New PrEP thread. "Truvada is a party drug." Discuss

[bocker3]

seemingly opposing statements can all be true at the same time

Careful now Zach -- fence sitting is not appreciated here.  you must pick a side --  choose carefully!! 

[Miss Philicia]

btw, these T-shirts are now evidently all the rage

[Jeff G]

When I was in my 20's I would have chose to be on PrEP if I had the opportunity and I would not had let stigma stand in my way . I can can say that about stigma because I didn't let it stand in my way before or after I tested poz . Another reason I think I may have chosen Truvada as a preventive medicine is because before I knew I had HIV and we got the news that a test was going to soon be available at the health department that could tell you if you were infected or not I began asking people were they going to go test and the resounding answer was mostly silence and sometimes a very quite why do you think you have Aids .

I was one of the first in my community to ever go to the health department and ask for a test and they initially refused to do it . The first time I ever experienced stigma was before I knew I had HIV, the first time was when I tried to talk to my friends about HIV and the second time is when I tried to test .
 
Its inevitable that stigma is going to keep many people from taking PrEP and stigma once again will lead to more infections and more preventable deaths . Condoms were the only tool in our arsenal to prevent HIV and the ones who embraced that tool avoided HIV and many who did not got sick and died . The debate over Truvada as a prevention tool is more of the same and as its always been, stigma still rules the day and is a major hurdle in preventing a whole new generation from avoiding this virus .

I was a one of the ones that could have been saved by PrEP and I think I would have taken it if I had the chance back then .

[leatherman]

I was a one of the ones that could have been saved by PrEP and I think I would have taken it if I had the chance back then .

that's why I don't understand this whole meme about "people are not wanting to take Truvada because of slut-shaming". Straight young teen-age girls, not even having sex, have been getting over slut-shaming just fine to get on the pill for decades. Surely some young gay man being sexually active should be able to get over a little "slut shaming" from a bunch of jealous/petty queens, the uneducated, or repressed religious types. I say rather than complaining about those crying "slut", we empower gay men to take truvada because it's responsible. If little girls can understand they don't want to get knocked up, little gay boys can understand they don't want to get teh aids. duh!

I know in 1984 when I was a young gay man getting laid 25 out of 30 nights a month at least, hell yeah I would have taken truvada. What did I care if some prude (especially here in the religious Carolinas) though I was a "slut". I was having a lot of sex and loving it. Shoot! knowing what I know now I would have gotten the HPV vaccine too.

[wolfter]

I know in 1984 when I was a young gay man getting laid 25 out of 30 nights a month at least, hell yeah I would have taken truvada. What did I care if some prude (especially here in the religious Carolinas) though I was a "slut". I was having a lot of sex and loving it. Shoot! knowing what I know now I would have gotten the HPV vaccine too.

Oh yeah, that sounds like my freshman year of college.  I thought being called a slut was a term of endearment.    And sadly, I'm now a worn out Truvada wanta be whore. I take my Truvada everyday and would love to have sex that often again.

[tednlou2]

I have read kidney issues don't seem to be an issue with PrEP, although still don't understand why there would be a difference.  I suppose the virus.  I just read resistance, due to becoming infected while on it, doesn't seem to be an issue-- unless you were seroconverting at the time you began.  The "poison" comment struck me most.  Is that going to help those who actually have HIV to decide to start meds, not to mention those considering PrEP?

Why would using a medication that is apparently 90-99% effective be stupid and weak?  I think it seems pretty brave and strong.  It means not wanting to be another statistic, adding to the healthcare issues, and wanting to protect your sex partners.  Condoms are not 100% and it seems the battle on that issue has been lost.  You have people entering into relationships, who ditch condoms just like billions of heterosexual couples do.  Studies show a majority of relationships have infedelity at some point and probably more in gay couples.  It is just easier for a gay man to find another for just sex.  You do not see many women on hookup sites.  Gay men (especially bottoms) are much more likely to suffer the consequences of that with HIV infection, than heterosexuals.  I just don't get the whore, weak, and idiot talk.  Seems pretty respectable, to me.  For those who do hook up daily (no judgement), I think it is even more respectable.

This guy took on Dan Savage for saying people on PrEP are "unreachable idiots."

http://sayencrowolf.net/2013/07/dan-savage-thinks-anyone-who-takes-prep-is-a-unreachable-idiot-hiv-aids/

[tednlou2]

Btw, I went to check my Facebook feed and this sponsored post/link was in my timeline.  Guess they are working to spread the word.  I'm sure those sponsored links are based on what our google searches have been.  I am not sure my mother would get this on her timeline. 

Anyway, I put in I was in a monogamous relationship and neither of us know our status and we don't use condoms.  They recommended I discuss PrEP with my doc.  When I put in we are in a monagomous relationship and have both tested negative, it did not ask about condom use.  It only asked about injection drug use.  Then it said PrEP was not recommended.  Having a negative result once means they don't ask about condoms and say PrEP is not recommended.  Hmmm.... 

http://www.ispreprightforme.com/

[pittman]

how much of this is just larry being larry? he's always been a lightening rod, he's always been offensive

i kind of feel like all sides here have a bit of truth. and the entire debate has been hijacked by the media doing what do. they love this, kramer pissing off the community, and us turning on a pillar we've all stood on (many, without knowing it)

seemingly opposing statements can all be true at the same time

truvada is becoming a party drug

truvada is effective as prep

some will take it responsibly, and still protect themselves against other std's, some will not

some, will be whores. get offended all you want. everyone here has been to gay clubs. lets not pretend when we came from that reality

so how do we reconcile these contradictions?

I don't really see what there is to reconcile when taking about how different people behave. They are not contradictions, they are just people. The drug and it's benefits exist separately from their behaviors.

I also find the term whore rather pointless. The most common definition is someone who has more sex partners than me, or with people I would exclude, etc.  Sex taboo always seems to screw with our ability to be rational and empathetic.

Hypothetically, imagine that the drug was offered as a generic and made widely available in some of the countries worst hit by HIV infections. Would it be a possible option to help stem the infection rate? Moreover, would we be calling them whores for taking it?  It isn't really knowable anytime soon and the practicality is not my real point, but rather, as a thought experiment, I think putting a little distance between the "gay Truvada whore" image and the rest of the world also impacted by HIV can us help sometimes see where we may be getting too wrapped up I'm the taboo and stigma aspects to see clearly.

(Zach, I may have quoted you, but that was just a discussion launch point, this was not really personally directed at you specifically.)

[zach]

@pittman, nah man, we're cool, its all good... its a hot topic, the fire rises

most times i'm less than perfect at wording my thoughts, in person i don't talk much because of it. i take a long time to work out how i feel about some things

[thunter34]

Certainly one of the better forum threads, in my estimation. 

I'm all for the eradication of this virus, period.  Condoms?  Yes.  PrEP?  Yes.  Treatment as prevention?  Yes.  Serosorting?  Yes.  Earlier and better education, most certainly.  Different means are going to work for different people.  I say offer as many options as possible.

But to that end...

I have to wonder (and this goes back to the statement just above about "what if this were for people of other, hard hit countries?") about one aspect of it.  Namely this:

PrEP would have been just the ticket for me because I am one of those bipolar cases who, prior to treatment for that, went manic and hyper sexual.  I wouldn't (and didn't) use condoms during my sexcapades, but I know that I would have swigged down that pill because on some level I knew how out of control I was and that during those moments I would not be wise. 

And yet...I was also relatively broke and uninsured, so I don't think I would have had that option available to me.  Thing is...I am representative of just the sort of target audience that would most have a pressing need for that option, but would be left without it (at least in the good ol' US of A).

I guess what I am trying to word is that, it seems to me, one of the best ways to utilize PrEP would be to make it available in the same way that ADAP meds are...but I'm just not seeing that happening.  Talk about slut shaming.  I can just hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth now about joe tax payer having to foot the bill for penalty free shagging.

And yet so many who would be most at need for what this prescription could provide would have no other way of getting it.  Let's face it:  pressing mental health issues and being on the lower rungs of the economic ladder kind of go hand and hand.

[Buckmark]

...
PrEP would have been just the ticket for me because I am one of those bipolar cases who, prior to treatment for that, went manic and hyper sexual.  I wouldn't (and didn't) use condoms during my sexcapades, but I know that I would have swigged down that pill because on some level I knew how out of control I was and that during those moments I would not be wise. 

And yet...I was also relatively broke and uninsured, so I don't think I would have had that option available to me.  Thing is...I am representative of just the sort of target audience that would most have a pressing need for that option, but would be left without it (at least in the good ol' US of A).

I guess what I am trying to word is that, it seems to me, one of the best ways to utilize PrEP would be to make it available in the same way that ADAP meds are...but I'm just not seeing that happening.  Talk about slut shaming.  I can just hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth now about joe tax payer having to foot the bill for penalty free shagging.

And yet so many who would be most at need for what this prescription could provide would have no other way of getting it.  Let's face it:  pressing mental health issues and being on the lower rungs of the economic ladder kind of go hand and hand.
...

We must be on the same wavelength, Tim, because I was just thinking that one of the bigger barriers to widespread adoption of PrEP is high pricing and payments that limit access.  That doesn't mean I don't support PrEP, because I do think it should be part of a multi-pronged strategy to prevent new infections.  But PrEP only works if you have access to the meds, and the meds ain't cheap.  As you said, at least in the USA, there are many "Joe Taxpayer" types who will howl about how expensive this is, alongside their argument of how this enables promiscuous behavior.  Or, at the very least, some will howl over how much less expensive a condom is, compared to PrEP.

[Dan0]

I guess what I am trying to word is that, it seems to me, one of the best ways to utilize PrEP would be to make it available in the same way that ADAP meds are...but I'm just not seeing that happening.  Talk about slut shaming.  I can just hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth now about joe tax payer having to foot the bill for penalty free shagging.

The only thing that trumps moral indignation is cold hard cash. I can't recall who it was....someone in Britain who was instrumental in their health care passage...when asked how he was able to do it, his response was, "We shoved gold in their mouths!" Meaning, no matter what their concerns or outright protest, it melted away with the promise of pounds being dispersed!

Eventually, it will be the same here. The Pharmacuticals know where there bread is buttered in the age of the Affordable Care Act. The bat-shit crazy Republicans are realizing more and more that the only way to stay in power with their agenda in the face of changing demographics is to buy elections. And, of course, the only way to buy one is to make nice to those who have the cash.

Give it a year or two. They'll wring what they can out of their current white whale, gay marriage. Some will turn on this as their new demon. In the end, they can't help who they are.....it will be accepted as a prevention method to lower long term costs, which will fit in their fiscal platform.

You'll still have the Rick Santorums and Mike Huckabee's of the world who are just SOOOO crazy that they'll still be chasing the fish. The others will come around. If Drag Shows were a billion dollar a year enterprise, they'd all be wearing Bianca Del Rio shirts at the Capitol building.