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 07, 2015 4:46 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.


    That's a very heroic plot twist there, but the original question doesn't refer to monogamous couples, just men you meet who want to bareback.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 07, 2015 2:57 PM GMT
    aaron123dodo said
    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.


    You have some intriguing responses! But why did you delete a sentence from my post? That makes it sound I'm talking about something I'm not. I'm talking about people who don't know their partner's status who bareback and become positive. The unfortunate reality is that that's how it typically spreads, and obviously there's a high of stigma attached to it, more so than smokers or diabetics, because HIV is an STD. Nevertheless people do bareback, and when I've talked to them, they have the same attitude as someone who smokes or does drugs, in the sense that they think they'll be okay, like they'll be the one that doesn't face the consequences, particularly young people who are at an age of taking up adult vices.

    People crash their cars and want to keep their testicles. They say they want to live forever, but they live for the moment. It's human nature. So, while people need to be educated, and we need to promote safe sex, where the rubber meets the road compassion is key, because we all fuck up in one way or another. And it's not just gay people. Straight people "bareback" when they shouldn't and we have staggering, mind numbing number of abortions that dwarf the number of HIV cases. I'm pro choice, but it's unsettling to actually look at the stats, and it's an obvious controversy that's bigger than anything in our sex lives as gay men.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2015 3:50 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]timmm55 said[/cite]
    HndsmKansan saidWhat is HIV "undetectable" really? I mean it can be argued it means this or that, but has the term been used to somehow create the impression of safety?

    I would find out MUCH more before I'd ever consider anything beyond condom use.

    Timm & Moronc Muscule
    Your again contridicting yourselves again and so full of crap. There is nothing safe about a so called undetectable status which is an unvarifiable situation of which can be effected by so many factors, as for your hero, when he js willing to engage in.BB receptive anal sex with a so called undetectable I will be much more impressed. In the mean time we should acknowledge that the most effective TasP is for Poz men to acknowledge their status and disclose it to sexual partners and for gay men to re-think this obsession with BB porn and fake condom allergies or so called increased intimacy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2015 7:24 PM GMT
    TomSOCAL said
    timmm55 said
    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


    Thanks for the link. Riverside and san Bernardino counties, including palm springs, don't want to join liberal L.A. county in terms of acceptance of gays, and prevention of hiv transmission. Very conservative areas.

    Just because palm springs has a gay population doesn't mean the local government and hospitals address health concerns of gay men. It's not west Hollywood, san Francisco, Vegas, or seattle...

    Riverside and san Bernardino counties are farmland turned into urban sprawl, totally lacking in any culture or diversity, factors that are normally associated with acceptance and outreach to our community...

    Both counties have the lowest percentage of college grads of any census area of the same size, another factor associated with liberalism...

    Don't move here! Stay in L.A. or go to Vegas if u want a supportive, liberal city....don't be tempted by the cheap housing in riverside and other cities, indeed, Vegas properties cost less...

    As for yr comment about palm springs being small, that's a problem. It is one of about 50 very small towns in the two county area. Conservative cities do not like growth. As a result, liberal college grads, gay or straight, seeking big cities, never move in to change things. They keep going east, to Vegas and Tempe.

    Palm springs refuses to grow to 100,000, all the way north to 10. They don't like growth and are no different than cherry valley, calimesa, yucaipa, and others fighting county commissioner Marion Ashley over the warehouse distribution center that will employ 2000.

    My points are to warn others to not move to these counties due to health care that doesn't address hiv transmission, since the counties have small conservative towns surrounded by farmers who are even more conservative. Stay in the big cities.

    Stay away from cities in the middle of nowhere that have a substantial gay population. Flagstaff, Arizona has a gay population but is also too small, doesn't want to grow, with no public outreach to our community. Flagstaff and palm springs are the exact same cities, demographically and politically. Same with bend, and Ashland, oregon, and probably also Eugene.


    Have you been to DAP (Desert AIDS Project)?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2015 7:30 PM GMT
    Rhi_Bran said
    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.


    You acknowledge it's a mental block, and that's valid enough. Stick with condoms....always though.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2015 7:51 PM GMT
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 said[quote][cite]timmm55 said[/cite]
    HndsmKansan saidWhat is HIV "undetectable" really? I mean it can be argued it means this or that, but has the term been used to somehow create the impression of safety?

    I would find out MUCH more before I'd ever consider anything beyond condom use.

    Timm & Moronc Muscule
    Your again contridicting yourselves again and so full of crap. There is nothing safe about a so called undetectable status which is an unvarifiable situation of which can be effected by so many factors, as for your hero, when he js willing to engage in.BB receptive anal sex with a so called undetectable I will be much more impressed. In the mean time we should acknowledge that the most effective TasP is for Poz men to acknowledge their status and disclose it to sexual partners and for gay men to re-think this obsession with BB porn and fake condom allergies or so called increased intimacy.


    (Why do I respond to this idiot????)
    Oh well, here goes.

    Undetectable IS verified.

    If Dr. Montaner did have condomless sex you'd say it was a BB agenda.
    But he did say this: “Some people, they want to be 100% sure that there is no risk. So they are not very comfortable with this kind of approach. What I usually tell people is look, if you think wearing condoms is the way to go and you are happy to advise and counsel people that condoms are as good as safe sex, I think you should be fully comfortable with advising fully suppressed individuals on HAART that they are as well protected as when using condoms, if not better protected. If they are concerned and want to use HAART and condoms, that would be even more protective. But that’s a judgement that fully informed couples should make.”

    “If you are asking me,” Montaner says, “I’m very comfortable that properly used HAART is at least as protective – or more –than condoms.”
    Most POZ men do disclose their status. It's the untested gay men who assert they are Negative, but aren't. THEY are THE prime factor in the Gay increase of HIV.

    BB porn is a reflection of real life, 53% don't use condoms. What came first the chicken or the egg? Does it matter?

    Fake condom allergies? What does that have to do with anything? It sounds like a thin excuse.

    "so called increased intimacy" LOL!!!!
    Do you eat your bologna sandwich through a plastic baggie too?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2015 8:12 PM GMT
    hentailover said
    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.


    That's a very heroic plot twist there, but the original question doesn't refer to monogamous couples, just men you meet who want to bareback.


    In David's scenarios "POZ" is always the villain. They are snarky, hiding behind trees, twirling their mustache. They lie about being Undetectable. They try to lure unsuspecting Negative boys. They need to breed others to make more POZ guys. They are evil, they must be stopped. It's blatant stigmatization, worse it avoids the real issue: NOT BEING TESTED is by far the greatest propagator of HIV.


    When he says "Same with men saying they're "negative"" he's downplaying that issue, the more troubling and frequent problem, focusing on the the Undetectable "liar".

    If you have a problem with my Heroic twist you should have a bigger problem with David's crass stereotyping.
  • buddycat

    Posts: 2315

    Jan 07, 2015 11:48 PM GMT
    Never had sex without a condom, period. As the studies indicate, sex occurs sometimes outside of a relationship and there is always that risk. I trust nobody with that, nobody.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2015 12:23 AM GMT
    b]Undetectable HIV+ scams IS verified.

    (Why do I respond to this idiot????) you said it buddy and its exactly what everyone on here is thinking, that you are an extreme and bitter man who is not Challenging attitudes toward HIV+ guys. You are re-enforcing it

    Oh well, here we go again more BS from the twisted one. I too don't know why I bother but seeing your unwillingness to give up on your true agenda I'll answer the following

    If Dr. Montaner did have condomless sex you'd say it was a BB agenda.[/b].
    My Answer : Incorrect as I would see that he is willing to put his claims into practice

    BB porn is a reflection of real life, 53% don't use condoms. What came first the chicken or the egg? Does it matter?
    My Answer : 53% would be a guess based on the same deliberate manipulation of fact you do every time. The one where you compare your Favoured treatment (medicating all gay men) In optimum conditions and other options (eg. condoms) when every that could go wrong. That is manipulation and deliberate lies.

    You can fool yourself but not everyone, most men view porn so It matters what porn portrays and it has a heavy influence on what Gay men expect in the bedroom. If people followed your logic then no social or medical issue would even change

    Fake condom allergies? What does that have to do with anything? It sounds like a thin excuse.
    This ome is the most common one and really just a lie that keeps repeating like bad take away food

    "so called increased intimacy" LOL!!!!
    Do you eat your bologna sandwich through a plastic baggie too? [/quote]

    My sandwich is generally not loaded with STI's
  • whytehot

    Posts: 1347

    Jan 08, 2015 1:38 AM GMT
    hentailover said
    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.


    That's a very heroic plot twist there, but the original question doesn't refer to monogamous couples, just men you meet who want to bareback.


    Look at Timm or MMTM's HIV status on their profiles... it would explain why they're unable/unwilling to give a straight answer to a simple question.
  • whytehot

    Posts: 1347

    Jan 08, 2015 1:59 AM GMT
    ^^Well that response, and your "sure why not [bareback a random guy]" post, sure lends credibility to your little campaign rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2015 3:08 AM GMT
    whytehot said^^Well that response, and your "sure why not [bareback a random guy]" post, sure lends credibility to your little campaign rolleyes.gif


    I'm familiar with your snooty responses. Did you read the thread? If you had you'd of read my response.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2015 3:17 AM GMT
    timmm55 said
    hentailover said
    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.


    That's a very heroic plot twist there, but the original question doesn't refer to monogamous couples, just men you meet who want to bareback.


    In David's scenarios "POZ" is always the villain. They are snarky, hiding behind trees, twirling their mustache. They lie about being Undetectable. They try to lure unsuspecting Negative boys. They need to breed others to make more POZ guys. They are evil, they must be stopped. It's blatant stigmatization, worse it avoids the real issue: NOT BEING TESTED is by far the greatest propagator of HIV.


    When he says "Same with men saying they're "negative"" he's downplaying that issue, the more troubling and frequent problem, focusing on the the Undetectable "liar".

    If you have a problem with my Heroic twist you should have a bigger problem with David's crass stereotyping.

    No, dont twist my words: not "every poz is the bad guy", only the ones with a clear unhealthy agenda like you and MMTM. Actually most HIV men try to PROTECT others advocating the use of condoms, trying their peers to do what they didnt. Then there are people like you and MMTM trying to do the complete opposite with the "im screwed im gonna convince you this is not so bad so you bareback with me and I feel less stigmatized".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2015 3:39 AM GMT
    David3K said
    timmm55 said
    hentailover said
    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.


    That's a very heroic plot twist there, but the original question doesn't refer to monogamous couples, just men you meet who want to bareback.


    In David's scenarios "POZ" is always the villain. They are snarky, hiding behind trees, twirling their mustache. They lie about being Undetectable. They try to lure unsuspecting Negative boys. They need to breed others to make more POZ guys. They are evil, they must be stopped. It's blatant stigmatization, worse it avoids the real issue: NOT BEING TESTED is by far the greatest propagator of HIV.


    When he says "Same with men saying they're "negative"" he's downplaying that issue, the more troubling and frequent problem, focusing on the the Undetectable "liar".

    If you have a problem with my Heroic twist you should have a bigger problem with David's crass stereotyping.

    No, dont twist my words: not "every poz is the bad guy", only the ones with a clear unhealthy agenda like you and MMTM. Actually most HIV men try to PROTECT others advocating the use of condoms, trying their peers to do what they didnt. Then there are people like you and MMTM trying to do the complete opposite with the "im screwed im gonna convince you this is not so bad so you bareback with me and I feel less stigmatized".


    Most POZ and undetectable men serosort with their same type. Your "rules" are 20 years old, science and medicine has rendered your opinion obsolete. If everyone used your "safe sex" guidelines the epidemic would have been over long ago. There's nothing wrong with condoms............except people don't use them or lie about it most of the time.


    I have used condoms 100% of the time, some time ago. I still use them, no problem! It has nothing to do with my undetectable status.

    Virtually every new science/medical datum refuses what you say.

    Even that pales in comparison to your LACK of comment on the real problem: NOT GETTING TESTED AND THE SPREAD OF HIV THAT CAUSES.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2015 8:09 AM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said
    whytehot said

    Look at Timm or MMTM's HIV status on their profiles... it would explain why they're unable/unwilling to give a straight answer to a simple question.


    And.... who are you....?

    My sex life is no one's business on here.

    And you failed to answer the question I asked awhile ago. Which was, why do you refer to yourself as "hot" when you are clearly NOT?


    He is very Hot and sexy are you blind?? Especially when you are ugly yourself to through this type of criticism at a hottie adds to the lack of credibility you have
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2015 9:26 PM GMT
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 said
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said
    whytehot said

    Look at Timm or MMTM's HIV status on their profiles... it would explain why they're unable/unwilling to give a straight answer to a simple question.


    And.... who are you....?

    My sex life is no one's business on here.

    And you failed to answer the question I asked awhile ago. Which was, why do you refer to yourself as "hot" when you are clearly NOT?


    He is very Hot and sexy are you blind?? Especially when you are ugly yourself to through this type of criticism at a hottie adds to the lack of credibility you have


    In the eye of the beholder, as they say.

  • highforthis

    Posts: 799

    Jan 08, 2015 10:14 PM GMT
    timmm55 said
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 said
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said
    whytehot said

    Look at Timm or MMTM's HIV status on their profiles... it would explain why they're unable/unwilling to give a straight answer to a simple question.


    And.... who are you....?

    My sex life is no one's business on here.

    And you failed to answer the question I asked awhile ago. Which was, why do you refer to yourself as "hot" when you are clearly NOT?


    He is very Hot and sexy are you blind?? Especially when you are ugly yourself to through this type of criticism at a hottie adds to the lack of credibility you have


    In the eye of the beholder, as they say.



    Then why even say he's "clearly NOT" hot? So tired of people here using physical insults as arguing points
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2015 10:19 PM GMT
    highforthis said
    timmm55 said
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 said
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said
    whytehot said

    Look at Timm or MMTM's HIV status on their profiles... it would explain why they're unable/unwilling to give a straight answer to a simple question.


    And.... who are you....?

    My sex life is no one's business on here.

    And you failed to answer the question I asked awhile ago. Which was, why do you refer to yourself as "hot" when you are clearly NOT?


    He is very Hot and sexy are you blind?? Especially when you are ugly yourself to through this type of criticism at a hottie adds to the lack of credibility you have


    In the eye of the beholder, as they say.



    Then why even say he's "clearly NOT" hot? So tired of people here using physical insults as arguing points


    I didn't.

    I won't dwell on the physical aspects. But his attitude is ugly. I did give a "straight" answer, which was "NO", and a more detailed one, explaining how they are not the same in terms of how HIV is actually spread. He didn't read either.

    He consistently leaves short snarky remarks, without citations (or logic). He says he's "HOT" in his screen name. If he need to convince anyone, then it's his to prove. I don't feel the necessity to validate someone's insecurities.

  • highforthis

    Posts: 799

    Jan 08, 2015 10:30 PM GMT
    U seem to defend the guy who did. Plus u two tag team so often it might as well be one person lol
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2015 10:35 PM GMT
    highforthis saidU seem to defend the guy who did. Plus u two tag team so often it might as well be one person lol


    Nope, I don't call out anyone for physical trails: David, Art (I did refer to his age once but I"m 59), Sydney.

    I prefer to stick to clinical arguments.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2015 12:00 AM GMT
    timmm55 said
    David3K said
    timmm55 said
    hentailover said
    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.


    That's a very heroic plot twist there, but the original question doesn't refer to monogamous couples, just men you meet who want to bareback.


    In David's scenarios "POZ" is always the villain. They are snarky, hiding behind trees, twirling their mustache. They lie about being Undetectable. They try to lure unsuspecting Negative boys. They need to breed others to make more POZ guys. They are evil, they must be stopped. It's blatant stigmatization, worse it avoids the real issue: NOT BEING TESTED is by far the greatest propagator of HIV.


    When he says "Same with men saying they're "negative"" he's downplaying that issue, the more troubling and frequent problem, focusing on the the Undetectable "liar".

    If you have a problem with my Heroic twist you should have a bigger problem with David's crass stereotyping.

    No, dont twist my words: not "every poz is the bad guy", only the ones with a clear unhealthy agenda like you and MMTM. Actually most HIV men try to PROTECT others advocating the use of condoms, trying their peers to do what they didnt. Then there are people like you and MMTM trying to do the complete opposite with the "im screwed im gonna convince you this is not so bad so you bareback with me and I feel less stigmatized".


    Most POZ and undetectable men serosort with their same type. Your "rules" are 20 years old, science and medicine has rendered your opinion obsolete. If everyone used your "safe sex" guidelines the epidemic would have been over long ago. There's nothing wrong with condoms............except people don't use them or lie about it most of the time.


    I have used condoms 100% of the time, some time ago. I still use them, no problem! It has nothing to do with my undetectable status.

    Virtually every new science/medical datum refuses what you say.

    Even that pales in comparison to your LACK of comment on the real problem: NOT GETTING TESTED AND THE SPREAD OF HIV THAT CAUSES.


    And HOW are people -according to you- supposed to protect themselves in hook ups against all the HIV+ men who don't know their status, if not with a condom. I'm very curious. (with PrEP???? icon_lol.gif )
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2015 1:23 AM GMT
    Serodiscordant monogamous couples are one thing, but I'm still wondering how anyone can possibly defend this answer to this question:


    MuchMoreThanMuscle 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?


    Sure, why not?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2015 2:53 AM GMT
    hentailover saidSerodiscordant monogamous couples are one thing, but I'm still wondering how anyone can possibly defend this answer to this question:


    MuchMoreThanMuscle 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?


    Sure, why not?


    Hentailover: The answer is easy and obvious, but if you say it out loud MMTM will go running to admin whining you're giving him a bad reputation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2015 7:58 AM GMT
    David3K said
    timmm55 said
    David3K said
    timmm55 said
    hentailover said
    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.


    That's a very heroic plot twist there, but the original question doesn't refer to monogamous couples, just men you meet who want to bareback.


    In David's scenarios "POZ" is always the villain. They are snarky, hiding behind trees, twirling their mustache. They lie about being Undetectable. They try to lure unsuspecting Negative boys. They need to breed others to make more POZ guys. They are evil, they must be stopped. It's blatant stigmatization, worse it avoids the real issue: NOT BEING TESTED is by far the greatest propagator of HIV.


    When he says "Same with men saying they're "negative"" he's downplaying that issue, the more troubling and frequent problem, focusing on the the Undetectable "liar".

    If you have a problem with my Heroic twist you should have a bigger problem with David's crass stereotyping.

    No, dont twist my words: not "every poz is the bad guy", only the ones with a clear unhealthy agenda like you and MMTM. Actually most HIV men try to PROTECT others advocating the use of condoms, trying their peers to do what they didnt. Then there are people like you and MMTM trying to do the complete opposite with the "im screwed im gonna convince you this is not so bad so you bareback with me and I feel less stigmatized".


    Most POZ and undetectable men serosort with their same type. Your "rules" are 20 years old, science and medicine has rendered your opinion obsolete. If everyone used your "safe sex" guidelines the epidemic would have been over long ago. There's nothing wrong with condoms............except people don't use them or lie about it most of the time.


    I have used condoms 100% of the time, some time ago. I still use them, no problem! It has nothing to do with my undetectable status.

    Virtually every new science/medical datum refuses what you say.

    Even that pales in comparison to your LACK of comment on the real problem: NOT GETTING TESTED AND THE SPREAD OF HIV THAT CAUSES.


    And HOW are people -according to you- supposed to protect themselves in hook ups against all the HIV+ men who don't know their status, if not with a condom. I'm very curious. (with PrEP???? icon_lol.gif )


    Yes you dimwit, as I've said read the ACON statement. First on the list for Negative men with an unknown partner is condoms. Also PrEP. If both are tested and monogamous (not pretend monogamous) and are still Negative, then they can decide how to proceed. Same for Undetectable. Here, with a known Undetectable, he has a prevention advantage. If unsure or merely uneasy stay with condoms and/or PrEP.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2015 9:04 AM GMT
    hentailover saidSerodiscordant monogamous couples are one thing, but I'm still wondering how anyone can possibly defend this answer to this question:


    MuchMoreThanMuscle 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?


    Sure, why not?


    You seem to have forgotten a scenario. You assume the "you" David is talking about is Negative. What if he is already Undetectable?

    The danger to a POZ/undetectable man with anyone else is nil.
    Note ACON #4.Effective use of serosorting between HIV positive men.

    But you say Ah HA! What about a superinfection between two POZ guys? It's been a theory for decades.

    All cases of coinfection were once assumed to be the result of people being exposed to the different strains more or less simultaneously, before their immune systems had had a chance to react. However, it is now thought that "superinfection" is also occurring. In these cases, the second infection occurred several months after the first. It would appear that the body's immune response to the first virus is sometimes not enough to prevent infection with a second strain, especially with a virus belonging to a different subtype. - See more at: http://www.avert.org/hiv-types.htm#sthash.2oANUGTR.dpuf

    Several studies conducted in Thailand suggest that people infected with CRF A/E progress faster to AIDS and death than those infected with subtype B, if they do not receive antiretroviral treatment.

    http://www.avert.org/hiv-types.htm




    HIV superinfection associated with accelerated viral load increase but has no impact on clinical disease progression......(aka when on ART therapy).
    http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-superinfection-associated-with-accelerated-viral-load-increase-but-has-no-impact-on-clinical-disease-progression/page/2900626/

    PrEP covers all types and strains of HIV. As does ART therapy works against all types and strains. Recombined or superinfected. It only makes sense since they are essentially the same ingredients.