POZ Community Forums
Main Forums => Living With HIV => Topic started by: witch on September 28, 2013, 05:34:23 pm
-
I'm undetectable poz and I started the online "dating" thing a month ago. I have already 2-3 guys that claim they are "negative" but want to top me bareback, knowing that I am undetectable poz.
Anyone met those, they don't seem rare species?
Are they really negative and think that topping an undetectable poz can't transmit hiv or they are lying about their status or want to get poz so they can bareback until the world ends?
-
My initial reaction to this is, "RUN!!!"
-
First they tried to serosort and found it only works well if you are already poz . Now undetectable is the new serosorting tool for those who don't like condoms .
I can hear it now , but they said they were undetectable , I cant have aids .
-
Anyone met those, they don't seem rare species?
Are they really negative and think that topping an undetectable poz can't transmit hiv or they are lying about their status or want to get poz so they can bareback until the world ends?
I have met them.
I would say rather rare but yeah more and more.
Are they really negative and think that topping an undetectable poz can't transmit hiv - yes some of them probably are negative and yes they think that. Probably they have some justification. Seems less a crap shoot if they can believe you really are HIV+ and undetectable. Because its less risky with you (though maybe still a small risk) than with guys who believe they are HIV-, "STD FREE U BE 2" types - and in fact are not.
or they are lying about their status - yes, probably some are in some weird head trip and are HIV+
or want to get poz so they can bareback until the world ends - I would say this is the least likely characterisation. If they are bugchasers they can find better partners than HIV+ undetectable guys....
-
To be clear, these are not "bug chasers." They are people who interpret the Swiss study (and others) and make an extrapolation outside the boundaries of the studies - a mutually monogamous relationship devoid of any other STDs.
In the absence of other STDs, particularly those which cause inflammation in the anorectal area, the risk of topping a positive bottom with an UD VL is roughly the same as using a condom.
Way more risk of the bottom getting an STD from the top, who is presumably going raw with other people as well.
You realize this is how many if not most serodiscordant couples have babies, right?
-
I have met them.
Them?
Sounds like your creating a class of people based on an experience with two guys.
-
Them?
Sounds like your creating a class of people based on an experience with two guys.
Hmmm?? how about your, "anyone met those, they don't seem rare species." ::)
-
Them?
Sounds like your creating a class of people based on an experience with two guys.
More like he knows they are a "class" of people, that are often referred to as "bug-chasers", or "gift-givers" and "gift-receivers" and even "poz-breeders", to simply name a few.
Joe
-
What ever the terminology, this is not good.
-
I have met people who acted as described in he OPs first post. HV- people who will bareback with HIV+ undetectable people. More than two. ??? :o :-\
The OP wasn't creating a class of people in his post either. He had a list of possible scanarios and I elaborated on his list.
And then a few of us offerred information about what being undetectable means. Because the OP said things that seem to imply he thinks its easy or common for undetectable bottoms to transmit HIV.
Also, "bugchasers." lol
I think the general tone so far in the thread is debunking stereotypes and classes of people. And providing information...
read jkinatl2's post. Good explanation for whats going on.
-
I don't know. I guess.
It just seemed like an odd thread to me. The OP meets two guys who want to have sex with him bareback and we are supposed to know what their motivations for doing so are? We are supposed to know if they are lying. Then we started to group them in as bug chasers and what not.
Maybe the op is just really hot with a nice ass and they wanted to fuck him.
I've been out of the dating scene for awhile and I'll be the first to admit I'm not up to date on a lot of things like this. It just to me seemed like an odd stretch.
-
It just to me seemed like an odd stretch.
Anal sex and and an odd stretch go hand in hand .
-
I don't know. I guess.
It just seemed like an odd thread to me. The OP meets two guys who want to have sex with him bareback and we are supposed to know what their motivations for doing so are? We are supposed to know if they are lying. Then we started to group them in as bug chasers and what not.
Maybe the op is just really hot with a nice ass and they wanted to fuck him.
I've been out of the dating scene for awhile and I'll be the first to admit I'm not up to date on a lot of things like this. It just to me seemed like an odd stretch.
The OP posted because he wanted opinions about his experience.
Nobody supported his third category, the "bug-chaser", because it doesn't make much sense.
We don't know the motivations of the individual people he met, duh. We are speculating on the reasons "someone" HIV- might pursue this.
I've met HIV- guys who will bareback poz guys, and that was before I was HIV+ so that's 5 years. I've met others since I have been HIV+. The word is out about treatment as prevention. So what is it you can't fathom? People want to get the sex they want. If they hear poz undetectable guys aren't likely to transmit the virus, they are perfectly happy to put that factoid into their rationale for getting the sex they want.
-
First they tried to serosort and found it only works well if you are already poz . Now undetectable is the new serosorting tool for those who don't like condoms .
I can hear it now , but they said they were undetectable , I cant have aids .
I guess that nails it down - undetectable hiv poz is the new hiv neg LOL
To summarize so far:
(1) they don't like to use condoms, possibly erectile issues with condoms
(2) they know the risk with undetectable hiv poz bottom is pretty low
(3) they must know that there is still risk, especially if the guy lies he is undetectable but they accept that risk because they know there are drugs that work
On the other hand, im still uncomfortable to bareback with someone that is not even a bf, just because he can't keep it hard in condom. This is a convenient vector for spreading other STDs.
Now the ones that keep whining that I'm creating 'a class', 'a group' ... yes I DO. This is what science is about, CLASSIFICATION. And the group I am talking about is not small at all, in a month I got 3 such proposals, and today I got the 4th. If you actually 'date', you should know that this is quite high frequency.
-
I'm undetectable poz and I started the online "dating" thing a month ago. I have already 2-3 guys that claim they are "negative" but want to top me bareback, knowing that I am undetectable poz.
Anyone met those, they don't seem rare species?
Are they really negative and think that topping an undetectable poz can't transmit hiv or they are lying about their status or want to get poz so they can bareback until the world ends?
Maybe they're danger junkies or maybe they know poz guys are better in bed.
-
Now the ones that keep whining that I'm creating 'a class', 'a group' ... yes I DO. This is what science is about, CLASSIFICATION. And the group I am talking about is not small at all, in a month I got 3 such proposals, and today I got the 4th. If you actually 'date', you should know that this is quite high frequency.
What your doing is hardly science it's conjecture. Your assuming that a group of people have a particular motivation based on yourpersonal experience with two people (now four).
Instead of asking us why these people are behaving a certain way why don't you ask them? You will probably get four different answers. Humans are complex and they don't always fit in little boxes. As someone who is HIV positive you should have first handexperience with that, or you will. Society has put all HIV positive people in the same "irresponsible" box, you shouldn't do it to . others.
Oh ya, look up the word whining, this is the internet you should expect different opinions.
-
Whats that old saying...
Fool me once, shame on you.
Shame me twice, shame on me.
-
Out of curiosity, do theyhave these conversations in the women's forum? If so, do they differ in tone?
Is it commonly called barebacking when straight people do it?
-
Out of curiosity, do theyhave these conversations in the women's forum? If so, do they differ in tone?
Is it commonly called barebacking when straight people do it?
I'm no anthropologist, but I believe they call it "sex". ;)
-
I'm no anthropologist, but I believe they call it "sex". ;)
That speaks volumes
-
Out of curiosity, do theyhave these conversations in the women's forum? If so, do they differ in tone?
Is it commonly called barebacking when straight people do it?
Hi jkinatl, not to impinge upon your experience, but wasn't the Swiss study only conducted among heterosexual couples? Although it is "sex" either way in the social sense of the word, it is known that unprotected anal sex is riskier than unprotected vaginal sex due to the lining of the anus being a lot more susceptible to tearing than the vagina. In fact, isn't it true that many (if not most) of the studies that try to quantify the risk of unprotected sex amongst serodiscordant people pretty much pertain to heterosexual couples in monogamous relationships?
-
Hi jkinatl, not to impinge upon your experience, but wasn't the Swiss study only conducted among heterosexual couples? Although it is "sex" either way in the social sense of the word, it is known that unprotected anal sex is riskier than unprotected vaginal sex due to the lining of the anus being a lot more susceptible to tearing than the vagina. In fact, isn't it true that many (if not most) of the studies that try to quantify the risk of unprotected sex amongst serodiscordant people pretty much pertain to heterosexual couples in monogamous relationships?
This is absolutely accurate, both regarding the scope of the studies and the difference between the anal tissue/mucosa and the vaginal tissue mucosa.
There are a couple of studies about the rectal mucosa, and some findings suggest that concentrations of HIV in the rectal mucosa ar higher and more accessible/omnipresent than HIV in the cervovaginal mucosa. Some HIV meds penetrate the genital area more thoroughly than others, notably tenofovir. darunavir and etravirine (Truvada, Prezista, and Intelence).
Penetrative anal and vaginal sex are indeed two different animals. And it is important to recognise that fact.
Now studies which have indicated higher concentration of viable HIV in rectal mucosa as opposed to cervical mucosa do not, and seem to be unable to determine exactly HOW much higher these concentrations tend to be, whether the viral particles are viable, and what, exactly is the threshold for transmission.
My comment was to indicate that anal sex among gay man seems to contain a stigma and perception that seems notto be present among heterosexuals, even those who participate in anal sex.
This information can assist people who might be in committed magnetic relationships when the positive partner is the receptive partner in anal sex. It might, resistance and side-effect issues notwithstanding* help determine the drugs the positive person decides to take in order to accomodate unprotected anal sex once an undetectable vial load is achieved.
I simply find it ironic that we place what appears to me to be a weighted value on gay males who make the same informed decision that heterosexual couples make. The important thing, obviously is to make certain that information is accurate and valid.
To reference the OP, I admit that I have doubts regarding the depth of knowledge that is often used to make what may well ultimately end up being regrettable decisions.
sources:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22158861
http://www.catie.ca/en/pif/fall-2011/exposure-infection-biology-hiv-transmission
*I understand that you can't and shouldn't dismiss the very important aspects of treatment choices, which include efficacy and side-effects issues. However, the three drugs I mentioned seem to be among the best tolerated of the current crop of meds.
-
I'm no anthropologist, but I believe they call it "sex". ;)
True. I am fully bisexual and had ton of sexual dates both with man or women...
In my personal experience men are divided in groups:
people asking obsessively barebacking sex
People who just did not care enough about safe sex
People using properly condoms and still having fun
People obsessed by condoms and not having fun
...women are divided in:
Condoms? Do you think i am a bitch?
Condoms? I have not...have you got 'em?
Seriously, i was joking and really do not want to seems misogenous, but only met a few women in my sexual like that were careful about safe sex.
Just my personal experience.