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

    Aug 09, 2015 10:09 PM GMT
    GraffitiMySoul26 saidSo the BB bomb was dropped again and all hell (the Condom Police) broke loose icon_biggrin.gif

    I don't think it's about trust. It's about making a conscious decision. I did do it with undetectable guys and will continue to do so if opportunity strikes. I am, however, still negative and I'm definitely not chasing.

    It really comes down to what you like and, again, making a conscious decision. I know the risks and I fully accept them. It is MY choice to bareback, whether you like it or not.

    Oh and believe me, it's not that easy to get HIV. There are those who try to get it and fail for years. I've been barebacking for almost 11 years, I'm negative and I've never had an STI. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I think there's more to it. I think you can choose your sex partner wisely, even if it's just a hook-up. I don't do bathhouses, sex parties, orgies, sex clubs etc.

    One more thing: I would rather have sex (BB or not) with a guy who's poz/undetectable than with a guy who doesn't even know his status. Those are the most 'dangerous' ones.


    NO your one of the dangerous ones. You are most likely Poz already or very close to becoming Poz so thanks for the heads up. Undetectable is now the new trendy buzz word for those who know they probably are detectable and either don't care or don't want to know so good luck with that. It may be fair to ask guys who put themselves deliberately in harms way, should foot their own bill for treatment to discourage high risk taking behaviour.

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

    Aug 09, 2015 11:36 PM GMT
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 said
    GraffitiMySoul26 saidSo the BB bomb was dropped again and all hell (the Condom Police) broke loose icon_biggrin.gif

    I don't think it's about trust. It's about making a conscious decision. I did do it with undetectable guys and will continue to do so if opportunity strikes. I am, however, still negative and I'm definitely not chasing.

    It really comes down to what you like and, again, making a conscious decision. I know the risks and I fully accept them. It is MY choice to bareback, whether you like it or not.

    Oh and believe me, it's not that easy to get HIV. There are those who try to get it and fail for years. I've been barebacking for almost 11 years, I'm negative and I've never had an STI. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I think there's more to it. I think you can choose your sex partner wisely, even if it's just a hook-up. I don't do bathhouses, sex parties, orgies, sex clubs etc.

    One more thing: I would rather have sex (BB or not) with a guy who's poz/undetectable than with a guy who doesn't even know his status. Those are the most 'dangerous' ones.


    NO your one of the dangerous ones. You are most likely Poz already or very close to becoming Poz so thanks for the heads up. Undetectable is now the new trendy buzz word for those who know they probably are detectable and either don't care or don't want to know so good luck with that. It may be fair to ask guys who put themselves deliberately in harms way, should foot their own bill for treatment to discourage high risk taking behaviour.



    I'll just post this every time you post something idiotic:


    From your country.....thank God you are not representative of Australia.


    There are now at least five strategies that reasonably constitute‘safe sex’, provided that certain parameters are met.
    They are:
    1.The use of Condoms during casual encounters between men of unknown or discordant serostatus.
    2.HIV negative men taking effective pre-exposure 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


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

    Aug 11, 2015 12:21 PM GMT
    No. Whether malicious or just human error, I find it too risky to have that much faith in a guy in those regards.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2015 2:51 PM GMT
    Without exception I consider every single sex partner as HIV positive (whether they claim to be negative, positive, on PrEP, or poz undetectable)--it's a mindgame on my part, but it forces me to adhere to rigid safe sex practices. Significantly, every single guy on PrEP that I'd spoken or met up with had asked me to top them bareback, which frankly I can't fully comprehend.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2015 7:12 PM GMT
    Webster666 saidAlways assume that everybody's positive.


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

    Aug 11, 2015 9:22 PM GMT
    Before PrEP "There was always that risk....that anxiety....."

    That's what I hear a lot on here. That and the blame game, and everyone else is lying.
    Someone said "i guess you dont love your self, its ok." I totally disagree. You can love yourself and your partner. Today it is possible to NOT get or give HIV.





    For me,as a POZ undetectable person, I have ZERO anxiety about getting HIV (obviously). Furthermore if they are also Undetectable, POZ or on PrEP it doesn't matter to me. I have a layer of protection as do the UVL and PrEP people. Nor is the POZ guy a danger to me.

    David (in one of his screen names) says initially:
    Would you TRUST a guy saying he's "HIV+ undetectable" and bareback with him?
    "You 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?"

    It's horrible to have to TRUST someone with you life. It's a foreign concept to me. Why would anyone do that, why isn't everyone on PrEP if you worry about something as diabolical as TRUST?

    Thankfully I can still trust someone at their word, at my discretion, because I am not afraid. It doesn't matter if someone is a millionaire or not, or undetectable or not. Their life isn't on the line, nor is mine. Even if they are fibbing. I love myself enough to protect myself, and them too.

    But that is very different if you are strictly Negative and not on PrEP. A person on PrEP isn't anymore suicidal than a UVL person is pathological.
    In the context of mental health I 'd say we are actually healthier....the anxiety and fear are gone.
    Do Negative people LIKE to live in fear? I could understand that 5 years ago, but now you can do something about it.

    We've created a generation of Gay men who can't trust anyone else, and they can't trust themselves either, needless to mention loving one another or themselves.

    I understand a "NO" response (bareback or not, that was just to intensify stigma/guilt/blame). It doesn't have to be YES/NO anymore.
  • transient

    Posts: 629

    Aug 12, 2015 10:46 AM GMT
    Trust only yourself and protect yourself.

    BB in any situation is a risk. I dont like risks. Not with my partner or any random. Never.

    I think this 'undetectible' is dangerous.

    'undetectable at my last bloodtest almost 3 months ago' is more likely.

    PrEP........ more big pharmacutical cash for the pot.

    ARV therapy for HIV-......... what the fuck are you guys doing.

    You are making guinea pigs of yourself.

    This is a risk....... choose this risk if you wish.

    I will contunue to never BB and always use condoms. This is my choice.

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

    Aug 12, 2015 6:47 PM GMT
    transient saidTrust 1) only yourself and protect yourself.

    2)BB in any situation is a risk. I dont like risks. Not with my partner or any random. Never.

    3)I think this 'undetectible' is dangerous.

    4)'undetectable at my last bloodtest almost 3 months ago' is more likely.

    5)PrEP........ more big pharmacutical cash for the pot.

    6)ARV therapy for HIV-......... what the fuck are you guys doing.

    7) You are making guinea pigs of yourself.

    icon_cool.gif This is a risk....... choose this risk if you wish.

    9) I will contunue to never BB and always use condoms. This is my choice.



    Case in point!

    In order of comments:
    1) not trusting,
    2) fear,
    3) uninformed and unscientific,
    4) illogical, actually refers to 'Negative window' 5) conspiracy fear,
    6 and 7) fearful for others: projecting your fear onto others who have made an educated choice
    8 ) fear based on false assumptions
    9) It is a foregone conclusion for you. It's a good safer sex strategy, except it's based on ignorance. It's at other people's expense you have claimed your strategy superior.

    Some things to contemplate:

    From the UN AIDS:
    "Hence, condom use remains complementary to all other HIV prevention methods, including ART and PrEP, in particular when other STIs and unintended pregnancy are of concern."
    http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2015/july/20150702_condoms_prevention

    From UNICEF:

    How effective are condoms in preventing HIV?

    "Quality-assured male and female condoms are the only products currently available to protect against STIs, including HIV. When used properly every time one has sex, condoms are a proven and effective means of preventing HIV infection in women and men.
    However, apart from abstinence, no protective method is 100% effective, and condom use cannot guarantee absolute protection against any STI. In order to achieve the protective effect of condoms, they must be used correctly all the time. Incorrect use can lead to condom slippage or breakage, thus diminishing their protective effect."

    https://www.facebook.com/notes/unicef-india/how-effective-are-condoms-in-preventing-hiv-and-can-we-get-hiv-from-sharing-razo/10150314208410284

    So how "proven and effective" are condoms?
    RESULTS:

    Among MSM reporting any anal sex with an HIV-positive male partner, we found 70% effectiveness with reported consistent condom use (compared with never use) and no significant protection when comparing sometimes use to never use. (that's why it's so important to use it EVERY time.)

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25469526

    Think about that 70% when you say condoms are the "only" method, when projecting your fear onto others who have made an educated choice based on 96-100% effectiveness of PrEP and ART.
  • transient

    Posts: 629

    Aug 14, 2015 10:06 AM GMT
    UNICEF and UN AIDS are not sources I trust.

    Neither do I trust the pharmacutical industry (the clue is in the name.... its an industry).

    I choose good health by the independent choices I make for myself.

    I am HIV- by the way, and never has any STi

    This proves to me, that my own choices have protected me this far.

    I do not trust you, or your opinions.

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

    Aug 14, 2015 8:20 PM GMT
    timmm55 said
    transient saidTrust 1) only yourself and protect yourself.

    2)BB in any situation is a risk. I dont like risks. Not with my partner or any random. Never.

    3)I think this 'undetectible' is dangerous.

    4)'undetectable at my last bloodtest almost 3 months ago' is more likely.

    5)PrEP........ more big pharmacutical cash for the pot.

    6)ARV therapy for HIV-......... what the fuck are you guys doing.

    7) You are making guinea pigs of yourself.

    icon_cool.gif This is a risk....... choose this risk if you wish.

    9) I will contunue to never BB and always use condoms. This is my choice.



    Case in point!

    In order of comments:
    1) not trusting,
    2) fear,
    3) uninformed and unscientific,
    4) illogical, actually refers to 'Negative window' 5) conspiracy fear,
    6 and 7) fearful for others: projecting your fear onto others who have made an educated choice
    8 ) fear based on false assumptions
    9) It is a foregone conclusion for you. It's a good safer sex strategy, except it's based on ignorance. It's at other people's expense you have claimed your strategy superior.

    Some things to contemplate:

    From the UN AIDS:
    "Hence, condom use remains complementary to all other HIV prevention methods, including ART and PrEP, in particular when other STIs and unintended pregnancy are of concern."
    http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2015/july/20150702_condoms_prevention

    From UNICEF:

    How effective are condoms in preventing HIV?

    "Quality-assured male and female condoms are the only products currently available to protect against STIs, including HIV. When used properly every time one has sex, condoms are a proven and effective means of preventing HIV infection in women and men.
    However, apart from abstinence, no protective method is 100% effective, and condom use cannot guarantee absolute protection against any STI. In order to achieve the protective effect of condoms, they must be used correctly all the time. Incorrect use can lead to condom slippage or breakage, thus diminishing their protective effect."

    https://www.facebook.com/notes/unicef-india/how-effective-are-condoms-in-preventing-hiv-and-can-we-get-hiv-from-sharing-razo/10150314208410284

    So how "proven and effective" are condoms?
    RESULTS:

    Among MSM reporting any anal sex with an HIV-positive male partner, we found 70% effectiveness with reported consistent condom use (compared with never use) and no significant protection when comparing sometimes use to never use. (that's why it's so important to use it EVERY time.)

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25469526

    Think about that 70% when you say condoms are the "only" method, when projecting your fear onto others who have made an educated choice based on 96-100% effectiveness of PrEP and ART.


    Is there any getting through to you Timm55 that you have again selectively quoted again and with the obvious intention of promoting deception and lies. The irony of your accusations of "ignorance" is that your misrepresentation of scientific facts, effectively make you a deliberate lier. You made a point of quoting a study which is seriously flawed and relies on self reporting @70% is joke and you then add another lie by quoting inaccurate outdated information saying prep is 96% successful in protecting guys. You ingore the 5 incidents of HIV transmissions of which despite attempts to dismiss them are significant. You attack peoples smart choices and you rely on ignorance to spread your message of BB with POZ men being safe because they say their "undectable". You would be just another case of disappointed HIV poz guy wanting a new bunch of followers, but your clever selective use of scientific and not so scientific information makes u more believable to the ignorance some people have about HIV & how dangerous you are
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2015 8:25 PM GMT
    transient saidUNICEF and UN AIDS are not sources I trust.

    Neither do I trust the pharmacutical industry (the clue is in the name.... its an industry).

    I choose good health by the independent choices I make for myself.

    I am HIV- by the way, and never has any STi

    This proves to me, that my own choices have protected me this far.

    I do not trust you, or your opinions.

    Goodluck.


    Thank yoi for your frank exposure of his strategic misrepresentation of scientific facts. He is a menance and I suspect he is linked to Gillead the main manufacturer of Prep as his mention of it is bordering on a sales promotion and that makes me suspicious if he is being paid to promote Prep
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2015 9:02 PM GMT
    I don't fuck people who's name is "a guy".

    I fuck people I know. I don't have to love them or really even like them but I do have to know them.
    People who say "bareback" don't stand a chance.

    That just....no. I don't fuck parrots.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2015 9:41 PM GMT
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 said
    transient saidUNICEF and UN AIDS are not sources I trust.

    Neither do I trust the pharmacutical industry (the clue is in the name.... its an industry).

    I choose good health by the independent choices I make for myself.

    I am HIV- by the way, and never has any STi

    This proves to me, that my own choices have protected me this far.

    I do not trust you, or your opinions.

    Goodluck.


    Thank yoi for your frank exposure of his strategic misrepresentation of scientific fsfts. He is a menance and I suspect he is linked to Gillead the main manufacturer of Prep as his mention of it is boardering on sales promotion and tha makes me suspicious if he is being paid to promote Prep


    Use a spell checker!

    Look Einstein, he has presented NO SCIENTIFIC facts.
    His "This proves to me (still being HIV-), that my own choices have protected me this far." and "I will contunue to never BB and always use condoms. This is my choice." is "safer sex", but anecdotal, not scientific.

    Certainly, not Barebacking and always wearing condoms is part of "safe sex" and I applaud that. But he goes on to scoff at anything he doesn't already believe. He's anti-PrEP and thinks 'undetectable' is dangerous.

    Like you, he thinks he is right, and every HIV virologist, health professional and Government Health Organization in the world is wrong.

    And I'm sure your Australian Government is "in" on the Gillead conspiracy!

    There are now at least five strategies that reasonably constitute‘safe sex’, provided that certain parameters are met.
    They are:
    1.The use of Condoms during casual encounters between men of unknown or discordant serostatus.
    2.HIV negative men taking effective pre-exposure 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

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

    Aug 15, 2015 2:15 AM GMT
    Every device is now unfortunately at the mercy of spell checkers and I can honestly say that while not perfect with spelling,the number of errors is outragously higher no doubt due to the stage of development that the programs running the spell checkers are at that attempt to incorporate new words but sometimes fail and make correct words incorrect.

    Regarding your support for your employer Gillead, you have not given an adequate reply explaining your 'prep cheerleader' status. Or perhaps you feel that since your on meds everyone else should be.

    The Australian Government has wisely held off on approval for this dangerous medication. Why is it dangerous? Its because people like you who have been engaged in BB sex for a long time see the opportunity to have everyone else be not willing to take risk of barebacking without concern for consequences (you mention fear and anyone with a brain would fear your messsage and its consequences) out of ignorance of the truth no matter what the risk to health that entails.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2015 12:10 PM GMT
    Does anyone "bareback" with anyone who they don't know, have been medically checked and have a long standing monogamy clause? Otherwise, if you just randomly ask strangers about their HIV status and believe them and then bareback, well you will soon be the next one bragging about your undetectable bare backing prowess.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2015 5:06 PM GMT
    Am I the only person on Earth who takes Truvada AND uses condoms? icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2015 7:24 PM GMT
    smartmoney saidDoes anyone "bareback" with anyone who they don't know, have been medically checked and have a long standing monogamy clause? Otherwise, if you just randomly ask strangers about their HIV status and believe them and then bareback, well you will soon be the next one bragging about your undetectable bare backing prowess.




    Why can't the (I assume Negative) person who "just randomly ask strangers about their HIV status and believe them and then bareback..." take responsibility for their own actions?

    If you engage in the risky behavior you describe you SHOULD be on PrEP. And then, no, they wouldn't become POZ and they wouldn't have to become undetectable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2015 7:27 PM GMT
    Radd saidAm I the only person on Earth who takes Truvada AND uses condoms? icon_confused.gif


    Nope. Many do just that. It isn't just for the 'whores'. Many use it as additional protection. Some couples use PrEP for the Neg partner, ART for the POZ partner.

    Some undetectable people use condoms to prevent other STDs.

    "Protection" is many things and many combinations.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2015 7:50 PM GMT
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 saidEvery device is now unfortunately at the mercy of spell checkers and I can honestly say that while not perfect with spelling,the number of errors is outragously higher no doubt due to the stage of development that the programs running the spell checkers are at that attempt to incorporate new words but sometimes fail and make correct words incorrect.

    Regarding your support for your employer Gillead, you have not given an adequate reply explaining your 'prep cheerleader' status. Or perhaps you feel that since your on meds everyone else should be.

    The Australian Government has wisely held off on approval for this dangerous medication. Why is it dangerous? Its because people like you who have been engaged in BB sex for a long time see the opportunity to have everyone else be not willing to take risk of barebacking without concern for consequences (you mention fear and anyone with a brain would fear your messsage and its consequences) out of ignorance of the truth no matter what the risk to health that entails.


    Really, spellcheck is that much of a problem for you? Yoi is too hard to correct?

    Why do I support PrEP?
    1) I've not received a nickle from any pharmaceutical company.....so you can give that BS a rest!
    2) I've been POZ since 1986 or so. I've watched way too many friends die.
    3) Although I'd been a LTS (Long Term Survivor) even before I started ART, by 1998 or so my numbers were dropping slowly. When I started ART my numbers increased rapidly.
    4) ART works. I am already "older" well beyond what anyone could have hoped for in 1986. My Doc gave me 3 years back then.
    5) I am undetectable. I can not transmit HIV.
    6) PrEP is the the 'partner' to ART. Whereas I can not transmit HIV, PrEP users can not get HIV (92--100%).
    7) 2 of the ingredients of PrEP are used in ART. They are safe and very effective.
    icon_cool.gif I believe Negative people should be empowered to be responsible for their own sexual health.
    9) PrEP users feel less anxious and fearful. It's good for mental health.
    10) If they had PrEP in 1983 I would have done it. My friends would have done it. They would all still be alive.

    Your country supports it already. They tacitly show you how to get it NOW, and expect it to be approved Feb. 2016....and "pay no more than $37.70 per script."


    Availability of PrEP in Australia

    The anti-HIV drug Truvada has been demonstrated to be effective as PrEP in clinical trials among gay men and other men who have sex with men.

    The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) regulates the sale and distribution of medicines and medical devices in Australia.

    Truvada has TGA approval for the treatment of people with HIV but not for use as PrEP.

    The manufacturer, Gilead, began the pre-application process with the TGA to license Truvada for use as PrEP in February 2015. The licensing process is expected to take at least 12 months.

    The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) is the schedule of medicines that attracts a government subsidy so that consumers pay no more than $37.70 per script.

    The PBS Advisory Committee recommends which medicines should be listed on the PBS. PBS listing is a separate process to TGA approval and the manufacturer must demonstrate cost effectiveness among other things.

    Top


    Importing PrEP

    Although the TGA has not yet approved Truvada for use as PrEP in Australia, doctors who are authorised to prescribe Truvada (i.e. those who provide HIV care), may prescribe Truvada as PrEP "off-label". This script can then be filled by pharmacies authorised to provide HIV drugs.

    Truvada for use as PrEP is not listed under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

    The cost of filling a Truvada prescription for use as PrEP from an Australian pharmacy is approximately $10,000 for a year's supply.

    Individuals can legally purchase a generic version of Truvada from overseas suppliers, including on-line pharmacies.

    Truvada is the brand name for a combination of two drugs - emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. Generic versions have different names.

    https://www.afao.org.au/about-hiv/hiv-prevention/pre-exposure-prophylaxis-prep#.Vc-Wq330ePw

    I know more about Australian's HIV treatment than you do. SAD.
  • smegnificient

    Posts: 338

    Aug 16, 2015 3:06 AM GMT
    timmm55 said
    smartmoney saidDoes anyone "bareback" with anyone who they don't know, have been medically checked and have a long standing monogamy clause? Otherwise, if you just randomly ask strangers about their HIV status and believe them and then bareback, well you will soon be the next one bragging about your undetectable bare backing prowess.




    Why can't the (I assume Negative) person who "just randomly ask strangers about their HIV status and believe them and then bareback..." take responsibility for their own actions?



    Who said they shouldn't? To bareback a stranger who says they're neg or undetectable is sorta suicidal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2015 3:10 AM GMT
    smegnificient said
    timmm55 said
    smartmoney saidDoes anyone "bareback" with anyone who they don't know, have been medically checked and have a long standing monogamy clause? Otherwise, if you just randomly ask strangers about their HIV status and believe them and then bareback, well you will soon be the next one bragging about your undetectable bare backing prowess.




    Why can't the (I assume Negative) person who "just randomly ask strangers about their HIV status and believe them and then bareback..." take responsibility for their own actions?



    Who said they shouldn't? To bareback a stranger who says they're neg or undetectable is sorta suicidal.

    And to think some HIV+ men in RJ say doing that is ¨just being paranoid¨.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2015 2:12 PM GMT
    David666k said
    smegnificient said
    timmm55 said
    smartmoney saidDoes anyone "bareback" with anyone who they don't know, have been medically checked and have a long standing monogamy clause? Otherwise, if you just randomly ask strangers about their HIV status and believe them and then bareback, well you will soon be the next one bragging about your undetectable bare backing prowess.




    Why can't the (I assume Negative) person who "just randomly ask strangers about their HIV status and believe them and then bareback..." take responsibility for their own actions?



    Who said they shouldn't? To bareback a stranger who says they're neg or undetectable is sorta suicidal.

    And to think some HIV+ men in RJ say doing that is ¨just being paranoid¨.


    No we don't think you should "believe them and then bareback". No one does. That's a lie.

    If a person is on PrEP they are taking their own health seriously. They are certainly not suicidal.

    At this point you are making strong assumptions. Incorrect ones. And creating accusations.

    As I've recommended 100 times from ACON #1, at the top of the list is to use condoms with a stranger.

    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).




    What is paranoid is the idea that POZ guys are out to get you! That's why I say PrEP is good for mental health.

    There are now at least five strategies that reasonably constitute‘safe sex’, provided that certain parameters are met.
    They are:
    1.The use of Condoms during casual encounters between men of unknown or discordant serostatus.
    2.HIV negative men taking effective pre-exposure 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
  • transient

    Posts: 629

    Aug 19, 2015 6:44 PM GMT
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 said
    transient saidUNICEF and UN AIDS are not sources I trust.

    Neither do I trust the pharmacutical industry (the clue is in the name.... its an industry).

    I choose good health by the independent choices I make for myself.

    I am HIV- by the way, and never has any STi

    This proves to me, that my own choices have protected me this far.

    I do not trust you, or your opinions.

    Goodluck.


    Thank yoi for your frank exposure of his strategic misrepresentation of scientific facts. He is a menance and I suspect he is linked to Gillead the main manufacturer of Prep as his mention of it is bordering on a sales promotion and that makes me suspicious if he is being paid to promote Prep


    No problem.

    I believe the information this guy is giving is dangerous.

    Does someone actualy moderate this forum?
  • transient

    Posts: 629

    Aug 19, 2015 6:52 PM GMT
    timmm55 said
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 said
    transient saidUNICEF and UN AIDS are not sources I trust.

    Neither do I trust the pharmacutical industry (the clue is in the name.... its an industry).

    I choose good health by the independent choices I make for myself.

    I am HIV- by the way, and never has any STi

    This proves to me, that my own choices have protected me this far.

    I do not trust you, or your opinions.

    Goodluck.




    Use a spell checker!

    Look Einstein, he has presented NO SCIENTIFIC facts.
    His "This proves to me (still being HIV-), that my own choices have protected me this far." and "I will contunue to never BB and always use condoms. This is my choice." is "safer sex", but anecdotal, not scientific.






    I don not have to provide scientific proof........ I am giving you my opinion on a public forum.

    This is what the OP was about........ our OPINIONS about a given situation.

    I do not provide proof for my opinions.



    Certainly, not Barebacking and always wearing condoms is part of "safe sex" and I applaud that. But he goes on to scoff at anything he doesn't already believe. He's anti-PrEP and thinks 'undetectable' is dangerous.



    AGAIN...... my opinion.

    I believe PREP is dangerous

    I believe 'undetectable' is dangerous

    I believe BB is dangerous

    I believe YOU are dangerous

    These are my personal opinions, and I do not have to provide proof to you, or anyone else.

    OK?



    Like you, he thinks he is right, and every HIV virologist, health professional and Government Health Organization in the world is wrong.





    I also believe you have an agenda.

    I am suspicious of you.

    These are my opinions, I am entitled to them and I am not required to provide proof.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2015 8:17 PM GMT
    We've created a generation of Gay AIDS paranoia in our own community. In 1990 a lot of that was just being 'safe' good thinking, but people drained community pools if a Gay person swam in it. That is an 'opinion' purely based on fear.

    The OP, David666, who started this thread is just like you: a lot of opinions and prejudices that are not based in fact. It's stigmatizing, by merely citing your opinion, in conflict of real medical science, proves a prejudice.

    Your fears, lack of TRUST, and HIV stigma I agree will keep you Negative. So you don't BB. That's a valid risk reduction.

    But your mental health and sexual health has been compromised. Not trusting, being fearful and denial are NOT mentally healthy. There is such a thing as being "sex positive":
    The terms and concept of sex-positive (or, alternately sex-affirmative) and sex-negative are generally attributed to Wilhelm Reich. His hypothesis was that some societies view sexual expression as essentially good and healthy, while other societies take an overall negative view of sexuality and seek to repress and control the sex drive.[2][3]

    Like Reich, some contemporary advocates of sex-positivity define their philosophy in contrast to sex-negativity, which they identify as the dominant view of sex in Western culture and many non-Western cultures. According to these advocates, traditional Christian views of human sexuality define traditional Western values in relation to this subject. Thus, such proponents of sex-positivity claim that under the Western, Christian tradition, sex is seen as a destructive force except when it is redeemed by the saving grace of procreation, and sexual pleasure is seen as sinful. Sexual acts are ranked hierarchically, with marital heterosexuality at the top of the hierarchy and masturbation, homosexuality, and other sexualities that deviate from societal expectations closer to the bottom.[4] Medicine and psychiatry are said to have also contributed to sex-negativity, as they may, from time to time, designate some forms of sexuality that appear on the bottom of this hierarchy as being pathological (see Mental illness).[4] However, Western societies which predate Christian influence, such as ancient Greece, have often endorsed forms of sexuality that strongly conflict with Christian beliefs.