, I have HIV. I even had a two year sexualising relationship with a Guy who encouraged barebacking, and all failed to inform one of his positive HIV staus; even after being asked.

    Well that was way back then in the 80's & 90's. One is now 50+ HIV- , and in a 25 years stable same sex relationship. Thus HIV/AIDS is no longer apart of my reality; and that's not a bad place to be; I wish more could experience it. Albeit my many loved ones gone to soon, never leave me.
  • FitBlackCuddl...

    Posts: 802

    Oct 21, 2015 10:41 PM GMT
    Edepic saidThere is no one size that fits all in life.
    Some gay men do decide to be asexual, Oliver Sacks for 35 years, for example.
    Some men in the opposite direction have the desire to have as much sex with as many men as they can.
    Others are dating and hoping to find a partner.
    If you are dating realize many men don't really know their status and you are vulnerable.
    Condoms can fail and some men can't use them.
    Prep is not for everyone but in some situations it useful to have as a choice that is available for consideration. And it does not have to be forever.
    Certainly it can help protect the man who is looking for a partner and who will take it for a limited time till he finds monogamy with a trusted partner.


    And FUCKING is NOT the ONLY way to approach (sexual) intimacy between two men. A pity "gay" men cannot/will not take time to SEE and ACT on that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2015 9:13 AM GMT
    timmm55 said
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 said
    Alpha13 said
    SFLsoftball said
    manboynyc said@Tim and @wip: sage and reasonable evaluation. YES - it should be monitored and patients should be checked regularly. I just hope they actually ARE. Time will tell...


    It's typically only given in 90 day supplies and providers are supposed to test for HIV every 3 months before a new script.

    Trials showed no increase in unprotected sex but who knows in reality. Daily use showed 99% effectiveness while it was about 76% effective in people who took it twice weekly. Condoms alone have been shown to be about 80% effective and depends on the user. The number needed to treat in the trials (number of people treated with PrEP to prevent an HIV infection) was 60 but is believed to be fewer in compliant, daily users.

    The CDC has a survey of who would benefit most from PrEP. PrEP certainly isn't for everyone but is a good option for those at increased risk.


    Just take a survey of guys on Scruff. PrEP and bareback are synonymous



    IThat's my point about this î whole promotion. I also don't like this false statistical manipulation about the effectiveness of condoms. I used them during a 3.5 year relationship with,100%,effectiveness. The fact that some people aren't compliant with condom use, is not an excuse to demonise its effectiveness. I support the use of prep for gay men in serodiscordent couples but it seems the promoters of this treatment are a little precious about any thing questioning the validity of Some assertion about Prep


    How scientific is Grindr/Scruff as a base line? It represents a portion of the community. They are sex hook up sites. They are not representative of everyone.

    You talk of "false statistical manipulation" yet you think your anecdotal "3.5 year relationship" is more significant.

    You demonize anyone who disagrees with you. Releasing information that is contrary to yours is not demonizing. YOU say I DO. But I'm not....at all. What works for someone may not work for another.


    Yet you make statements such as "Bareback sex is better for Mental Health" and "more safe to have bareback sex with HIV+ men who say they are on meds/undetectable" without qualifying that claim, until people like me challenge your irresponsible claims. You then decide to be more responsible for a short while then revert back to your agenda. You are encouraging HIV+ phobia even for people who are supportive and you can't see that. You need to go away and let people without your agenda spread the messages of Prep and Undetectable men being lower risk and worthy partners or risk increasing discrimination.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2015 11:24 AM GMT
    Yet you make statements such as "Bareback sex is better for Mental Health" and "more safe to have bareback sex with HIV+ men who say they are on meds/undetectable" without qualifying that claim, until people like me challenge your irresponsible claims. You then decide to be more responsible for a short while then revert back to your agenda. You are encouraging HIV+ phobia even for people who are supportive and you can't see that. You need to go away and let people without your agenda spread the messages of Prep and Undetectable men being lower risk and worthy partners or risk increasing discrimination.

    What's with your compulsion to lie?

    You the one preoccupied with the "BB Agenda". I don't use "BB" it's not scientific. Rather I refer to condomless sex.

    I totally disagree with the comment. The link below is BS. I won't quote it or hyperlink it, so you can't quote me on it.)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5970731/Unprotected-sex-better-for-mental-health.html


    I have said "sex positive" (nothing to do with HIV+ specifically) is good for mental health.

    "In an article for Planned Parenthood on providing sex positive sex education, Lisa Tobin writes that being sex positive includes:
    Having a comprehensive definition of sexuality

    Viewing sexual health as a basic human right

    Focusing on the life-enhancing aspects of sexuality as well as attention to the negative aspects

    Being non-judgmental and challenging narrow social constructs

    Using inclusive language rather than value-laden language which makes assumptions based on sexual orientation or gender stereotypes"

    http://sexuality.about.com/od/sexualhealthqanda/f/sex_positive.htm

    "more safe to have bareback sex with HIV+ men who say they are on meds/undetectable"

    First of all you put it in quotes as if I said it. That's not true....another lie. I would never have said "more safe" to begin with. I would have said "safer."

    It is true that a clinically Undetectable person is statistically safer than a Negative person. You added "who say" which is ridiculous.

    Why?
    "When asked what the study tells us about the chance of someone with an undetectable viral load transmitting HIV, presenter Alison Rodger said: “Our best estimate is it’s zero.”

    http://www.queerty.com/study-undetectable-guys-do-not-transmit-hiv-to-negative-sex-partners-20140305

    A Negative person can be tested today and be infectious right now, due to the 2-3 month window. Or tomorrow or next month.

    Back to your "who say" addition.

    Note ACON #
    1.The use of Condoms during casual encounters between men of unknown or discordant serostatus.

    I think we all agree that what someone says is suspect/unknown.


    ACON is from Australia. Your country. Read it sometime. It's at the forefront of HIV care and medicine, or soon will be when they allow PrEP.

    I think you are upset because your reasons for discrimination are drying up. Some Negative guys who are smart and intelligent are taking charge of their health, by using PrEP. Some of them are also aware of the lessened risks of truly clinically Undetectable. (Also some Negative guys too of course.) Your whoring around (as a Negative Gay man) puts you in the back of the bus.

    Beyond "Poz" and "Neg": Five HIV Statuses, Plus a New One

    "I'm HIV Negative on PrEP."
    "I'm HIV positive, undetectable."
    "I'm HIV negative. I test regularly. I always use condoms."
    "I'm HIV-positive. I don't know what my viral load is."
    "I don't know my status."
    "I'm HIV negative." (Or at least he thinks he is). <<<<
    What's the conclusion? The same one that public health advocates reached and preached for decades: know your HIV status. If you are negative, avoid infection by using all available protections. If you are positive, seek treatment.

    By knowing your status and act accordingly, you contribute to the ultimate goal of controlling the epidemic.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/renato-barucco/beyond-poz-and-neg-five-h_b_5039729.html








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

    Oct 23, 2015 6:19 PM GMT
    "You then decide to be more responsible for a short while then revert back to your agenda. You are encouraging HIV+ phobia even for people who are supportive and you can't see that."

    When am I being more reasonable and when am I less reasonable?

    What constitutes reasonable? What is that I need to do or say to be reasonable?

    My only "agenda" is that condomless sex MUST be addressed because it will always exist. TasP and PrEP are a part of that. And as I've mentioned 1000 times or so, ACON notably covers that, condoms too.

    I have never seen actual "support" from you. You say you've had sex with men who are HIV+. I believe you said you sero-position (you top where there is less chance of getting HIV.) I don't think you need to be applauded for that. From what I can tell you treat everyone who is POZ like shit. You use them. You expect them (demand actually) to agree with you and if they don't you verbally abuse them.

    You see yourself as the "Top Dog". And defend your 'position' no matter what science says.

    Your title "Why is the reality of Gay Men taking Prep, increasing their risk compensation not being acknowledged" is presumptuous.....long winded, and poorly stated. You seem to think you already have the answer. You didn't say "ARE Gay men on PrEP taking more STD risks?"

    Where is it "acknowledged"? It has been studied....with the mixed and even the opposite results. But that was early in the PrEP studies. You speak of it as a reality, when it isn't. If the "reality" is not "acknowledged" you are asking "why"? As if it is a conspiracy. Conspiracies are like superstitions. They don't need reality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2015 3:29 PM GMT
    manboynyc saidI was in a PreP research study and decided it was not for me. I don't understand the phrasing of your question, but it seems to me there are MANY more risks than people on it are willing to admit. We also don't yet know it's long-term effects on the body in general.

    It is anything but a panacea for STD's and I would not be surprised if STD's other than HIV are on the rise due to it's usage... but I could be wrong. I'm not saying to not use it - what I am saying is: there are many things about it we still don't know - and it's not for everyone.

    +1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2015 4:09 PM GMT
    FitBlackCuddler said
    Edepic saidThere is no one size that fits all in life.
    Some gay men do decide to be asexual, Oliver Sacks for 35 years, for example.
    Some men in the opposite direction have the desire to have as much sex with as many men as they can.
    Others are dating and hoping to find a partner.
    If you are dating realize many men don't really know their status and you are vulnerable.
    Condoms can fail and some men can't use them.
    Prep is not for everyone but in some situations it useful to have as a choice that is available for consideration. And it does not have to be forever.
    Certainly it can help protect the man who is looking for a partner and who will take it for a limited time till he finds monogamy with a trusted partner.


    And FUCKING is NOT the ONLY way to approach (sexual) intimacy between two men. A pity "gay" men cannot/will not take time to SEE and ACT on that.


    Of course anal isn't everything. I went for 6 years (2 relationships) NOT fucking.

    Many Gay men are strictly oral. That's hardly a secret. You aren't advancing a new idea LOL.

    Even with just oral you can get STDs of course. So if you are really concerned you wouldn't do that either. You can get herpes from kissing. Then there's wrestlers herpes and contact dermatitis from skin contact.

    If your risk apprehension is a great concern you won't do anything! You could live in a bubble I suppose.
  • FitBlackCuddl...

    Posts: 802

    Oct 25, 2015 9:02 PM GMT
    timmm55 said
    FitBlackCuddler said
    Edepic saidThere is no one size that fits all in life.
    Some gay men do decide to be asexual, Oliver Sacks for 35 years, for example.
    Some men in the opposite direction have the desire to have as much sex with as many men as they can.
    Others are dating and hoping to find a partner.
    If you are dating realize many men don't really know their status and you are vulnerable.
    Condoms can fail and some men can't use them.
    Prep is not for everyone but in some situations it useful to have as a choice that is available for consideration. And it does not have to be forever.
    Certainly it can help protect the man who is looking for a partner and who will take it for a limited time till he finds monogamy with a trusted partner.


    And FUCKING is NOT the ONLY way to approach (sexual) intimacy between two men. A pity "gay" men cannot/will not take time to SEE and ACT on that.


    Of course anal isn't everything. I went for 6 years (2 relationships) NOT fucking.

    Many Gay men are strictly oral. That's hardly a secret. You aren't advancing a new idea LOL.

    Even with just oral you can get STDs of course. So if you are really concerned you wouldn't do that either. You can get herpes from kissing. Then there's wrestlers herpes and contact dermatitis from skin contact.

    If your risk apprehension is a great concern you won't do anything! You could live in a bubble I suppose.


    Is as if you cannot see a physical/emotional connection between two men as anything but specific sexual acts. Is as if you think--we aren't going to fuck, so he will suck my penis. You mean there is no "going with the flow"...it all needs to be spelled out?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2015 11:17 PM GMT
    FitBlackCuddler said
    timmm55 said
    FitBlackCuddler said
    Edepic saidThere is no one size that fits all in life.
    Some gay men do decide to be asexual, Oliver Sacks for 35 years, for example.
    Some men in the opposite direction have the desire to have as much sex with as many men as they can.
    Others are dating and hoping to find a partner.
    If you are dating realize many men don't really know their status and you are vulnerable.
    Condoms can fail and some men can't use them.
    Prep is not for everyone but in some situations it useful to have as a choice that is available for consideration. And it does not have to be forever.
    Certainly it can help protect the man who is looking for a partner and who will take it for a limited time till he finds monogamy with a trusted partner.


    And FUCKING is NOT the ONLY way to approach (sexual) intimacy between two men. A pity "gay" men cannot/will not take time to SEE and ACT on that.


    Of course anal isn't everything. I went for 6 years (2 relationships) NOT fucking.

    Many Gay men are strictly oral. That's hardly a secret. You aren't advancing a new idea LOL.

    Even with just oral you can get STDs of course. So if you are really concerned you wouldn't do that either. You can get herpes from kissing. Then there's wrestlers herpes and contact dermatitis from skin contact.

    If your risk apprehension is a great concern you won't do anything! You could live in a bubble I suppose.


    Is as if you cannot see a physical/emotional connection between two men as anything but specific sexual acts. Is as if you think--we aren't going to fuck, so he will suck my penis. You mean there is no "going with the flow"...it all needs to be spelled out?


    Spell out for me, if it's not anal or oral, what sexual expression is remaining? Holding hands, kissing, heavy petting (anybody remember that term?), mutual masturbation?

    But even those have some risks of STDs.

    What does "going with the flow" even mean? Yes, you need to explain that. It's not something that can be qualified.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2015 6:53 AM GMT
    timmm55 said"You then decide to be more responsible for a short while then revert back to your agenda. You are encouraging HIV+ phobia even for people who are supportive and you can't see that."

    When am I being more reasonable and when am I less reasonable?

    What constitutes reasonable? What is that I need to do or say to be reasonable?

    My only "agenda" is that condomless sex MUST be addressed because it will always exist. TasP and PrEP are a part of that. And as I've mentioned 1000 times or so, ACON notably covers that, condoms too.

    I have never seen actual "support" from you. You say you've had sex with men who are HIV+. I believe you said you sero-position (you top where there is less chance of getting HIV.) I don't think you need to be applauded for that. From what I can tell you treat everyone who is POZ like shit. You use them. You expect them (demand actually) to agree with you and if they don't you verbally abuse them.

    You see yourself as the "Top Dog". And defend your 'position' no matter what science says.

    Your title "Why is the reality of Gay Men taking Prep, increasing their risk compensation not being acknowledged" is presumptuous.....long winded, and poorly stated. You seem to think you already have the answer. You didn't say "ARE Gay men on PrEP taking more STD risks?"

    Where is it "acknowledged"? It has been studied....with the mixed and even the opposite results. But that was early in the PrEP studies. You speak of it as a reality, when it isn't. If the "reality" is not "acknowledged" you are asking "why"? As if it is a conspiracy. Conspiracies are like superstitions. They don't need reality.


    I