Would you TRUST a guy saying he's "HIV+ undetectable" and bareback with him?

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

    Jan 05, 2015 3:35 AM GMT
    willular said
    timmm55 said
    willular saidThe bottom (lol) line is, surround yourself with people who have the same ideas of condom use as you.

    If you *never* use condoms, then have sex with people who don't use them either.

    If you *always* use condoms, then have sex with people who always use them too.

    If you sometimes use them, but sometimes don't, then have sex with people who do that too.

    People who are heavily staunch one way or another aren't going to suddenly change their mind because of one post on Realjock...so why post with so much heavy intention to do that? This isn't that hard of a concept to grasp. It's not like you're really going to persuade anyone to change their belief system.



    There are so many things wrong with your concept!

    Again here's the ACON position on What is Safe(r) Sex:

    1.The use of Condoms during
    casual encounters between men of unknown or discordant serostatus.
    2.HIV negative men taking effective pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).
    3.Men living with HIV who only have sex without condoms when they have a sustained undetectable viral load (UVL) and in the absence
    of sexually transmissible infections (STIs).
    4.Effective use of serosorting between HIV positive men.
    5.Effective negotiated safety agreements.

    http://www.acon.org.au/sites/default/files/What-is-Safe-Sex-Position-2014.pdf

    I follow the above EXACTLY.


    My point is, that you should interact with people who follow the same guidelines (or whatever you want to call it) as you.

    If you follow the stuff above, and you want to have sex with someone who doesn't follow that stuff above, then you shouldn't be having sex with them.

    I'm not debating what the definition of "safe sex" is. i'm just saying that if someone doesn't share the same values of sex, then you shouldn't be having sex with them.

    In other words, you and the original poster shouldn't be fucking.

    You can be sure that's not gonna happen LOL
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2015 3:37 AM GMT
    It's very satisfying to see the vast majority of RJ's (except the same old 2) are NOT going to bareback with strangers under any circumstance. It's refreshing to see gays take care of themselves, at least in this forum.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2015 5:28 AM GMT
    My answer to the original question would be: No. I've had friends who have done things with a guys who said "Oh yeah, i'm clean" and end up with an STD of some sort.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2015 7:32 AM GMT
    One word: NO.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2015 12:20 PM GMT
    David3K said
    willular said
    timmm55 said
    willular saidThe bottom (lol) line is, surround yourself with people who have the same ideas of condom use as you.

    If you *never* use condoms, then have sex with people who don't use them either.

    If you *always* use condoms, then have sex with people who always use them too.

    If you sometimes use them, but sometimes don't, then have sex with people who do that too.

    People who are heavily staunch one way or another aren't going to suddenly change their mind because of one post on Realjock...so why post with so much heavy intention to do that? This isn't that hard of a concept to grasp. It's not like you're really going to persuade anyone to change their belief system.



    There are so many things wrong with your concept!

    Again here's the ACON position on What is Safe(r) Sex:

    1.The use of Condoms during
    casual encounters between men of unknown or discordant serostatus.
    2.HIV negative men taking effective pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).
    3.Men living with HIV who only have sex without condoms when they have a sustained undetectable viral load (UVL) and in the absence
    of sexually transmissible infections (STIs).
    4.Effective use of serosorting between HIV positive men.
    5.Effective negotiated safety agreements.

    http://www.acon.org.au/sites/default/files/What-is-Safe-Sex-Position-2014.pdf

    I follow the above EXACTLY.


    My point is, that you should interact with people who follow the same guidelines (or whatever you want to call it) as you.

    If you follow the stuff above, and you want to have sex with someone who doesn't follow that stuff above, then you shouldn't be having sex with them.

    I'm not debating what the definition of "safe sex" is. i'm just saying that if someone doesn't share the same values of sex, then you shouldn't be having sex with them.

    In other words, you and the original poster shouldn't be fucking.

    You can be sure that's not gonna happen LOL


    I dissed your sorry fucking ass already!

    "THAT would never happen! lol" beat you to it!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2015 12:21 PM GMT
    David3K saidIt's very satisfying to see the vast majority of RJ's (except the same old 2) are NOT going to bareback with strangers under any circumstance. It's refreshing to see gays take care of themselves, at least in this forum.


    I'd fuck you with Bea Arthur's dick.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2015 12:37 PM GMT
    No! Good lord, no. I wouldn't play Russian Roulette, whether the gun had six barrels, or six thousand.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2015 12:40 PM GMT
    And I don't understand why people are getting mad in this thread.

    There is no sane reason to bareback with anyone whose disease status you are not sure of, whether they say anything or not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2015 1:42 PM GMT
    Rhi_Bran saidAnd I don't understand why people are getting mad in this thread.

    There is no sane reason to bareback with anyone whose disease status you are not sure of, whether they say anything or not.

    The only 2 getting mad are Timm55 and MMTM, as always. The reason they get mad is because they promote bareback sex all the time, trying to convince people condoms are not necesary anymore and what a coincidence they're both HIV+. It pisses them off nobody here would bareback.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2015 1:46 PM GMT
    timmm55 said
    David3K saidIt's very satisfying to see the vast majority of RJ's (except the same old 2) are NOT going to bareback with strangers under any circumstance. It's refreshing to see gays take care of themselves, at least in this forum.


    I'd fuck you with Bea Arthur's dick.

    Youre a crazy motherfucker, be glad youre miles away or I would give you a beating you wont move for a week.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2015 6:21 PM GMT
    David3K said
    timmm55 said
    David3K saidIt's very satisfying to see the vast majority of RJ's (except the same old 2) are NOT going to bareback with strangers under any circumstance. It's refreshing to see gays take care of themselves, at least in this forum.


    I'd fuck you with Bea Arthur's dick.

    Youre a crazy motherfucker, be glad youre miles away or I would give you a beating you wont move for a week.



    LOL fuck you. Are there any rules on this site anymore? Threatening physical violence??? You wouldn't survive your attempt.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2015 6:23 PM GMT
    Rhi_Bran saidAnd I don't understand why people are getting mad in this thread.

    There is no sane reason to bareback with anyone whose disease status you are not sure of, whether they say anything or not.


    I agree. I've stated it innumerable times.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2015 6:27 PM GMT
    A case in point:



    David3K said
    Rhi_Bran saidAnd I don't understand why people are getting mad in this thread.

    There is no sane reason to bareback with anyone whose disease status you are not sure of, whether they say anything or not.

    The only 2 getting mad are Timm55 and MMTM, as always. The reason they get mad is because they promote bareback sex all the time, Promote it or acknowledge it? trying to convince people condoms are not necesary anymore Never said that. AGAIN you stupid twit, read the ACON 2014 statement. and what a coincidence they're both HIV+. It's not a coincidence that the most vocal people for TasP are POZ, or anyone educated on the subject, but then I've been researching HIV for decades. It pisses them off nobody here would bareback. Nobody here barebacks? Do you believe that? Do YOU believe what they say.....then you are the fool you claim everyone else is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2015 8:39 PM GMT
    David3K saidYou meet a guy that says he's HIV+ but undetectable and wants to bareback with you; would you do it? Would you trust that's his real status?

    Same with men saying they're "negative", would you believe them? Would you bareback with them?



    Back to the original question:


    Is it the "same"? Is a person who states he is "negative" the same as a person who claims he is "undetectable"?

    "There is this idea that most new infections come from people who are positive and are intentionally hiding their status. The statistics clearly shows that this is not true. Most new infections come from someone who honestly didn't know they were living with HIV they are not aware of their status. That's why it hits our community so hard." He said that we need to teach society to encourage testing, respect people with HIV and encourage open, honest, educated conversations about HIV."

    http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?article=61660

    Think about it, how many Negative people lie to say they are Positive?
    Pretty much none.
    If a person "says" they are positive they probably are. Undetectable or not they are being honest about being POZ...at a minimum.

    Sexual risk lower among U.S. gay and bisexual men who accurately know their HIV status
    http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/p1127-World-HIV-AIDS-day.html


    "Audience members noted that some men using Grindr and other hook-up apps are now declaring not only that they’re positive and on treatment, but even what threshold of undetectable viral load they’re below. And some negative guys are stating that they’re taking PrEP.

    So how much trust should we put in what potential partners say about their status? A chorus of voices from the audience murmured “None!” but Evans noted that global studies show most people change their behavior when they find out they’re HIV positive. “I’m not suggesting you should put your health in the hands of a stranger,” he said, “but most of humanity is basically responsible.”"

    http://betablog.org/undetectable-new-negative/

    The only thing David and I will agree on is Negative guys should never BB with strangers.
    But his constant vilification of POZ and/or POZ/Undetectable is counter productive. He creates a smokescreen for the real problem: the lauded "Negative" status so many desperately hold on to.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2015 10:19 PM GMT
    timmm55 said
    David3K saidYou meet a guy that says he's HIV+ but undetectable and wants to bareback with you; would you do it? Would you trust that's his real status?

    Same with men saying they're "negative", would you believe them? Would you bareback with them?

    Back to the original question:

    Is it the "same"? Is a person who states he is "negative" the same as a person who claims he is "undetectable"?

    The only thing David and I will agree on is Negative guys should never BB with strangers.
    But his constant vilification of POZ and/or POZ/Undetectable is counter productive. He creates a smokescreen for the real problem: the lauded "Negative" status so many desperately hold on to.


    YES IT IS- Like many expressed before; we should treat everyone as if they were positive because we don't know if what they claim is true or not. Negative, undetectable: it doesn't matter, with a condom we're taking care of ourselves without depending on anybody else's status.

    The fact you don't understand this basic concept says a lot about you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2015 3:10 AM GMT
    The problem is that only 60-70% of men who have sex with men use condoms correctly and consistently enough for them to be effective.
    So it doesn't matter what you think other members here have as an agenda. Bareback sex is happening. And preaching condoms is not effective by itself. It has been tried and failed as a prevention strategy.
    Prep and TaP are effective. The research is clear. It doesn't matter what you think undetectable means. It doesn't matter what the semen viral count is. The results of the partners study are clear. TaP is effective. So is PrEP.
    If you want to always use condoms, good for you. Make sure you use them 100% of the time. Even when drunk or high or super horny. Make sure they aren't old or cracked. Make sure as soon as you orgasm you/they pull out.
    If you do that then condoms will be an effective way for you to LOWER your hiv risk. But condoms do not make you morally superior than people who don't use them.
    Bare backing is not a morally wrong.

    In answer to the question, no I wouldn't bareback with a stranger no matter what he told me his status is. Not because it's sinful or wrong. It's because that's not a level of sexual risk I'm comfortable with. However, of I'm seeing a man and I care deeply for him. And he tells me he's pos/U and I trust him and we go to his doctor together and I'm on prep? Yeah. I probably would.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2015 3:24 AM GMT
    I would never actively bareback with anyone unless my life depended no it (but, I also haven't been any long term monogamous relationships yet)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2015 3:34 PM GMT
    David3K said
    timmm55 said
    David3K saidYou meet a guy that says he's HIV+ but undetectable and wants to bareback with you; would you do it? Would you trust that's his real status?

    Same with men saying they're "negative", would you believe them? Would you bareback with them?

    Back to the original question:

    Is it the "same"? Is a person who states he is "negative" the same as a person who claims he is "undetectable"?

    The only thing David and I will agree on is Negative guys should never BB with strangers.
    But his constant vilification of POZ and/or POZ/Undetectable is counter productive. He creates a smokescreen for the real problem: the lauded "Negative" status so many desperately hold on to.


    YES IT IS- Like many expressed before; we should treat everyone as if they were positive because we don't know if what they claim is true or not. Negative, undetectable: it doesn't matter, with a condom we're taking care of ourselves without depending on anybody else's status.

    The fact you don't understand this basic concept says a lot about you.





    You can't comprehend when I agree with you?
    Read the ACON statement above^^^^


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


    Hater's gotta hate. You hate POZ guys. I get it....20X over. You've made a smokescreen of gift givers/bug chasers, wanton POZ psychopaths, and undetectable liars.

    The truth is the majority (80%) is from people just like you who really, really, really, really, really believe they are NEGATIVE. 8% is from IV drugs. 12% is various "OTHER".

    da56420f-d192-44ce-8252-28a5c2405876_zps
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2015 3:43 PM GMT
    Would anyone actually answer yes to the thread question??
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2015 4:02 PM GMT
    TomSOCAL said
    Wyndahoi saidThe problem is that only 60-70% of men who have sex with men use condoms correctly and consistently enough for them to be effective.
    So it doesn't matter what you think other members here have as an agenda. Bareback sex is happening. And preaching condoms is not effective by itself. It has been tried and failed as a prevention strategy.
    Prep and TaP are effective. The research is clear. It doesn't matter what you think undetectable means. It doesn't matter what the semen viral count is. The results of the partners study are clear. TaP is effective. So is PrEP.
    If you want to always use condoms, good for you. Make sure you use them 100% of the time. Even when drunk or high or super horny. Make sure they aren't old or cracked. Make sure as soon as you orgasm you/they pull out.
    If you do that then condoms will be an effective way for you to LOWER your hiv risk. But condoms do not make you morally superior than people who don't use them.
    Bare backing is not a morally wrong.

    In answer to the question, no I wouldn't bareback with a stranger no matter what he told me his status is. Not because it's sinful or wrong. It's because that's not a level of sexual risk I'm comfortable with. However, of I'm seeing a man and I care deeply for him. And he tells me he's pos/U and I trust him and we go to his doctor together and I'm on prep? Yeah. I probably would.


    Dear doctor,
    Could u post the link to glaad, the link to glbt docs database nationwide....Many of us live in medically undeserved areas, and don't have any access to the info u frequently provide here, ie San Bernardino and riverside counties, east of L.A., including the gay population in palm springs, where the republican owned and operated Eisenhower medical center doesn't even release hiv results to patients who live there.


    Huh?

    I live in PS. It's the gayest small town anywhere. I have a great doc at Kaiser P.

    Sounds like you need a new Doctor.

    http://www.hrc.org/campaigns/healthcare-equality-index
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 06, 2015 4:07 PM GMT
    hentailover saidWould anyone actually answer yes to the thread question??

    No, the stigma is too great. However, lot of people bareback with people of unknown status, because ignorance is bliss, despite it being potentially even more dangerous. It's kind of the same reason people smoke cigarettes or let themselves get obese. They think maybe they'll dodge a bullet. However, willingly giving yourself HIV, or cancer, or diabetes, would be more like aiming the gun at your head.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2015 11:31 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    hentailover saidWould anyone actually answer yes to the thread question??

    No, the stigma is too great. It's kind of the same reason people smoke cigarettes or let themselves get obese. However, willingly giving yourself HIV, or cancer, or diabetes, would be more like aiming the gun at your head.


    I don't know, a lot of people know fully what they're getting into. More so in the latter 2 cases than the first. Anti-smoke warnings are on every cigarette pack in Canada (I don't know about the States), and skinny/fit models remind people everyday how great it is to get in shape. Like that classical question demonstrates: 10 more years of life but a lifelong of hunger, versus a shorter life of bon appetite, which would you choose? People's decision will differ, even if results are 100% certain.

    Just like most drivers know that there is a very very high chance that they'll get into at least one accident in their life time, and a lower chance that this accident will be fatal. They still drive though, because the alternative is too miserable for too long especially if your residence is more than 5 min from the nearest grocery store.

    Another example, castration can apparently prolong a man's life by quite a bit: a LOT less prostate problems, metabolism also slows down due to less androgen stimulation, which means less stress on cardiovascular system. Even helps with neural degeneration. But most men probably will gladly take that reduced lifespan over castrating himself. NOT comparing this to condom use per se, just saying I don't think barebacking in the community can be solely explained by things like "ignorance" and "arrogance". And certainly, in the case of smoking and obesity, I won't even consider ignorance as top 3 factors.

  • craycraydoesd...

    Posts: 1046

    Jan 07, 2015 2:08 AM GMT
    hentailover saidWould anyone actually answer yes to the thread question??


    If they're already poz and have nothing to lose, then why not lol. It's only the other guy getting screwed.

    edit: I'm kidding, just to clarify for all the psychopaths out there
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2015 2:27 AM GMT
    crazycrazydoesdoes said
    hentailover saidWould anyone actually answer yes to the thread question??


    If they're already poz and have nothing to lose, then why not lol. It's only the other guy getting screwed.

    edit: I'm kidding, just to clarify for all the psychopaths out there


    Many people do say yes every day. it's called serodiscordant or magnetic couples, where one is POZ and one is NEG.

    In the early days of AIDS no one knew who was poz or negative. There wasn't even a test. Even then some men didn't contract HIV. Either through "safer sex" or good luck. But the Negative guy often still stood by his lover's side, protecting him til death.

    Fast forward 30 years, and the POZ guy is on ART with no detectable virus. Now he is protecting his lover from getting HIV.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2015 3:56 AM GMT
    timmm55 said
    crazycrazydoesdoes said
    hentailover saidWould anyone actually answer yes to the thread question??


    If they're already poz and have nothing to lose, then why not lol. It's only the other guy getting screwed.

    edit: I'm kidding, just to clarify for all the psychopaths out there


    Many people do say yes every day. it's called serodiscordant or magnetic couples, where one is POZ and one is NEG.

    In the early days of AIDS no one knew who was poz or negative. There wasn't even a test. Even then some men didn't contract HIV. Either through "safer sex" or good luck. But the Negative guy often still stood by his lover's side, protecting him til death.

    Fast forward 30 years, and the POZ guy is on ART with no detectable virus. Now he is protecting his lover from getting HIV.


    I still wouldn't bareback. So long as there's a chance of infection, no matter how small or theoretical, I would not take it. There would be a HUGE mental block there, rational or not.