Would you ever bottom bareback for a person who is HIV+ and 'undetectable'

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

    Oct 10, 2014 9:44 PM GMT
    Who to believe????


    ART DECO:
    "So all this BS about sex being safe with an undetectable poz guy is just medical talk dealing with controlled conditions. That has no application, bearing or relevance to the real world situations in which you & I actually operate. And such basic medical research shouldn't be misinterpreted to be providing guidance as to how gay men should behave sexually with each other."

    or

    the CDC:
    " Treatment, especially for those starting antiretroviral drugs right after diagnosis, helps people with HIV live longer and healthier lives, and it prevents the spread of HIV. Yet, only 1 in 4 of the 1.1 million Americans living with HIV have an undetectable viral load. This means the virus is at a level that provides maximum health benefits and reduces the risk of transmitting the virus to others.

    “Today, not only can HIV treatment save lives, it can help stop a national epidemic in its tracks,” said Jonathan Mermin, M.D., M.P.H., director of CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention. “Our goal is to help everyone with HIV know the tremendous health benefits treatment offers to them and the protection it provides to their partners.”

    In addition to the positive impact it can have on a person’s health and well-being, people who start and continue treatment are 96 percent less likely to transmit HIV to others. Treatment for health and prevention is a key element in CDC’s HIV prevention toolkit."


    Before you pick Art Deco's side, know that TasP is the model for the CDC, New York City's new aggressive campaign, Australia's New Policy, WHO (world wide) etc. etc. etc.
  • vhotti26

    Posts: 287

    Oct 10, 2014 11:08 PM GMT
    timmm55 said

    So oh WISE ONE, what do YOU propose the CDC do for the 53% who don't use condoms?



    I would say those 53% should just use one for a change.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2014 7:48 AM GMT
    timmm55 said
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 saidYour agenda is very clear thank you for re-enforcing what all the members here already know which is that you are attempting to advocate BB sex between poz tops and negative bottoms well done


    My "Agenda"? Attempting to advocate? The earth is round?

    My agenda is for you to stay out of other people's bedrooms and quit attacking their choices. Participants in the Partner's Study, all magnetic couples, Gay and Straight were all consenting and informed.

    And no HIV was transmitted. That's very clear from several studies. That's science. If "all the members here" know that PrEP and ART Therapy will prevent HIV transmission then NO ONE on this site should become POSITIVE!

    You, on the other hand are at a much higher risk.

    1) You have sex indiscriminately but with condoms. They break and slip. Good 80% of the time. Not so good 20%!

    2) You seem to distinguish top/bottom and poz/neg in the sexual roles. While it is somewhat safer to be a Neg Top, don't rely on that.

    "It’s technically less likely to be infected as the top than the bottom, although the risk isn’t eliminated. According to a study in Australia, around 1 in 5 men who recently contracted HIV were tops. In a research study published in 2007, among a sample size of 102 gay and bi men who were recently diagnosed HIV-positive, 10 of them were infected despite ‘strategic positioning’."

    http://thesexyouwant.ca/guys-on-top-and-hiv.html
    Even with a condom, factoring in a 10-20% failure rate.....these are the risk factors you and all of us choose.

    Maybe it's one, two or three preventative things. PrEP, serosorting, Undetectable, condoms, ‘strategic positioning' are all effective...to some degree. Serosorting alone is actually dangerous by itself.

    If you asked me, "Can a monogamous long term couple, Neg/undetectable have "natural" sex?" First of all, it's up to them and their doctor. But yes, TasP has proven to be effective and safe. Is it 100%? No, but It seems to be near if not actually zero. If you disagree that's fine. There's always blips and spikes, but that doesn't seem to have caused any HIV transmissions. Everyone has a comfort level. That isn't science though.

    The CDC has weighed in with it's opinion: "In addition to the positive impact it can have on a person’s health and well-being, people who start and continue treatment are 96 percent less likely to transmit HIV to others. Treatment for health and prevention is a key element in CDC’s HIV prevention toolkit."

    But to accuse me of a "BB Agenda" (that sounds so Right Wing silly!) is just Slut Shaming and disingenuous. And definitely NOT scientifically based.


    You again contradicted yourself by stating what people should expect but if I say your wrong and what your saying is dangerous then I should stay out of peoples bedrooms. I am not nor have I advocated anything but to challenge fringe ideas which may potentially cause grater harm than good. Your slut shaming concept still makes me giggle and how you rationalise that BB topping is only marginally less dangerous than BB bottoming, WOW you certainly showed your limitations in understanding the science around this. By the way my info comes from the ACON which is the Aids counsel of NSW. They aren't preaching interpretations of science which only benefit poz guys who want to BB they are talking about the treatments you speak of in proper context, however you are not hence my inference of an agenda
  • vhotti26

    Posts: 287

    Oct 11, 2014 8:41 AM GMT
    Funny how timmm55 factors in a 10-20% failure rate for condoms. By all means, lie to yourself. It's nowhere near that.
    I've never had a condom fail, not even when I was using too small condoms and power topping. Total joke to assume a 10-20% failure rate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2014 7:10 AM GMT
    vhotti26 saidFunny how timmm55 factors in a 10-20% failure rate for condoms. By all means, lie to yourself. It's nowhere near that.
    I've never had a condom fail, not even when I was using too small condoms and power topping. Total joke to assume a 10-20% failure rate.


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

    Oct 12, 2014 11:19 PM GMT
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 said
    timmm55 said
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 saidYour agenda is very clear thank you for re-enforcing what all the members here already know which is that you are attempting to advocate BB sex between poz tops and negative bottoms well done


    My "Agenda"? Attempting to advocate? The earth is round?

    My agenda is for you to stay out of other people's bedrooms and quit attacking their choices. Participants in the Partner's Study, all magnetic couples, Gay and Straight were all consenting and informed.

    And no HIV was transmitted. That's very clear from several studies. That's science. If "all the members here" know that PrEP and ART Therapy will prevent HIV transmission then NO ONE on this site should become POSITIVE!

    You, on the other hand are at a much higher risk.

    1) You have sex indiscriminately but with condoms. They break and slip. Good 80% of the time. Not so good 20%!

    2) You seem to distinguish top/bottom and poz/neg in the sexual roles. While it is somewhat safer to be a Neg Top, don't rely on that.

    "It’s technically less likely to be infected as the top than the bottom, although the risk isn’t eliminated. According to a study in Australia, around 1 in 5 men who recently contracted HIV were tops. In a research study published in 2007, among a sample size of 102 gay and bi men who were recently diagnosed HIV-positive, 10 of them were infected despite ‘strategic positioning’."

    http://thesexyouwant.ca/guys-on-top-and-hiv.html
    Even with a condom, factoring in a 10-20% failure rate.....these are the risk factors you and all of us choose.

    Maybe it's one, two or three preventative things. PrEP, serosorting, Undetectable, condoms, ‘strategic positioning' are all effective...to some degree. Serosorting alone is actually dangerous by itself.

    If you asked me, "Can a monogamous long term couple, Neg/undetectable have "natural" sex?" First of all, it's up to them and their doctor. But yes, TasP has proven to be effective and safe. Is it 100%? No, but It seems to be near if not actually zero. If you disagree that's fine. There's always blips and spikes, but that doesn't seem to have caused any HIV transmissions. Everyone has a comfort level. That isn't science though.

    The CDC has weighed in with it's opinion: "In addition to the positive impact it can have on a person’s health and well-being, people who start and continue treatment are 96 percent less likely to transmit HIV to others. Treatment for health and prevention is a key element in CDC’s HIV prevention toolkit."

    But to accuse me of a "BB Agenda" (that sounds so Right Wing silly!) is just Slut Shaming and disingenuous. And definitely NOT scientifically based.


    You again contradicted yourself by stating what people should expect but if I say your wrong and what your saying is dangerous then I should stay out of peoples bedrooms. I am not nor have I advocated anything but to challenge fringe ideas which may potentially cause grater harm than good. Your slut shaming concept still makes me giggle and how you rationalise that BB topping is only marginally less dangerous than BB bottoming, WOW you certainly showed your limitations in understanding the science around this. (You do it, I don't. It's fucking stupid!Reread what I wrote.) By the way my info comes from the ACON which is the Aids counsel of NSW. (Where's the link and when was it?) They aren't preaching interpretations of science which only benefit poz guys who want to BB they are talking about the treatments you speak of in proper context, however you are not hence my inference of an agenda


    "Greater Harm than good" is exactly how Australia responded to the Swiss study. And since the Partner's Study (and others) it is certainly no longer "fringe" by any stretch of the imagination.
    And Australia is ALSO on board with WHO, the CDC, etc. WHY? Because their HIV rates were still increasing. And they understood medical science.

    Australia 2008:
    Australasians reject Swiss statement - model predicts fourfold increase in HIV transmission over 10 years
    http://www.aidsmap.com/Australasians-reject-Swiss-statement-model-predicts-fourfold-increase-in-HIV-transmission-over-10-years/page/1430973/

    Australia 2014:
    Australia's Seventh National HIV Strategy and the AIDS 2014 Legacy Statement

    Unlike its predecessors, the Seventh National HIV Strategy contains numeric targets, which reflect the United Nations Political Declaration on HIV/AIDS3 and have been adopted in other jurisdictional HIV strategies.4,5 These strategies place Australia well on its way to reaching the UNAIDS targets by 2020 of 90% of people living with HIV being diagnosed, 90% of people living with HIV receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART), and 90% of people receiving ART having an undetectable viral load. When an HIV-positive individual is receiving effective ART and his or her plasma viral load is undetectable, the risk of transmission becomes negligible, making HIV treatment a highly effective means of prevention.6 These approaches require targeting efforts to communities that are most at risk and where most transmission occurs.(Sound familiar?)
    https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2014/201/5/australias-seventh-national-hiv-strategy-and-aids-2014-legacy-statement

    Youe whole Negative/top and POZ/bottom as a means of rationalizing is just stupid. Aren't you saying you are safer as a top?

    You don't seem to know too much about what's going on in your own country regarding HIV. Legal, Political or Medical.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2014 11:25 PM GMT
    vhotti26 saidFunny how timmm55 factors in a 10-20% failure rate for condoms. By all means, lie to yourself. It's nowhere near that.
    I've never had a condom fail, not even when I was using too small condoms and power topping. Total joke to assume a 10-20% failure rate.


    Another said 30%

    A recent review of 14 studies involving discordant couples concluded that consistent use of condoms led to an 80% reduction in HIV incidence. 3 4 - See more at: http://www.avert.org/condoms-effectiveness.htm#sthash.zN7PXWMe.dpuf

    That sounds like a 20% failure rate to me! And ART therapy is 0-4%....in case you forgot.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2014 11:43 PM GMT
    "They aren't preaching interpretations of science which only benefit poz guys who want to BB they are talking about the treatments you speak of in proper context, however you are not hence my inference of an agenda"

    Wrong on several counts.

    Yet again (do you ^^^holes read?)
    "In addition to the positive impact it can have on a person’s health and well-being, people who start and continue treatment are 96 percent less likely to transmit HIV to others. Treatment for health and prevention is a key element in CDC’s HIV prevention toolkit."

    As Dr. Fauci said: (and who ART DECO called a fraud!)
    "The model, says Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is based on the observation that, "When you follow couples—one who's infected, the other who's not—the probability of infection diminishes when the viral load is very low," as when drugs have been administered. So, the study intends to get infected individuals' viral loads down to levels where they cannot infect their sexual partners#8212;even in the absence of a condom. "The philosophy," Fauci says, "is if you test everybody, and treat everybody who has HIV, you could use treatment as prevention.""

    Just because it doesn't require condoms to be effective doesn't make it a "BB Agenda". I've never said it meant that. But ART DECO sure said I DID!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2014 11:44 PM GMT
    timmm55 said
    Art_Deco said
    timmm55 said
    [Art Deco] Did you slut shame your ex-lover for being positive? Was it daily, weekly? Was he aware you thought his judgements were always questionable.

    My late husband was betrayed by a previous partner he believed to be monogamous. That partner cheated and became poz, and then infected my future husband.

    My late husband was never a slut, but monogamous. I've told that story here before, to stress that even when you bareback with a long-term partner, you place your life in his hands, as he does with you. If one of you cheats, the other may also pay the consequences.

    But your erroneous assumptions are insutling & hurtful. My husband did nothing wrong, except to trust in his partner. He literally died in my arms, after I cared for him daily for an extended period. I expect an apology.

    You say SHIT like this to discredit any POZ people who disagree with you: "Some of the guys pushing the strongest for barebacking are in fact already positive themelves. Selfish personal agenda, maybe? From guys whose own past judgment must be called into question."

    You trot out your dead ex for sympathy at the drop of a hat. So he's innocent and anybody who disagrees with you deserves AIDS? You've lied about his condition to promote your theories.

    YOU WANT AN APOLOGY?

    You FIRST! You've been an absolute ass to me ever since I brought up undetectable.

    art deco:
    "You are a fucking nut case. I think you need to just give it up, along with your campaign for negative men to have bareback sex, and go away. Any seconds to that?"

    "....his twisted imagination, because we won't endorse his sick campaign for bareback sex with poz guys."

    "I think there's an old adage that too much information can be a dangerous thing. Especially in the hands of those who aren't smart enough to understand it. I think we've witnessed a classic example of it right here in this thread, and in a few others on this topic. "

    "... if I knew about a man like that I would report him to the health authorities. That would be saving other lives. Hate to sound so Right Wing and Conservative (me of all people) but there's a greater good involved here. Your friend, as you describe him, is a health menace. He should be stopped."

    (Below, This may be the GOLD standard of ignorance!)

    "So all this BS about sex being safe with an undetectable poz guy is just medical talk dealing with controlled conditions. That has no application, bearing or relevance to the real world situations in which you & I actually operate. And such basic medical research shouldn't be misinterpreted to be providing guidance as to how gay men should behave sexually with each other."

    "....but are you saying he now endorses a full-blown looney like you?"

    "So also an interesting clash building between theantijock and timmm55, if I'm able to follow this stuff correctly. I recall a movie called "Clash of the Titans"; perhaps this is the "Clash of the Turds"."

    All the above is from ONE thread! Countless other accusations and insults.

    "From guys whose own past judgment must be called into question."

    Thank you for posting all those quotes here. Which you refute with hysterical personal attacks against me.

    Which I think just confirms my statements about your agenda. And explains the opposition to the suicidal behavior you propose that the majority of guys here are expressing.

    Now I just wonder - if someone folllows your advice, to have bareback sex with a poz guy who SAYS he is undectable, and that person who does as you recommend subsequently contracts HIV, could he legally sue you?

    I mean, you're encouraging this risky behavior, claiming that's it's safe. Shouldn't you be held liable for any negative health consequences, as a result of following your guidance here?

    Perhaps a member here who has legal training (which I do not) could proffer an opinion. Because I honestly don't know.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2014 11:48 PM GMT
    vhotti26 said
    timmm55 said

    So oh WISE ONE, what do YOU propose the CDC do for the 53% who don't use condoms?



    I would say those 53% should just use one for a change.


    And how effective has that model been for the last 30 years?
    50,000 new HIV cases every year.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2014 11:53 PM GMT
    @ArtDeco

    No, there's no legal liability for a person who posts false or wrong information (I do not mean to make a judgment on whose information is false or wrong, only to state legal opinions).

    However, if you can establish a "special relationship" then you can be held liable. For example, if you are in a "fiduciary relationship" with a person, then you can be held liable. Like a doctor, psychologist, guidance counselor, etc. Or if you "take on" an affirmative duty over the person. Like if you hold yourself out as a sex/STD expert, an organization that specializes in it, or some other kind of "credible source." Or if you engage in sex with a person, and fail to disclose your status or disclose a false status. So, yes, legally, a "special relationship" forms when a person tricks on Grindr and fails to disclose their HIV status.

    Just a guy talking on a comment board does not rise to the level of a "special relationship" with any person legally. The 1st Amendment right to free and vigorous speech is too strong, even if a person relies on that false information and contracts HIV as a result.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2014 11:54 PM GMT
    GAMRican saidHow about bottoming for somebody who is HIV negative...but Hepatitis C positive?
    Or, for somebody who has herpes?
    Or, for somebody who has...(fill in the blank)?

    Just because HIV is a "chronic manageable condition" doesn't mean there aren't other STDs out there.


    If you want to discuss the legal criminalization of HIV, no one has received 25 years for not spreading herpes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2014 12:11 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    timmm55 said
    Art_Deco said
    timmm55 said
    [Art Deco] Did you slut shame your ex-lover for being positive? Was it daily, weekly? Was he aware you thought his judgements were always questionable.

    My late husband was betrayed by a previous partner he believed to be monogamous. That partner cheated and became poz, and then infected my future husband.

    My late husband was never a slut, but monogamous. I've told that story here before, to stress that even when you bareback with a long-term partner, you place your life in his hands, as he does with you. If one of you cheats, the other may also pay the consequences.

    But your erroneous assumptions are insutling & hurtful. My husband did nothing wrong, except to trust in his partner. He literally died in my arms, after I cared for him daily for an extended period. I expect an apology.

    You say SHIT like this to discredit any POZ people who disagree with you: "Some of the guys pushing the strongest for barebacking are in fact already positive themelves. Selfish personal agenda, maybe? From guys whose own past judgment must be called into question."

    You trot out your dead ex for sympathy at the drop of a hat. So he's innocent and anybody who disagrees with you deserves AIDS? You've lied about his condition to promote your theories.

    YOU WANT AN APOLOGY?

    You FIRST! You've been an absolute ass to me ever since I brought up undetectable.

    art deco:
    "You are a fucking nut case. I think you need to just give it up, along with your campaign for negative men to have bareback sex, and go away. Any seconds to that?"

    "....his twisted imagination, because we won't endorse his sick campaign for bareback sex with poz guys."

    "I think there's an old adage that too much information can be a dangerous thing. Especially in the hands of those who aren't smart enough to understand it. I think we've witnessed a classic example of it right here in this thread, and in a few others on this topic. "

    "... if I knew about a man like that I would report him to the health authorities. That would be saving other lives. Hate to sound so Right Wing and Conservative (me of all people) but there's a greater good involved here. Your friend, as you describe him, is a health menace. He should be stopped."

    (Below, This may be the GOLD standard of ignorance!)

    "So all this BS about sex being safe with an undetectable poz guy is just medical talk dealing with controlled conditions. That has no application, bearing or relevance to the real world situations in which you & I actually operate. And such basic medical research shouldn't be misinterpreted to be providing guidance as to how gay men should behave sexually with each other."

    "....but are you saying he now endorses a full-blown looney like you?"

    "So also an interesting clash building between theantijock and timmm55, if I'm able to follow this stuff correctly. I recall a movie called "Clash of the Titans"; perhaps this is the "Clash of the Turds"."

    All the above is from ONE thread! Countless other accusations and insults.

    "From guys whose own past judgment must be called into question."

    Thank you for posting all those quotes here. Which you refute with hysterical personal attacks against me.

    Which I think just confirms my statements about your agenda. And explains the opposition to the suicidal behavior you propose that the majority of guys here are expressing.

    Now I just wonder - if someone folllows your advice, to have bareback sex with a poz guy who SAYS he is undectable, and that person who does as you recommend subsequently contracts HIV, could he legally sue you?

    I mean, you're encouraging this risky behavior, claiming that's it's safe. Shouldn't you be held liable for any negative health consequences, as a result of following your guidance here?

    Perhaps a member here who has legal training (which I do not) could proffer an opinion. Because I honestly don't know.


    My hysterical comments? Funny there are a 100 from you. Insulting. MEAN. Totally distorted.

    Not sure why you need to destroy a Medical Breakthrough to only recommended condoms as the ONLY solution. It isn't naive, it's dangerous.

    Agenda, suicidal behavior, blah blah blah God it gets OLD! At least you no longer call it "bad science" and "Dr. Fauci a quack".

    In the same vein a person who uses a condom (only) as you recommend has only a 80% reduction compared to TasP's 96%. So everyone who listens to good 'ol Uncle Art's decades old theories, is MORE prone to contracting HIV!


    Maybe they can sue your sorry a^^!
    YOU ARE CAUSING MORE HARM THAN GOOD.
    But you are such a self-aggrandizing fuck you'd never admit to being wrong.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2014 12:22 AM GMT
    timmm55 said
    GAMRican saidHow about bottoming for somebody who is HIV negative...but Hepatitis C positive?
    Or, for somebody who has herpes?
    Or, for somebody who has...(fill in the blank)?

    Just because HIV is a "chronic manageable condition" doesn't mean there aren't other STDs out there.


    If you want to discuss the legal criminalization of HIV, no one has received 25 years for not spreading herpes.


    I do not mean to say whether the law is "right" or "moral," but for the record:

    -The 25 year sentence was CONVERTED by the trial judge to a 5 year probation, meaning he only served a short time in jail, and then was on probation (i.e., if you break the law, you go back to prison).

    -After the sentence had already been converted to a probation, the Iowa Supreme Court overturned his conviction because the accused used a CONDOM for anal (though oral was UNPROTECTED). It was overturned on the legal ground that his lawyer was an idiot (he was) because there was no factual basis for saying exposure occurred because at the time (2009) a person with a low viral load and a condom legally cannot be "exposing" a person to HIV.

    -The case now remands to the trial court to try to, again, prove "exposure"....I'm assuming on an unprotected oral sex theory.

    -At the end of the day, the HIV positive man failed to disclose his HIV status.

    Here's a brief nedia write up:

    http://thegazette.com/subject/news/public-safety/iowa-supreme-court-throws-out-criminal-transmission-of-hiv-conviction-20140613
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2014 12:33 AM GMT
    Art Deco: "Thank you for posting all those quotes here. Which you refute with hysterical personal attacks against me.

    ..... that the majority of guys here are expressing"

    To clarify, Art Deco in a conversation was saying that like his ex, who only had HIV and had good numbers, yet he came down with something this is ONLY from a severely compromised immune system.

    In his argument, anyone who was HIV Poz could come down with anything at anytime.

    THAT is simply NOT true. While anyone poz/neg/gay/straight/young/old/male/female can come down with a deadly illness virtually at any time, his lover died of a severely compromised immune system, something no one else healthy could contract. Just because you have HIV doesn't make you unhealthy. Certainly possibly contagious, but to summarily lump HIV and AIDS together is something out of the 80s.

    He had AIDS. No embarrassment. I've lost many friends to it in the early days. We've made huge progress in the last 30 years. HIV does NOT = AIDS.

    If the majority was always "right" the earth would still be flat and gravity would be heretical.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2014 12:38 AM GMT
    Svnw688 said
    timmm55 said
    GAMRican saidHow about bottoming for somebody who is HIV negative...but Hepatitis C positive?
    Or, for somebody who has herpes?
    Or, for somebody who has...(fill in the blank)?

    Just because HIV is a "chronic manageable condition" doesn't mean there aren't other STDs out there.


    If you want to discuss the legal criminalization of HIV, no one has received 25 years for not spreading herpes.


    I do not mean to say whether the law is "right" or "moral," but for the record:

    -The 25 year sentence was CONVERTED by the trial judge to a 5 year probation, meaning he only served a short time in jail, and then was on probation (i.e., if you break the law, you go back to prison).

    -After the sentence had already been converted to a probation, the Iowa Supreme Court overturned his conviction because the accused used a CONDOM for anal (though oral was UNPROTECTED). It was overturned on the legal ground that his lawyer was an idiot (he was) because there was no factual basis for saying exposure occurred because at the time (2009) a person with a low viral load and a condom legally cannot be "exposing" a person to HIV.

    -The case now remands to the trial court to try to, again, prove "exposure"....I'm assuming on an unprotected oral sex theory.

    -At the end of the day, the HIV positive man failed to disclose his HIV status.

    Here's a brief nedia write up:

    http://thegazette.com/subject/news/public-safety/iowa-supreme-court-throws-out-criminal-transmission-of-hiv-conviction-20140613


    Old news. Rhodes is out of prison. His record was expunged. Not a sex offender. But he is not alone......many are still in prison, here and in Canada. Clear cases of no transmission, yet are serving decades of time.

    Department of Justice

    http://www.lambdalegal.org/blog/20140717_lambda-legal-calls-for-halt-to-hiv-based-criminal-prosecutions
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2014 12:47 AM GMT
    timmm55 said
    Svnw688 said
    timmm55 said
    GAMRican saidHow about bottoming for somebody who is HIV negative...but Hepatitis C positive?
    Or, for somebody who has herpes?
    Or, for somebody who has...(fill in the blank)?

    Just because HIV is a "chronic manageable condition" doesn't mean there aren't other STDs out there.


    If you want to discuss the legal criminalization of HIV, no one has received 25 years for not spreading herpes.


    I do not mean to say whether the law is "right" or "moral," but for the record:

    -The 25 year sentence was CONVERTED by the trial judge to a 5 year probation, meaning he only served a short time in jail, and then was on probation (i.e., if you break the law, you go back to prison).

    -After the sentence had already been converted to a probation, the Iowa Supreme Court overturned his conviction because the accused used a CONDOM for anal (though oral was UNPROTECTED). It was overturned on the legal ground that his lawyer was an idiot (he was) because there was no factual basis for saying exposure occurred because at the time (2009) a person with a low viral load and a condom legally cannot be "exposing" a person to HIV.

    -The case now remands to the trial court to try to, again, prove "exposure"....I'm assuming on an unprotected oral sex theory.

    -At the end of the day, the HIV positive man failed to disclose his HIV status.

    Here's a brief nedia write up:

    http://thegazette.com/subject/news/public-safety/iowa-supreme-court-throws-out-criminal-transmission-of-hiv-conviction-20140613


    Old news. Rhodes is out of prison. His record was expunged. Not a sex offender. But he is not alone......many are still in prison, here and in Canada. Clear cases of no transmission, yet are serving decades of time.

    Department of Justice

    http://www.lambdalegal.org/blog/20140717_lambda-legal-calls-for-halt-to-hiv-based-criminal-prosecutions


    HIV is NOT a Crime

    http://www.hivisnotacrime.com/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2014 12:48 AM GMT
    Svnw688 said@ArtDeco

    No, there's no legal liability for a person who posts false or wrong information (I do not mean to make a judgment on whose information is false or wrong, only to state legal opinions).

    However, if you can establish a "special relationship" then you can be held liable. For example, if you are in a "fiduciary relationship" with a person, then you can be held liable. Like a doctor, psychologist, guidance counselor, etc. Or if you "take on" an affirmative duty over the person. Like if you hold yourself out as a sex/STD expert, an organization that specializes in it, or some other kind of "credible source." Or if you engage in sex with a person, and fail to disclose your status or disclose a false status. So, yes, legally, a "special relationship" forms when a person tricks on Grindr and fails to disclose their HIV status.

    Just a guy talking on a comment board does not rise to the level of a "special relationship" with any person legally. The 1st Amendment right to free and vigorous speech is too strong, even if a person relies on that false information and contracts HIV as a result.

    Thank you for that information. I really didn't know. A good thing for guys online to know, before considering taking advice they may read on sites like this. Take all online suggestions with a grain of salt, a kind of modern digital "caveat emptor", yes?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2014 1:18 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    Svnw688 said@ArtDeco


    A good thing for guys online to know, before considering taking advice they may read on sites like this. Take all online suggestions with a grain of salt, a kind of modern digital "caveat emptor", yes?


    So you think you can take the high moral road after all this? Hateful bitch! lol Your ego must be huge!

    Your "condoms only" is actually more dangerous. Use any and all tools to prevent HIV transmission....yes, include undetectable men if you so choose. If you don't know or there's any question use a condom.

    While there's only 250,000 Undetectable US people right now, it should triple in a few years. It may seem foreign right now, but it is the newer normal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2014 1:21 AM GMT
    Here's how the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) answer this question, as pasted from their website minutes ago: "Can I contract HIV from someone who has a low viral load?" [Emphases are mine]

    Yes. Even though having an undetectable viral load greatly lowers the chance that a person with HIV can transmit the virus to a partner, there is still some risk.

    Viral load refers to the amount of HIV in the blood. An undetectable viral load is when the amount of HIV in the blood is so low that it can’t be measured. Antiretroviral therapy (ART) reduces viral load, ideally to an undetectable level, when taken consistently and correctly.

    A person with HIV can still potentially transmit HIV to a partner even if they have an undetectable viral load, because HIV may still be found in genital fluids (e.g., semen, vaginal fluids). The viral load test only measures virus in blood.

    A person’s viral load may go up between tests. When this happens, they may be more likely to transmit HIV to partners. Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) increase viral load in genital fluids.


    Which exactly matches what I have been saying here, and in other threads. And that timmm55 has been challenging. You wanna follow his guidance, or the CDC's?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2014 1:49 AM GMT
    timmm55 said
    Svnw688 said
    timmm55 said
    GAMRican saidHow about bottoming for somebody who is HIV negative...but Hepatitis C positive?
    Or, for somebody who has herpes?
    Or, for somebody who has...(fill in the blank)?

    Just because HIV is a "chronic manageable condition" doesn't mean there aren't other STDs out there.


    If you want to discuss the legal criminalization of HIV, no one has received 25 years for not spreading herpes.


    I do not mean to say whether the law is "right" or "moral," but for the record:

    -The 25 year sentence was CONVERTED by the trial judge to a 5 year probation, meaning he only served a short time in jail, and then was on probation (i.e., if you break the law, you go back to prison).

    -After the sentence had already been converted to a probation, the Iowa Supreme Court overturned his conviction because the accused used a CONDOM for anal (though oral was UNPROTECTED). It was overturned on the legal ground that his lawyer was an idiot (he was) because there was no factual basis for saying exposure occurred because at the time (2009) a person with a low viral load and a condom legally cannot be "exposing" a person to HIV.

    -The case now remands to the trial court to try to, again, prove "exposure"....I'm assuming on an unprotected oral sex theory.

    -At the end of the day, the HIV positive man failed to disclose his HIV status.

    Here's a brief nedia write up:

    http://thegazette.com/subject/news/public-safety/iowa-supreme-court-throws-out-criminal-transmission-of-hiv-conviction-20140613


    Old news. Rhodes is out of prison. His record was expunged. Not a sex offender. But he is not alone......many are still in prison, here and in Canada. Clear cases of no transmission, yet are serving decades of time.

    Department of Justice

    http://www.lambdalegal.org/blog/20140717_lambda-legal-calls-for-halt-to-hiv-based-criminal-prosecutions


    -If Rhodes is "old news," why are you referencing it?
    -Who is serving "decades of time," and where? I need a name and/or jurisdiction. The link you provided references "Rhodes," which is the case YOU brought up, and I referenced, and is now supposedly "old news." So where's the new news?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2014 2:13 AM GMT
    Art_Deco saidHere's how the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) answer this question, as pasted from their website: "Can I contract HIV from someone who has a low viral load?" [Emphases are mine]

    Yes. Even though having an undetectable viral load greatly lowers the chance that a person with HIV can transmit the virus to a partner, there is still some risk.

    Viral load refers to the amount of HIV in the blood. An undetectable viral load is when the amount of HIV in the blood is so low that it can’t be measured. Antiretroviral therapy (ART) reduces viral load, ideally to an undetectable level, when taken consistently and correctly.

    A person with HIV can still potentially transmit HIV to a partner even if they have an undetectable viral load, because HIV may still be found in genital fluids (e.g., semen, vaginal fluids). The viral load test only measures virus in blood.

    A person’s viral load may go up between tests. When this happens, they may be more likely to transmit HIV to partners. Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) increase viral load in genital fluids.


    Which exactly matches what I have been saying here, and in other threads. And that timmm55 has been challenging. You wanna follow his guidance, or the CDC's?



    Moron THIS IS FROM THE CDC! I really wish you would read this stuff before trying to argue.

    The message is evolving.

    September 17, 2014


    “Today, not only can HIV treatment save lives, it can help stop a national epidemic in its tracks,” said Jonathan Mermin, M.D., M.P.H., director of CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention. “Our goal is to help everyone with HIV know the tremendous health benefits treatment offers to them and the protection it provides to their partners.”

    In addition to the positive impact it can have on a person’s health and well-being, people who start and continue treatment are 96 percent less likely to transmit HIV to others. Treatment for health and prevention is a key element in CDC’s HIV prevention toolkit.
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/2014/HIV-Treatment-Works-press-release.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2014 2:14 AM GMT
    Svnw688 said
    timmm55 said
    Svnw688 said
    timmm55 said
    GAMRican saidHow about bottoming for somebody who is HIV negative...but Hepatitis C positive?
    Or, for somebody who has herpes?
    Or, for somebody who has...(fill in the blank)?

    Just because HIV is a "chronic manageable condition" doesn't mean there aren't other STDs out there.


    If you want to discuss the legal criminalization of HIV, no one has received 25 years for not spreading herpes.


    I do not mean to say whether the law is "right" or "moral," but for the record:

    -The 25 year sentence was CONVERTED by the trial judge to a 5 year probation, meaning he only served a short time in jail, and then was on probation (i.e., if you break the law, you go back to prison).

    -After the sentence had already been converted to a probation, the Iowa Supreme Court overturned his conviction because the accused used a CONDOM for anal (though oral was UNPROTECTED). It was overturned on the legal ground that his lawyer was an idiot (he was) because there was no factual basis for saying exposure occurred because at the time (2009) a person with a low viral load and a condom legally cannot be "exposing" a person to HIV.

    -The case now remands to the trial court to try to, again, prove "exposure"....I'm assuming on an unprotected oral sex theory.

    -At the end of the day, the HIV positive man failed to disclose his HIV status.

    Here's a brief nedia write up:

    http://thegazette.com/subject/news/public-safety/iowa-supreme-court-throws-out-criminal-transmission-of-hiv-conviction-20140613


    Old news. Rhodes is out of prison. His record was expunged. Not a sex offender. But he is not alone......many are still in prison, here and in Canada. Clear cases of no transmission, yet are serving decades of time.

    Department of Justice

    http://www.lambdalegal.org/blog/20140717_lambda-legal-calls-for-halt-to-hiv-based-criminal-prosecutions


    -If Rhodes is "old news," why are you referencing it?
    -Who is serving "decades of time," and where? I need a name and/or jurisdiction. The link you provided references "Rhodes," which is the case YOU brought up, and I referenced, and is now supposedly "old news." So where's the new news?


    Rhodes is just a tip of the iceberg.
    I'll post in a new thread tomorrow.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2014 2:20 AM GMT
    I think the bottom line here is: (please excuse the oblique pun)

    HIV+ timmm55 (according to his RJ profile) wants to bareback you. Any takers?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2014 2:39 AM GMT
    Art_Deco saidHere's how the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) answer this question, as pasted from their website minutes ago: "Can I contract HIV from someone who has a low viral load?" [Emphases are mine]

    Yes. Even though having an undetectable viral load greatly lowers the chance that a person with HIV can transmit the virus to a partner, there is still some risk.

    Viral load refers to the amount of HIV in the blood. An undetectable viral load is when the amount of HIV in the blood is so low that it can’t be measured. Antiretroviral therapy (ART) reduces viral load, ideally to an undetectable level, when taken consistently and correctly.

    A person with HIV can still potentially transmit HIV to a partner even if they have an undetectable viral load, because HIV may still be found in genital fluids (e.g., semen, vaginal fluids). The viral load test only measures virus in blood.

    A person’s viral load may go up between tests. When this happens, they may be more likely to transmit HIV to partners. Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) increase viral load in genital fluids.


    ∆ This really should end this stupid argument but I know it won't. It seems Timmm55's love for cum up his ass is greater than his concern for his sexual partner's lives. icon_neutral.gif