HIV- top vers bottom

  • DrobUA

    Posts: 1331

    Oct 14, 2009 10:18 PM GMT
    Please don't get offended this is not meant to be ignorant or insensitive this is strictly curiosity. I know you can get HIV from topping and bottoming but I was wondering if one is considered "safer" than the other. obviously condoms are necessary either way but considering the proximity to the intestine, one of the most absorbent parts of the body, that it seemed logical that bottoming would be more likely to contract it. Does anyone know any facts about this?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 15, 2009 4:15 AM GMT
    No one will touch this?

    Your assumptions are correct. Though nothing is safe. It's easier to go from top to bottom then from bottom to top.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 15, 2009 4:29 AM GMT
    'theory' says it is safer to top than bottom when not using condoms...

    although HIV is an inefficiently transmitted virus, be careful... even in persons on antiretroviral therapy, the rectal mucosa retains detectable levels of HIV RNA even if peripheral blood viral load levels are 'undetectable'. Higher Levels of HIV in Rectal Secretions Among MSM

    the lesson is you should always assume it is possible to become infected whether top or bottom, or whether your partner is 'undetectable' or not. bottom line... set boundaries for yourself and stick to them.


  • DrobUA

    Posts: 1331

    Oct 15, 2009 11:26 AM GMT
    thanks for the replies
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 15, 2009 11:35 AM GMT
    Without a condom either way you are dancing on the mine fields. It is true the stakes are higher getting it from bottoming and having them not pull out bareback. Remember there is still a risk. A buddy of mine is a top and got it from a boyfriend who lied and said he was negative. Stopped using condoms and boom he got sick.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2009 9:01 AM GMT
    Sex without rubbers is gross anyway. No idea why people fetishise it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2009 10:41 AM GMT
    Lostboy saidSex without rubbers is gross anyway. No idea why people fetishise it.
    Because it feels more normal and good. Yes you are right it is still gross though the actualy concept but not if they are clean.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2009 8:16 PM GMT
    There is nothing like THE REAL THING. Unfortunately and I repeat strongly, unfortunately, we can no longer take chances with so many types of diseases out there and a condom is necessary. While on this subject, I wonder how many or if any of you have given thought of how untrusting we have to be with our partners today by having to use protection. To me, it has made the whole sexual act not only false and untrusting with being intimate but less enjoyable. There has to be some sort of physical attraction or an outright love connection between two people or you wouldn’t want to have sex. Insisting that a condom be used shows outright distrust and surely, somewhere in your minds, this must interfere with a genuine sexual experience. Perhaps, the use of a condom is so standard in use today that no one gives any thought to this. Automatically reaching for a condom without thought would probably apply more to “animals” that just want to get their rocks off and move on to the next partner. I would be interested in what others have to say regarding this. You have to admit that the act shows total distrust by using a condom. This, of course, does not apply to a man and a woman having sex, using a condom that don’t want children.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2009 8:31 PM GMT
    If I remember correctly, it's about 1 in 200 if you're the receptive partner and about 1 in 1500 if your the receptive partner. Of course, there are so many other factors that also need to be included.
  • mexi_boy

    Posts: 4

    Nov 06, 2009 8:58 PM GMT
    Lostboy saidSex without rubbers is gross anyway. No idea why people fetishise it.


    For thousands of years people fucked without them!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 23, 2009 7:31 PM GMT
    First of all, everyone is paranoid. I am strictly a top and have never used a condom. I am not a doctor, but I have known many of the world's most highly renowned AIDS doctors. Behind closed doors, they tell me in confidence that you are thousands of times more likely to contract AIDS as a promiscuous bottom than a top and it is therefore virtually impossible for a man to contract AIDS from a woman. Therefore it is the receivers responsibility to be vigilant with regard to "safe" sex. Many people will not like that answer, but those are the facts. I could go into specifics, but I am really not trying to talk you into observing "unsafe" practices.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2010 6:49 AM GMT
    Douger1 saidFirst of all, everyone is paranoid. I am strictly a top and have never used a condom. I am not a doctor, but I have known many of the world's most highly renowned AIDS doctors. Behind closed doors, they tell me in confidence that you are thousands of times more likely to contract AIDS as a promiscuous bottom than a top and it is therefore virtually impossible for a man to contract AIDS from a woman. Therefore it is the receivers responsibility to be vigilant with regard to "safe" sex. Many people will not like that answer, but those are the facts. I could go into specifics, but I am really not trying to talk you into observing "unsafe" practices.


    that would make sense. I've also heard if there were no Versatile Guys the HIV stats within the gay communtiy would be extremely low. Dont know how that works tho or if its even true
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2010 7:06 AM GMT
    mexi_boy said
    Lostboy saidSex without rubbers is gross anyway. No idea why people fetishise it.


    For thousands of years people fucked without them!


    If people had been butt fucking each other for thousands of years without condoms then they'd likely all have died of sexually transmitted diseases. You know, because knowledge of antibiotics didn't exist thousands of years.

    Anal play really picked up in participants in the late 1900s. It hasn't always been so widely practiced (or pushed, for that matter).

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

    Jan 23, 2010 7:10 AM GMT
    KeepsGettingBetter said
    Douger1 saidFirst of all, everyone is paranoid. I am strictly a top and have never used a condom. I am not a doctor, but I have known many of the world's most highly renowned AIDS doctors. Behind closed doors, they tell me in confidence that you are thousands of times more likely to contract AIDS as a promiscuous bottom than a top and it is therefore virtually impossible for a man to contract AIDS from a woman. Therefore it is the receivers responsibility to be vigilant with regard to "safe" sex. Many people will not like that answer, but those are the facts. I could go into specifics, but I am really not trying to talk you into observing "unsafe" practices.


    that would make sense. I've also heard if there were no Versatile Guys the HIV stats within the gay communtiy would be extremely low. Dont know how that works tho or if its even true


    Wow... I can tell you care so much for you partners by the way you guys say that. icon_rolleyes.gif

    You know, there's this other thing I've heard about that carries a near nil chance of HIV infection. It's called sexual practices that don't involve anal play. Because it doesn't matter whether it's with a guy or whether it's with a girl, being on the receiving end of anal "sex" carries with it a significant risk for HIV infection.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2010 7:56 AM GMT
    It doesn't really matter whether you are topping or bottoming. The odds are pretty much the same if you are having unsafe sex so why tempt it and assume that one is less dangerous then the other? To the dude who said he's known some renowned AIDS doctors you should really question their credentials because that's the most bogus of statements I've ever heard.

    Also anal sex has been around since Roman times which is waaaaaaaay before the 1900's. The diseases we have now didn't exist back just like a lot of the medicines we have which aid in our longevity to this day. Think penicillin and the wonders it's done since it's birth. Funny thing about time is that most things evolve and that would include diseases.

    As long as flesh is touching and you have the tiniest of cuts or an opening on your ass, cock or mouth (whatever your pleasure is) then you are fair game to an infection whether you are all top or bottom. It doesn't matter.

    Regardless of whether one is less dangerous then the other the fact of the matter is it's still dangerous.

    "The lesser of two evils doesn't make it the greater of good. It's still evil."
    -unknown-

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

    Jan 23, 2010 6:08 PM GMT
    I´m thinking post AIDS....
  • Tyinstl

    Posts: 353

    Jan 25, 2010 7:11 AM GMT
    Mycro saidIf I remember correctly, it's about 1 in 200 if you're the receptive partner and about 1 in 1500 if your the receptive partner.


    ?