Why is the gay community full of HIV + men that want to brainwash people into having unprotected sex with them?

  • toughbuddy

    Posts: 5

    Dec 23, 2015 8:37 PM GMT
    I've also noticed that this site has a bunch of these creepy HIV poz people and even bug chasers... Why? icon_question.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 23, 2015 10:15 PM GMT
    theantijock%20engage%20stalker%20reducti

    Some have complained about or tried to ridicule my somewhat extensive ignore list about which in one minute you'll make for #171, if I recall the last count correctly.

    Here's how I work it. If I chance upon a real scummy post or thread, I might look at it for just a moment. I might check some of the other posts from the guy or just immediately click ignore, depending on my mood. And I write in their profile internal notes so that if I wonder in the future why I clicked ignore, I'll know.

    Here's your internal notes say:

    seems like a douchebag

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4155288

    Why is the gay community full of HIV + men that want to brainwash people into having unprotected sex with them?

    toughbuddy saidI've also noticed that this site has a bunch of these creepy HIV poz people and even bug chasers... Why?
    icon_question.gif


    okay, well, there's that. buh bye #171.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 23, 2015 10:38 PM GMT
    ^antijock always complains that people here treat him like he's invisible due to his age, but really he just has 171 people on ignore and doesn't realize that we can still see him even when his eyes are closed.

    Peekaboo!!!

    Edit: OP is a trashy troll.

    /thread
  • venue35

    Posts: 4644

    Dec 23, 2015 11:52 PM GMT
    Is the anti jock always "hidden" in fear of being banned??
    I don't get it
  • venue35

    Posts: 4644

    Dec 24, 2015 12:08 AM GMT
    No seriously what is up with the anti jock??
    He used to be pretty normal and then everything went apeshit..what happened??????
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 24, 2015 12:36 AM GMT
    easy, anal sex, promiscuity, and not using condoms
    it's no rocket science
  • Leftswiper

    Posts: 90

    Dec 24, 2015 1:35 AM GMT
    Maybe they believe the stigma will go away if everyone is infected or took meds as if they're infected, I dunno icon_neutral.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 24, 2015 3:17 AM GMT
    Leftswiper saidMaybe they believe the stigma will go away if everyone is infected or took meds as if they're infected, I dunno icon_neutral.gif

    That might be part of it. There's a big guilt factor attached to being HIV poz. When of course there shouldn't be.

    In the first years of the epidemic no one even knew what was causing it, so how could you be blamed for contracting it? After the disease mechanism was discovered many were still infected innocently, like my late partner, by a cheating, lying former partner before I met him.

    And a small number through non-sexual activities, of which some were also guiltless. The Veterans Administration (VA), which I used myself for years, was proven to have infected veterans undergoing standard examinations through the use of contaminated equipment.

    But I think some of these poz guys want to convince themselves they did nothing wrong by having unprotected sex, years after it was identified as a risk. So they try to persuade others to have unprotected sex, too.

    As you say, erase the stigma they suffer by making it an acceptable practice. Despite all the credible medical authorities saying not to do that, even when using PrEP (and it has to be taken correctly without fail, or its efficacy plummets). PrEP reduces your risk, but does not eliminate it.

    I can just imagine my late Mother summarizing this whole thing in one of her sayings: "Misery loves company".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 24, 2015 3:30 AM GMT
    Sam27 saidTwo of my gay friends are HIV + and they always educate me about HIV + and how they use protect sex. Those HIV guys that want unprotected sex aren't safe. They are dangerous and stupid.

    You're fortunate. So was I. My first gay friend after I came out, as well as becoming my mentor, was poz. He was adamant about safe sex, taught me my first lessons. He was also an editor for a gay publication, and specialized in their HIV topics. His personal mission was to ensure that no one else contracted HIV, or spread it.

    I credit him more than anyone else with my being negative over 20 years later, in spite of a fairly active, some might say slutty, gay sex life, especially when I started out and was horny as hell. I hope you'll continue to listen to your own smart friends, as I did to mine.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 24, 2015 7:16 AM GMT
    Sam27 saidTwo of my gay friends are HIV + and they always educate me about HIV + and how they use protect(ed)sex. Those HIV guys that want unprotected sex aren't safe. They are dangerous and stupid.


    Dangerous or stupid, or know more than you do?

    What is unprotected sex? Not using condoms or not being undetectable or not using PrEP? Or none of the above?

    The CDC no longer calls sex without condoms as being "unprotected" because there are medical alternatives. It is simply 'condomless" sex.

    Ah but you say "what about STDS!" We are talking about HIV. Does that dismiss funding a cure also? A cure would probably result in more STDs. Does that make it evil? Stupid? Dangerous? Imagine a cure to be 'dangerous', how fucking stupid is that?

    What about couples who are both undetectable? Or sero-discordant on Prep/ART?

    Don't be smug in your supposed superiority, you are ill informed. You've gotten part of the message (like Art Deco 20 years ago) but can't deal with the paradigm shift of the last 10 + years.


    Read ACON (as I've recommended over the last year)
    http://www.acon.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/What-is-Safe-Sex-Position-2014.pdf

    What is safe sex?
    The HIV prevention landscape has changed considerably in recent years.
    Condoms, used together with lubricant,
    remain the most effective barrier against the
    transmission of HIV, though they are no longer the only option.
    Additional biomedical technologies and new understandings of existing technologies have created a promising new landscape for HIV prevention.
    ‘Safe sex’ for gay men and other homosexually active
    men (GHAM), in terms of HIV prevention, is no
    longer restricted to binaries of condomless sex or sex with condoms.
    In regard to HIV, ‘safe sex’ refers to sex with a very low likelihood of transmission.
    There are now at least five strategies that reasonably constitute ‘safe sex’, provided that certain parameters are met.
    They are:
    1.
    The use of Condoms during
    casual encounters between men of unknown or discordant serostatus.
    2.
    HIV negative men taking effective pre-exposure prophylactic.
    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 serosorting between positive men.
    5.
    Effective negotiated safety agreements.

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

    Dec 24, 2015 9:04 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    Leftswiper saidMaybe they believe the stigma will go away if everyone is infected or took meds as if they're infected, I dunno icon_neutral.gif

    That might be part of it. There's a big guilt factor attached to being HIV poz. When of course there shouldn't be.

    In the first years of the epidemic no one even knew what was causing it, so how could you be blamed for contracting it? After the disease mechanism was discovered many were still infected innocently, like my late partner, by a cheating, lying partner.

    And a small number through non-sexual activities, of which some were also guiltless. The Veterans Administration (VA), which I used myself for years, was proven to have infected veterans undergoing standard examinations through the use of contaminated equipment.

    But I think some of these poz guys want to convince themselves they did nothing wrong by having unprotected sex, years after it was identified as a risk. So they try to persuade others to have unprotected sex, too.

    As you say, erase the stigma they suffer by making it an acceptable practice. Despite all the credible medical authorities saying not to do that, even when using PrEP (and it has to be taken correctly without fail, or its efficacy plummets). PrEP reduces your risk, but does not eliminate it.

    I can just imagine my late Mother summarizing this whole thing in one of her sayings: "Misery loves company".


    If your mother was as stigmatizing as you, she'd of been against the Polio vaccine.

    I love how you rank the "blameless" to blameful. The very act of doing that, the need to qualify that, is stigma.

    In the most recent PrEP study at K-P, not one of the 650 Gay Men at high risk got HIV. That's 100% over 2 years. It's still at 100% with 6x a week. Or even 5x. It doesn't plummet, as you say. There's a French study of "PrEP on Demand" used occasionally. Condoms forgotten ONCE are a 100% failure.

    Do you really think your ex partner's partner WANTED to get AIDS and then give it to his partner? Lying (and cheating is redundant) intentionally? Yeah because everyone who becomes HIV+ is like the Walking Dead, looking for more victims? More Stigma.

    The biggest group of new HIV infections are among young black MSM 13-24, not on PrEP or on ART. Nor are they tested regularly. But blacks use condoms MORE frequently. Many people get infected while using a condom as they have a high anal failure rate, efficacy of 75%. Many don't get tested at all, yet say they are 'clean.' Others HAVE been tested, maybe more than twice a year yet are still POZ unbeknownst to them or their partners.

    Saying "But I think some of these poz guys want to convince themselves they did nothing wrong by having unprotected sex, years after it was identified as a risk. So they try to persuade others to have unprotected sex, too." ....is really dumb. Doing that in the early days they would already be dead. Most POZ guys serosorted with other POZ guys. Nowadays most POZ/UD serosort with the same or on PrEP or NEG guys who know what the risks are (Zero).

    You don't have to 'persuade' or convince someone of raw sex. If anything it is more natural. 53% don't use condoms. And using condoms 'some of time' is little better than none at all. Trying to convince 100% to use condoms 100% is noble, but flawed. It has simply never happened.

    I have 'safe sex' with other poz/uvl guys. Yep, we are both undetectable. I have no interest in NEG guys at all, certainly not to 'brainwash' them. Brainswashing implies I am coercing them. Never. Personally I think NEG guys whining about their 'virtue' is irresponsible. Take care of yourselves! Go on PrEP.

    The idea you've been coerced, brainwashed, and lied to is no excuse anymore. YOU are responsible for your sexual health. If YOU don't understand PrEP or ART you are left with 'neg maybe' guys. Good luck with THAT serosorting!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2015 3:48 AM GMT
    Timm55 is the president of the lets see how many will join us already infected league. He uses a lot of selective quotes and even uses resources like ACON despite the FACT that his assertions don't add up. Timm55 claimed that no risk dispensation would occur and denied it was a significant problem for Prep users. The statistic are already showing his is wrong and I believe he already knew that it would occur that way. He also lies about the risks of Undetectable men as well and makes very dangerous lies about Condoms. Timm55 I suspect is being backed by the pharmaceutical company Gillead who aren't making any attempt to refute what Timm55 and many of his (BB lets increase infections lobby) claim are facts. He is correct to say that you are responsible for your own sexual health in the end, but irresponsible and at times it appears malicious claims known to be based on science with much conjecture is a sign that these people should be challenged or ignored. 53% of people ...... go on Timm55 and your mates quote another study. Perhaps since your quoting all sorts of selective things I will start one that shows your actually a child being paid to spread a message, but I wouldnt bother stooping to your level.

    You are the very type of man Timm55 who creates stigma not reduces it so don't bother crying and expecting sympathy
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2015 3:51 AM GMT
    toughbuddy saidI've also noticed that this site has a bunch of these creepy HIV poz people and even bug chasers... Why? icon_question.gif


    AlsoThank you. Someone else also calling it as it is. These guys need to hear the truth as much as they hate it.

    The reason is that since the late 90's, men who are already POZ have been told that unprotected sex with other POZ men is safe for them. Then in 2008 the Swiss Statement gave impetus for a change in the message about safe sex. That message was that a cure is around the corner and HIV is no longer an issue to be concerned about. Since then this missinformation bug has caught on quicker than HIV ever did. Look at the stats around the world they back up what i am saying

    I do not discriminate against HIV POZ guys if they are honest and do not insist on BB sex. Condomless sex the less emotive sounding term is meant to make you feel safer about having BB. Don't listen to that awful message
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2015 10:42 AM GMT
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 said
    toughbuddy saidI've also noticed that this site has a bunch of these creepy HIV poz people and even bug chasers... Why? icon_question.gif


    AlsoThank you. Someone else also calling it as it is. These guys need to hear the truth as much as they hate it.

    The reason is that since the late 90's, men who are already POZ have been told that unprotected sex with other POZ men is safe for them. Then in 2008 the Swiss Statement gave impetus for a change in the message about safe sex. That message was that a cure is around the corner and HIV is no longer an issue to be concerned about. Since then this missinformation bug has caught on quicker than HIV ever did. Look at the stats around the world they back up what i am saying

    I do not discriminate against HIV POZ guys if they are honest and do not insist on BB sex. Condomless sex the less emotive sounding term is meant to make you feel safer about having BB. Don't listen to that awful message


    The moron speaks again. The Swiss Statement says nothing of the sort. ART is not a cure. You're an idiot.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2015 10:55 AM GMT
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 saidTimm55 is the president of the lets see how many will join us already infected league. He uses a lot of selective quotes and even uses resources like ACON despite the FACT that his assertions don't add up. Timm55 claimed that no risk dispensation would occur and denied it was a significant problem for Prep users. The statistic are already showing his is wrong and I believe he already knew that it would occur that way. He also lies about the risks of Undetectable men as well and makes very dangerous lies about Condoms. Timm55 I suspect is being backed by the pharmaceutical company Gillead who aren't making any attempt to refute what Timm55 and many of his (BB lets increase infections lobby) claim are facts. He is correct to say that you are responsible for your own sexual health in the end, but irresponsible and at times it appears malicious claims known to be based on science with much conjecture is a sign that these people should be challenged or ignored. 53% of people ...... go on Timm55 and your mates quote another study. Perhaps since your quoting all sorts of selective things I will start one that shows your actually a child being paid to spread a message, but I wouldnt bother stooping to your level.

    You are the very type of man Timm55 who creates stigma not reduces it so don't bother crying and expecting sympathy


    What a fucking moron!


    Read ACON (as I've recommended over the last year)
    http://www.acon.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/What-is-Safe-Sex-Position-2014.pdf

    What is safe sex?
    The HIV prevention landscape has changed considerably in recent years.
    Condoms, used together with lubricant,
    remain the most effective barrier against the
    transmission of HIV, though they are no longer the only option.
    Additional biomedical technologies and new understandings of existing technologies have created a promising new landscape for HIV prevention.
    ‘Safe sex’ for gay men and other homosexually active
    men (GHAM), in terms of HIV prevention, is no
    longer restricted to binaries of condomless sex or sex with condoms.
    In regard to HIV, ‘safe sex’ refers to sex with a very low likelihood of transmission.
    There are now at least five strategies that reasonably constitute ‘safe sex’, provided that certain parameters are met.
    They are:
    1.
    The use of Condoms during
    casual encounters between men of unknown or discordant serostatus.
    2.
    HIV negative men taking effective pre-exposure prophylactic.
    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 serosorting between positive men.
    5.
    Effective negotiated safety agreements.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2015 11:08 AM GMT
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 said
    toughbuddy saidI've also noticed that this site has a bunch of these creepy HIV poz people and even bug chasers... Why? icon_question.gif


    AlsoThank you. Someone else also calling it as it is. These guys need to hear the truth as much as they hate it.

    The reason is that since the late 90's, men who are already POZ have been told that unprotected sex with other POZ men is safe for them. Then in 2008 the Swiss Statement gave impetus for a change in the message about safe sex. That message was that a cure is around the corner and HIV is no longer an issue to be concerned about. Since then this missinformation bug has caught on quicker than HIV ever did. Look at the stats around the world they back up what i am saying

    I do not discriminate against HIV POZ guys if they are honest and do not insist on BB sex. Condomless sex the less emotive sounding term is meant to make you feel safer about having BB. Don't listen to that awful message


    CDC to Stop Using "Unprotected Sex" for "Condomless Sex"
    It may seem like a technicality, but the agency's agreement to change its rhetoric could have a major impact on both prevention and HIV criminal cases.

    http://www.hivplusmag.com/research/2014/02/13/cdc-stop-using-unprotected-sex-condomless-sex
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2015 11:46 AM GMT
    timmm55 said
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 said
    toughbuddy saidI've also noticed that this site has a bunch of these creepy HIV poz people and even bug chasers... Why? icon_question.gif


    I do not discriminate against HIV POZ guys if they are honest and do not insist on BB sex. Condomless sex the less emotive sounding term is meant to make you feel safer about having BB. Don't listen to that awful message


    CDC to Stop Using "Unprotected Sex" for "Condomless Sex"
    It may seem like a technicality, but the agency's agreement to change its rhetoric could have a major impact on both prevention and HIV criminal cases.

    http://www.hivplusmag.com/research/2014/02/13/cdc-stop-using-unprotected-sex-condomless-sex


    By that you mean that some people are willing to put lives at risk by making BB sex with POZ men who do not reveal their status and/or infect HIV negative men.

    So let me some up your position on these matters, according to you Timm55
    1. HIV negative men who deliberately or wrecklessly infected by HIV POZ men are not entitled to any legal recourse
    2. You think Changing a term from its true accurate description to a warm and fluffy word that sounds like it's a choice between 2 colours of MM,s is going to reduce infections
    3. You also assettThe right to have BB sex for POZ men with no responsibility trumps any other rights of those who are HIV neg
    You are increasing discrimination so if that's your goal well done its achieved
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2015 1:13 PM GMT
    timmm55 said
    Art_Deco said
    ...But I think some of these poz guys want to convince themselves they did nothing wrong by having unprotected sex, years after it was identified as a risk. So they try to persuade others to have unprotected sex, too.

    As you say, erase the stigma they suffer by making it an acceptable practice. Despite all the credible medical authorities saying not to do that, even when using PrEP (and it has to be taken correctly without fail, or its efficacy plummets). PrEP reduces your risk, but does not eliminate it.

    I can just imagine my late Mother summarizing this whole thing in one of her sayings: "Misery loves company".

    If your mother was as stigmatizing as you, she'd of been against the Polio vaccine.

    Now that statement makes no sense at all. And for the record, my late Mother made sure I received the newly introduced polio vaccine in the mid-1950s. I was born into a world without a polio vaccine, and many of the other of the vaccines that now exist today. A time when the image of children in heavy leg braces, and even confined to iron lungs from polio, was very frightening to a young boy.

    As a result I'm a strong supporter of vaccines. I even argue here for the merits of the annual flu vaccine that I always get myself, which many guys oppose. And I certainly support any vaccine or treatment that would limit the spread of HIV.

    But let's be clear: PrEP does not give 100% protection against HIV when barebacking. Nor does the flu vaccine totally prevent the flu. But taking each offers more protection than taking nothing. Therefore I don't oppose PrEP, by all means take it if you're a sexually active gay man. Its limitations & strict protocols merely need to be better understood than you're presenting to guys here. It is not a panacea.

    As for my alleged stigmatizing, let's review what I actually wrote above, with my added emphasis:

    "There's a big guilt factor attached to being HIV poz. When of course there shouldn't be.

    In the first years of the epidemic no one even knew what was causing it, so how could you be blamed for contracting it? After the disease mechanism was discovered many were still infected innocently, like my late partner, by a cheating, lying former partner before I met him.

    And a small number through non-sexual activities, of which some were also guiltless. The Veterans Administration (VA), which I used myself for years, was proven to have infected veterans undergoing standard examinations through the use of contaminated equipment.

    But I think some of these poz guys want to convince themselves they did nothing wrong by having unprotected sex, years after it was identified as a risk. So they try to persuade others to have unprotected sex, too."


    I really don't think that's stigmatizing. I had Christmas dinner 2 days ago with a friend who has HIV. I suspect he's also developed AIDS but I don't ask and he hasn't told me. It doesn't affect our friendship. And of course you already know I lived with my first partner who was poz and I was the bottom in that relationship. So no, I don't think I stigmatize.

    What I do is a rational and calculated risk assessment. That applies to my own circumstances and to no one else's. Versus your universal "take PrEP and you can bareback" advice, which is misleading and dangerous., and not endorsed by medical authorities such as the CDC.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2015 8:17 PM GMT
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 said
    timmm55 said
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 said
    toughbuddy saidI've also noticed that this site has a bunch of these creepy HIV poz people and even bug chasers... Why? icon_question.gif


    I do not discriminate against HIV POZ guys if they are honest and do not insist on BB sex. Condomless sex the less emotive sounding term is meant to make you feel safer about having BB. Don't listen to that awful message


    CDC to Stop Using "Unprotected Sex" for "Condomless Sex"
    It may seem like a technicality, but the agency's agreement to change its rhetoric could have a major impact on both prevention and HIV criminal cases.

    http://www.hivplusmag.com/research/2014/02/13/cdc-stop-using-unprotected-sex-condomless-sex


    By that you mean that some people are willing to put lives at risk by making BB sex with POZ men who do not reveal their status and/or infect HIV negative men.

    So let me some up your position on these matters, according to you Timm55
    1. HIV negative men who deliberately or wrecklessly infected by HIV POZ men are not entitled to any legal recourse
    2. You think Changing a term from its true accurate description to a warm and fluffy word that sounds like it's a choice between 2 colours of MM,s is going to reduce infections
    3. You also assettThe right to have BB sex for POZ men with no responsibility trumps any other rights of those who are HIV neg
    You are increasing discrimination so if that's your goal well done its achieved


    You can stick you summation up your ass. I never said anything of the sort.

    What kind of a mind makes up your BS? And yes you and Art Deco are absolutely stigmatizing. You make an enemy of Gay HIV people. They are your nemesis. You devalue my knowledge to your lack of it.

    But you do fit with the OP!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2015 8:44 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    timmm55 said
    Art_Deco said
    ...But I think some of these poz guys want to convince themselves they did nothing wrong by having unprotected sex, years after it was identified as a risk. So they try to persuade others to have unprotected sex, too.

    As you say, erase the stigma they suffer by making it an acceptable practice. Despite all the credible medical authorities saying not to do that, even when using PrEP (and it has to be taken correctly without fail, or its efficacy plummets). PrEP reduces your risk, but does not eliminate it.

    I can just imagine my late Mother summarizing this whole thing in one of her sayings: "Misery loves company".

    If your mother was as stigmatizing as you, she'd of been against the Polio vaccine.

    Now that statement makes no sense at all. And for the record, my late Mother made sure I received the newly introduced polio vaccine in the mid-1950s. I was born into a world without a polio vaccine, and many of the other of the vaccines that now exist today. A time when the image of children in heavy leg braces, and even confined to iron lungs from polio, was very frightening to a young boy.

    As a result I'm a strong supporter of vaccines. I even argue here for the merits of the annual flu vaccine that I always get myself, which many guys oppose. And I certainly support any vaccine or treatment that would limit the spread of HIV.

    But let's be clear: PrEP does not give 100% protection against HIV when barebacking. Nor does the flu vaccine totally prevent the flu. But taking each offers more protection than taking nothing. Therefore I don't oppose PrEP, by all means take it if you're a sexually active gay man. Its limitations & strict protocols merely need to be better understood than you're presenting to guys here. It is not a panacea.

    As for my alleged stigmatizing, let's review what I actually wrote above, with my added emphasis:

    "There's a big guilt factor attached to being HIV poz. When of course there shouldn't be.

    In the first years of the epidemic no one even knew what was causing it, so how could you be blamed for contracting it? After the disease mechanism was discovered many were still infected innocently, like my late partner, by a cheating, lying former partner before I met him.

    And a small number through non-sexual activities, of which some were also guiltless. The Veterans Administration (VA), which I used myself for years, was proven to have infected veterans undergoing standard examinations through the use of contaminated equipment.

    But I think some of these poz guys want to convince themselves they did nothing wrong by having unprotected sex, years after it was identified as a risk. So they try to persuade others to have unprotected sex, too."


    I really don't think that's stigmatizing. I had Christmas dinner 2 days ago with a friend who has HIV. I suspect he's also developed AIDS but I don't ask and he hasn't told me. It doesn't affect our friendship. And of course you already know I lived with my first partner who was poz and I was the bottom in that relationship. So no, I don't think I stigmatize.

    What I do is a rational and calculated risk assessment. That applies to my own circumstances and to no one else's. Versus your universal "take PrEP and you can bareback" advice, which is misleading and dangerous., and not endorsed by medical authorities such as the CDC.


    Your summation is stigmatizing ME, and prejudicial.
    That you say " your universal "take PrEP and you can bareback" advice, which is misleading and dangerous..."

    Is that what I've said? If you think so you have misread everything I've quoted and said. How can you do that? By not not listening/reading and you make assumptions about ME. That is Stigma.

    You talk about a "calculated risk assessment" which is exactly what I've talked about.

    There is nothing dangerous about a monogamous ULV/Neg couple deciding to not use condoms. The risk assessment is essentially ZERO. If they are not comfortable with the "essentially" part, so be it. Use condoms too or PrEP. That is their decision not yours.

    Even IF someone is whoring around and not wearing a condom, yes PrEP is a lot better than nothing. You want to bend all of humanity to comply with your moral code. The CDC says 1 in 4 gay men...those men.....should be on PrEP.

    If you can't change behavior (you can't) change the methods of prevention, and they have. Condoms won't work for them. No matter how much you berate them. There is no "BB Agenda" it is human nature.

    You can piss and moan about how everyone should use condoms 100% of the time, as you've done repeatedly the last 2 years. And you can vilify me as a proponent of protecting the whores of Sodom and Gomorrah....but that's not very Christian of you, is it?

    Let's be clear here too: PrEP is more effective than condoms, as prescribed for either.(K-P PrEP study of 650, ZERO transmissions). And there is no lasting effect from condoms.....1 shot and there's no more protection.

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

    Dec 27, 2015 8:55 PM GMT
    IF you had a friend over for Christmas, and you think he has AIDS in this day in age......WTF wouldn't you ask about it?

    Nobody has to die of AIDS now. I've known people who have come back from the brink. Open and honest does a lot more than moralizing.

    Do you prefer that he dies, rather than talk about it?

    My GOD, if you don't understand what stigma does...that is it! Your inability to even TALK about it is a road block courtesy of STIGMA. If I thought a friend had AIDS I would try to council him on ART and support him! It's not too late.

    Together with your Thanksgiving list of HIV people you didn't invite (you don't discriminate, but you KNEW there weren't any POZ guys there!), you make a shitty friend.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2015 9:30 PM GMT
    toughbuddy saidI've also noticed that this site has a bunch of these creepy HIV poz people and even bug chasers... Why? icon_question.gif


    The better question is: Why is the NEG gay community brainwashed to thinking HIV+ people WANT to have unprotected sex with them?

    As usual the onus in put on the POZ person. Fact is I don't want to touch any of you whinny NEG asses, you are quick to sue "he done it!" quick to blame, and don't take responsibility for yourselves.

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

    Dec 28, 2015 7:54 AM GMT
    timmm55 said
    Art_Deco said
    timmm55 said
    Art_Deco said
    ...But I think some of these poz guys want to convince themselves they did nothing wrong by having unprotected sex, years after it was identified as a risk. So they try to persuade others to have unprotected sex, too.

    As you say, erase the stigma they suffer by making it an acceptable practice. Despite all the credible medical authorities saying not to do that, even when using PrEP (and it has to be taken correctly without fail, or its efficacy plummets). PrEP reduces your risk, but does not eliminate it.

    I can just imagine my late Mother summarizing this whole thing in one of her sayings: "Misery loves company".

    If your mother was as stigmatizing as you, she'd of been against the Polio vaccine.

    Now that statement makes no sense at all. And for the record, my late Mother made sure I received the newly introduced polio vaccine in the mid-1950s. I was born into a world without a polio vaccine, and many of the other of the vaccines that now exist today. A time when the image of children in heavy leg braces, and even confined to iron lungs from polio, was very frightening to a young boy.

    As a result I'm a strong supporter of vaccines. I even argue here for the merits of the annual flu vaccine that I always get myself, which many guys oppose. And I certainly support any vaccine or treatment that would limit the spread of HIV.

    But let's be clear: PrEP does not give 100% protection against HIV when barebacking. Nor does the flu vaccine totally prevent the flu. But taking each offers more protection than taking nothing. Therefore I don't oppose PrEP, by all means take it if you're a sexually active gay man. Its limitations & strict protocols merely need to be better understood than you're presenting to guys here. It is not a panacea.

    As for my alleged stigmatizing, let's review what I actually wrote above, with my added emphasis:

    "There's a big guilt factor attached to being HIV poz. When of course there shouldn't be.

    In the first years of the epidemic no one even knew what was causing it, so how could you be blamed for contracting it? After the disease mechanism was discovered many were still infected innocently, like my late partner, by a cheating, lying former partner before I met him.

    And a small number through non-sexual activities, of which some were also guiltless. The Veterans Administration (VA), which I used myself for years, was proven to have infected veterans undergoing standard examinations through the use of contaminated equipment.

    But I think some of these poz guys want to convince themselves they did nothing wrong by having unprotected sex, years after it was identified as a risk. So they try to persuade others to have unprotected sex, too."


    I really don't think that's stigmatizing. I had Christmas dinner 2 days ago with a friend who has HIV. I suspect he's also developed AIDS but I don't ask and he hasn't told me. It doesn't affect our friendship. And of course you already know I lived with my first partner who was poz and I was the bottom in that relationship. So no, I don't think I stigmatize.

    What I do is a rational and calculated risk assessment. That applies to my own circumstances and to no one else's. Versus your universal "take PrEP and you can bareback" advice, which is misleading and dangerous., and not endorsed by medical authorities such as the CDC.


    Your summation is stigmatizing ME, and prejudicial.
    That you say " your universal "take PrEP and you can bareback" advice, which is misleading and dangerous..."

    Is that what I've said? If you think so you have misread everything I've quoted and said. How can you do that? By not not listening/reading and you make assumptions about ME. That is Stigma.

    You talk about a "calculated risk assessment" which is exactly what I've talked about.

    There is nothing dangerous about a monogamous ULV/Neg couple deciding to not use condoms. The risk assessment is essentially ZERO. If they are not comfortable with the "essentially" part, so be it. Use condoms too or PrEP. That is their decision not yours.

    Even IF someone is whoring around and not wearing a condom, yes PrEP is a lot better than nothing. You want to bend all of humanity to comply with your moral code. The CDC says 1 in 4 gay men...those men.....should be on PrEP.

    If you can't change behavior (you can't) change the methods of prevention, and they have. Condoms won't work for them. No matter how much you berate them. There is no "BB Agenda" it is human nature.

    You can piss and moan about how everyone should use condoms 100% of the time, as you've done repeatedly the last 2 years. And you can vilify me as a proponent of protecting the whores of Sodom and Gomorrah....but that's not very Christian of you, is it?

    Let's be clear here too: PrEP is more effective than condoms, as prescribed for either.(K-P PrEP study of 650, ZERO transmissions). And there is no lasting effect from condoms.....1 shot and there's no more protection.



    There you go again trying to justify the unjustifiable. Stop advocating BB sex and saying everybody does it then just to top everything off after creating stigma for yourself and others you the whinge about being stigmatised. That's the part you don't seem to understand despite being what you do every time you comment on anything Sexual health related. Also you still haven't managed to explain why NSW had such a big drop in infections despite a very low number of people on Prep. Since its a wonder drug you say and condoms are useless according to you. If you ceased to manipulate people into thinking they should BB that would make a small contribution to reducing transmissions too
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2015 11:59 PM GMT
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 said
    timmm55 said
    Art_Deco said
    timmm55 said
    Art_Deco said
    ...But I think some of these poz guys want to convince themselves they did nothing wrong by having unprotected sex, years after it was identified as a risk. So they try to persuade others to have unprotected sex, too.

    As you say, erase the stigma they suffer by making it an acceptable practice. Despite all the credible medical authorities saying not to do that, even when using PrEP (and it has to be taken correctly without fail, or its efficacy plummets). PrEP reduces your risk, but does not eliminate it.

    I can just imagine my late Mother summarizing this whole thing in one of her sayings: "Misery loves company".

    If your mother was as stigmatizing as you, she'd of been against the Polio vaccine.

    Now that statement makes no sense at all. And for the record, my late Mother made sure I received the newly introduced polio vaccine in the mid-1950s. I was born into a world without a polio vaccine, and many of the other of the vaccines that now exist today. A time when the image of children in heavy leg braces, and even confined to iron lungs from polio, was very frightening to a young boy.

    As a result I'm a strong supporter of vaccines. I even argue here for the merits of the annual flu vaccine that I always get myself, which many guys oppose. And I certainly support any vaccine or treatment that would limit the spread of HIV.

    But let's be clear: PrEP does not give 100% protection against HIV when barebacking. Nor does the flu vaccine totally prevent the flu. But taking each offers more protection than taking nothing. Therefore I don't oppose PrEP, by all means take it if you're a sexually active gay man. Its limitations & strict protocols merely need to be better understood than you're presenting to guys here. It is not a panacea.

    As for my alleged stigmatizing, let's review what I actually wrote above, with my added emphasis:

    "There's a big guilt factor attached to being HIV poz. When of course there shouldn't be.

    In the first years of the epidemic no one even knew what was causing it, so how could you be blamed for contracting it? After the disease mechanism was discovered many were still infected innocently, like my late partner, by a cheating, lying former partner before I met him.

    And a small number through non-sexual activities, of which some were also guiltless. The Veterans Administration (VA), which I used myself for years, was proven to have infected veterans undergoing standard examinations through the use of contaminated equipment.

    But I think some of these poz guys want to convince themselves they did nothing wrong by having unprotected sex, years after it was identified as a risk. So they try to persuade others to have unprotected sex, too."


    I really don't think that's stigmatizing. I had Christmas dinner 2 days ago with a friend who has HIV. I suspect he's also developed AIDS but I don't ask and he hasn't told me. It doesn't affect our friendship. And of course you already know I lived with my first partner who was poz and I was the bottom in that relationship. So no, I don't think I stigmatize.

    What I do is a rational and calculated risk assessment. That applies to my own circumstances and to no one else's. Versus your universal "take PrEP and you can bareback" advice, which is misleading and dangerous., and not endorsed by medical authorities such as the CDC.


    Your summation is stigmatizing ME, and prejudicial.
    That you say " your universal "take PrEP and you can bareback" advice, which is misleading and dangerous..."

    Is that what I've said? If you think so you have misread everything I've quoted and said. How can you do that? By not not listening/reading and you make assumptions about ME. That is Stigma.

    You talk about a "calculated risk assessment" which is exactly what I've talked about.

    There is nothing dangerous about a monogamous ULV/Neg couple deciding to not use condoms. The risk assessment is essentially ZERO. If they are not comfortable with the "essentially" part, so be it. Use condoms too or PrEP. That is their decision not yours.

    Even IF someone is whoring around and not wearing a condom, yes PrEP is a lot better than nothing. You want to bend all of humanity to comply with your moral code. The CDC says 1 in 4 gay men...those men.....should be on PrEP.

    If you can't change behavior (you can't) change the methods of prevention, and they have. Condoms won't work for them. No matter how much you berate them. There is no "BB Agenda" it is human nature.

    You can piss and moan about how everyone should use condoms 100% of the time, as you've done repeatedly the last 2 years. And you can vilify me as a proponent of protecting the whores of Sodom and Gomorrah....but that's not very Christian of you, is it?

    Let's be clear here too: PrEP is more effective than condoms, as prescribed for either.(K-P PrEP study of 650, ZERO transmissions). And there is no lasting effect from condoms.....1 shot and there's no more protection.



    There you go again trying to justify the unjustifiable. Stop advocating BB sex and saying everybody does it then just to top everything off after creating stigma for yourself and others you the whinge about being stigmatised. That's the part you don't seem to understand despite being what you do every time you comment on anything Sexual health related. Also you still haven't managed to explain why NSW had such a big drop in infections despite a very low number of people on Prep. Since its a wonder drug you say and condoms are useless according to you. If you ceased to manipulate people into thinking they should BB that would make a small contribution to reducing transmissions too


    What is unjustifiable? Sex? Gay sex? Anal Sex? Sex without a condom? A couple of 5 years can't have condomless sex? 20 years? What if they are both NEG, or both Undetectable, or one is one PrEP?

    Who gives you the right to say their private life is 'unjustifiable"?

    I never said condoms are 'useless' as you say. But know it's limitations. At 75/80% they are far from perfect.

    NSW had a 20 year high in 2013. They reduced to the level they had a few years ago. It was a drop of 200. From 1000 to 1200, then back to 1000. If they drop another 200 next year then I'd say it was ART and "Treatment as Prevention" that is enabling the decline. Since condom use hasn't gone up, and as you noted PrEP has yet to make a contribution.

    I didn't realize how uneducated (like you) your fellow countrymen are:
    While very few men believed that HIV treatment prevented transmission (<3%), a large majority (72%) agreed that early treatment was necessary.


    "HIV treatment as prevention is based on the finding that HIV-positive people who consistently take antiretroviral treatment and achieve viral suppression are highly unlikely to transmit HIV to their sexual partners.2

    Treatment as prevention is tacitly acknowledged in Australia’s current National HIV Strategy, which emphasises the benefits of early diagnosis and treatment for people living with HIV, and the strategy acknowledges that PrEP may be useful for high risk populations (like gay and bisexual men).3"

    https://www.afao.org.au/library/hiv-austral
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2015 12:15 PM GMT
    Since your using old data match it by quoting 53% efficacy of Prep in the original studies which is not compatible with even your made up 75% for condoms. Also you continually put up a case against condoms use and everyone here has seen it