POZ Community Forums
Main Forums => Living With HIV => Topic started by: Zohar on September 21, 2012, 03:57:26 pm
-
If you have unprotected sex with strangers without disclosing your status would you then tell your sexual health doctor?
This happened today, and upon revealing that I hadn't used condoms with the people that I'd had sex with most recently, the doctor went into 'stern' mode. I told him that people were having sex with of their own volition and that if they wanted the sex to be unprotected then it was their choice. His response was that they only had a 'real' choice if I told them I was positive. Hmmm...
I didn't wish to continue this line of conversation so asked that we move on.
I know that doctors see it as their job to 'educate' about safer sex, but it irks me that they're peddling the view that it's the one (diagnosed) with HIV that has to take responsibility. And it did make me think I'd probably just lie in future to avoid being lectured.
So, when asked by doctors/nurses, are you inclined to tell them the truth about your condomless encounters, or not?
-
Whether or not you disclosed to sex partner doesn't make a difference in how you should be treated medically. So why even discuss with the doctor that you did / did not disclose?
-
If you have unprotected sex with strangers without disclosing your status would you then tell your sexual health doctor?
This happened today, and upon revealing that I hadn't used condoms with the people that I'd had sex with most recently, the doctor went into 'stern' mode. I told him that people were having sex with of their own volition and that if they wanted the sex to be unprotected then it was their choice. His response was that they only had a 'real' choice if I told them I was positive. Hmmm...
I didn't wish to continue this line of conversation so asked that we move on.
I know that doctors see it as their job to 'educate' about safer sex, but it irks me that they're peddling the view that it's the one (diagnosed) with HIV that has to take responsibility. And it did make me think I'd probably just lie in future to avoid being lectured.
So, when asked by doctors/nurses, are you inclined to tell them the truth about your condomless encounters, or not?
I always disclose before sex and would only have unprotected sex with others who live with HIV .
I assume you are talking about low risk activity's with people of unknown status when you say you are having unprotected sex without disclosing right ?
-
I assume you are talking about low risk activity's with people of unknown status when you say you are having unprotected sex without disclosing right ?
I'm talking about penetrative sex.
-
Whether or not you disclosed to sex partner doesn't make a difference in how you should be treated medically. So why even discuss with the doctor that you did / did not disclose?
Good point. But these questions are a standard part of sexual health consultations, at least here in the UK.
-
I'm talking about penetrative sex.
Penetrative sex is low risk if you are undetectable and are also the one being penetrated.
I am also curious as to why you felt you needed to give that information to your doctor, and what exactly is your purpose in starting this thread.
-
Disclosure is all about taking responsibility for your actions. Grow up, man up...take responsibility for what you do.
-
Penetrative sex is low risk if you are undetectable and are also the one being penetrated.
I am also curious as to why you felt you needed to give that information to your doctor, and what exactly is your purpose in starting this thread.
1. I'm U/D and took the active role.
2. I gave the information to the doctor because I was asked - not for the first time. I started this thread to ascertain what others do in this situation.
-
1. I'm U/D and took the active role.
2. I gave the information to the doctor because I was asked - not for the first time. I started this thread to ascertain what others do in this situation.
You realize of course that U/D in blood does not necessarily equal U/D in semen, right?
As much as I am VEHEMENTLY against the criminalization of HIV infection, I rather think that exposing people to HIV without their informed consent is the hallmark of a sociopath.
Thanks for making it that much worse for the rest of us out here, passing along the stigma of HIV, you despicable cuntwaffle.
-
Zohar, if you didn't like the doctor's opinion so what. Just ignore it. He asked, you decided to answer, so what?
Also, are you saying you are 100% morally free to do what you want because its the other person's responsibility to protect himself? In fact, I understand that both people are responsible. But if you are comfortable and content with your choices and your actions are legal where you are doing them, then your doctors opinion is just that, an opinion. As would be our opinions here. Sounds like you already made up your mind so why ask?
-
Zohar is the guy who had a meltdown when he found out his GP had documented his HIV status as HIV positive . He is also the guy that has a problem with people who say they are HIV negative if they have had sex since their last HIV test . A huge number of his post are about disclosure or about criminalization , so we know where his head is at .
When his doctor tries to council him about safe sex practices he sees it as a lecture because of his arrogance . I have never seen an individual more in need of counseling than Zohar . I really hope you get the help you need before you hurt somebody .
-
I have to think there's a part of you that knows what you've been doing is wrong, and that's why you put up this post (under the guise of the whole how-dare-he-judge-me doctor story). And it is. Just wrong, Wrong, WRONG. There's crap that goes on in the world, but why would you want to add to it? Get a grip, and start doing yourself and others some good.
-
.... >:( >:( As much as I accept my responsibility in being positive, I so wish my infector had told me he had HIV....and he knew he did, and never told me. I have long since moved on, but when I read posts from people who are positive, know their status and still go out there and have unprotected sex with someone without disclosing, it brings back bad memories and makes me sway towards supporting criminalization of HIV transmission for cases like this.
I hate the fact that you are trying to justify what you are doing to others. Its just so so WRONG! >:(
Karry
-
You realize of course that U/D in blood does not necessarily equal U/D in semen, right?
As much as I am VEHEMENTLY against the criminalization of HIV infection, I rather think that exposing people to HIV without their informed consent is the hallmark of a sociopath.
Thanks for making it that much worse for the rest of us out here, passing along the stigma of HIV, you despicable cuntwaffle.
*like*
-
I don't think your doc was out of line. He treats HIV patients, and part of that is to talk about safer sex.
Have any of your sexual partners asked whether you're poz? If so, did you tell them?
-
I know that doctors see it as their job to 'educate' about safer sex, but it irks me that they're peddling the view that it's the one (diagnosed) with HIV that has to take responsibility. And it did make me think I'd probably just lie in future to avoid being lectured.
It's a 50/50 responsability. Except in rape cases, the two parties agree to lay down. That doesn't exclude you of your responsability: You should have insisted on wearing condoms/ and or disclose your status, regardless what the other does. Some people don't disclose but insist on protection, others disclose beforehand and it's valid too. Hopefully you didn't infect your last partners....but I advise you to think again what you're doing.
People like you don't help us to fight the stigma.
So, when asked by doctors/nurses, are you inclined to tell them the truth about your condomless encounters, or not?
Ehm, yeah. I don't have a problem with that. Problem is, my doc doesn't seem to believe that I've been "out of service" for almost 4 years since my Dx.
-
It's horribly offensive that someone would choose to have unprotected penetrative sex, knowing they are HIV+ and not disclose this. You know your status and it's imperative you take responsibility for your side of the deal.
Even if the other person doesn't ask, it's incredibly selfish to not consider the person you are having sex with.
It suggests you are just willing to use these, "strangers" with no consideration of how you may affect/infect them and the impact it may have on them if you pass on the virus to these people.
We live in a world that increasingly promotes freedom, free from moral judgement and discrimination. In this case, this is not only a moral issue but a legal issue in many places.
If you are going to take advantage of all these freedoms you no doubt enjoy, then man up and take responsibility for what you are doing.
-
I have never seen an individual more in need of counseling than Zohar .
I had post diagnosis counselling for a number of years where this issue was discussed at length at various times.
-
You realize of course that U/D in blood does not necessarily equal U/D in semen, right?
Yes, of course I'm aware of that. I was just responding to your point (cited below) about being undetectable.
''Penetrative sex is low risk if you are undetectable and are also the one being penetrated.''
-
The conversation I had with my doctor regarded sex I'd had in a sex club. I'm actually not a huge fan of penetrative sex, and can, most of the time take or leave it. What's happened in this club is that when I've been making out with guys they've, to be blunt, put my dick in their ass. I nearly always just pull straight out since, like I say, I'm not fussed about penetrative sex, but when I've done so, they put it back inside them, knowing FULL well that I'm not wearing a condom.
-
@Zohar, for your doc ask him if he considers meds and condoms equal in terms of preventing HIV transmission. If he says no, then he needs to go to school. Clearly, the question of other STIs comes into play without condoms, but I am not sure this is as significant as people make out, likewise the detectable in semen point in relation to well-treated HIV.
People who go to sex clubs have already decided what they want to do and hear/not hear. In my experience there's not a lot of talking going on. The "real choice" point is somewhat after the fact. Esp in London in a sex club.
- matt
-
Thanks for making it that much worse for the rest of us out here, passing along the stigma of HIV, you despicable cuntwaffle.
Jonathan, while I completely understand your frustration with Zohar, you know name-calling is not permitted.
Please consider yourself warned!
Ann
-
The ones who don't know their status and are poz are the ones spreading it the most. If you are u/d chances are you won't spread it. Try finding a gay doctor who is not an old status quo guy, that's what I did.
-
Try finding a gay doctor who is not an old status quo guy, that's what I did.
If I had a doctor who was cool with me topping guys without condoms I would be finding another doctor .
I find some of the replies here shocking . If you have ever held somebody while they are dieing of Aids I think you may not be so casual with your advice . Guess what , you are HIV positive now and you have a responsibility not to pass on this virus on to somebody else .
Something good could come from this thread but right now I'm embarrassed to be keeping company with some of you . The whole world has the ability to read this forum and I'm not happy with the impression some of you are showing for all to see . I'm truly upset about this .
-
It's interesting.... in the criminalization threads, we hear folks say that it is really ONLY the poz person's responsibility to protect the poor unwitting neg person from getting infected. Most folks on here will counter (correctly, IMO) that both have a role.
Going into a sex club and topping someone raw, when you know you are poz is now turning ALL the responsibility from the POZ guy (in the criminalization cases) to the neg guy. The same response for both is required (again, IMO) -- BOTH have a responsibility.
Zohar has completely dismissed his responsibility here. That may not be "criminal" -- unless both go to jail -- but it is a good way to tell the type of self-centeredness that exists in his head - so long as he gets his, who the fuck cares. It kind of lines up with the health care debate here -- I got mine, so I don't give a rat's ass about you. I particularly found most rich -- his "victimhood" mentality -- "they put my penis in their ass" ---------- "twice". You poor helpless thing -- raped by a voracious bottom -- in public, no less.
I'm with Jeff on this -- this is extremely sad. It is also why, at least here in the USA -- we will continue to be seen as criminals for having sex -- with or without disclosure.
>:(
-
Going into a sex club and topping someone raw, when you know you are poz is now turning ALL the responsibility from the POZ guy (in the criminalization cases) to the neg guy.
Sex clubs are the exclusive province of shameless hussies, and as such they already have AIDS. In fact, they have exactly 14 different strains of it. Plus chlamydia. As such they are not deserving of niceties such as HIV disclosure when barebacking.
note: this also applies to tricks found while bird watching at dusk in public parks
-
Thanks Mike, it seems some people are using self centered math when it comes to divvying up the percentages when it comes to shared responsibility .
Shared responsibility is not a 50/50 proposition , you are responsible for 100 % of your share of it . It doesent average down on your side when the other person isn't up to the 100% they share . Please don't come back with any lame ass excuse for what the other is or isn't doing .
-
I find some of the replies here shocking . If you have ever held somebody while they are dieing of Aids I think you may not be so casual with your advice . Guess what , you are HIV positive now and you have a responsibility not to pass on this virus on to somebody else .
I honestly think that this has something to do with it. The shit we saw in the 80s and 90s before HAART/AART cannot help but change a person. I don't talk about my experiences then an awful lot. Tends to put me in a darker place than I like. But maybe I should start talking more about that stuff in this forum, rather than LTS.
I dunno. Second-hand experience is still not experience.
But I agree with the rest of your statement. Some really disheartening stuff there. And of course it's the lazy-assed activists like us who have to reluctantly lurch off the couch and work to combat the stigma that the obviously FAR healthier pozzies are working so hard to perpetuate.
Christ, step up new folks. We need you. Otherwise we are simply growing, fertilizing, and reaping field after field of Zohar.
-
The ones who don't know their status and are poz are the ones spreading it the most. If you are u/d chances are you won't spread it. Try finding a gay doctor who is not an old status quo guy, that's what I did.
Wow. I am not sure how to even approach this.
See, with GUYS, sex can be low, medium, or really really high risk, depending on what you are doing.
Even if you are U/D, if you are topping people without a condom, chances are good that at some point you will throw infectious seed into someone. That's verified.
If you are U/D and a bottom, or participating only in oral stuff, then I agree with you more or less, though I think it's a slippery slope to give yourself permission to be a sociopath.
Also, no doctor should be cool and nonchalant about a positive person having unprotected sex with negative partners without disclosure. The oath they take is pretty explicit about not doing harm, and silence in this case absolutely equals harm.
This isn't old school or new school bullshit. This is science. This is ethics.
-
Thanks JK , I can always count on you and a few others who are better at expressing whats at the heart of the matter . I wish I had said what you did when you wrote Christ, step up new folks. We need you. Nothing in my rant could have held more meaning than this simple nugget of truth .
I will not apologise for any thing I have said here because I believe it and own it , but I do wish I had said it better .
-
Thanks Jonathan and Jeff - as a "new folk" (relatively -- diagnosed 7 yrs ago), I will step up when I see insanity like this. But your history certainly does add much -- to me and, I hope, many others who need it.
Unfortunately, there will always be the self-centered folks who live to rationalize bad behavior.
M
-
It's always the neg person's responsibility to protect themselves, "period, fuck you" (as Lilly Tomlin said)
If you start blaming people who lie, it's gonna be your own fault after you catch HIV.
It should be the poz person's responsibility, but we don't live in fantasy land. Plus there are people who don't know they have HIV and they are a much more dangerous group than the undetectable ones that lie.
and bottoms bent over for raw cocks in sex clubs know what they are getting into, and any poz top that sees them can assume they already are poz too.
Try living in the real world instead of a shell.
-
It should be the poz person's responsibility...
Try living in the real world instead of a shell.
In three... two, one....
Here we go.
-
It's always the neg person's responsibility to protect themselves, "period, fuck you" (as Lilly Tomlin said)
If you start blaming people who lie, it's gonna be your own fault after you catch HIV.
It should be the poz person's responsibility, but we don't live in fantasy land. Plus there are people who don't know they have HIV and they are a much more dangerous group than the undetectable ones that lie.
and bottoms bent over for raw cocks in sex clubs know what they are getting into, and any poz top that sees them can assume they already are poz too.
Try living in the real world instead of a shell.
Well -- what you say is, in fact correct. However -- it doesn't mean that the poz person has no responsibility. You can't say ONLY the neg person is responsible or ONLY the poz person is. Both have total responsibility in this case (as Jeff so nicely put it) You can try and justify your behavior until you are blue in the face, but it doesn't change it. You want to end stigma for HIV -- then stop acting like a petulant child who is trying to avoid responsibility. We have to own the responsibility of ending our virus with us.
Just because someone is standing on the edge of a cliff, doesn't mean it's "OK" to push them off because they are responsible for their own welfare. That, my friend, is the real world.
Mike
(who hopes folks can see that this is not about saying anyone is a "criminal" for this sort of irresponsibility)
-
Its a good thing people have made up forum names to hide behind because I really don't think Livewithit would be brave enough to own his words in what he refers to as the real world otherwise .
-
It's always the neg person's responsibility to protect themselves, "period, fuck you" (as Lilly Tomlin said)
If you start blaming people who lie, it's gonna be your own fault after you catch HIV.
It should be the poz person's responsibility, but we don't live in fantasy land. Plus there are people who don't know they have HIV and they are a much more dangerous group than the undetectable ones that lie.
and bottoms bent over for raw cocks in sex clubs know what they are getting into, and any poz top that sees them can assume they already are poz too.
Try living in the real world instead of a shell.
The responsibility for safer sex RESTS WITH BOTH NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE folks. There is no excuse for not protecting yourself (and others) by using condoms for all penetrative sex. To suggest that one party to consensual sex, has a greater obligation to ensure safe sex, is bullshit. My responsibility as a pozzie is to not pass my virus to others and it's my sole decision on how I achieve that objective. For negative folks, their sole objective should be to avoid getting HIV or a myriad of other STDs and they can meet that objective, by consistently using condoms for penetrative sex.
For anyone to suggest that just because someone is poz, that they have a "higher duty" in terms of disclosure, etc., is to relieve the other party of any responsibility for a consensual act. I lament the days when personal responsibility meant something to people. Today, it seems that some folks want to blame anyone but themselves, for failing to protect them from HIV.
We have known the truth about HIV transmission for almost 30 years now and the rules are pretty simple. However, there will always be those who seek to blame others for their own failings. If you don't have the spine to protect yourself, then be prepared to accept the consequences. But don't ever tell a pozzie, that their role in preventing infections, is greater than 50 percent. It takes two to contract HIV.
I'll also second JKs comment about poz people needing to be visible and heard. Before you know it, those of us who lived the early decades of the HIV plague, will be gone and with us, I fear the true horror of HIV may be forgotten. It's the reason why some of us LTS react so negatively to efforts to paint us as virus infecting parasites or having a greater duty to stop the spread of HIV.
Joe
-
Hmm...interesting. I definitely don't see myself as 'victim' when bottoms insert my raw dick in their ass. Not sure where that idea came from.
And Newt is correct. There's very little discussion going on in sex clubs. However, recently, I struck up conversation with one of the aforementioned bottoms and..... whaddyaknow.... he was positive too.
Much of the indignation in this thread appears to be based on the notion that a 'poz' person is willfully infecting someone who's negative but, in reality, I don't think the issue is as black and white as that.
-
Just because someone is standing on the edge of a cliff, doesn't mean it's "OK" to push them off because they are responsible for their own welfare. That, my friend, is the real world.
This is a false analogy. If you push someone off a cliff then they are almost certain to die. However, if someone with HIV has unprotected sex with someone who is negative, there is only a possibility that the person will go on to become infected. And that possibility isn't even particularly high.
Think back to when you were negative; if you had to choose, would you rather be pushed off a cliff, or take a load from someone with HIV?
-
The responsibility for safer sex RESTS WITH BOTH NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE folks.
But the neg person is the one that has his neg status to lose. He can't be naive to think that a stranger who wants to get off is going to tell him the truth.
-
Maybe I'm the only one who won't certainly sleep if I infected anyone with this virus. Fortunately, I don't have that burden and I never will.
-
My partner and I both LIE our asses off at the redundant "safe sex" questions that come at the end of each doctors visit. We are monogamous and we are barebacking...taking each others loads...the whole 9 yards!
-
I went to a bathouse last week for the first time since my diagnosis. I didn't have any bare sex, I topped a few guys with condom. What is interesting from a personal perspective is that I have warts on my penis, and I did not let a soul go down on me. Quite a few guys wanted to and I pushed them away. This included some visible tweaked out guys who were dying to give oral and I still couldn't let them do it. Let me make this clear that this example has nothing to do with responsibility, this is strictly a moral issue. IT IS MY MORAL ISSUE, no one else's and I will never project my morality onto others.
-
Maybe I'm the only one who won't certainly sleep if I infected anyone with this virus. Fortunately, I don't have that burden and I never will
You're not alone, Raf. I am hoping there are more HIV pos people out there who believe that it is wrong to put other people's lives at risk of having to live the "wonderfully positive life we bitch about" , by not disclosing while having unsafe sex.
Personally, I am disturbed that any HIV pos individual not only engages in unprotected sex with their partners, but finds the need to justify their actions. It does not change the act: you're still KNOWINGLY putting someone's life at risk.
Karry
-
But the neg person is the one that has his neg status to lose. He can't be naive to think that a stranger who wants to get off is going to tell him the truth.
That is why BOTH people share responsibility to stop infections. You don't seem to get that this isn't an either or question.
M
-
This is a false analogy. If you push someone off a cliff then they are almost certain to die. However, if someone with HIV has unprotected sex with someone who is negative, there is only a possibility that the person will go on to become infected. And that possibility isn't even particularly high.
Think back to when you were negative; if you had to choose, would you rather be pushed off a cliff, or take a load from someone with HIV?
You truly are a horrible person if you are nitpicking an analogy like this. my point was....... Just because someone is WILLING to put themself at risk does not make it OK for you to oblige them. Not a hard concept for anyone who cares for anyone besides themself.
M
-
You truly are a horrible person if you are nitpicking an analogy like this. my point was....... Just because someone is WILLING to put themself at risk does not make it OK for you to oblige them. Not a hard concept for anyone who cares for anyone besides themself.
M
He's not a horrible person. It was the worst analogy ever and doesn't apply to this situation.
-
That is why BOTH people share responsibility to stop infections. You don't seem to get that this isn't an either or question.
M
I know both share responsibilities, but only the neg person can absolutely keep themselves neg. There are poz people out there that can infect people and sleep like a baby. What I'm saying is if you are a neg person do not trust what other people tell you and risk becoming poz. I'm not saying it should only be their responsibility but if they trust a stranger and become poz they have themselves to blame.
-
I know both share responsibilities, but only the neg person can absolutely keep themselves neg. There are poz people out there that can infect people and sleep like a baby. What I'm saying is if you are a neg person do not trust what other people tell you and risk becoming poz. I'm not saying it should only be their responsibility but if they trust a stranger and become poz they have themselves to blame.
I have not yet been told if cuntwaffle is a pejorative I am allowed to use.
If I am not, then please allow me to ask you if you would wish upon others the mind-wrenching angst placed upon yourself on knowing your own status.
Proceed as you wish.
-
Fascinating how some people try to quantify down to percentage point whose fault it is if someone acquires HIV. Also interesting that some people feel if there is no or little risk of transmission then there is no obligation to tell a sexual partner you have a sexually transmitted disease. I think a lie of omission in order to ensure someone will have sex with you, someone who might decide otherwise if he or she knew the truth, is not the behavior of an honest, empathetic or responsible person. The bottom line is I know I have HIV, I know most people who has sex with me would want to know that fact before having sex and not telling them would be putting my own needs and insecurities before their emotional well being. It's not all about disease transmission and blame, it is about living a life of integrity and considering the feelings of other people.
Have all the sex you want but be honest and responsible about it.
-
This is a false analogy. If you push someone off a cliff then they are almost certain to die. However, if someone with HIV has unprotected sex with someone who is negative, there is only a possibility that the person will go on to become infected. And that possibility isn't even particularly high.
Think back to when you were negative; if you had to choose, would you rather be pushed off a cliff, or take a load from someone with HIV?
Both parties are responsible for their reactions, and it includes you.
Even if you're not ok with disclosing, slipping on rubber is the bare essential in my mind. And it's not that difficult.
I try not to judge, but to me it is rather telling that you choose to split hairs in this analogy in a bid to justify your morally grey, if reprehensible behaviour rather than simply admit you made a mistake and that you would not repeat it.
-
You truly are a horrible person if you are nitpicking an analogy like this.
Nope. I'm not a 'horrible' person. I'm simply someone who doesn't share the same opinion as you. And that's OK. There's no need to make a personal attack on me.
-
... you choose to split hairs in this analogy in a bid to justify your morally grey, if reprehensible behaviour rather than simply admit you made a mistake and that you would not repeat it.
I don't think I have made a mistake and, thus, would do the same thing again.
-
If I get banned from this site for calling someone a "despicable cuntwaffle" for behaving like a raving sociopath, or for calling out some awful vestige of humanity for agreeing with him, then my participation on this site had surely come to an end.
If we can NOT be honest in our opinions and our assessments of behaviors which impact us ALL, then, this is no longer a support forum. It is a repository for justification. And I shall have NONE of it.
I am laying the gauntlet down here. BAN ME if you must, but I WILL call out sociopathic behavior when I see it. And I see it here in Zohar and Livewithit. Two people I would fight to the death to defend in court, but would happily see with their veils of anonymity lifted if it meant that decent people were allowed to live without fear of the stigma that these ferociously despicable mindsets perpetuate.
I am sorry, very sorry, to put Ann and Tim in this position. But sometimes a person has to take a stand. I am taking it here.
You hate mean people? Mean talk? Hateful and horrible and unreasonable perceptions of HIV positive people? Then hate this post. Hate me. Because I will continue without hesitation to call people out on their sociopathic behavior, which impacts EACH and EVERY one of us.
Ban me, if you must. I will be better off without having to justify my association with a "support" forum that supports and encourages stigma and ignorance. Both of these individuals do that. And I will not shut up until I am thrown out. And this time, when I am thrown out, I know better than to return.
Fuck all, you KNOW me. You know me.
I am NOT trying to shut down the conversation. I am trying to salvage it.
But if I am in the wrong, then time me out. Let me know that my attitude is wrong. Goddess knows I have bigger and wetter fish to fry than this bullshit - but if this forum requires a sacrifice, let it be me.
And Goddess help the rest.
-
I don't think I have made a mistake and, thus, would do the same thing again.
I am with JK 100%.
Your resolution to continue down the path of a sociopath affects all HIV+ people in that it serves to affirm in the minds of the mainstream that poz folk are reckless predators who have no regard for the health of others.
You are, whether or not you see it, complicit in ratcheting up the stigma we all face.
-
Nope. I'm not a 'horrible' person. I'm simply someone who doesn't share the same opinion as you. And that's OK. There's no need to make a personal attack on me.
No. You share the same oxygen and nitrogen as us. That's basically where our similarities end.
You are a despicable sociopath, and have decided to take your cause public, because you thing that this site will wilter beneath your "right to free speech." You certainly have that right, of course. But so long as you post a thing in this forum this PUBLICLY SEARCHABLE forum, you might as well be speaking for the lot of us.
So here is the thing. Our two mindsets can not exist here. Not together. Sadly, one of us must be thwarted.
So long as you exist on this forum, I cannot in good faith let any post of yours go unchallenged and I admit that though my grasp of the language is strong, I am no foreigner to magnificently obscene talk. And I intend to use whatever tools I have at my disposal to shut you down, to shut you out, to STOP this sociopathic conversation.
We do the same here with denialist speech. I am a little perplexed that we have not yet developed tools to deal with.... this. Which, to my mind, is simply a subset of that speech. And something I do not wish to be associated with in any way.
So here we go, Zohar. You, and I assume LiveWithIt. If the Powers That Be decide that your participation in these forums is more important than mine - and let's face it, HIV transmission theory has not budged in scientific evidence or study in many years, and there are far more people who both know that shit and can repeat it than myself- then I am done here, and you and your kind will remain. And the new generation of HIV, the parasitic generation if you don't mind me coining the phrase, begins.
So that's the thing. If it's YOU that this site needs to stay relevant, then best of all possible luck to AIDSMEDS. Because they are going to see tons of traffic, and oddly, you WILL be more useful than I in that regard.
You will, after all, be bringing them here yourself.
-
Do we really need to wonder why people like Paris Hilton think gay men are sex addicted freaks passing the AIDS to anyone who comes in contact with us?
I was not about to participate in this pathetic excuse of a thread until a point resonated with me. I can't sit by and be a part of the silent majority who thinks this is not sociopathic behavior.
I tried to fathom the mindset that would possibly allow someone to infect another without feeling like a complete piece of shit. And then to say it was their fault for trusting them. I've only had one episode of nondisclosure sex in the quarter of a century of living with this disease. It was a protected episode and I was in a really dark place. But contrary to some opinions, I felt like a complete piece of shit and still wonder and worry that I possibly put this person in the same horrid place as myself.
We all make errors in judgment, but responsible people regret these decisions and adjust their behaviors in accordance with morally correct ones. A sociopath justifies his own negative behavior by blaming others.
In the early days, not much was done to prevent the spread of this virus as most felt we brought it upon ourselves with our deviant, sex craved lust. It's a great thing we didn't have the internet then so they could use posts such as these to prove their point.
I also fail to see what the main intention With with this ridiculous post. It appears to have been started to incite anger which it accomplished. If people wish to lead destructive lives, they shouldn't expect us to support them unconditionally. Why post for others' thoughts when you've already decided where you stand on the issue?
Wolfie
-
Do we really need to wonder why people like Paris Hilton think gay men are sex addicted freaks passing the AIDS to anyone who comes in contact with us?
I was not about to participate in this pathetic excuse of a thread until a point resonated with me. I can't sit by and be a part of the silent majority who thinks this is not sociopathic behavior.
I tried to fathom the mindset that would possibly allow someone to infect another without feeling like a complete piece of shit. And then to say it was their fault for trusting them. I've only had one episode of nondisclosure sex in the quarter of a century of living with this disease. It was a protected episode and I was in a really dark place. But contrary to some opinions, I felt like a complete piece of shit and still wonder and worry that I possibly put this person in the same horrid place as myself.
We all make errors in judgment, but responsible people regret these decisions and adjust their behaviors in accordance with morally correct ones. A sociopath justifies his own negative behavior by blaming others.
In the early days, not much was done to prevent the spread of this virus as most felt we brought it upon ourselves with our deviant, sex craved lust. It's a great thing we didn't have the internet then so they could use posts such as these to prove their point.
I also fail to see what the main intention With with this ridiculous post. It appears to have been started to incite anger which it accomplished. If people wish to lead destructive lives, they shouldn't expect us to support them unconditionally. Why post for others' thoughts when you've already decided where you stand on the issue?
Wolfie
Well said!
Karry
-
I don't think I have made a mistake and, thus, would do the same thing again.
This is precisely the attitude that lead legislators to make crime when pozzies have sex and do not disclose. It's not an understatement to say that your attitude and actions are jeopardizing the freedom of HIV+ people. As JK said, these are publicly searchable forums, and this is the kind of fodder that conservative "throw the book at 'em" types will salivate over.
I'm equally shocked at the attitude that callously tilts the responsibility of preventing infection towards the uninfected person. Everyone needs to act responsibly in order to prevent the spread of HIV.
This thread, and Zohar specifically, disgust me. But perhaps there is something valuable to come out of this: a discussion on whether we let forum members with views like this go unchecked.
-
If we can NOT be honest in our opinions and our assessments of behaviors which impact us ALL, then, this is no longer a support forum.
This is where you are acting like a hypocrite. People have different opinions from you and you call them names.
-
This is where you are acting like a hypocrite. People have different opinions from you and you call them names.
This is not about diffrent opinions , its about a clear cut difference between right and wrong .
There is something very wrong with you and nobody needs you to agree with the assessment , its evident to every one else except you and Zohar .
There are people here that have spent a better part of their life fighting to save lives and reduce stigma for people living with HIV and you will not undermine that work wether you understand the consequences of your actions or not . Don't you for one minute think what you have done and said here will be tolerated or not addressed each and every time you spout your monstrous rubbish .
-
This is not about diffrent opinions , its about a clear cut difference between right and wrong .
There is something very wrong with you and nobody needs you to agree with the assessment , its evident to every one else except you and Zohar .
There are people here that have spent a better part of their life fighting to save lives and reduce stigma for people living with HIV and you will not undermine that work wether you understand the consequences of your actions or not . Don't you for one minute think what you have done and said here will be tolerated or not addressed each and every time you spout your monstrous rubbish .
So keep living in your fantasy land where neg guys don't have to fully protect themselves. They can trust anyone who they will never see again to tell them the truth about their status, after all you can trust a stranger who won't be ever able again to sleep at night because he lied to you.
You are the one who is doing a disservice to the HIV community by letting neg guys think the all poz men are honorable and won't infect anyone else, when you know for a fact that there is a sub culture of freaks who won't take meds and actively want to spread the disease.
-
... talk about selective reading. Our public schools are failing ::)
-
So keep living in your fantasy land where neg guys don't have to fully protect themselves. They can trust anyone who they will never see again to tell them the truth about their status, after all you can trust a stranger who won't be ever able again to sleep at night because he lied to you.
You are the one who is doing a disservice to the HIV community by letting neg guys think the all poz men are honorable and won't infect anyone else, when you know for a fact that there is a sub culture of freaks who won't take meds and actively want to spread the disease.
I have lived with HIV for almost 30 years , 25 years or more I have lived openly as a HIV positive person . I almost wish I had the ability to live in a fantasy world but that's not possible because I see HIV for what it is and have kept hope alive for what it can be for the next generation . You and your kind will never understand this or be a part of anything good as long as you go on hiding with phony screen names and making excuses to live selfish lives .
Its all been said so Im done with this , time to move on .
-
I agree with Wolfie said it all for me !
-
So keep living in your fantasy land where neg guys don't have to fully protect themselves. They can trust anyone who they will never see again to tell them the truth about their status, after all you can trust a stranger who won't be ever able again to sleep at night because he lied to you.
You are the one who is doing a disservice to the HIV community by letting neg guys think the all poz men are honorable and won't infect anyone else, when you know for a fact that there is a sub culture of freaks who won't take meds and actively want to spread the disease.
So tell me -- are you normally this stupid or are you being deliberately obtuse??
Show where anyone has said that negative folks do not own the responsibility of keeping their status negative?? NO WHERE is that said.
This thread and the reactions of most don't focus on the negative person, because we all agree they should be insisting on condoms for penetrative sex. What this thread IS about is whether a poz person has a duty to ensure that their virus ends with them. The overwhelming (and correct) stance is YES, they do.
Let me repeat it for you -- EVERY POZ PERSON HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT THEIR VIRUS STOPS WITH THEM!
You can obfuscate with the dangers of people who don't know their status, but that is a separate issue. You can (insanely) call my earlier analogy not relevant -- but you can not (please, make it so) disagree that we all have an obligation to keep our virus to ourselves. If someone else is willing to take a risk for raw penetrative sex (or too naive to know better) - we don't then get carte blanche to load their ass with our cum.
You and Zohar are, in fact, the worst kind of poz individuals -- you know your status and you don't give a shit about whether it gets propagated. You are public health threats on the same order as the denialists.
So -- YOU continue in your fantasy world, where you owe nothing to anyone, but I, also, will not sit quietly by and let you convince others that this is just a "difference of opinion". It is NOT -- it is the difference between human beings and monsters.
Mike
-
You and Zohar are, in fact, the worst kind of poz individuals -- you know your status and you don't give a shit about whether it gets propagated. You are public health threats on the same order as the denialists.
As far as I am concerned you are mistaken and what you write about me is libel and should not be allowed here.
-
If I get banned from this site for calling someone a "despicable cuntwaffle" for behaving like a raving sociopath, or for calling out some awful vestige of humanity for agreeing with him, then my participation on this site had surely come to an end.
Yeah, if you are banned, and you should be, your participation here will surely come to an end.
Now if the mods like you for whatever reason and choose not to ban you that is their prerogative, but you know that your rude words should cause you to be banned.
If they ban me because they don't like what I say, so be it, but they have chosen to be fair and impartial mods and not play favorites.
-
As far as I am concerned you are mistaken and what you write about me is libel and should not be allowed here.
It's not libel, it's an opinion about the lack of your character. You might not like it, but your own words have marked you.
Joe
-
As far as I am concerned you are mistaken and what you write about me is libel and should not be allowed here.
Can an anonymous person be subject to libel?
-
It's not libel, it's an opinion about the lack of your character. You might not like it, but your own words have marked you.
Joe
Him saying that I am a public health threat is not an opinion.
-
Him saying that I am a public health threat is not an opinion.
Oh, but it is an opinion. Just one you don't agree with, which is your right. See how that works.
Joe
-
Oh, but it is an opinion. Just one you don't agree with, which is your right. See how that works.
Joe
No it's not, you must be hard of understanding, but he is stating it as a fact. It's an absolute statement. Saying someone is ugly or stupid is an opinion.
-
Him saying that I am a public health threat is not an opinion.
Did you just subconsciously admit your guilt?
-
As far as I am concerned you are mistaken and what you write about me is libel and should not be allowed here.
I don't think I'm mistaken at all... you see I read ALL words in a post. If you truly believe what you have written, I stand by my comment.
Plus............ I find it interesting how you seem to focus on the periphery of people's replies to your posts, but not the actual "meat". You obfuscate and use red herrings, because you have no rational basis to defend the actions you are supporting.
then again -- maybe you are simply trolling and just like to stir pots.
No it's not, you must be hard of understanding, but he is stating it as a fact. It's an absolute statement. Saying someone is ugly or stupid is an opinion.
Not seeing any difference at all. Of course, you do seem to have trouble grasping logical conclusion -- IMO.
Mike
-
Did you just subconsciously admit your guilt?
Not at all.
-
Not at all.
Well, In my NSHO you did.
-
Well, In my NSHO you did.
I don't care about your Not So Honest Opinion.
-
My stomach has been churning too hard to write in this thread so far - other than my earlier warning (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=45338.msg555982#msg555982) directed at Jonathan over name-calling.
I'm having a difficult time comprehending that any of our members would advocate having UNPROTECTED intercourse - particularly as a top - with a person of unknown hiv status, without revealing one's own hiv POSITIVE status, UD VL or no UD VL.
Not disclosing when your VL is UD is nowhere near the same as not disclosing when condoms are used.
IF a condom breaks, you can then tell the person they need PEP. You don't have an alarm that goes off in your balls after you cum if you've just shot a poz-laden load and that means you can't tell them to get PEP. Unless of course you disclose, but hang on, you're supposed to do that FIRST, before you cum in them when you're BAREBACKING.
If some of you don't understand how damaging this non-disclosure when UD thing is to all of us, then good god, I don't know where to start.
Other people have taken a stab and it's falling on ... bricks. May as well be talking to walls.
Nobody's libeling anyone. Nobody's lying about UD hiv positive people who go around barebacking without letting their partner knowing their hiv positive, because it's been admitted in this thread. Nobody's lying when we say that those people present a danger to public health.
I'm soooo tempted to lock this thread down, but this NEEDS to be discussed. We've GOT to educate poz people WHY this is such a bad idea and how badly it hurts ALL of us.
-
I don't care about your Not So Honest Opinion.
Oh I am so hurt by you not caring.
Get over yourself.
-
We've GOT to educate poz people WHY this is such a bad idea and how badly it hurts ALL of us.
We can't force poz people to not have bare sex with neg people or people who's status they don't know. We can't even force them to take their meds so that if they do so the risk is much less. We can't force them not to lie.
We need to educate neg people that the only way they will stay neg is if they use a condom for penetrative sex all the time or not engage in it. They are the only ones that can protect themselves 100%.
-
We can't force poz people to not have bare sex with neg people or people who's status they don't know. We can't even force them to take their meds so that if they do so the risk is much less. We can't force them not to lie.
We need to educate neg people that the only way they will stay neg is if they use a condom for penetrative sex all the time or not engage in it. They are the only ones that can protect themselves 100%.
It beggars belief how you've managed to totally exempt yourself of all responsibility in your actions when it comes to safe sex and making the virus stop with you.
-
No it's not, you must be hard of understanding, but he is stating it as a fact. It's an absolute statement. Saying someone is ugly or stupid is an opinion.
Save your insults for someone who cares what you think of them. I don't care because I've seen your kind before and I'm sure we'll see them again. My only role here is to make sure that readers understand how dangerous people are, who think like you.
Joe
-
We need to educate neg people that the only way they will stay neg is if they use a condom for penetrative sex all the time or not engage in it. They are the only ones that can protect themselves 100%.
Okay, I'll bite. You're saying that ALL poz people don't have a conscience? Where is this documentation that you allude to that the majority of poz people deliberately seek to infect people outside of these sites where men actively seek to become infected or pass on their "gift" to someone else?
Fucking around in an environment exclusively for sex does not need to be considered when it comes to answering my question, as it has been ascertained on this thread already that most people don't discuss all the pertinent details when looking to bust a nut in a sex club, the baths, the woods, tearooms or other places meant for anonymous hookups.
-
It beggars belief how you've managed to totally exempt yourself of all responsibility in your actions when it comes to safe sex and making the virus stop with you.
I know the virus stops with me, but I know the virus does not stop. I'm just realistic. There are people willfully targeting neg people to infect. I choose only poz partners and would not date a neg person.
-
We can't force poz people to not have bare sex with neg people or people who's status they don't know. We can't even force them to take their meds so that if they do so the risk is much less. We can't force them not to lie.
Nobody is saying we can, but we can EDUCATE poz people as to why it's such a BAD idea! For EVERYONE. It's a bad idea for EVERYONE, poz and neg alike.
We need to educate neg people that the only way they will stay neg is if they use a condom for penetrative sex all the time or not engage in it. They are the only ones that can protect themselves 100%.
When was the last time you educated an hiv negative person about condom use? I do it every day, until I'm blue in the fucking face. Not just here on the internet either. I do it FACE TO FACE with people all the time.
We don't need people who already know their hiv status to be out there possibly infecting others when they can either
PUT A CONDOM ON IT,
disclose and let the other person decide for themselves or,
JUST SAY NO THANK YOU when someone tries to shove your bare dick in their ass.
Most of you do have some sort of hands-on, manual type control over which direction your dick goes, don't you? Maybe there's some remote control to the damn things that some people steal off you, that I just haven't found yet.
-
Okay, I'll bite. You're saying that ALL poz people don't have a conscience?
I never said that you did. The point is that it there are some poz people who don't care who they infect. The majority do have a conscience, but some don't. Some not only do not have a conscience, they are maliciously spreading the virus.
-
We need to educate neg people that the only way they will stay neg is if they use a condom for penetrative sex all the time or not engage in it. They are the only ones that can protect themselves 100%.
I'm going to say this to you one last time -- you'll probably just ignore it again, but WTF, maybe something will penetrate your thick head.
NO ONE IS SAYING THAT NEGATIVE FOLKS AREN'T 100% RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN WELL BEING.
Now you, please, tell me how that has anything to do with you sticking your bare cock up their ass without disclosing? Please, for once, respond on how your "realistic viewpoint" removes ANY responsibility from the poz person. It is your inability to grasp this fact that makes you a public health threat -- you either spread misinformation and/or you actively participate in behavior that might spread the virus.
Stop worrying about what others "might" do -- if every poz person acted responsibly, we'd not be having this conversation. I know I can't "force" anyone else to do the right thing -- but I can ensure that I DO the right thing. If we all have that mindset -- BINGO.
This thread is not about the negative people -- it's about the insensitive and ignorant poz people who eschew responsibilty and try to rationalize bad behavior. It is THEY who help feed the flames of intolerance and stigma to ALL HIV+ individuals. If you can't see that, well, then you are the monster I'm beginning to think that you are.
Mike
-
Some not only do not have a conscience, they are maliciously spreading the virus.
You mean by fucking willing bottoms in a sex club without a condom and without disclosing???
Maybe there is hope for you yet!
M
-
I know the virus stops with me,
your statement about your action is completely wrong. your bareback sex is NOT stopping the virus. You quite possibly are continuing to spread HIV.
You and Zohar are, in fact, the worst kind of poz individuals -- you know your status and you don't give a shit about whether it gets propagated. You are public health threats on the same order as the denialists.
this is the MOST important thing written as a response in this thread.
-
I know the virus stops with me, but I know the virus does not stop. I'm just realistic. There are people willfully targeting neg people to infect. I choose only poz partners and would not date a neg person.
then why are you defending someone who doesn't appear to make that choice? if i have sex with someone then it's my responsibility to help protect them unless there is a discussion beforehand. i have had many friends die from this and would not, even unconsciously, give it to someone else. part of the problem is that the newly infected folks have not seen the devastation of this disease. i believe that this is leading to the cavalier attitude about passing it on.
-
I never said that you did. The point is that it there are some poz people who don't care who they infect. The majority do have a conscience, but some don't. Some not only do not have a conscience, they are maliciously spreading the virus.
...you seem to be contradicting yourself here. You support views that its okay for a pos person to have unsafe sex without disclosing....then you turn around and say "there are some poz people who dont care who they infect".
..sure, there are. And you seem to be their advocate!
Karry
-
I don't think I have made a mistake and, thus, would do the same thing again.
sociopath = a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sociopath
Among the traits of a sociopath - there are 20 recognized and listed on the site
(Source: http://www.sociopathicstyle.com/traits/classic.htm)
1) pathological lying
2) conning and manipulativeness CHECK
3) lack of remorse or guilt CHECK
4) shallow affect CHECK
5) poor behavioral controls CHECK
6) promiscuous sexual behavior CHECK
7) impulsivity CHECK
8 ) irresponsibility CHECK
9) failure to accept responsibility for own actions CHECK
In regards to the high degree of acknowledgment from government officials regarding the public health threat created by nondisclosure, the Canadian governments policy work group - following the Calgary model follows a tiered approach (with high risk, willful nondisclosure reaching the highest level of action):
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/05vol31/dr3105a-eng.php
In acknowledgment of the public health threat =
Notifiable diseases under the Infectious Disease Act:
AIDS and HIV are both listed:
http://www.hpb.gov.sg/HOPPortal/health-article/476
Considering that someone an HIV+ person is knowingly and willingly having sex without disclosing is placing a threat on the health of another person, which constitutes a threat to public health
Libel =
A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation
Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/libel
Given what the OP has stated and the information contained above, I would think that he or anyone else sharing such beliefs or committing such activities, would have a difficult, if not impossible time, proving libel - not to mention that pursuing such an action would require him to disclose..... hmmmm, wouldn't that be ironic.
BTW, on another note: the Urban Dictionary actually defines "cuntwaffle" as a term of endearment (such as "bro", "homey", or "cunty" - Source: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=CUNTWAFFLE&defid=997933)
-
I don't think I have made a mistake and, thus, would do the same thing again.
I have ben reading this thread for a coupe of days now and really can't beieve what I reading from the likes of Zohar and LiveWithit.
I can't believe that a man who is telling the world he will, and is, happily spread HIV is allowed to remain a member of this support forum, a forum that prides its self with experts who work hard at keeping people upto date with the latest information, and who bend over backwards to educate those who are living with HIV and who actually care about keeping others safe, this person is definately a sociapath and cares for no-one but his own selfish needs....he needs to go...followed by his mate LiveWithit.
His posts and comments are not doing the forum any good at all, I personally would like to see his membership taken away from him.
Jan
-
I can't believe that a man who is telling the world he will, and is, happily spread HIV is allowed to remain a member of this support forum, a forum that prides its self with experts who work hard at keeping people upto date with the latest information, and who bend over backwards to educate those who are living with HIV and who actually care about keeping others safe, this person is definately a sociapath and cares for no-one but his own selfish needs....he needs to go...followed by his mate LiveWithit.
His posts and comments are not doing the forum any good at all, I personally would like to see his membership taken away from him.
I agree completely - in addition to his post damaging the credibility of the forums - I also place for consideration of the administrators that his post definitely are not the type of thing that potential (or current) advertisers like to see.... At a time when the forum are trying to earn revenue to keep the place "open for business" I don't think it is wise to maintain the membership of those who are basically advocating for purposeful, willful nondisclosure - non-consideration of their ability to infect others - and lack of responsibility or accountability for their actions. And, follow it up with posting that he feels he has done nothing wrong and would continue to do such actions....
If I were an advertiser, I wouldn't want my product or service associated with such statements - particularly on a fully search engine "searchable" forum that reaches every major search engine that businesses use.
Even with the right of freedom of speech - one is not allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre - I would think the same premise holds true for espousing a that it is acceptable for an HIV+ person to knowingly put others at risk of acquiring the virus through his wanten disregard to disclose and to use protection.
User-based content scares advertisers for this very reason...however, it does not have to scare them if the adminstrators of a site ban such persons who not only pose a public health risk through their sociopathic actions, but who also pose a sustainability risk to this site through their posts.
-
Jonathon
Do not let the behaviour of others spoil your inner peace or the goodness that is you.....Dalai Lama.
You are so much better than those two Jonathon, they shouldn't be allowed to breath the same air as you, we need you, but we don't need them.....Anniebc.
Aroha always
-
Living in a Snow White fantasy world will help no one here. If you want this place to be holier than thou then make sure that people who know what's going out there pretend that they don't. This is supposed to be an Aids Community Forum which means you should allow all voices to be heard.
You people who think you are better than everyone else and judge people are disgusting.
-
You people who think you are better than everyone else and judge people are disgusting.
Hey! THAT IS LIBEL!
-
Living in a Snow White fantasy world will help no one here. If you want this place to be holier than thou then make sure that people who know what's going out there pretend that they don't. This is supposed to be an Aids Community Forum which means you should allow all voices to be heard.
You people who think you are better than everyone else and judge people are disgusting.
And it isn't disgusting to knowingly put other people's lives at risk and take no responsibility for it?
And, no one is denying what takes place in the world - they are just not willing to give an open microphone for people such as you and Zohar to spew your murderous beliefs in a publicly searchable forum.
This has to do with actual beliefs and actions based on those beliefs -
It is people that condone such beliefs that are a reason behind the discrimination and stigma that others with HIV face today.
Why not reveal your face and name and walk around with an HIV positive t-shirt on? Oh, that's right - you wouldn't because you know that you would face stigma, discrimination, and perhaps violence against you... So instead, you condone the OP stating that he is okay with knowingly putting others at risk by having bareback sex and does not hold himself even remotely responsible for his actions.
What is disgusting is that the collective voices of members who have been on these forums for a great number of years (many since the inception of the forums) have not yet been heard in regards to shitcanning Zohar (who has a pattern of posting topics with the mere goal of incitation) and you for perpetuating and accenting his beliefs and actions... perhaps, these voices of expertise and reason will be heard and action will be taken and then you and your sociopathic partner can "livewithit" together.
Judge that.
-
Living in a Snow White fantasy world will help no one here. If you want this place to be holier than thou then make sure that people who know what's going out there pretend that they don't. This is supposed to be an Aids Community Forum which means you should allow all voices to be heard.
You people who think you are better than everyone else and judge people are disgusting.
Yes this is an AIDS forum, but not all voices are equal. In the same way that we deny the posting of any denialists, it would follow that we should prevent anyone from advocating for intentionally spreading HIV. It's not like you don't understand how your behaviour is abhorrent to the goals of this forum. You have dozens of replies telling you that we will never support the spread of HIV through irresponsible behaviour.
Nobody here even suggested they were better than anyone else, however we have accurately described you and your intentions. You just don't like the fact that you have been called on your behaviour and opinions.
Joe
-
So instead, you condone the OP stating that he is okay with knowingly putting others at risk by having bareback sex and does not hold himself even remotely responsible for his actions.
I never said I condone his actions because I don't.
-
Living in a Snow White fantasy world will help no one here. If you want this place to be holier than thou then make sure that people who know what's going out there pretend that they don't. This is supposed to be an Aids Community Forum which means you should allow all voices to be heard.
You people who think you are better than everyone else and judge people are disgusting.
No one besides YOU is living in a fantasy world here. You are the one discussing hypotheticals. The rest of us are discussing the actions and words of actual public health threats. While your hypotheticals may be true, they have NOTHING to do with this thread. What someone else may do, doesn't make what Zohar did/does and you either do or think is acceptable, actually OK.
I am hoping you are merely obtuse, but I suspect you simply are a sociopath.
-
Jonathon
You are so much better than those two Jonathon, they shouldn't be allowed to breath the same air as you,
Really Killoflife no one said they were better than me?
-
I never said I condone his actions because I don't.
And so the revision of history and back-peddling begins...........
-
Really Killoflife no one said they were better than me?
Quit with the straw man arguments and stick to the issue at hand. Misdirection is a classic move in trying to change the subject, especially when the subject has no real defence to his abhorrent comments.
Joe
-
Quit with the straw man arguments and stick to the issue at hand. Misdirection is a classic move in trying to change the subject, especially when the subject has no real defence to his abhorrent comments.
Joe
Instead of being a man and admitting you were wrong you have to try to turn it around. Ironic how you accuse me of misdirection, you must be a magician.
Instead of berating the OP you (all) should teach him why he is mistaken and is playing a dangerous game.
-
Instead of being a man and admitting you were wrong you have to try to turn it around. Ironic how you accuse me of misdirection, you must be a magician.
Instead of berating the OP you (all) should teach him why he is mistaken and is playing a dangerous game.
Oh, has THAT been what you've be doing all this time? Teaching the OP?
You are a piece of work
M
-
Instead of being a man and admitting you were wrong you have to try to turn it around. Ironic how you accuse me of misdirection, you must be a magician.
Instead of berating the OP you (all) should teach him why he is mistaken and is playing a dangerous game.
Why do you need to insult me, every time you respond to me? You can't even show me a modicum of respect, so I'm done with you. But don't think for a minute that I will forget who you are and what you believe.
BTW, nobody can teach the OP anything, because he lacks the compassion to even care.
Joe
-
I never said I condone his actions because I don't.
Please forgive if I do not address the quoted person directly. Conversing with him is pointless, as he is either too ignorant to physically understand the assembly of words pointed in his direction, or is being deliberately obtuse. I am leaning towards to mixture of the two.
LiveWithIt is either using this thread as an excuse for what is apparently a personal vendetta, or else he is even less intelligent than I originally assumed - but I admit I was setting the bar at "adult." He also claims not to be condoning Zohar's actions. Which may or may not be true, inasmuch as he seems incapable of addressing the meat of this thread in any way. He is, however, obviously defending those actions.
Or he is trolling this thread for other, inexplicable reasons.
I would be a hypocrite if I did NOT call Zohar out on his sociopathy and danger to himself, others, and this very forum. The name calling was unnecessary, perhaps, but absolutely called for in my opinion. And now that we all know what a "cuntwaffle" is, it seems hardly fair to be warned over a term of endearment.
Not that I knew beforehand what a cuntwaffle was. I honestly thought I had made that one up.
A hypocrite is someone who espouses a certain set of beliefs for others that he does not practice himself. I can admit to being a blowhard at times, and I keep my self-righteous anger where I can get to it easily. But I'm hardly a hypocrite. If I indeed DO ever act like one, I hope that I am called to answer for it.
Insofar as libel is concerned, I seriously doubt LiveWithIt or Zohar has the intellect or the stones to pursue such a folly. Besides, what I have said would need to be false in order to be libel. Which it isn't, as I very earnestly believe - and I think this thread bears me out - that my accusations of sociopathy, trolling, and sophistry are well founded and accurate.
Now that I know the definition of "cuntwaffle," though, I would really like to take that back.
But yeah, I certainly would not be proud to be a member of a support forum that highlighted threads like this, and I obviously would not want to advertise on it. That is way over my pay grade, though. Be cool to see it addressed, as this behavior is only going to increase as the "HIV = No Big Deal" mindset is inevitable.
-
One of the little scenarios raised in this thread is this one:
Undetectable guy goes to a sex club and barebacks with no disclosure to the partner because the partner wants bareback as well. And yet neither of them discuss HIV. And the background setting is that people don't discuss HIV in such settings. And the idea that everyone who wants to bareback in a sexclub and furthermore doesn't want to discuss HIV status before the sex, the idea that these people know their risks.
So, the question raised is, is it immoral of the HIV+ undetectable guy.
(I'm only speaking about guys because that's one scenario, not to say that only guys have unprotected sex in anonymous settings.)
(And its only one scenario. I don't know how different the moral calculation will have to be if you replace our undetectable guy with a guy who is HIV+ and NOT on HAART.)
So leaving aside the problematic of whether it legal or not, because presumably in some states in some nations, this would be illegal.
I think there is a very slim chance, that this HIV+ undetectable guy, could run across an HIV- guy, who is willing to bareback, and not discuss HIV, and yet maybe against his better judgement, because maybe his judgement is impaired.
So that might happen in a very very slim chance.
And then you take that very very slim chance, and you multiply the unlikeliness factor that the HIV+ undetectable guy manages to nevertheless transmit HIV, say, through the small viral load in semen.
So, in a pure reasoning, I guess it would make sense, every time you, the HIV+ undetectable person wants to fuck bareback in this sex club scenario, to just state in one simple sentence, a little bit before you stick it in, "I am HIV+ and undetectable."
But really, if you don't say that, I'm not sure you will burn in hell. But purely speaking its wrong.
However, what about if you modify the setting, and its not any old sexclub, but a "no limits" sex party in a sex club. Then its ok to do what you want, bareback. Right?
-
Ivy League in action...
-
Although everyone is responsible for their own well being, unfortunately this is not a 50-50 spilt. The carrier in this case does carry more weight to prevent future infections. As harsh a reality as this is (although it is not that bad, my sex life has started to pick up again evern after I disclose, no where as bad as I thought it would be). Here is a simpler analogy for people to consider. So many people drink and drive but only a few get caught. You think HIV stigma is bad, try living life as convicted drunk driver! Try living as a drunk driver who killed someone!
-
Is transmission itself immoral? Is it immoral if you DO disclose you are HIV+ and undetectable, and your HIV- partner says OK I accept the slight risk, and then you transmit HIV. Is that act of transmission retroactive over the communication and consent to take a risk?
Is all barebacking immoral, then, purely speaking?
Do the moral reasonings become wildly unwiedly?
-
One of the little scenarios raised in this thread is this one:
Undetectable guy goes to a sex club and barebacks with no disclosure to the partner because the partner wants bareback as well. And yet neither of them discuss HIV. And the background setting is that people don't discuss HIV in such settings. And the idea that everyone who wants to bareback in a sexclub and furthermore doesn't want to discuss HIV status before the sex, the idea that these people know their risks.
So, the question raised is, is it immoral of the HIV+ undetectable guy.
(I'm only speaking about guys because that's one scenario, not to say that only guys have unprotected sex in anonymous settings.)
(And its only one scenario. I don't know how different the moral calculation will have to be if you replace our undetectable guy with a guy who is HIV+ and NOT on HAART.)
So leaving aside the problematic of whether it legal or not, because presumably in some states in some nations, this would be illegal.
I think there is a very slim chance, that this HIV+ undetectable guy, could run across an HIV- guy, who is willing to bareback, and not discuss HIV, and yet maybe against his better judgement, because maybe his judgement is impaired.
So that might happen in a very very slim chance.
And then you take that very very slim chance, and you multiply the unlikeliness factor that the HIV+ undetectable guy manages to nevertheless transmit HIV, say, through the small viral load in semen.
So, in a pure reasoning, I guess it would make sense, every time you, the HIV+ undetectable person wants to fuck bareback in this sex club scenario, to just state in one simple sentence, a little bit before you stick it in, "I am HIV+ and undetectable."
But really, if you don't say that, I'm not sure you will burn in hell. But purely speaking its wrong.
However, what about if you modify the setting, and its not any old sexclub, but a "no limits" sex party in a sex club. Then its ok to do what you want, bareback. Right?
Hope you don't mind, but I edited the parts of your post that didn't make sense.
-
Is transmission itself immoral? Is it immoral if you DO disclose you are HIV+ and undetectable, and your HIV- partner says OK I accept the slight risk, and then you transmit HIV. Is that act of transmission retroactive over the communication and consent to take a risk?
Is all barebacking immoral, then, purely speaking?
Do the moral reasonings become wildly unwiedly?
It is quite simple (for most, anyway).
Let your virus end with you. Don't top a neg or unknown status person uncovered - at least not without there knowledge. SIMPLE
Why must people partake in mental gymnastics to find a way to justify BAD (I would never use "morality") behavior.
-
Hope you don't mind, but I edited the parts of your post that didn't make sense.
LIKE
-
Here is a simpler analogy for people to consider. So many people drink and drive but only a few get caught. You think HIV stigma is bad, try living life as convicted drunk driver! Try living as a drunk driver who killed someone!
Riiiight. There are a lot of people out there that think all poz people are murderous because they seek to infect others deliberately.
This woman (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=45169.msg554470#msg554470) was killed because she told someone she was poz without even passing on the virus. Apparently you've never read an entire section of comments online where the lynch mob mentality is high when it comes to a person being poz.
-
The forum should include a translator for mecch's posts, really.
-
I agree completely - in addition to his post damaging the credibility of the forums - I also place for consideration of the administrators that his post definitely are not the type of thing that potential (or current) advertisers like to see.... At a time when the forum are trying to earn revenue to keep the place "open for business" I don't think it is wise to maintain the membership of those who are basically advocating for purposeful, willful nondisclosure - non-consideration of their ability to infect others - and lack of responsibility or accountability for their actions. And, follow it up with posting that he feels he has done nothing wrong and would continue to do such actions....
If I were an advertiser, I wouldn't want my product or service associated with such statements - particularly on a fully search engine "searchable" forum that reaches every major search engine that businesses use.
Although there might be a number of reasons why this post should be locked or other consideration given for thought, this should be the least of concern.
I believe that there are a number of people who have not officially signed in viewing this post and I would think it might be a great lesson for many. Many of us read, learn new information and post when moved.
-
Here is a simpler analogy for people to consider. So many people drink and drive but only a few get caught. You think HIV stigma is bad, try living life as convicted drunk driver! Try living as a drunk driver who killed someone!
Your analogy is useless. Let's substitute poz for drunk drivers and you get: so many poz people, go around trying to infect others, but that only a few get caught. Are you serious? Pozzies compare to drunk drivers? Not even in the same league and anyone dumb enough to drive drunk and kill someone, deserves whatever comes their way.
Joe
-
I have not seen a threat erupt like this since I first started here. WOW! :o
-
Although there might be a number of reasons why this post should be locked or other consideration given for thought, this should be the least of concern.
Let's see if you still feel that way when other areas of the forums are forced to go "pay for play" (such as the AM I area) - because advertisers don't want their company/product to be associated with a site where advocacy of bareback sex and nondisclosure go hand-in-hand.
One thing I learned a long time ago - in many years of being a social worker - and now in pursuit of my MBA - is that there is a financial cost to everything - including these forums. Someone doesn't just flip a switch and waaa-la the forums exist.... they are able to stay functional because of advertising. And, like it or not, advertisers are very cautious about buying advertising space on sites with user-generated content (with some of the posts on this thread - particularly those surrounding an HIV + person showing willful disregard for others by having bareback sex and not disclosing).
.So, there should be a concern about things that are posted that are not merely opinions or are a little off-color humor (as sometimes happens) but a post that directly flies in the face of HIV prevention efforts (efforts put forth by Smart+Strong, AIDSmeds, and the very reason that advertisers post here (to support a site that offers support to those infected, affected, and at risk of HIV). I don't believe they would be as likely to support a site where prevention of transmission is not focused on and discussed and they would probably run for the symbolic hills if endorsements of bareback HIV+ sex with non-disclosure become the norm and are not challenged.
So, you go ahead and see it as a point "least of concern" ---- But I will hold the concern I expressed in regards to loss of advertising revenue at an equal level as the other factors because I truly know what this site has and continues provide for me and for many others (particularly LTS' who came across and had access to this site when things were much different for those infected than they are today).
-Phil (who recognizes that it cost money to operate AIDSmeds forums - and is always amazed when people who have not been asked to contribute a dime toward its operation, don't see how any post that has the potential to impact revenue and ultimately this site's existence should be of concern. Oh, and who also wonders if these same people would be willing to pony up the funds that are lost when advertisers leave because of the type of actions the OP has expressed he fully has no remorse or concern over having done)
-
The forum should include a translator for mecch's posts, really.
I'm agreeing that it is wrong for an HIV+ undetectable guy to bareback in a sexclub without telling his partner beforehand. However enough people have pointed out in this thread, that its highly likely there is unspoken consent, and highly unlikely that there will be HIV transmission. Nevertheless, its wrong. But I'm not the only poster in this thread who thinks that it is not burn in hell for eternity wrong.
(That said, some people did over-dump on the OP for doing this and having a crappy way of justifying himself. I think because other issues he discusses seem to warrant faceslaps as well.)
On the other hand, I don't think you need to discuss HIV if you are the HIV+ guy and undetectable and you go to a bareback party at a sex club (or anywhere else). They have these in Europe. I don't know about in the states. Maybe that's why my post confuses you?
But, if I really had to put on my "ethical hat", I suppose this "bareback sex party scenario with no disclosure" is "wrong" because I guess there is always the chance some HIV- guy ends up at a bareback sex party filled with HIV+ guys, against his better judgement and ends up HIV+, though it would likely result from a transmission from a detectable HIV+ guy.
In our effort to slap down the OP and one or two other posters, we have to really split hairs, it seems. Because some of you absolutely will never say that bareback sex party scenario is Ok.
So what is the solution there? William F. Buckley's original HIV+ Tattoo on the HIV+ Guy Prevention scheme? It was interesting that everyone was scandalized by that back in the mid 80's but eventually lots of HIV+ guys turned it around and got bio-hazard tattoos. That pretty much takes care of disclosure.
History lesson here: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/08/10/hiv.tattoos/index.html
(Though I guess, there is always the chance, some HIV- newb from the provinces goes to a sex club and has bareback sex with a guy with a bio-hazard tattoo, and doesn't know what it means, so if the HIV+ guy hasn't said so explicitly.........)
-
Here is a simpler analogy for people to consider. So many people drink and drive but only a few get caught. You think HIV stigma is bad, try living life as convicted drunk driver! Try living as a drunk driver who killed someone!
Your analogy is useless. Let's substitute poz for drunk drivers and you get: so many poz people, go around trying to infect others, but that only a few get caught. Are you serious? Pozzies compare to drunk drivers? Not even in the same league and anyone dumb enough to drive drunk and kill someone, deserves whatever comes their way.
Joe
Agree with that! That analogy was terrible!
-
I'm agreeing that it is wrong for an HIV+ undetectable guy to bareback in a sexclub without telling his partner beforehand. However enough people have pointed out in this thread, that its highly likely there is unspoken consent, and highly unlikely that there will be HIV transmission. Nevertheless, its wrong. But I'm not the only poster in this thread who thinks that it is not burn in hell for eternity wrong.
(That said, some people did over-dump on the OP for doing this and having a crappy way of justifying himself. I think because other issues he discusses seem to warrant faceslaps as well.)
On the other hand, I don't think you need to discuss HIV if you are the HIV+ guy and undetectable and you go to a bareback party at a sex club (or anywhere else). They have these in Europe. I don't know about in the states. Maybe that's why my post confuses you?
But, if I really had to put on my "ethical hat", I suppose this "bareback sex party scenario with no disclosure" is "wrong" because I guess there is always the chance some HIV- guy ends up at a bareback sex party filled with HIV+ guys, against his better judgement and ends up HIV+, though it would likely result from a transmission from a detectable HIV+ guy.
In our effort to slap down the OP and one or two other posters, we have to really split hairs, it seems. Because some of you absolutely will never say that bareback sex party scenario is Ok.
So what is the solution there? William F. Buckley's original HIV+ Tattoo on the HIV+ Guy Prevention scheme? It was interesting that everyone was scandalized by that back in the mid 80's but eventually lots of HIV+ guys turned it around and got bio-hazard tattoos. That pretty much takes care of disclosure.
History lesson here: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/08/10/hiv.tattoos/index.html
(Though I guess, there is always the chance, some HIV- newb from the provinces goes to a sex club and has bareback sex with a guy with a bio-hazard tattoo, and doesn't know what it means, so if the HIV+ guy hasn't said so explicitly.........)
I am struggling to understand your words. I think you’re confecting distinct issues.
It’s pretty clear in my head, and it seems in most others contributing on this thread.
1. Sex, even in sex clubs and saunas, is the shared responsibility of both parties engaging in the act.
2. Yes, Neg people ought to protect themselves and if they participate in bareback orgies with guys of unknown status then they do so at their own peril.
Fair enough, BUT this is NO WAY mitigates the following:
1. The responsibility of ALL diagnosed poz people to ensure the virus stop with them: either by way of abstinence, using protection at all times, or by sero-sorting & bare-backing with other pozzers. If a pozzer chooses to bareback with someone of unknown status the least one can do is inform them of their status. UD VL does not equate to condom use.
2. If a guy of unknown status doesn’t give a toss about his personal health and is OK with fucking indiscriminately in a sex club, he’s acting recklessly- to himself and to others (as he maybe unwittingly passing on HIV). THIS IN NO WAY GIVES DIAGNOSED PEOPLE A FREE LICENCE TO BE AS RECKLESS JUST BECAUSE OTHERS ARE.
3. Rationalizing one’s own irresponsible and reckless behaviour by citing the same degree of lack of concern in others is no excuse or justification.
-
UD VL does not equate to condom use.
No?
- matt
-
No?
- matt
Matt, you're obviously way more knowledgeable about these things than am I, but there have been recorded cases of transmission with an UD VL. It's not a figment of my imagination. And thus, I'm with Ann on this:
I'm having a difficult time comprehending that any of our members would advocate having UNPROTECTED intercourse - particularly as a top - with a person of unknown hiv status, without revealing one's own hiv POSITIVE status, UD VL or no UD VL.
Not disclosing when your VL is UD is nowhere near the same as not disclosing when condoms are used.
Edited typo
-
Condoms are not 100% effective in real life. There remains a small marginal risk in practical application etc. For either intervention it seems to me they are comparable in offering a high, and broadly similar, level of protection against HIV transmission.
Condoms good, no condoms bad, it's a mantra, a bedrock even, but the science has changed, belief follows after I guess, like Galileo and telescopes perhaps.
One well-constructed overview of estimated relative risk of transmission for 1 sex act (not a real thing but a useful comparision) is 10-6 to 10-4 for oral sex (no treatment) without ejaculation, penetrative sex under ART with or without an STI and penetrative sex without ART but with condom use.
The risk of accident skiing in the Alps is 10-4.
Ahem, with ejaculation the estimated risk of transmission for oral sex (no treatment) is greater than skiing in the Alps.
At what point and under what circumstances does the risk of HIV transmission become marginal, ie lower than the risks of everyday life? or perhaps common leisure activities?
Clearly, viral load reduces the risk per log drop in viral burden so in individual cases on treatment the per act risk will tend towards the bottom of the range.
Perhaps the moral of this story is you should disclose in backrooms if you want to do oral and shoot, and are not on treatment? hmmmm....
- matt
Ref: Dr Martin Fisher's presentation to the National AIDS Trust "Transmission risk between couples: the “science” (Martin Fisher and Gus Cairns)" November 2010 (losts of other good slides there too), after Vernazza etc etc et al
http://www.nat.org.uk/Our-thinking/Prevention-and-testing/Prevention.aspx (http://www.nat.org.uk/Our-thinking/Prevention-and-testing/Prevention.aspx)
-
Matt, you're obviously way more knowledgeable about these things than am I, but there have been recorded cases of transmission with an UD VL. It's not a figment of my imagination. And thus, I'm with Ann on this:
There have also been studies which show that, whilst small, there's a risk of HIV infection occurring via oral sex.
And yet, how common is condom use during oral sex? Pretty rare, I would say, to the point where the issue has never arisen with any of my sex partners, either before or after I was diagnosed with HIV.
Do people ALWAYS disclose and/or insist on using condoms 100% of the time, without fail, when they engage in oral sex with people of negative/unknown status? Obviously, I'm not saying that people never do this, but I doubt it happens often, let alone the majority of the time. Indeed, I've asked a number of people with HIV if they use condoms for oral sex and they've looked at me as if it's sightly daft idea. Equally, on forums forms elsewhere, people tend to dismiss the idea of condom use for this activity. And yet, as the reports below state, the risk is ''not zero'':
''The risk of HIV transmission during oral sex is very low, but not zero, conclude researchers from Imperial College and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the December 2008 issue of the International Journal of Epidemiology.''
http://www.aidsmap.com/Oral-sex-risk-very-low-but-not-zero-concludes-systematic-review/page/1432786/#item1432793
''Oral sex probably accounts for almost 3% of HIV infections in men who have sex with men (MSM), according to the results of a survey of newly diagnosed patients in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.''
http://www.aidsmap.com/Oral-sex-between-men-a-small-but-real-risk-for-HIV-transmission-survey-shows/page/1418689/
-
There have also been studies which show that, whilst small, there's a risk of HIV infection occurring via oral sex.
And yet, how common is condom use during oral sex? Pretty rare, I would say, to the point where the issue has never arisen with any of my sex partners, either before or after I was diagnosed with HIV.
Do people ALWAYS disclose and/or insist on using condoms 100% of the time, without fail, when they engage in oral sex with people of negative/unknown status? Obviously, I'm not saying that people never do this, but I doubt it happens often, let alone the majority of the time. Indeed, I've asked a number of people with HIV if they use condoms for oral sex and they've looked at me as if it's sightly daft idea. Equally, on forums forms elsewhere, people tend to dismiss the idea of condom use for this activity. And yet, as the reports below state, the risk is ''not zero'':
''The risk of HIV transmission during oral sex is very low, but not zero, conclude researchers from Imperial College and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the December 2008 issue of the International Journal of Epidemiology.''
http://www.aidsmap.com/Oral-sex-risk-very-low-but-not-zero-concludes-systematic-review/page/1432786/#item1432793
''Oral sex probably accounts for almost 3% of HIV infections in men who have sex with men (MSM), according to the results of a survey of newly diagnosed patients in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.''
http://www.aidsmap.com/Oral-sex-between-men-a-small-but-real-risk-for-HIV-transmission-survey-shows/page/1418689/
Oh so now we're waving the magic wand to rewind because you actually wanted to discuss and debate the low risk activities via which hiv can be transmitted ::)
-
Oh so now we're waving the magic wand to rewind because you actually wanted to discuss and debate the low risk activities via which hiv can be transmitted ::)
No. I'm making a point in the context of the way in which posters have evolved the discussion.
-
While knowing just how infectious each of us may be is important and interesting I really don't see disease transmission as the deciding factor in telling someone you are about to have sex with that you have HIV. The vast majority of people would like to have this information before having sex so why not tell them and let them decide how much risk they are willing to take, even if that risk is zero? Not disclosing because I think the risk is negligible, I worry about stigma, I worry they might not have sex with me all seems very selfish. Of course HIV negative people are responsible for their sexual heath, should be informed and should be asking questions of their sexual partners but if they don't that doesn't mean I shouldn't be honest. I know I have HIV and I know that fact matters to other people.
What are reasons for not disclosing before having sex that benefit your sexual partner rather than your own self interest?
-
Oh so now we're waving the magic wand to rewind because you actually wanted to discuss and debate the low risk activities via which hiv can be transmitted ::)
Actually what I see is that a number of posters came in with clutch-the-pearls outrage, shocked, shocked, about the immorality of Zohars practices of disclosure, non-disclosure. Some of this shock was actually bleed over from a few people saying he has a history of bad attitude or bad faith on such issues.
Other people kind of performed rational slips but extending his practices (hiv+ undetectable, not disclosing in casual encounters in a sex club) to make lump arguments about what ALL hiv+ people should do, detectable or undetectable.
Newt, about the most respected guy around, jumped in early to add some relevant info about what is said and unsaid in London (and by extension in many scenarios) and what is really a risk, and not a risk, of transmission.
Nevertheless, the shock and outrage continued for a couple of pages. Livewithit unfortunate tone was kind of trolling or flamebaiting, though he had good points, which couldnt be assimilated because of the trolling feeling.
I didn't find the three pages particularly disgraceful as a discussion, nor as a public representation of HIV+ people discussing such matters.
In fact, it made me think a lot about my own practices in anonymous situations.
Since Newt is someone all can get behind and respect, I think we could all pay attention to that interesting ethical reasoning that -- all considered - detectable or undetectable - risk of transmission attached to each - and the likely presence of HIV- guys in such scenarios, the new ethical conclusion might be for HIV+ untreated guys not to have annonymous oral sex! Now, thats a surprise for many.
Anyway, the big news from Newt is this:
"Condoms good, no condoms bad, it's a mantra, a bedrock even, but the science has changed, belief follows after I guess, like Galileo and telescopes perhaps."
So the challenge is, can everyone get on board with the minute reasonings that go into practices based on the new science? Because Zohar can, even if some of you (maybe even myself) have problems with his explanations or his attitude.
Because it appears a lot of you aren't willing to split hairs, and prefer 1 universal rule. 100% disclosure in all situations. While that rule may still be morally correct, in a technical sense, in almost all cases, Newt explains how it starts to fail, as a ethical guide, in some highly specific scenarios.
So really, I wonder who is going to wave the magic wand now and eat crow?
-
Just wanted to pop in and comment that I hate this thread. It's just one or two idiots and-or sociopaths trying to defend the indefensible and then pulling the thread into insignificant detours when people (the ones with brains and hearts that actually function) rightfully call them on it. There's no use, good people of this thread. This is about as black-and-white as a thread can get. The idiot-paths will keep doing whatever they want to do no matter how much we plead the case for basic human decency, and they'll throw up non sequiturs or some unrelated statistics to avoid addressing the core issue: they are scum, and deep down, they know it. They may still be able to change and stop being scum, and I hope they will, but I won't hold my breath.
Okay, rant over (I'm perfectly serious when I say nothing's pissed me off more than this thread since I got diagnosed in June). Carry on.
-
While knowing just how infectious each of us may be is important and interesting I really don't see disease transmission as the deciding factor in telling someone you are about to have sex with that you have HIV. The vast majority of people would like to have this information before having sex so why not tell them and let them decide how much risk they are willing to take, even if that risk is zero? Not disclosing because I think the risk is negligible, I worry about stigma, I worry they might not have sex with me all seems very selfish. Of course HIV negative people are responsible for their sexual heath, should be informed and should be asking questions of their sexual partners but if they don't that doesn't mean I shouldn't be honest. I know I have HIV and I know that fact matters to other people.
What are reasons for not disclosing before having sex that benefit your sexual partner rather than your own self interest?
This is very sound reasoning. I tend to agree. Im rather sure its individual however, and not universally binding to all situations. Still, is it always 100% self interest if there is no discussion of HIV?
I pretty much agree that I have changed my mind and see that it is self-interest if I bareback a guy with no discussion in a local sex club. And since there are certainly enough people on the market in the club, I could just as well announce it to the guy I want to screw, and if he refuses, no big loss. Or, use a condom. Yes, that makes sense to me! Its not like I'm not going to find another partner there. Most of the time its condom sex by default with me anyway. But I have had this happen in sex clubs. I say I'm positive and want to bareback, they say OK, but then don't reveal their own status. So, wouldn't it STILL be immoral if I have unsafe sex with them, because they don't reveal? Maybe he's HIV-. I might be responsible in a remote chance, for a transmission. That would suck.
What if they say, "I am HIV- but if you are undetectable, I don't care, let's do it." This has happened to me via online meets, though not in sex clubs.
And what about the scenario of bareback parties? Everyone who goes in must still have the discussion before each act, in order to stay moral?
I think the people who are in favor of the 100% disclosure in all scenarios rule, are also the people who would never go to a bareback sex party....
-
*sigh* I don't care if it's the super barebacking sex party, the super fashion sex club, or the guy across the street you have begun dating. It's so hard to use condoms, or disclosing if you go bareback? you insist and insist on different "scenarios".
Flash news guys: Sex needs two or more persons, and by your logic, anyone who are doing these "special case" activities should be considered less than human, so we can stop worrying about ourselves infecting them.
...And now, you are taking the discussion to the oral sex field, wich has never resolved. Nice try, but I don't buy it. This thread is gross, we can expect a lot of laws criminalizing us pozzies because attitudes like yours.
Bravo.
-
...And now, you are taking the discussion to the oral sex field, wich has never resolved. Nice try, but I don't buy it.
It's not me who's saying there's a small risk to oral sex, but the medical and scientific experts. Are you disregarding their findings?
-
Coming home from work last night I saw the most beautiful kitten in the road. I was going to swerve to avoid hitting it until I realized I had no responsibility to protect it. SPLAT, and kept going.
It knew the risks.
Wolfie
-
>cough< I just trapped my fingers in my slide rule.
Is anyone going to answer the original question in a civil and thoughtful manner? It's a serious one and contains an important point about whether health care professionals are up-to-date on HIV prevention interventions.
- matt
Where has my pic gone!?!
-
Coming home from work last night I saw the most beautiful kitten in the road. I was going to swerve to avoid hitting it until I realized I had no responsibility to protect it. SPLAT, and kept going.
It knew the risks.
Wolfie
And the poor analogies keep on coming. ::)
-
Is anyone going to answer the original question in a civil and thoughtful manner?
If you have unprotected sex with strangers without disclosing your status would you then tell your sexual health doctor?
So, when asked by doctors/nurses, are you inclined to tell them the truth about your condomless encounters, or not?
Yes. I am completely honest with my PCP regarding my sexual behavior so he can give me the best possible care.
-
If you have unprotected sex with strangers without disclosing your status would you then tell your sexual health doctor?
Most of us can't answer a theoretical question. But if I had an encounter such as this, I would absolutely discuss it. My doctor is a gay man my same age who became a doctor specializing in HIV/AIDS because he witnessed the devastation this virus was doing to "HIS" community.
He works tirelessly in numerous aspects of research and treatment. I would expect total disgust from him that I potentially infected another person through my selfishness while he works to prevent the spread of this virus.
He also visited me several times a day in the hospital, where I was receiving infusions for almost a month straight because of an OI. He cared and invested a lot of time and energy to restore my health which he later told me that he wasn't confident I would pull through. So after all this treatment, if I put myself at risk for another STD, I'd expect more lectures. +
+
Wolfie
-
It's not me who's saying there's a small risk to oral sex, but the medical and scientific experts. Are you disregarding their findings?
So do you excuse your sociopath behavior with that?
-
To answer the OPs question.
Yes I would disclose to my doc, basically for the same reason GSOgymrat stated, I want the best care.
Disclosing....
I could never have unprotected sex unless I disclosed and partner was ok with it, not doing that would tax my ethics and morals way too much.
As for this thread and the heat its sad to see the discussion spiraling out of control and some members verbal abuse of each other. Keeping it civilized and with a proper netiquette would benefit all, not least this forum. Cant really see how you could convince and persuade someone by name calling and pushing them into a corner.
-
Is anyone going to answer the original question in a civil and thoughtful manner? It's a serious one and contains an important point about whether health care professionals are up-to-date on HIV prevention interventions.
OK.. the way I read the OP is that, putting myself in his shoes, so to speak, and use my manner of speaking:
I was having a regular checkup in the ID clinic and I told my doctor I just fucked a whole gangbang of random gay men in a sex club. Oh, and you know what, s/he got all upset like, and got into a 'stern' mode. I was like, doc, that's their choice right? And no, s/he was like, getting all educational, and telling me that I should let them know. I was like, seriously, live in the real world doc! No one says anything in a sex club, exact "yeah, fuck my hole", and "want me to cum inside, boy?".
But s/he kept going on and on all lecturer-like. I mean, next time I will just feed him/her some bullshit. I mean, why does s/he has to know. It's not like those docs and nurses have to deal with any gay men who got fucked up the asses by some raw cocks in sex clubs and getting converted. That could never happen, seriously, in a real world. And if some do get infected there, it's their own responsibility right? I mean, I probably don't get to see them again right? Not unless they're on a sling in a dark room.
Beside, why should I bother to give them a warning, for my own sake, when there's, like, a major big pox epidemic going on. It's not like pozzies show up in clinics with chancre sores or red spots all over their bodies, asking what the hell?!
Am I right in characterizing the OP?
-
Since you ask the question, you are perhaps exaggerating somewhat - matt
-
Since you ask the question, you are perhaps exaggerating somewhat - matt
Probably.. I confess I added the "fuck my hole" parts for affects.. :D
And the other pasquinades are just rephrasing the following discussions on being UD is as good as wearing condoms..
-
If I practiced what the OP initially described, yes, I would inform my doctor - particularly when she specifically asks about my sexual practices (use of condoms, etc) ---
This is so that she knows whether I have put myself at increased risk of other STDS (including the dayummmm syphilis, Hep C, etc.).
Now, if I did practice what the OP described, and informed my doctor, and if she "lectured or scolded" me on it - it either:
a) wouldn't bother me - because I have no conscience, no moral compass and don't give a damn what she says; or
b) it would bother me - because I know she is correct in what she is saying, that I was in the wrong for not disclosing and having unprotected sex and I would probably feel anger with her - but that would be because she had in essence "pulled my covers" and I would now have to deal w/ the guilt and shame of my lack of respect and responsibility for others; or
c) it would bother me solely because who the hell is this person to tell me what to do.... I can do whatever I want and do it again and again
For me..... it would be "B" - because I know that it is not right to have unprotected sex with someone and not reveal my status (no matter where it occurs and no matter what the actual level of risk of infection is or isn't)...
If someone doesn't have either the balls or the decency to let someone know so they can make an informed decision - then that person shouldn't be having sex.
Also, just like I used to tell high schoolers when talking to them about having adult conversations regarding sex, pregnancy, and STDs prior to having sexual activity... "this is a person that you are about to get butt ass naked with - if you can't have a degree of conversation or directly articulate thoughts/concerns in a discussion involving HIV, STDs, etc. --- then maybe, just maybe, you are not mature enough to be having sex...."
And I would say the same thing today - not only to high school students but also to those with degrees from ivy level schools....
-
It's not me who's saying there's a small risk to oral sex, but the medical and scientific experts. Are you disregarding their findings?
This is the way I view it.
1. Oral sex has always been, and continues to be, considered a very low, if a theoretical risk, whilst penetrative sex has always been, and is still, considered a ‘real risk’ of contracting HIV, meds or no meds, and especially if not on meds.
Whilst it is true that you’d be hard-pressed to find an expert or doctor to agree with you that oral sex is an ‘impossible route of transmission’ all will say it is not an effective route.
If oral sex presented a real and substantial risk of transmission there would be droves of women seroconverting through this route given that there are statistically significantly more women on this planet who perform fellatios than there are gay/bi men, as Ann rightfully pointed out on a previous oral sex transmission vector debate. People who assert having been infected via oral sex are nearly always gay men.
It’s noteworthy, and there’s something really odd, when not a single woman in the history of the epidemic has asserted having sero-converted this way (amirite?). It is seriously strange, and as per my mind’s internal logic- very persuasive evidence of the remoteness of oral sex as a transmission vector.
2. Contrast this with penetrative anal sex/ vaginal sex: Nearly ALL of us got infected this way.
Enter ARVs. As per the Swiss study: “An HIV infected individual without an additional STD and on ART with completely suppressed viraemia is sexually non-infectious”.
However, there have been recorded cases of transmission with an UD VL, and IMO, this significantly downgrades this study’s validity. Well, I am no expert, but even one transmission is enough to cast severe doubt over the aforesaid blanket statement.
Also, after having read through Dr. Martin Fisher’s presentation (alluded to above): he concluded that though ART reducing VL to UD significantly reduces transmission, transmission whilst undetectable may occur (rarely)- which has been the position of this forum since my joining.
Whilst I agree that condoms aren’t 100% effective, they mostly are. And again, as Ann said, if it rips, then there’s always the ‘grace period’ in which to notify the other party of PeP. How things actually pan out in this eventuality is another matter, but the fact this leeway exists with condoms means that it offers an added safety set.
Furthermore, it is crucial in this discussion to take note of the hidden demon in the room! : poz guys who are going around barebacking in dark rooms and sex clubs are most likely carriers of other, more easily transmittable STIs and thus, the Swiss Study in inapplicable to them in the first place. As carriers of other STIs, as most of these guys most likely are, these guys ARE sexually infectious as regards HIV.
Whichever way one spins it, to my mind, barebacking, meds or no meds, anonymous sex-club setting or otherwise, is morally reprehensible when done without disclosure. Although I understand that one should be prepared for the consequences of entering a sex club and engaging in the acts therein, this can not wash over our personal responsibilities of engaging in ‘safer sex’, of which a condom remains an essential seal (especially in an anonymous backroom type situation), one certainly more effective than meds.
As to whether I’d disclose this sort of behaviour to my doc? Yes, I would. I would also ask my doc for a referral to a shrink for my sake and that of others’ health. Serious.
-
Just to clarify, everyone who believes it is imperative to disclose ones status prior to unprotected anal sex, also believes the same in regard to oral sex? The person sucking on your knob has the right to make that decision for themselves?
-
*sigh* I don't care if it's the super barebacking sex party, the super fashion sex club, or the guy across the street you have begun dating. It's so hard to use condoms, or disclosing if you go bareback? you insist and insist on different "scenarios".
Flash news guys: Sex needs two or more persons, and by your logic, anyone who are doing these "special case" activities should be considered less than human, so we can stop worrying about ourselves infecting them.
...And now, you are taking the discussion to the oral sex field, wich has never resolved. Nice try, but I don't buy it. This thread is gross, we can expect a lot of laws criminalizing us pozzies because attitudes like yours.
Bravo.
Well said Raf, and to all the others who have replied with compassion and consideration for the safety and well being of others when it comes to sex, and being honest with their ID Docs and caring about their own health.
While the majority of the HIV community are trying to get rid of the Stigma and discrimination, it's selfish, idiots like Zohar who keep them alive and kicking.
Aroha
Jan :-*
-
Just to clarify, everyone who believes it is imperative to disclose ones status prior to unprotected anal sex, also believes the same in regard to oral sex? The person sucking on your knob has the right to make that decision for themselves?
Yes, this is the point that I've been driving at. Are people still as as adamant about disclosing when it comes to oral sex?
-
On content of consultation with my doc, for one I would expect him to respect me and treat me as a whole person, and particularly give concern to the risk to me of public sex environments, and try to understand their value to me as a starting point. I would trust him and be honest with him if he didn't get all huffy and was real about risk. Of course, this isn't really fair on said doc cos I undoubtedly would know more about HIV transmission than him, and he'd so be reported if he got de-person centred. But the approach should be the same for other people.
On the specific question of what is low and acceptable risk/protection, and therefore not of interest to his secondary concern about onward transmission, I would expect him if I was on meds with a suppressed viral load to equate sex without condoms as equally protective as sex with condoms and not being on meds. Which he does. Perhaps a caveat (though not believing it 100% himself) about other STIs. He is not remotely interested in oral. I am cautious about oral with a shot down the throat. He says I worry too much.
I would expect him to ask about poppers, as this may increase the risk. I would expect him to ask about frequency, specific risk situations and intention, plus other peoples actions.
I would also expect a referral to more intensive support if he saw a high risk and regular pattern, particularly I felt this was important, like there was mucho sex in backrooms I was not happy with for some reason. But if it was a one-off I would just expect him to ask me to get a full STD screen.
I would expect a discussion about partner numbers and partner reduction, in the context of HIV and other things.
I would also expect a lame-strong reinfection conversation which I would ignore.
If he didn't get a particular aspect of London gay life I would find a doc who does.
My doc always says "How's your sex life?" then "Do you think you have had any sex that may have passed on HIV?" he never asks "Have you had unprotected sex?" At some point condoms then usually come into the discussion, but he's interested in risk not technologies, up on the treatment is a good intervention to prevent HIV angle and considers things like numbers, frequency, my (good) sexual health record and the fact I am shagging a positive man.
Way back when, in the days I was in full 100% disclosure mode everywhere, I once told a guy who was about to fuck me without a condom in a horny bar that I was HIV positive. He said thank you very much, then 10 or so minutes later I watched him fuck someone else without a condom without so much as word being exchanged. This is when I decided to give up on the particular warmth and fraternity of the arches under the train station.
- matt
-
While the majority of the HIV community are trying to get rid of the Stigma and discrimination, it's selfish, idiots like Zohar who keep them alive and kicking.
Aroha
Jan :-*
I understand that this is an emotive subject but I still think we should be able to have a discussion without resorting to name calling and verbal abuse. I never expect everyone to agree and endorse my view (on any subject), but I'm not going to attack others because they don't share my opinion.
-
Dear moderators,
Please LOCK THIS THREAD.
Thanks
-
Just to clarify, everyone who believes it is imperative to disclose ones status prior to unprotected anal sex, also believes the same in regard to oral sex? The person sucking on your knob has the right to make that decision for themselves?
Yes, this is the point that I've been driving at. Are people still as as adamant about disclosing when it comes to oral sex?
Yes. I think if you asked people on the street if they would want to know that someone had HIV before having sex with them the answer would be strongly yes. I think most people would also be upset if they were told after having sex with someone that their partner had HIV, knew it and didn't disclose.
Sorry, but I don't see any reason not to disclose that you have HIV before having sex with someone.
-
I have never met anyone who was interested in "the discussion" before I went down on them or vice versa. Clearly other may have done more extensive field research. - matt
-
I have never met anyone who was interested in "the discussion" before I went down on them or vice versa. - matt
I can also echo that experience.
-
Yes, this is the point that I've been driving at. Are people still as as adamant about disclosing when it comes to oral sex?
If you consider consider receiving fellatio to be even in the general ballpark of HIV risk as insertive anal sex, then that is indeed a whole other discussion.
Rather than discuss tangential and imaginary scenarios, isn't it much more exciting to discuss stuff you actually DO?
Seems like several people here REALLY want this thread to be about anything other than the Original Post, even the Original Poster.
-
Well, aside from some people's resort to name calling (when their cognitive dissonance does not allow them to entertain two seemingly valid, yet seemingly contradictory, arguments in their head at the same time), I didn't find this thread a train wreck.
Made me think about the issues in the abstract and also in my own behavior.
-
Wow, I missed the whole discussion. Don't want to say much, but I actually agree with mecch. I think some of the outrage kinda repeated the "angry mob"-like comments we see on news related to HIV, like "you're the monster they talked about!". I think it's very dangerous to go down that road. And while I agree that we should tell someone what see as wrong, I disagree with much of the moral judgments passed around and the attempt to remove by force those with different views.
-
If you consider consider receiving fellatio to be even in the general ballpark of HIV risk as insertive anal sex, then that is indeed a whole other discussion.
Rather than discuss tangential and imaginary scenarios, isn't it much more exciting to discuss stuff you actually DO?
Seems like several people here REALLY want this thread to be about anything other than the Original Post, even the Original Poster.
Other people have driven the thread in a different direction than what I intended but that's often the nature of debate.
As for oral sex, tednlou2's point regarding are people always disclosing prior to oral sex in order to giving their partner a choice, rather than making that decision for them?
From what I've heard and read from other gay men who are negative, it's certainly not unusual for them to believe that people with HIV should always disclose their status, regardless of what type of sexual activity is going to take place. They want to be able to have the choice to NOT have any type of sex with someone who's positive. That isn't to say they will reject for that reason but they don't want someone else to make that decision on their behalf regardless of the actual risk.
But as we know, some people will always disclose, some will disclose some of the time, whilst others will never disclose. And this is why it's really not a black and white issue.
-
Also, I don't think it's a valid point to disclose because the other person "would have preferred to know". Yeah, of course they would, so they could spout all their prejudice and run to the hills.
PS: Not saying I'm against disclosure, I just don't think that's a valid reason to.
-
If you have unprotected sex with strangers without disclosing your status would you then tell your sexual health doctor?
If I fell into this group ^
Yes. But in 5 years she has never asked. Would I volunteer the info? yes, if I were worried I might ahve caught something.
-WI have never met anyone who was interested in "the discussion" before I went down on them or vice versa. - matt
Me either.
-
This is the way I view it.
1. Oral sex has always been, and continues to be, considered a very low, if a theoretical risk, whilst penetrative sex has always been, and is still, considered a ‘real risk’ of contracting HIV, meds or no meds, and especially if not on meds.
Whilst it is true that you’d be hard-pressed to find an expert or doctor to agree with you that oral sex is an ‘impossible route of transmission’ all will say it is not an effective route.
If oral sex presented a real and substantial risk of transmission there would be droves of women seroconverting through this route given that there are statistically significantly more women on this planet who perform fellatios than there are gay/bi men, as Ann rightfully pointed out on a previous oral sex transmission vector debate. People who assert having been infected via oral sex are nearly always gay men.
It’s noteworthy, and there’s something really odd, when not a single woman in the history of the epidemic has asserted having sero-converted this way (amirite?). It is seriously strange, and as per my mind’s internal logic- very persuasive evidence of the remoteness of oral sex as a transmission vector.
2. Contrast this with penetrative anal sex/ vaginal sex: Nearly ALL of us got infected this way.
Enter ARVs. As per the Swiss study: “An HIV infected individual without an additional STD and on ART with completely suppressed viraemia is sexually non-infectious”.
However, there have been recorded cases of transmission with an UD VL, and IMO, this significantly downgrades this study’s validity. Well, I am no expert, but even one transmission is enough to cast severe doubt over the aforesaid blanket statement.
Also, after having read through Dr. Martin Fisher’s presentation (alluded to above): he concluded that though ART reducing VL to UD significantly reduces transmission, transmission whilst undetectable may occur (rarely)- which has been the position of this forum since my joining.
Whilst I agree that condoms aren’t 100% effective, they mostly are. And again, as Ann said, if it rips, then there’s always the ‘grace period’ in which to notify the other party of PeP. How things actually pan out in this eventuality is another matter, but the fact this leeway exists with condoms means that it offers an added safety set.
Furthermore, it is crucial in this discussion to take note of the hidden demon in the room! : poz guys who are going around barebacking in dark rooms and sex clubs are most likely carriers of other, more easily transmittable STIs and thus, the Swiss Study in inapplicable to them in the first place. As carriers of other STIs, as most of these guys most likely are, these guys ARE sexually infectious as regards HIV.
Whichever way one spins it, to my mind, barebacking, meds or no meds, anonymous sex-club setting or otherwise, is morally reprehensible when done without disclosure. Although I understand that one should be prepared for the consequences of entering a sex club and engaging in the acts therein, this can not wash over our personal responsibilities of engaging in ‘safer sex’, of which a condom remains an essential seal (especially in an anonymous backroom type situation), one certainly more effective than meds.
As to whether I’d disclose this sort of behaviour to my doc? Yes, I would. I would also ask my doc for a referral to a shrink for my sake and that of others’ health. Serious.
I was about to spend about half an hour once AGAIN typing about a three thousand response to this, writing exactly the same stuff I have written, often in a reply to Newt, about this very topic. Which, by the way, has never not once led to any real discussion but rather a seeming dismissal of the serodiscordant studies as well as AIDSMEDS' own safer sex education in the AM I IMPLACABLE forum.
And then you go and scoop it our of my head.
God/dess bless you. Now I can finish making my very special oatmeal cookies.
*edited to add: and can we please say "receptive fellatio" instead of oral? I know it takes longer, but that's the only "oral sex" that we are talking about here, and it might be confusing to some who don't understand that.
BTW, I have had many frank sexual discussions with my doctor. Never once gotten a lecture though. Antibiotics at times. I suppose he just respects my intellect and understanding of the science, since we talk that as well. Then again I can list my adversarial relationships on one hand and still have fingers to diddle myself.
OK, finger. But I choose the finger.
-
Wow, I missed the whole discussion. Don't want to say much, but I actually agree with mecch. I think some of the outrage kinda repeated the "angry mob"-like comments we see on news related to HIV, like "you're the monster they talked about!". I think it's very dangerous to go down that road. And while I agree that we should tell someone what see as wrong, I disagree with much of the moral judgments passed around and the attempt to remove by force those with different views.
I will attempt to remove, by any means necessary, a threat to myself or the people I care about. I will also admit to having a sense of attachment to this support forum, which has yet to be equaled on the interwebs. I consider Zohar's attitude in his multiple flame-baiting postings to be a threat, for exactly the reasons eloquently pointed out above that I shall not belabor to reprint.
I sincerely hope you care that much about something you deem important.
-
Also, I don't think it's a valid point to disclose because the other person "would have preferred to know". Yeah, of course they would, so they could spout all their prejudice and run to the hills.
PS: Not saying I'm against disclosure, I just don't think that's a valid reason to.
I don't think it's a valid reason either, but what this brings into focus is that morality functions in shades of grey and is subjective. A line that you won't cross, someone else may breach without a thought, and vice versa.
-
I will attempt to remove, by any means necessary, a threat to myself or the people I care about. I will also admit to having a sense of attachment to this support forum, which has yet to be equaled on the interwebs. I consider Zohar's attitude in his multiple flame-baiting postings to be a threat, for exactly the reasons eloquently pointed out above that I shall not belabor to reprint.
I sincerely hope you care that much about something you deem important.
Well, first of all, what I'll say is just my perception of it all, which may be right or wrong.
I think you do a wonderful job here at the forum, especially at the AMI section, so I can understand your attachment. But I myself don't see Zohar as a threat or something... I mean, we know this sort of thing happens, even though we might disagree with it. So I do think you, and a few others, might have gone overboard while dealing with it (not making whatever Zohar, Livewithit, etc, did or said any better or more acceptable).
I think it's healthy we discuss this with a cool head, because morality is, above all, a very personal thing. And the very fact that there is so much stigma related to HIV is not because of the misbehavior of a few people, but because some people like to impose their morality on others. So, in my case, while I can see having unprotected sex at a sex club without disclosing as not the ideal course of action, I do not see it as the act of a monster or whatever.
So I get the feeling that some people get influenced by hatemongers and end up reproducing their beliefs in some ways even unwillingly.
-
So, in my case, while I can see having unprotected sex at a sex club without disclosing as not the ideal course of action, I do not see it as the act of a monster or whatever.
So, you don't see wrong to infect someone with a virus that you already know you have.
-
So, you don't see wrong to infect someone with a virus that you already know you have.
Don't be dishonest and twist my words. Doing something wrong doesn't make someone a monster. That's a very black and white, "Good vs Evil" kind of mentality that is despicable and imposed by the worst kind of people.
-
Don't be dishonest and twist my words. Doing something wrong doesn't make someone a monster. That's a very black and white, "Good vs Evil" kind of mentality that is despicable and imposed by the worst kind of people.
The worst kind of people is whoever infects with this virus knowingly, and do nothing about it.
-
The worst kind of people is whoever infects with this virus knowingly, and do nothing about it.
So what are your thoughts on people who engage in oral sex without disclosing their status?
-
The worst kind of people is whoever infects with this virus knowingly, and do nothing about it.
See how morality is a very personal thing? Zohar might be the worst kind of person in your book, and you might be the worst kind of person in mine.
That aside, I think it's a very, very long stretch to say someone UD having unprotected sex with someone of unknown status at the sex club is "infecting him knowingly". And the reason why has been dissected all over this topic.
-
That aside, I think it's a very, very long stretch to say someone UD having unprotected sex with someone of unknown status at the sex club is "infecting him knowingly". And the reason why has been dissected all over this topic.
Actually, I was infected by someone whose VL was (and still is) UD.... so, for those who say it is rare that it occurs..... tell that to the person who is infected and was with someone who had an undetectable VL...
Also, we have been discussing the other person (the negative) and our responsibility to disclose and not infect.... so, I guess the question I would ask.... even knowing that we all share in a responsibility for our own infections (for the most part)..... How might your life be different had the person you were infected by disclosed to you prior to having sex? Would you have still had unprotected sex with the person? Would you have still had any type of sex with him/her? Would you have been angry if they disclosed prior to having unprotected sex with you? Do you feel that even though we take responsibility for our infections, he/she still had a responsibility to disclose their status to you (whether it was a long term relationship or anonymous sex in the backroom of a sex club)?
Since the scope of discussion seems to have been redirected and expanded - it would be interesting to get an honest response regarding thoughts of those who see no need to disclose prior to barebacking - how they would feel if the symbolic shoe was on the other foot.
-
Actually, I was infected by someone whose VL was (and still is) UD.... so, for those who say it is rare that it occurs..... tell that to the person who is infected and was with someone who had an undetectable VL...
Also, we have been discussing the other person (the negative) and our responsibility to disclose and not infect.... so, I guess the question I would ask.... even knowing that we all share in a responsibility for our own infections (for the most part)..... How might your life be different had the person you were infected by disclosed to you prior to having sex? Would you have still had unprotected sex with the person? Would you have still had any type of sex with him/her? Would you have been angry if they disclosed prior to having unprotected sex with you? Do you feel that even though we take responsibility for our infections, he/she still had a responsibility to disclose their status to you (whether it was a long term relationship or anonymous sex in the backroom of a sex club)?
Since the scope of discussion seems to have been redirected and expanded - it would be interesting to get an honest response regarding thoughts of those who see no need to disclose prior to barebacking - how they would feel if the symbolic shoe was on the other foot.
Well, never said it was impossible to get infected while UD. Although I'm uncertain of the variables needed for it to take place.
Now, I don't think that there is no need to disclose prior to barebacking. But I see very different situations if you are at a sex club or with someone you met at a bar.
Nevertheless, answering your questions, the person who infected me didn't know about his infection. If he did, and didn't tell me, I would still blame myself. However, I did ask him and if he told me he was neg (but knew he was poz), I would perhaps be a bit angry, but still blame myself in the end because you can't trust people with that. In fact, he did tell me he was neg, but he didn't really know. I don't blame him for that.
Now, if he told me beforehand, I wouldn't bareback for sure; as for sex, I don't know, it could just break the mood. I would rather he didn't tell me and just used a condom instead, saying something like: "I think I'm neg, but since you're worried about it, it would be better to use a condom".
The only situation I would be really mad is in a long term relationship. Like, if he/she knew he was poz and let bareback sex happen anyway after some time. Otherwise, I take full responsibility for my own infection.
-
So what are your thoughts on people who engage in oral sex without disclosing their status?
You say "oral sex."
Do you mean receptive cunnilingus? Because I don't know what's in your head.
-
Actually, I was infected by someone whose VL was (and still is) UD.... so, for those who say it is rare that it occurs..... tell that to the person who is infected and was with someone who had an undetectable VL...
Also, we have been discussing the other person (the negative) and our responsibility to disclose and not infect.... so, I guess the question I would ask.... even knowing that we all share in a responsibility for our own infections (for the most part)..... How might your life be different had the person you were infected by disclosed to you prior to having sex? Would you have still had unprotected sex with the person? Would you have still had any type of sex with him/her? Would you have been angry if they disclosed prior to having unprotected sex with you? Do you feel that even though we take responsibility for our infections, he/she still had a responsibility to disclose their status to you (whether it was a long term relationship or anonymous sex in the backroom of a sex club)?
Since the scope of discussion seems to have been redirected and expanded - it would be interesting to get an honest response regarding thoughts of those who see no need to disclose prior to barebacking - how they would feel if the symbolic shoe was on the other foot.
I was always aware of the risks, and don't hold the person who infected me responsible.
The reality is, there's no such thing as risk-free sex and never has been. You're rolling the dice with every encounter you have.
-
I understand that this is an emotive subject but I still think we should be able to have a discussion without resorting to name calling and verbal abuse. I never expect everyone to agree and endorse my view (on any subject), but I'm not going to attack others because they don't share my opinion.
Then try and understand that for the last 10 years I have spent many, many years/months/weeks/days/hours through out New Zealand and abroad educating those who have no idea what it's like to be stigmatized or discriminated against because we are living with HIV, and who keep blaming us for spreading this virus, I do this by telling them that the HIV community in NZ stand up and take responsibility for their actions and their own health, as well as the health of others, by only engaging in safe sex, and make sure the virus stops with them
I think for the most part by putting my face and voice out there I have managed to turn things around here in NZ, I take pride in knowing that I have made a difference on how my community now reacts to this virus, both here and around the world, that I have managed to educate them and they now understand and show compassion for those of us who are living with HIV.....then I come across this thread...how the hell do you expect me to react believe me if I didn't care so much about this forum my language and name calling would have been a friggin sight worse, I have never been so angry at anyone in this forum than I am with you right now.
Jan
-
I was always aware of the risks, and don't hold the person who infected me responsible.
The reality is, there's no such thing as risk-free sex and never has been. You're rolling the dice with every encounter you have.
Especially when there are people out there who will fuck you raw when they know they're poz and won't even tell you they are; which was what I thought the original topic of this thread was about.
-
Especially when there are people out there who will fuck you raw when they know they're poz and won't even tell you they are; which was what I thought the original topic of this thread was about.
It was, until some posters decided that the original intent of this thread was not evolving to their tastes.
-
I don't hold the person I was infected from responsible at all -
as I was told he was positive, was in a serodiscordant relationship - in which we both only half-hazardly used protection....
So, I am responsible for my infection -
My point was that anyone who puts less emphasis on the need for disclosure when barebacking because of being UD is not taking into account that people who are UD can still infect others...
The bigger point I am trying to make is that just because there are people on here who may have been infected by someone who didn't disclose - that still doesn't give them license or moral right to not disclose when they know they are positive and are getting ready to have unprotected sex...
As has been said at nauseum here.... the power to stop HIV infections rest in large part with those of us who are positive - there is a moral sense of obligation to know this, understand what it means, and to practice it in our actions. Or are you really okay with saying "oh well, it was their fault, they wanted me to have unprotected sex with them or they didn't ask me my status so I didn't tell... " or are you really that insecure in yourself that you feel that you are such damaged goods that no one would want you if you told prior to having sex (or is it really just about being able to bust that nut in an anonymous ass that is so important that the other person's life really just doesn't matter - cause if that is the case, that is really revealing about the overall character of a person - no matter how you cut it).
-
Now I understand why the LTS say that is alarming how many people don't know the horrors of the 80s, and think that being UD gives free pass to have all the unprotected sex they want.
I don't hold the person I was infected from responsible at all -
as I was told he was positive, was in a serodiscordant relationship - in which we both only half-hazardly used protection....
So, I am responsible for my infection -
My point was that anyone who puts less emphasis on the need for disclosure when barebacking because of being UD is not taking into account that people who are UD can still infect others...
The bigger point I am trying to make is that just because there are people on here who may have been infected by someone who didn't disclose - that still doesn't give them license or moral right to not disclose when they know they are positive and are getting ready to have unprotected sex...
As has been said at nauseum here.... the power to stop HIV infections rest in large part with those of us who are positive - there is a moral sense of obligation to know this, understand what it means, and to practice it in our actions. Or are you really okay with saying "oh well, it was their fault, they wanted me to have unprotected sex with them or they didn't ask me my status so I didn't tell... " or are you really that insecure in yourself that you feel that you are such damaged goods that no one would want you if you told prior to having sex (or is it really just about being able to bust that nut in an anonymous ass that is so important that the other person's life really just doesn't matter - cause if that is the case, that is really revealing about the overall character of a person - no matter how you cut it).
well said phil.
-
Now I understand why the LTS say that is alarming how many people don't know the horrors of the 80s, and think that being UD gives free pass to have all the unprotected sex they want.
After watching scores of my friends, die from AIDS, I could never, ever, knowingly infect another human being with HIV. Does this make me something special? I don't know. What I do know, is I have to live with myself and that means never being the cause of another human dying from AIDS.
Joe
-
Then try and understand that for the last 10 years I have spent many, many years/months/weeks/days/hours through out New Zealand and abroad educating those who have no idea what it's like to be stigmatized or discriminated against because we are living with HIV, and who keep blaming us for spreading this virus, I do this by telling them that the HIV community in NZ stand up and take responsibility for their actions and their own health, as well as the health of others, by only engaging in safe sex, and make sure the virus stops with them
I think for the most part by putting my face and voice out there I have managed to turn things around here in NZ, I take pride in knowing that I have made a difference on how my community now reacts to this virus, both here and around the world, that I have managed to educate them and they now understand and show compassion for those of us who are living with HIV.....then I come across this thread...how the hell do you expect me to react believe me if I didn't care so much about this forum my language and name calling would have been a friggin sight worse, I have never been so angry at anyone in this forum than I am with you right now.
Jan
Thank you Jan!
All the statistics and scenarios that have been raised here, may be true -- or may be rationalizations, I'm not sure. What I do know is that stigma is real. Fucking someone raw, without disclosing is only going to make it worse -- whether transmission can or does occur. That is the simple fact -- that is the reality in which we all live. Right, wrong or indifferent.
We have a tough road ahead of us to help end that stigma. We can recite all the stats and studies in the world and it won't make one iota of difference to the public at large if we are seen as being liars (even lies of omission) who are more concerned with getting our rocks off than in trying to stop this disease.
I am still mystified by all the mental gymnastics going on by some folks to justify behavior that, even if it doesn't result in an infection, results in keeping ALL OF US locked up in this god-awful stigma. There is nothing wrong with having and enjoying sex -- all the sex you want -- anywhere you want -- JUST BE RESPONSIBLE! And if you partner/trick/fuck buddy can't be responsible for their own well-being, than you can help by owning up to your own responsiblity and not saying -- "oh well -- he should know better" or "oh well - if he is willing to bareback, he's probably already, or soon will be poz anyway". It's not morality (which I equate with religion), it's basic human decency.
Mike
-
See how morality is a very personal thing? Zohar might be the worst kind of person in your book, and you might be the worst kind of person in mine.
That aside, I think it's a very, very long stretch to say someone UD having unprotected sex with someone of unknown status at the sex club is "infecting him knowingly". And the reason why has been dissected all over this topic.
I don't think it's a valid reason either, but what this brings into focus is that morality functions in shades of grey and is subjective. A line that you won't cross, someone else may breach without a thought, and vice versa.
Ah Bless!!
I just woke up to find out this thread has morphed into a thread on ‘moral relativism’. Well done.
This discussion is not about personal morals, or about what works for others need not apply to you.
This is not a variant of the French Burkha-Ban Debate Part 2!
This is about what is RIGHT or WRONG in Absolute Terms, on a balance of probabilities, taking into account longstanding scientific evidence and data, as well as the vital and inextricably linked issues of ‘stigma & criminalization’ that HIV+ people are confronted with. These matters are wedded to our collective notions of personal responsibility and the public perception thereof. Whether or not you like it. Whether or not you see it.
If moral relativism is the line you’re pushing forward (Zohar, LM), then you ought to know that human beings are, and have been, capable of justifying virtually ANYTHING to be right, from murder to slavery.
Even if the science has evolved to a point where UD VL = to condom use (although I remain unconvinced for reasons mentioned in my previous post), public attitudes, medical/public health worker attitudes (INCLUDING the stance of this forum) and importantly, the laws HAVE NOT. And for good reason, to my mind.
And this is the crux of it.
If something untoward were to happen in one of these sexual encounters, you could shout and scream, run around flapping your arms all you want about scientific data, but the courts and the public are not going to buy it. You’re going to be burnt at the stake regardless (or the criminal court). If anything were to go wrong, you’d be branded a miscreant of the worst kind, and in that you’d drag the rest of us down with you.
The personal act of barebacking without disclosure ceases to be a personal one when it affects us all, as it plainly does- for reasons Bocker, Jan, Phil, JK and others have already stated. It is not only about you being at ease with your darkroom dalliances, it is that you couldn’t care less about the repercussions that could ensue (and I can imagine several even in the absence of transmission) and the potential of these consequences branding us all.
In 2012, the condom remains the hallmark of ‘safer sex’. This is not an opinion. Whether or not you agree is beside the point. Whether or not this message should change is also irrelevant today. The ground reality dictates that you wrap up.
Is putting a condom really so much of a problem?
-
Then try and understand that for the last 10 years I have spent many, many years/months/weeks/days/hours through out New Zealand and abroad educating those who have no idea what it's like to be stigmatized or discriminated against because we are living with HIV, and who keep blaming us for spreading this virus, I do this by telling them that the HIV community in NZ stand up and take responsibility for their actions and their own health, as well as the health of others, by only engaging in safe sex, and make sure the virus stops with them
I think for the most part by putting my face and voice out there I have managed to turn things around here in NZ, I take pride in knowing that I have made a difference on how my community now reacts to this virus, both here and around the world, that I have managed to educate them and they now understand and show compassion for those of us who are living with HIV.....then I come across this thread...how the hell do you expect me to react believe me if I didn't care so much about this forum my language and name calling would have been a friggin sight worse, I have never been so angry at anyone in this forum than I am with you right now.
Jan
And I would hope that no matter how much stigma you've challenged, or how angry you've been when educating people, you haven't resorted to name calling.
-
And I would hope that no matter how much stigma you've challenged, or how angry you've been when educating people, you haven't resorted to name calling.
All of us would be able to tell you that it really takes a lot of rankling to upset our Jan, who's a known advocate of patient rights and have been educating the public and humanizing the disease for years in NZ. So I suggest you to stop there and at least show enough decency to respect someone whose hard works you're trying to trivialize.
And for what? We've gone through these "morality" questions of whether to tell or how much to tell hundreds of times here. So I think Newt was right - let's go back to your OP, which as far as I can tell is that you were simply irritated because your doc was just trying to tell you there was a line which couldn't be crossed.
You haven't given us enough details on the discussions, but having to deal with those doctors and nurses for years, they almost ALWAYS set the caution bar high. One of the most caring and effective nurses in my clinic still tell me that there's a chance to transmit HIV through oral sex - I disagree, but at least I know she means well, and this is what you can expect the healthcare folks to say, because, HIV or not, they don't want to see us coming back to them with another STD.
Were you expecting your doc to just say, right on, go ahead, fuck as many raw holes as possible? And why does that bother you at all, if you were so committed to this notion that UD is as safe as condom and even if it isn't it's none of your responsible. Is it because there's some lingering doubt that out of dozens of those holes you've fucked (that night?), there might have been one that you've infected?
I don't know. But seriously, the way I read your OP and subsequent posts, it's really just about you don't want to be told you've done something wrong, even outrageous, to some people. And if you really believe in all those things you've said, your reactions here so far tell me otherwise.
-
And I would hope that no matter how much stigma you've challenged, or how angry you've been when educating people, you haven't resorted to name calling.
Please do AVOID the subject of stigma and your actions to maintain it.
In this thread we've had a number of "misdirects" by you and your supporters:
1. The neg guy "knew" the risks
2. It's a sex club
3. Not everyone knows they are poz, so it's ONLY the neg person's responsibility
4. It's just a difference of opinion
5. Transmission is unlikely
6. People don't always disclose for oral sex (insertive fellatio -- for JK ;) )
7. What if........ pick your scenario
8. Bad analogies (specifics too different, perhaps, but overall they were pretty apt, for the astute)
9. Your mean
10. Your calling me names
Why not simply address what you are avoiding. STIGMA and Public Health
Finally -- I'll answer your OP (although, I suppose I should throw that in the misdirect list, as many thread evolve).
Your doctor was RIGHT to lecture you about your responsibility to not spread this virus. Perhaps, he could have used a better tone -- if I am to believe your take on his reaction. I am not, given your attitude, convinced that he was "harsh". Some part of you must believe you did the wrong thing (else, why post this thread), but the frontal lobes seem to be rebelling from this possibility -- hence the misdirects. So, it's very possible that you are simply overstating his reaction. (there -- now you can avoid everything I wrote, except the part about how your doc reacted)
Mike
-
All of us would be able to tell you that it really takes a lot of rankling to upset our Jan, who's a known advocate of patient rights and have been educating the public and humanizing the disease for years in NZ. So I suggest you to stop there and at least show enough decency to respect someone whose hard works you're trying to trivialize.
And for what? We've gone through these "morality" questions of whether to tell or how much to tell hundreds of times here. So I think Newt was right - let's go back to your OP, which as far as I can tell is that you were simply irritated because your doc was just trying to tell you there was a line which couldn't be crossed.
You haven't given us enough details on the discussions, but having to deal with those doctors and nurses for years, they almost ALWAYS set the caution bar high. One of the most caring and effective nurses in my clinic still tell me that there's a chance to transmit HIV through oral sex - I disagree, but at least I know she means well, and this is what you can expect the healthcare folks to say, because, HIV or not, they don't want to see us coming back to them with another STD.
Were you expecting your doc to just say, right on, go ahead, fuck as many raw holes as possible? And why does that bother you at all, if you were so committed to this notion that UD is as safe as condom and even if it isn't it's none of your responsible. Is it because there's some lingering doubt that out of dozens of those holes you've fucked (that night?), there might have been one that you've infected?
I don't know. But seriously, the way I read your OP and subsequent posts, it's really just about you don't want to be told you've done something wrong, even outrageous, to some people. And if you really believe in all those things you've said, your reactions here so far tell me otherwise.
The way things read and they way they actually are, can be two different things. I simply wanted to know how people respond to questions about sex from their doctors. That's it. But hey, here we are.
So much of what has been written here is people making judgements and assumptions and attempting to demonise me and turn me into an 'HIV monster'. This seems to happen a fair bit amongst people who are HIV positive. It's as if they feel they can atone for their own past 'sins' and their own 'bad' behaviour which led to them becoming infected, by attacking those whose actions they don't agree with.
And yet, it is all relative.
As we've seen during this discussion, people are taking issue with the studies that show that oral sex isn't 100% risk free, and thus feel comfortable with the decision not to disclose. But, trust me, on general gay forums, anyone with HIV who makes that assertion will be shouted down in just as shrill a manner as I have been here. Indeed, to many negative people, non-disclosure equals 'sociopath', even when protection is used ('OMFG!!!! WHAT IF THE CONDOM HAD BROKEN??!!!!!')
So, yeah. My morality is better than yours. Well, maybe not. Perhaps the only way of circumventing this issue is for everyone who's diagnosed with HIV to automatically have their forehead etched with a biohazard tattoo. I'm being facetious, of course, but you get the idea.
-
I am not, given your attitude, convinced that he was "harsh". Some part of you must believe you did the wrong thing (else, why post this thread), but the frontal lobes seem to be rebelling from this possibility -- hence the misdirects. So, it's very possible that you are simply overstating his reaction. (there -- now you can avoid everything I wrote, except the part about how your doc reacted)
Mike
''Harsh''? Can you direct me to that post so I can see the context, as I don't actually recall saying that?
-
Simple question Zohar, do you think it's ok for positive people to infect others with HIV? If your answer is yes, then I suppose there really is nothing to discuss here. If no, what makes you the exception?
-
I simply wanted to know how people respond to questions about sex from their doctors. That's it.
I tell my doctor the absolute truth. He knows that my poz bf and I (he treats both of us) don't use condoms with each other and he's fine with that. He knows that on the rare occasions we have sex outside our relationship, we both disclose and use condoms regardless of our VL. He's fine with that as well.
We both get yearly STI screening. So far, those screenings have not revealed any new STIs and I don't expect them to, because we use condoms outside our relationship. And disclose. Did I mention that? We both ALWAYS disclose.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - the more we hide, the more we HAVE to hide and I've been reminded of that phrase many times during this thread. Hiding our hiv status - particularly while engaging activities that have the possibility of transmitting the virus to someone else - adds to the stigma we face.
The hiv negative people in the world have the responsibility to protect themselves. The hiv positive people in the world have the responsibility to not spread their virus. It's a shared responsibility, but just because one person shirks that responsibility doesn't mean it's right for me to shirk mine. Can't get much more simple than that and as Mike said, it's not a matter of morality, it's a matter of simple human decency.
-
Simple question Zohar, do you think it's ok for positive people to infect others with HIV? If your answer is yes, then I suppose there really is nothing to discuss here. If no, what makes you the exception?
That's not quite the 'simple question' it first appears to be.
If the accused had simply not mentioned they are HIV positive, then the prosecution would probably argue that they had been reckless by not disclosing their status and not informing their partner of the risks involved in intercourse. However, the defence could well counter this by saying that the balance of responsibility is 50:50, and that by agreeing to having unprotected sex, the ‘victim’ effectively consented to all the risks involved, including that of HIV.
The argument that non-disclosure equals guilt could potentially even be applied if the person on trial had used a condom. Some say that sex with a condom, but without disclosure of status should also count as reckless transmission. This is because condoms are not always 100% effective. If a condom fails, and an individual becomes infected with HIV, there is potential for that person to accuse their partner of being 'reckless' for having withheld information that may have influenced their decision to have sex.
The quotes above are germane to the discussion, and are taken from a fuller discussion around transmission here:
http://www.avert.org/criminal-transmission.htm
-
That's not quite the 'simple question' it first appears to be.
And you didn't even come close to answering his question. You started talking about disclosure when his question had nothing to do with disclosure. He asked you a simple - yes, simple - yes or no question:
"do you think it's ok for positive people to infect others with HIV?"
Yes or no?
Answers on a postcard, please.
-
And you didn't even come close to answering his question. You started talking about disclosure when his question had nothing to do with disclosure. He asked you a simple - yes, simple - yes or no question:
"do you think it's ok for positive people to infect others with HIV?"
Yes or no?
Answers on a postcard, please.
Ann, may I please ask you why is this thread allowed to go on ad nauseum when we've had nothing but creative culpability contortions, and dredging up of all sorts of statistical straw men by the OP.
The OP already made his stand unequivocally clear when he said this:
I don't think I have made a mistake and, thus, would do the same thing again.
-
And the OP still did not answer skeebo's question - which was directed for the OP to answer specifically as it pertains to him.... not to some third-party, not to some court case argument... but to HIM.
What is so difficult about responding?
Oh that's right.... you previously did..... by basically saying - to paraphrase "you don't give a fuck about infected others with HIV."
Hmmm.... and people wonder why there is stigma, prejudice, and discrimination....
People wonder why there is a fear of disclosure; people wonder why there is criminalization; people wonder why there are some who say, "just let those with HIV/AIDS die"
-
Ann, may I please ask you why is this thread allowed to go on ad nauseum
We've let this discussion go on because it's a discussion that needs to be had.
The fact that some people are taking the Swiss Statement as license to bareback without disclosure needs to be addressed.
It might not be a discussion we like having, but how are we ever going to reach people and get them to think about their behaviour - and its implications - unless we talk about it?
-
And I would hope that no matter how much stigma you've challenged, or how angry you've been when educating people, you haven't resorted to name calling.
Yes, because name calling is absolutely the worst thing that's going on in this thread. The name calling. Yup.
I submit that if you had a thin skin, you would not spend so much time flame-baiting these forums.
-
I could never, ever, knowingly infect another human being with HIV. Does this make me something special? I don't know.
You are a dove, a saint, if you will.
-
Yes, because name calling is absolutely the worst thing that's going on in this thread. The name calling. Yup.
Aren't name calling and making personal attacks against the forum's rules? That was my understanding anyway. I've already made it clear that I don't expect people to agree with me, but I see no reason why we can't remain civil, even in moments of frustration which, believe it or not, do cut both ways.
-
Aren't name calling and making personal attacks against the forum's rules? That was my understanding anyway. I've already made it clear that I don't expect people to agree with me, but I see no reason why we can't remain civil, even in moments of frustration which, believe it or not, do cut both ways.
Believe it or not, there is even a time and place for uncivil behavior.
Even name calling and obscenity. I do neither of those things haphazardly. Neither do any of the people who seem to have made some members butthurt.
Perhaps if they rose from their aforementioned hurt butts and actively strove to better their world, they would have an understanding of the frustration that arises when people display overt sociopathy and callous disregard for their fellow persons, their communities, and in some cases, the very forum that gives them the freedom to jeopardize it.
But alas, some are content to pock people with a stick, then act outraged when they are instructed, often loudly, to shove said stick.
Because it's always been REALLY about the reactions, right?
Your misdirections in this forum - and the misdirections of others - and abject refusal to even answer the simplest direct question - point not to naivete, ignorance of affect or even apathy. They point to deliberation. The name calling? Compared to other threads, it's been totally PG.
I won't dare speak for any others, but having been warned, I will say two things more about that:
A) I shall endeavor to tie whatever linguistic knots I need to tie in order to avoid further reprimand.
B) I stand wholly by each and every word I have written, even in frustration. My disdain for your greasy attempt to paint yourself as a victim of bullying is causing my Norvir to stick in my throat.
Odd that someone with such callous disregard for strangers in whom he is putting his spunk seems so very delicate when stirring up flames on an anonymous internet message board. You'd think it would be the other way around.
-
Barebacking without disclosure/consent is never appropriate. That being said, there are a couple of ways to ensure safer sex. A.) Always use condoms B.) Be loyal in a monogamous relationship where both partners know the deal etc.
All this thread has accomplished is proving the obvious. There are some who will run around barebacking putting others at risk regardless (See A.) There are others who because of a moral* conviction would never knowingly put anyone at risk. There are also internet trolls who will say and do some pretty incredulous stuff just to whip everyone up into a frenzy.
*mor·al [mawr-uhl, mor-]
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
-
That's not quite the 'simple question' it first appears to be.
The question asked of you really was quite simple:
do you think it's ok for positive people to infect others with HIV?"
You are just not choosing to answer. You weren't asked whether you thought it was a crime to infect others with HIV. You were asked whether you thought it was OK for positive people to infect others. As Ann said above, what's your answer? Yes or No?
Can you answer straightforwardly? Or will you go off on another tangent?
-
You are a dove, a saint, if you will.
No, I'm no saint, just another pozzie like everyone else here. When I tested poz in 1985, I began to realize that becoming poz brings with it, it's own set of requirements. One of those was a duty, no a life mission, to make sure that my infection stopped with me. If you have ever watched anyone dying of AIDS, it's horror personified. It's a horror you will never forget. If you have ever watched, as the life leaves someone... well, how can anyone witness such a thing... and not be changed?
As I have aged, I've watched the spectrum of HIV/AIDS change dramatically, yet none of that really matters to me. At some point, each of us must stand and be counted in how we conduct our lives. For me, when someone comes here and posts feelings that border on homicidal, I expect to happen, exactly what happened in this thread and I would expect no less. That's because the majority of the folks here are decent human beings and they have learned, through their infection, that life demands from them a higher calibre of character.
They are able to transcend the need for self-preservation only and hold absolutely no doubts, as to their infection stopping with them. Zohar, I think that is what you may not understand. Nobody here is proclaiming to be superior, however we do question your morales. Personally, I cannot fathom how you can make the callous statements you make, without it making your skin crawl. I feel dirty simply replying to your post. It's why I have remained in the background, but no longer.
You seem unable to grasp the idea that we are responsible for what we do, whether we like it or not. We have an incurable disease that can and will kill us, if we give it the chance. Even with the current treatments, AIDS continues to kill millions of people. How you can be so blasé about your possibility infecting others, is beyond my grasp and I suspect the majority of the other posters. It's your attitude that I find revolting, as if you have no responsibility to never infect another human being with your infection.
This is all I have to offer, because nothing anyone says here, can change the darkness in your soul. Your own words expose a darkness that is simply too deep for anyone here to fathom.
It's not like we didn't try.
Joe
-
This discussion is not about personal morals, or about what works for others need not apply to you.
This is not a variant of the French Burkha-Ban Debate Part 2!
This is about what is RIGHT or WRONG in Absolute Terms, on a balance of probabilities, taking into account longstanding scientific evidence and data, as well as the vital and inextricably linked issues of ‘stigma & criminalization’ that HIV+ people are confronted with. These matters are wedded to our collective notions of personal responsibility and the public perception thereof. Whether or not you like it. Whether or not you see it.
I get the feeling you (and a few other people) might be eager to defend criminalization. You know why it's a question of personal morals? Because many (probably most) HIV- people think we are monsters even if we use condoms. And hey, there IS a risk of infection even using condoms, right?
Also, I think there is a huge misunderstanding of the stigma of HIV. The stigma and prejudice related to HIV are not because one person or another sleeps around infecting others. It's simply because people are ignorant and like to judge others. That's it.
Take homophobia, for instance. Some of the main "arguments" for people that hate homosexuals is that gays are "promiscuous and have AIDS" (Paris Hilton, anyone?). So, should we throw stones at a gay guy every time he sleeps around or gets HIV? "You see, you're the reason they think we are like this!!" and stuff?
See what I mean?
Now, I think I made it clear before that I don't think having bareback sex with someone of an unknown status is the right thing to do. But I don't think it warrants being called a monster, sociopath, etc. I think that sort of reprimand replicates the same hatemongering speech that is used against us.
So, in my opinion, I think the most reasonable thing to say in those cases is something like: "I think you should be aware that, even if the chances are slim, you might be infecting someone, even if he doesn't seem to care about it, and that it may cause a lot of pain and grief to that person, possibly even death, not to mention how it might be considered a crime, depending on where you are. So think twice about this and stuff."...
Instead of "You are a monster, the cause of our suffering!!!", etc.
-
But I don't think it warrants being called a monster, sociopath, etc. I think that sort of reprimand replicates the same hatemongering speech that is used against us.
I agree. There are true sociopaths and monsters out there that have HIV, refuse to take meds so that their viral load will be high and go out there to try to intentionally infect people. When you trivialize calling people sociopaths and monsters what you are in effect doing is calling anyone with HIV the same thing.
-
And I would hope that no matter how much stigma you've challenged, or how angry you've been when educating people, you haven't resorted to name calling.
i have never needed to, only when I come across selfish, uncaring idiots like you.
Jan
-
(ahem outta here for a bit, comment/question withdrawn, this thread is going nowhere, world is not ready for treatment as preventative perhaps, needs to be, it's a game changer, soz, bad form this deleting original post, and mucho soz to Jan, see you after Christmas - matt)
-
A)
There are true sociopaths and monsters out there that have HIV, refuse to take meds so that their viral load will be high and go out there to try to intentionally infect people.
B) If you have unprotected sex with strangers without disclosing your status
Other than the issue of whether meds are being taken:
How is A any different from B?
-
The question asked of you really was quite simple:
do you think it's ok for positive people to infect others with HIV?"
You are just not choosing to answer. You weren't asked whether you thought it was a crime to infect others with HIV. You were asked whether you thought it was OK for positive people to infect others. As Ann said above, what's your answer? Yes or No?
Can you answer straightforwardly? Or will you go off on another tangent?
You see, the thing is, I don't think this really is a straightforward question as I said earlier. Again there seems to be this mindset of a number of people who want to reduce HIV transmission to a black and white matter. It's not, and that's why I linked to a page that at least in part addressed both sides. Call it 'going off at a tangent' if you must, I say it's exploring the issue which I thought was the purpose of these forums.
As far as my own positive status is concerned, I really don't believe that the person who infected me deliberately set out to do so. We had sex and unfortunately the virus was transmitted. It's fairly likely that he acquired HIV in the same way, and the person who gave it to him probably did too.
So, I don't judge the person who infected me because I can't see how that would help me, the HIV community, or the world at large.
-
I am just aghast at the lengths and heights some people will go to to make their actions appear justifiable.
I am also a lts'er, Zohar (and co-horts); diagnosed in 1989. I have, along with Killfoile, JK, and other lts'ers, laid next to dear, close friends who wasted away and died from AIDS, when there weren't the meds there are now. And even now, I had a client die from AIDS just last year. His options ran out.
I can tell that you have never done this, so this is my wish for you: that you would someday have to lay next to someone who is dying from AIDS, someone you deeply care about, and someone perhaps you have infected, and see the horrific ends that person will experience. And I hope you feel the guiltiest person alive, to knowingly have caused this experience to happen.
Or...you could always start considering other's lives, and rights to their lives, and all the aspirations that go with those lives. I read this thread because a few people I really care about are getting very emotionally involved with this. But it seems zohar is not a person to get emotional over, unless that emotion is disgust.
-
I can tell that you have never done this, so this is my wish for you: that you would someday have to lay next to someone who is dying from AIDS, someone you deeply care about, and someone perhaps you have infected, and see the horrific ends that person will experience. And I hope you feel the guiltiest person alive, to knowingly have caused this experience to happen.
Why would you wish that on anyone. I wouldn't even wish it on my worst enemy. It's just vile.
-
Why would you wish that on anyone. I wouldn't even wish it on my worst enemy. It's just vile.
Because sometimes tne only way someone will change their behavior is by being faced with the consequences of it. What you all are arguing is vile. Beyond that.
-
I am interested to understand, Jan, if a condom had been involved, whether you (or others) would feel as strongly?
This is a genuine open question.
- matt
Hey Matt..
I think what this whole thread is getting at is a persons knowing that they are at risk of infecting someone else and not taking reasonable precautions in the best interests of the other person. It's about attitude along with action. IE, disclosing and using protection. Now.. someone is going to throw out there that it's not "high risk" if the insertive person is UD (who after all, Zohar said he was the insertive person in penetrative sex..that's how all this got started lets remember, not oral, not kissing, not whatever....oh and hardly had a choice in the matter apparently either) but we all know there are risks even if someone is UD. At the end of the day, it's about his attitude toward others and his absence of personal responsibility.
If someone takes, "reasonable and expected" precautions to protect the health of another, that's all one can ask.
Let's say someone meets a guy at a bathhouse who after disclosing their own status as positive/UD, and the other guys says he's negative but agrees to have sex as long as a condom is used. Is there still risk? Sure..the condom could break. Does that happen a lot? I don't know, i've not seen stats on that, but it does happen. Could the negative person get infected? Yes, as low as the probability is..it could happen. How unfortunate. Were 'reasonable precautions" taken? Yes, in my mind they were. Full disclosure and reasonable precautions were taken. But, you roll the dice and that's they way they land. Aside from abstinence, there will always be a risk. It's that simple.
Now let's say we compare that to Zohar's example of himself who did none of that, but claims he's not responsible for the other persons health..."don't ask don't tell" as it were. Let's say he infected said power bottom who apparently overtook him by force and now has HIV.
Personally, i'm going to look upon that HIV + person very differently in both of those scenarios.
One took reasonable precautions to protect the negative person, but the negative person, who was given full information in which to make an informed decision chose to roll the dice as he chose. He bears part of that responsibility for his now HIV positive status.
In the other scenario, like Zohar's, he was too caught up in his own destructive pleasure seeking head space to even consider someone other than himself.
This could have been a one off, caught up in the moment scenario which as imperfect people, this does happen.
But as Zohar has proven over and over again through this thread he's no where near willing to take responsibility for his actions which is clearly not a one off but a deep seated pattern in his life.
Very sad.
-
.....this is my wish for you: that you would someday have to lay next to someone who is dying from AIDS, someone you deeply care about, and someone perhaps you have infected, and see the horrific ends that person will experience. And I hope you feel the guiltiest person alive, to knowingly have caused this experience to happen.
Wow. Just wow.
-
Wow. Just wow.
Well, if you can't take the heat and all that (change your behavior). I actually said the same words you posted after I read several of your comments.
-
Because sometimes tne only way someone will change their behavior is by being faced with the consequences of it.
What you wrote about wishing that people had a loved one die of Aids in your arms is what a sociopathic monster would write.
A sane person would write I hope you never have to experience......
-
Zohar said:
As far as my own positive status is concerned, I really don't believe that the person who infected me deliberately set out to do so. We had sex and unfortunately the virus was transmitted. It's fairly likely that he acquired HIV in the same way, and the person who gave it to him probably did too.
"and they told two friends, and so on and so on and so on...."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgDxWNV4wWY&feature=related
It may not have been a deliberate act, but it most certainly was a preventable one.
The buck can stop with a person like you or the rest of us who are positive by disclosing our status.
Why don't you understand this?
You disgust me.
-
What you wrote about wishing that people had a loved one die of Aids in your arms is what a sociopathic monster would write.
I didn't wish it on "people," I wished it on someone who thinks it's alright to go around having unprotected sex with others, their rights be damned.
And don't even get me started on sociopathy. You need to look up Dr. Robert Hare and read his psychopath checklist. You and zohar fit the descriptions pretty well. They use that, by the way, at several institutions. BTW, I study forensic psych.
And now I have to bow out of this nightmare. My neck is killing me.
-
I didn't wish it on "people," I wished it on someone who thinks it's alright to go around having unprotected sex with others, their rights be damned.
And don't even get me started on sociopathy. You need to look up Dr. Robert Hare and read his psychopath checklist. You and zohar fit the descriptions pretty well. They use that, by the way, at several institutions. BTW, I study forensic psych.
And now I have to bow out of this nightmare. My neck is killing me.
Your opinion of me means nothing to me, but you really should check yourself in to a hospital for some mental cleansing. PS Guilt makes your neck hurt.
-
Righteousness appears to prevent some people from thinking through a paradigm shift. Righteousness being one. Anger, loss, marginalisation, simplicity, parochialism, isolation, sickness, bias.
Cred from the plague years doesn't seem relevant to this argument. To me. I understand if it informs some of you. I'm the same age as some LTS, buried lovers, lived in fear in my own sex life. Informs me.... sometimes. Surprise: cred, history, not always relevant to the state of HIV today and sometimes its dead weight.
At the end of the day, I do see two valid, but contradictory "world views", and it doesn't blow my mind. Seems to short circuit some logic boards around here, in contrast.
Some of this moral righteousness contributes terribly to stigma and a few people can't even consider that. How that might work.
A virus has no morals and even some of you who know that, have shown lazy logic or emotional responses, which lead to morals finally being applied, thinking about these dilemmas, to the virus, to transmission, to HIV+ people, to so many different kinds of sex.
Occasionally, extended to the logical conclusion of some such arguments appearing in this thread, almost any sex, protected or not, detectable or not, with disclosure or without, is finally immoral by an HIV+ person. By the final logic of some of the weirder schemes presented here. It does mirror, rather alarmingly, criminalisation rationales. ironically. (i'm actually not "alarmed". still think its a thought provoking thread.)
-
Righteousness appears to prevent some people from thinking through a paradigm shift. Righteousness being one. Anger, loss, marginalisation, simplicity, parochialism, isolation, sickness, bias.
Cred from the plague years doesn't seem relevant to this argument. To me. I understand if it informs some of you. I'm the same age as some LTS, buried lovers, lived in fear in my own sex life. Informs me.... sometimes. Surprise: cred, history, not always relevant to the state of HIV today and sometimes its dead weight.
At the end of the day, I do see two valid, but contradictory "world views", and it doesn't blow my mind. Seems to short circuit some logic boards around here, in contrast.
Some of this moral righteousness contributes terribly to stigma and a few people can't even consider that. How that might work.
A virus has no morals and even some of you who know that, have shown lazy logic or emotional responses, which lead to morals finally being applied, thinking about these dilemmas, to the virus, to transmission, to HIV+ people, to so many different kinds of sex.
Occasionally, extended to the logical conclusion of some such arguments appearing in this thread, almost any sex, protected or not, detectable or not, with disclosure or without, is finally immoral by an HIV+ person. By the final logic of some of the weirder schemes presented here. It does mirror, rather alarmingly, criminalisation rationales.
Well said.
-
You see, the thing is, I don't think this really is a straightforward question as I said earlier. Again there seems to be this mindset of a number of people who want to reduce HIV transmission to a black and white matter. It's not, and that's why I linked to a page that at least in part addressed both sides. Call it 'going off at a tangent' if you must, I say it's exploring the issue which I thought was the purpose of these forums.
As far as my own positive status is concerned, I really don't believe that the person who infected me deliberately set out to do so. We had sex and unfortunately the virus was transmitted. It's fairly likely that he acquired HIV in the same way, and the person who gave it to him probably did too.
So, I don't judge the person who infected me because I can't see how that would help me, the HIV community, or the world at large.
You are quite skilled in avoiding answers to questions, redirecting the conversation away from topics you want to avoid, and turning things around to make it appear as if you are somehow are victim. You're equally adept at embracing ambiguity and relativism, so it's no wonder you can enjoy unprotected sex without disclosing to partners, which you said you would do again. I'm not sure how you can care so little about others. But, you're lack of concern for others is clear.
-
I question why some members have carte blanche for name-calling and slander, while others get read the riot act.
-
but we all know there are risks even if someone is UD
The thing is, this very day, I was called a "traitor" for suggesting, just suggesting that being on treatment with an undetectable viral load was equal in terms of reducing the risk of HIV transmission as condoms, with lots of science slides. Joseph Sonnabend was laughed at for suggesting HIV was preventable with condoms an these days all I see is me and a many others being tutted at for suggesting the world has changed and treatment is also protective.
2011 was the year the world of HIV prevention science changed folks, get your fucking heads round it.
The science is a struggle, it provokes many emotions, I acknowledge that, but being substantially noninfectious as a prevention strategy, embrace it.
Yes I did post "I am interested to understand, Jan, if a condom had been involved, whether you (or others) would feel as strongly? This is a genuine open question." but alas, would have rathered (?) this went off the grid, life is to short for grief etc.
Really am now taking a forum holiday, maybe even a long term break.
This thread: pearls before swine, and sharpening your pitch forks and going up the windmill to see if Frankenstein's creation will throw you the keys comes to mind.
The risk of transmission without treatment with condoms for fucking, if this is the gold standard, hallmark, whatever, is the same or perhaps a little worse as being on treatment and no condoms.
People need to get their head round the science, and then what they feel about it. Treatment is as least as protective as condoms. Which is not in either case a cast iron guarantee eh?
- matt (the one and only) newt
(http://i-base.info/images/fisher.jpg)
-
Bravo, mecch and newt.
-
People need to get their head round the science, and then what they feel about it. Treatment is as least as protective as condoms. Which is not in either case a cast iron guarantee eh?
- matt (the one and only) newt[/font]
I haven't been very involved in this thread, but my thought is that while I understand the science certainly what it seems that you're neglecting is the practical appliance of this science, meaning specifically as this thread was initially framed about an encounter in a sex club, an environment I must assume that you realize is wholly different than in a steady relationship. A negative person in a sex club can tell if someone is utilizing a condom or not, but they can't verify whether or not someone's last laboratory test indicated that they are undetectable, or more pointedly whether or not the guy has been on a meth binge for the past week and not taken his medication, etc. etc.
Science is nice but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Real life and all of that...
-
Well there is also the challenge of apples and oranges in this thread. I benefitted from the good arguments about how its respect for others to disclose in all circumstances.
And yet people keep slipping this into a discussion of transmission risk as a big component of why "disclosure is respect", (so disclosure is moral, non disclosure immoral).
Its two related but not identical issues....
People don't tell me all SORTS of things before sex.
But yeah, two wrongs don't make a right.
But this wrong (people keep secrets from sex partners) is not the same supposed wrong of being an AIDS monster.
Anyway...
-
Your opinion of me means nothing to me, but you really should check yourself in to a hospital for some mental cleansing. PS Guilt makes your neck hurt.
I'm confident that your opinion of and advice to BT65 means as little to her, as hers does to you.
-
You are quite skilled in avoiding answers to questions, redirecting the conversation away from topics you want to avoid, and turning things around to make it appear as if you are somehow are victim. You're equally adept at embracing ambiguity and relativism, so it's no wonder you can enjoy unprotected sex without disclosing to partners, which you said you would do again. I'm not sure how you can care so little about others. But, you're lack of concern for others is clear.
Haha. The last thing I think of myself as is a 'victim' (re-read my thoughts on the person I was infected by), although it's true that some people here are seemingly allowed to get away with calling me names and being openly abusive. To be honest, though, I only draw attention to that because a) I think it debases the quality of the discussion and b) it is against the forum rules, as I understand them.
The personal attacks don't bruise or sting, so in that sense they are pointless, but I do wonder if people might look at these forums and decide not to join/post because they don't want to get attacked. Is this community only really for people that, basically, just agree with each other all the time? Singing to the choir, as it were. But I also get the point made earlier on in the thread that people might be put off the site by someone with views like mine. So, I guess it's a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other.
-
Is this community only really for people that, basically, just agree with each other all the time? Singing to the choir, as it were.
I find it funny how you continue to try and frame the conversation
as if it were only a difference of opinion.
I think you crossed that line when you so callously had unprotected
sex with another person without disclosure.
This thread should probably be closed as you've learned nothing from it.
-
i have never needed to, only when I come across selfish, uncaring idiots like you.
Jan
Damn-it Jan, you've given me no option but to give you yet another time out. Because you had one recently, this one is going to be for thirty days. This is the second time in this thread you've resorted to name calling - and you were given a pass the first time.
What part of "no name calling" don't you get? I know you're an intelligent woman who has done more than most of our membership combined to combat hiv stigma and ignorance.
What mystifies me is why you cannot simply replace the word "idiots" in your above statement with the word "people" before you hit the post button. I do it all the time. Believe me. If I can refrain from calling people names in the Am I Infected forum, for fucks sake you can do it here.
Jan, I'm giving you a thirty day time out for name-calling. Wise up already and learn how to be diplomatic when tearing someone a new asshole. Got it?
In regret and much head shaking,
Ann
-
Ahh, how refreshing is to return from work, and see the moral and mental gymnastics of the zohar defense force. Let's begin:
You are a dove, a saint, if you will.
I dunno if he's a saint, but at least he's more concerned about other's well being and knows about HIV better than you.
I agree. There are true sociopaths and monsters out there that have HIV, refuse to take meds so that their viral load will be high and go out there to try to intentionally infect people. When you trivialize calling people sociopaths and monsters what you are in effect doing is calling anyone with HIV the same thing.
No. We are not calling everyone with HIV monsters. We are calling monsters those who use the UD status as excuse to fuck without protection or even disclosing, spreading this virus just like a Typhoid Mary.
I can tell that you have never done this, so this is my wish for you: that you would someday have to lay next to someone who is dying from AIDS, someone you deeply care about, and someone perhaps you have infected, and see the horrific ends that person will experience. And I hope you feel the guiltiest person alive, to knowingly have caused this experience to happen.
There is no need to go that far BT, karma is a wheel, maybe someday Zohar will find on the nightclub another "Zohar" who gives him another gift on the form of Hepatitis C or B, Syphilis, etc.... Now he can be a true and hardcore Typhoid Mary.
-
So Ann,
How long are the editors, staff of AIDSmeds, POZ, Smart+Strong going to allow this toxic thread to continue? I think it has long passed its level of usefulness (if ever there was one). Unfortunately, those who started the thread have shown no intention of changing their viewpoint and have continued to assail and justify the spreading of a deadly virus with no regard for others. A review of the history of the OPs posts over the time he has been a member shows this to be a pattern that should have long ago been put to a stop. He has consistently challenged the authority and knowledge of doctors, advocated/supported others discontinuing medications, many times incited emotions by promoting nondisclosure, and the list goes on - all the while being held completely unaccountable.... just because someone doesn't post links to a denialist site or outwardly say they are a denialist - does not make their viewpoints and posts any less damaging than those of known self-promoting denialists....
If anything, the thread's ongoing existence and the tolerance of it by the mods has jeopardized the credibility of the site - and has many long-term members thinking about going in a different direction (even if it be temporarily) - away from the Forums.
One has to wonder why it is being allowed to continue - when much less incindiary threads have been locked down.
With Tim battling to keep the Forums profitable (or at least above water) I would think that this thread's presence and ongoing and unchecked existance can't play positively into a sustainable model of success for the site.
Maybe this is the goal - drive long-term members away who have been a part of supporting thousands of people who have come to this site - while allowing those who have been here a short time and who have shown over and over again that their goal is to damage, destroy, and incite anger and disunity to stick around unchecked.
Would be interesting - the same as there appears to be an interest in the path the thread will take - to see what S+Ss' Mr. Grayzel, Mr Anderson, and the members of the POZ National Advisory Board think about such a damaging thread being allowed to continue. The overall context of the thread undermines the long-term prevention message and message of life-giving support that I have long thought POZ.com and the Forums stood for.
I am very disappointed that this thread has been allowed to continue this long - particularly when it was long ago evident that it was serving no useful purpose - and, in the eyes of many, is almost tantamont to allowing a denialist thread to exist.
Just as we say there is a responsibility of members to practice safe sex and to not spread the virus - there is an equal responsibility of the moderators and those who oversee this site to not allow for the continued and ongoing promotion of these same damaging messages to go unchecked - while finding it necessary to timeout members who "call names." In the end, I wonder how many people have died over the years from being called a name on an open forum - compared to the number of people who have died or will live the rest of their lives with an illness with no known cure because not only did someone not disclose and think it was okay - but they were then allowed to continue over a few day period and several dozen post to continue to espouse and justify this behavior.
This thread long ago passed the realm of a healthy debate.....
Just my thoughts for what they are worth.
With much disappointment,
-Phil
-
(ahem outta here for a bit, comment/question withdrawn, this thread is going nowhere, world is not ready for treatment as preventative perhaps, needs to be, it's a game changer, soz, bad form this deleting original post, and mucho soz to Jan, see you after Christmas - matt)
Needs to be. Will be when more than 25% of people on treatment experience viremic control. We aren't nearly, nearly there yet. When there's a once-a-week option, when resistance is not an issue, and when the public and the public's government has finally wrapped their collective heads around the fact that receptive fellatio is, barring seriously extreme and so far impossible to quantify circumstances, safer sex.
But not nearly now. Come back with that in five years, at the earliest.
-
I agree. There are true sociopaths and monsters out there that have HIV, refuse to take meds so that their viral load will be high and go out there to try to intentionally infect people. When you trivialize calling people sociopaths and monsters what you are in effect doing is calling anyone with HIV the same thing.
I rather think that a history of flamebaiting the members of a support forum for HIV is sociopathic behavior.
-
Ahh, how refreshing is to return from work, and see the moral and mental gymnastics of the zohar defense force. Let's begin:
I dunno if he's a saint, but at least he's more concerned about other's well being and knows about HIV better than you.
No. We are not calling everyone with HIV monsters. We are calling monsters those who use the UD status as excuse to fuck without protection or even disclosing, spreading this virus just like a Typhoid Mary.
There is no need to go that far BT, karma is a wheel, maybe someday Zohar will find on the nightclub another "Zohar" who gives him another gift on the form of Hepatitis C or B, Syphilis, etc.... Now he can be a true and hardcore Typhoid Mary.
I'm not sure if you've seen Newt's post above (#223)but if not, take a read.
-
You know what? It's not like the majority of participants in this thread are women in third world countries where disclosure could mean life or death to themselves and their babies.
Every single one of you in this thread is an adult in a FIRST world country and there is simply NO reason for any of you to NOT disclose your hiv status - regardless of VL, regardless of condom usage, regardless of whatever.
You're hiv positive. Suck it up- but stop hiding it.
You know, the whole the more we hide, the more we HAVE to hide is SO relevant. If we all came out as positive, what the hell do you think they're going to be able to do to us? What are they going to do when they find out that we're they're next-door-neighbours, we're someone they stood in the check-out line with yesterday, or that we're they're kid's teachers, the person who served them at Starbucks, or made their sandwich at Chicfilla (or however you spell that despicable company's name) or the person who just nodded and said hello as we passed in the street?
This is why people's experiences like Jan's, who I had to give a TO to, are so relevant. And mine too, along with my boyfriend and a couple other people I know locally. We, like Jan, live in tiny little ISLAND (read that as no escape) communities. But yet Jan and I and other people I know have stood up against these small communities and said -
We're poz. You could be too, there but for the grace of [insert deity here] go you.
And you know what? Our communities have responded with compassion and understanding. They respect us for not hiding who we are and the fact that along with being active, NORMAL parts of our communities, well, we just happen to have a virus as well.
The ONLY way we're ever going to get rid of the stigma we face is to come out of that goddamn stifling closet so many of us consign ourselves to upon diagnosis.
Don't presume to tell me I'm wrong. When I was first diagnosed - on a tiny, conservative island - I feared petrol bombs through my letter box and worse. None of it ever happened.
THE MORE WE HIDE, THE MORE WE HAVE TO HIDE.
And it doesn't make it any easier when people go around barebacking without disclosing their status. Good lord, why can't people understand this?
I see others have commented while I've been ranting. I'm going to post first and respond after, because I have and will stand by what I've done and said so far in this thread.
-
Your opinion of me means nothing to me, but you really should check yourself in to a hospital for some mental cleansing. PS Guilt makes your neck hurt.
Guilt makes one's neck hurt? Never heard that before. I did hear that contentiously flamebaiting a support forum for a devastating illness makes one's genitals shrink.
-
I question why some members have carte blanche for name-calling and slander, while others get read the riot act.
I got a warning for cuntwaffle. And it's a sign of endearment. Life is arbitrary. Maybe there is a cabal bent on bullying others on this forum.
-
Bravo, mecch and newt.
I honestly love that you rarely fail to wade in against certain members of this forum, no matter what the position. It must make you feel terrific to offer such information and support here.
-
I'm not sure if you've seen Newt's post above (#223)but if not, take a read. Reply #223
read it, and I need more than that to change my opinion about you and your sociopath behavior. But as I've said, let's hope you meet your "perfect" match someday.
-
read it, and I need more than that to change my opinion about you and your sociopath behavior. But as I've said, let's hope you meet your "perfect" match someday.
The same to you.
-
I've stayed completely out of this god awful thread, and will continue to do so other than to say this:
As rough as it is, I support Ann and Tim's decision to let this thread stay. What are we supposed to do? Refuse to have certain discussions because "they" might be watching? And where in this whole thread would anyone get the idea that this behavior from the OP was officially endorsed by the site?
I just don't see it.
-
The same to you.
Unlike you, I take my measures.Given your behavior, I suppose your STDs scans are an humor festival.
-
2011 was the year the world of HIV prevention science changed folks, get your fucking heads round it.
The science is a struggle, it provokes many emotions, I acknowledge that, but being substantially noninfectious as a prevention strategy, embrace it.
Your assumption that I have not read nor understood the very same studies you present is adorable. Believe it or not, some people here are just as smart and capable of statistical/data analysis as you.
We all have our bias. Whether it's being an LTS and seeing the death and destruction of AIDS, or being adamant at being infected in a manner inconsistent with scientific study, or using one's own behavior to color the accuracy and widespread use of spanking new suppositions regarding HIV infection, and treatment as prevention thereof.
Will U/D become the new Neg? Probably. But until we have a better understanding of seminal viral vs. blood viral load, and until viral load testing is as rapid as an ELISA, then at the end of the day we are again asking (or not asking) people to take our claims of undetectable at their word.
In almost any other sexual act, this might be a very sound idea, scientifically speaking. But when using it to justify one's past, present and future choice to engage in the absolute highest risk behavior, it is at the very best a dark mark on our entire community.
I hope your time away from the forums allows you a chance to regroup and heal. You have not been the same since your own terrible loss.
-
Unlike you, I take my measures.Given your behavior, I suppose your STDs scans are an humor festival.
That's great.
All the best. ;)
-
I honestly love that you rarely fail to wade in against certain members of this forum, no matter what the position. It must make you feel terrific to offer such information and support here.
Just what kind of cheap attack is that? Really, I don't even know what you are talking about. I haven't disrespected anyone here and you come and tell me I have other motivations just because I agree with some people and disagree with others?
I'm seriously asking you to illustrate what you said.
-
So Ann,
How long are the editors, staff of AIDSmeds, POZ, Smart+Strong going to allow this toxic thread to continue? I think it has long passed its level of usefulness (if ever there was one). Unfortunately, those who started the thread have shown no intention of changing their viewpoint and have continued to assail and justify the spreading of a deadly virus with no regard for others. A review of the history of the OPs posts over the time he has been a member shows this to be a pattern that should have long ago been put to a stop. He has consistently challenged the authority and knowledge of doctors, advocated/supported others discontinuing medications, many times incited emotions by promoting nondisclosure, and the list goes on - all the while being held completely unaccountable.... just because someone doesn't post links to a denialist site or outwardly say they are a denialist - does not make their viewpoints and posts any less damaging than those of known self-promoting denialists....
If anything, the thread's ongoing existence and the tolerance of it by the mods has jeopardized the credibility of the site - and has many long-term members thinking about going in a different direction (even if it be temporarily) - away from the Forums.
One has to wonder why it is being allowed to continue - when much less incindiary threads have been locked down.
With Tim battling to keep the Forums profitable (or at least above water) I would think that this thread's presence and ongoing and unchecked existance can't play positively into a sustainable model of success for the site.
Maybe this is the goal - drive long-term members away who have been a part of supporting thousands of people who have come to this site - while allowing those who have been here a short time and who have shown over and over again that their goal is to damage, destroy, and incite anger and disunity to stick around unchecked.
Would be interesting - the same as there appears to be an interest in the path the thread will take - to see what S+Ss' Mr. Grayzel, Mr Anderson, and the members of the POZ National Advisory Board think about such a damaging thread being allowed to continue. The overall context of the thread undermines the long-term prevention message and message of life-giving support that I have long thought POZ.com and the Forums stood for.
I am very disappointed that this thread has been allowed to continue this long - particularly when it was long ago evident that it was serving no useful purpose - and, in the eyes of many, is almost tantamont to allowing a denialist thread to exist.
Just as we say there is a responsibility of members to practice safe sex and to not spread the virus - there is an equal responsibility of the moderators and those who oversee this site to not allow for the continued and ongoing promotion of these same damaging messages to go unchecked - while finding it necessary to timeout members who "call names." In the end, I wonder how many people have died over the years from being called a name on an open forum - compared to the number of people who have died or will live the rest of their lives with an illness with no known cure because not only did someone not disclose and think it was okay - but they were then allowed to continue over a few day period and several dozen post to continue to espouse and justify this behavior.
This thread long ago passed the realm of a healthy debate.....
Just my thoughts for what they are worth.
With much disappointment,
-Phil
Yeah. OK. If you really think the entities you cite read these forums on a daily basis, damn, think again. Mate, it's just me basically, a volunteer who gives a shit. (Sorry Tim and Andy and any other of our volunteers. You know what I mean and I wouldn't diminish your roles for all the tea in China, as they used to say in our youth.)
And if you don't think this is a discussion that needs to go on in the positive community, well, why not? For fuck's sake man, this is a new realm we're delving into. You cannot seriously compare this to the denialist movement. There is at least one very good website that contains all the rebuttals to their idiocy - but we are the only website on the forefront where evolving prevention is concerned. Denialist are so 1990's. We're in the 2010's now and we need to address the new issues - like it or fucking not.
You know, this whole thing with some wanting this thread to be shut down reminds me of the early hiv - 'scuse me - AIDS activism movements where SILENCE = DEATH. How in the fuck can we NOT have this discussion? Yes, it leaves a fucking horrible taste in my mouth too to read the comments of some posters - like the bottom of a budgie's cage - but SILENCE = DEATH.
Like it or not, we HAVE to talk about the fact that some think that the Swiss Statement gives them license to bareback without disclosure.
Focus on WHY this is so wrong, without resorting to personal attacks, and maybe, just maybe, we might manage to educate the newly diagnosed and stop them spreading their virus.
Castigate me all you want. Some of you who are claiming that you want to leave here because we've permitted this dialogue might just find me joining your ranks - because you wanted to stifle this IMPORTANT discussion.
Don't you get it? Some person who engaged in dubious activities posted a thread here, and the vast majority of people explained why those activities were ... reprehensible. Is this a subject we want to bury our heads in the sand about, or is it actually a learning experience for the positive community?
We HAVE to have these discussions in the positive community, like it or not, agree with everyone or not.
SILENCE = DEATH
Ann
-
I've stayed completely out of this god awful thread, and will continue to do so other than to say this:
As rough as it is, I support Ann and Tim's decision to let this thread stay. What are we supposed to do? Refuse to have certain discussions because "they" might be watching? And where in this whole thread would anyone get the idea that this behavior from the OP was officially endorsed by the site?
I just don't see it.
Thing is, the Powers that Be might have done just that, were some members not willing to throw themselves upon the banhammer in order to present an opposing view. Emotional? Absolutely. Sometimes recklessly so.
But there will come a time then this forum will simply not be able to function as advertisers flee the site. Perhaps jettisoning the LTS folks who dare peek out from their underground bunker will allow the cutting edge of HIV prevention, and treatment as prevention, to flourish.
What, exactly, would happen if I used the existing science to persuade AIDSMEDS to change it's official safer sex messages? I am honestly curious. Because if Newt/Zohar/Live (et al)'s position is rational and reasonable, then why not, exactly?
My stats for viremic control among HIV positive people on treatment is from a study that originated in the USA. Surely a first world country, for the moment.
-
SILENCE = DEATH
Sometimes it's hard to hear for all the screaming.
-
Ann -
I don't disagree that this thread was a needed one....
I'm more so disappointed that it seems to have long ago (very unfortunately) outlasted its usefulness as the instrument of conveying the message and of having a civilized debate/discussion.
It has become a circular argument that has degenerated into name calling, steadfastness, and non-motion...
That was the point I was getting at...
I definitely understand the need to not "push things under the carpet."
But when a conversation/discussion is going nowhere except down - one has to question the usefulness of its continued existence - at least in this thread.....
I don't think this thread is leading to enlightenment (of course, I could be wrong) - instead, it just seems to have turned into a "pissing match."
If there would only seem to be some type of "ray of light..." maybe I would feel differently - unfortunately, it may be one of those cases where people agree to disagree (and agree to do so strongly)....
Once again, just my thoughts.
-
Ann -
I don't disagree that this thread was a needed one....
I'm more so disappointed that it seems to have long ago (very unfortunately) outlasted its usefulness
as the instrument of conveying the message and of having a civilized debate/discussion.
+1
-
This thread is terrifying. But I reread it and really it's just 1 psychopath and then a handful of buttholes playing devil's advocate. No, it's never ok to not disclose, and especially not ok if you're going to bareback. Nobody deserves this disease, no matter how slutty or methed out they are. This disease can ruin lives. If I wasn't lucky enough to have supportive parents who pay for my insurance I would be screwed.
I think this forum is the most popular HIV forum on the web, and being associated with Poz magazine, has a responsibility to reduce stigma against hiv positive people any way it can. I'm sure some hiv neg people have already seen this thread and left with reinforced or new prejudices against poz people. This thread should be deleted before any more damage is done.
-
I simply wanted to know how people respond to questions about sex from their doctors. That's it. But hey, here we are.
Bullshit!!
Just look at the title of your thread -- "Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics".
This wasn't about a question from your doctor... it was about you telling the doctor that you had unprotected insertive anal intercourse and not liking his response to you. So you started this thread to see if others are open and honest with their doctors. You need not have included the details of your encounter if you ONLY wanted to know whether others tell the truth to their doctor. The fact that you did mention your detailed encounter made it fair game for discussion. The OVERWHELMING response has been that you are, at best, a self-centered individual who cares nothing for the health and well-being of others.
I see you just continue to avoid all the questions asked of you -- you will only just continue your justification of abhorrent behavior and deflection to unimportant and unrelated topics.
With this post, I am done with this thread. I've banged my head against the brick wall long enough. You are what you are and will continue to be exactly the monster that folks think of all POZ individuals.
Your few supporters, with one exceptions, are either:
People who will argue that the sky is green if the majority says it is blue or
Someone who can't put two cogent thoughts together or
A bright man who wants science to instantly change reality -- I wish it could, but it can't, not too mention the science is too incomplete at this point to use as Public Health Policy
This thread has pushed said bright man away and gotten someone a TimeOut who has more class in her little finger and has done more good for the POZ community, worldwide, than you could even comprehend doing.
So go forth and be the Typhoid Mary monster that your behavior indicates, you are beyond hope. Quite frankly, my 4 yr old granddaughter has more sense than you.
M
-
Ann -
I don't disagree that this thread was a needed one....
I'm more so disappointed that it seems to have long ago (very unfortunately) outlasted its usefulness as the instrument of conveying the message and of having a civilized debate/discussion.
It has become a circular argument that has degenerated into name calling, steadfastness, and non-motion...
As far as I'm aware, this thread has only degenerated into name-calling three times, and all three times by two people who know better. People for whom I have nothing but the utmost love and respect.
(Jonathan, you're usage of cuntwaffle was obviously not meant as the term of endearment you claim it can be when you used the word "despicable" as an adjective before the noun.)
(Jan, jeeze. Do you ever read and rethink what you've written before you hit post? You can be diplomatic and still get your point across and I'm sure you're aware of this fact. You wouldn't excel at public speaking if you didn't understand that point.)
Phil, as in real life, as in sex clubs, nightclubs, gyms, pubs, libraries, wherefuckingever, we're going to have differences of opinion. Does that mean we can shut the discussion down when we don't like what everyone has to say?
You know, to shut this thread down - at any point in time - would only say to the negative community (that so many seem to be worried about) that we have something to hide.
Again, THE MORE WE HIDE, THE MORE WE HAVE TO HIDE.
We need more honest discussions like this. We HAVE to talk about this shit. Where are we going to talk about it if not here - by the very virtue that this IS the place where people are going to get the real deal?
Allowing discussions like this does NOT take away from the credibility of this site. Allowing them does, because it gives us the opportunity to refute and educate.
SILENCE = DEATH
-
This thread is terrifying. But I reread it and really it's just 1 psychopath and then a handful of buttholes playing devil's advocate. No, it's never ok to not disclose, and especially not ok if you're going to bareback. Nobody deserves this disease, no matter how slutty or methed out they are. This disease can ruin lives. If I wasn't lucky enough to have supportive parents who pay for my insurance I would be screwed.
I think this forum is the most popular HIV forum on the web, and being associated with Poz magazine, has a responsibility to reduce stigma against hiv positive people any way it can. I'm sure some hiv neg people have already seen this thread and left with reinforced or new prejudices against poz people. This thread should be deleted before any more damage is done.
Shutting down the commentary is not going to make the issues here go away. The OP asked questions, regardless of the perceived motive, and has been answered ad-nauseum. If we start shutting down conversations that are uncomfortable or paint us in a bad light then where does it stop?
-
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/treatment/resources/factsheets/art.htm
The Meaning of “Undetectable” Viral Load: Persistence of Virus in Plasma and Seminal Fluid
Periodic blood plasma viral load monitoring is used to measure ART effectiveness. The goal of effective ART is the long-term suppression of plasma viral load, usually defined as the maintenance of a level of HIV virus that is below the threshold detectable by available tests. While plasma viral load tests are reliable, they have limitations: virus levels below a minimum concentration may not be detected. Studies have shown that persistent virus is found in peripheral blood mononuclear cells [9, 10] even when individuals have sustained undetectable plasma viral load levels.
Genital fluid viral loads are not routinely measured in persons on ART. Although ART reduces concentration of virus in seminal fluid [11], virus persists within cells present in seminal fluid of some men who are on ART with undetectable plasma viral load [12-13]. ART also is associated with decrease in cervicovaginal fluid viral load; however, ‘breakthrough' shedding has been observed in some studies [14-17]. Therefore, the potential for transmission exists despite sustaining undetectable viral load while on effective ART.
and...
http://suite101.com/article/undetectable-viral-load-a77404
and...
http://www.catie.ca/en/positiveside/winter-2008/sex-drugs-and-viral-load
and...
http://www.avert.org/media/pdfs/HIV-transmission-and-antiretroviral-therapy-Briefing-sheet.pdf
(particularly important in the last article is the increase in viral load in semen that occurs when accompanied with another STI... considering that many who are engaging in "anonymous" sex are prone to STIs, this makes risk of transmission much more likely...
-
Thing is, the Powers that Be might have done just that, were some members not willing to throw themselves upon the banhammer in order to present an opposing view. Emotional? Absolutely. Sometimes recklessly so.
But there will come a time then this forum will simply not be able to function as advertisers flee the site. Perhaps jettisoning the LTS folks who dare peek out from their underground bunker will allow the cutting edge of HIV prevention, and treatment as prevention, to flourish.
What, exactly, would happen if I used the existing science to persuade AIDSMEDS to change it's official safer sex messages? I am honestly curious. Because if Newt/Zohar/Live (et al)'s position is rational and reasonable, then why not, exactly?
My stats for viremic control among HIV positive people on treatment is from a study that originated in the USA. Surely a first world country, for the moment.
Well, alright then. Then answer this: how is the line drawn in your own relationship? I mean....you've said that you and your BF intend to BB with you in the passive role, but that isn't 100% certainly "letting the virus end with you", is it? Statistically far safer, but not entirely....right? And how is the fact that you've disclosed and he's agreed still freeing you from your responsibility to be absolutely CERTAIN that you don't pass the virus on? I mean, after all, the mantra has so far been that just because someone else is willing to take the risk doesn't give you the right to indulge them. Right?
Isn't that what you've already done to a certain degree? Used today's science to change existing safer sex messages?
To the OP's original question, I would say that a doctor should encourage more appropriate behavior - but not berate you as his patient. To do so, in my opinion, is only likely to stifle honesty in the future.
I understand the disapproval, but the all-out pitchfork and torch carrying mob mentality approach to this hasn't resonated very well with me either.
I still stand with Ann...learning opportunity.
-
How long are the editors, staff of AIDSmeds, POZ, Smart+Strong going to allow this toxic thread to continue? I think it has long passed its level of usefulness (if ever there was one).
I don't agree. What we have in this thread is pretty much the full spectrum of attitudes pertaining to disclosure and safer sex (and I do think we're now at a point where maximally suppressed viral loads is a form of safer sex, which IS spelled out in our prevention lesson (http://www.aidsmeds.com/articles/Transmission_17146.shtml)). This has been a highly emotional conversation -- laced with name calling, which we cannot tolerate -- that still strikes me as thought-provoking.
Phil, these forums will never be profitable -- even if everyone here was on the same moral plain, agreed on the principles of disclosure and were on the exact same page regarding the science of prevention, most high-paying advertisers want NOTHING to do with pages on AIDSmeds or POZ that involve user-generated content. My intent with "pay-for-play" subscriptions in the "Am I Infected?" forum is to offset the costs associated with running these forums to keep them off the chopping block.
If the intent was to ensure everyone receives the exact same message via AIDSmeds or POZ -- get tested, into care and on treatment immediately; always disclose; and always use condoms... no matter what their hangups -- there would be no need for these forums. But it's threads like these that make people sit up and recognize that not everyone plays by the same rules and that there's much to be learned about living with HIV from the decisions other people make (rightly or wrongly, and there's plenty of obvious pushback in this thread against some seriously misguided thinking).
On this fifth page of this thread, there still seem to be a lot of salient points being made. I'm inclined to leave it be.
-
I applaud Ann's stance on this. I don't understand why people want to lock this thread so badly, or worse, are considering leaving here because of it. That's rather childish.
One problem here is that some people think they own the place and that only their opinion is valid. Way more than once I've been attacked just because I had a different opinion. At least twice on this thread already, although I tried to be very respectful, but there were those who put words in my mouth and tried to assume what my motivations were. Just because I disagreed with the angry mob about their reaction. Unlike some people who are ready to repeat whatever others say around here, I'm not afraid to have my own opinion, even if it goes against the opinion of the majority or of someone I like and respect.
I believe, like Ann said, that this kind of thing needs to be discussed. Discussed in a rational way, with a cool head. Some of you have worked for a long time educating people and stuff but new challenges are presented and perhaps it's good to check if you're not stuck in time. Newt presented interesting data, but some people here are clearly not ready to digest it. Unless you live in Wonderland, it's a well known fact that people bareback all the time in sex clubs, saunas, whatever, without disclosure or anything. Are we going to ignore this? But then, the reaction of some of the people here, from my point of view, was very similar in tone and content to the comments from people who defend criminalization, regardless of disclosure or condom use. And like mecch said, I think this sort of attitude actually contributes way more to the stigma.
-
Well, alright then. Then answer this: how is the line drawn in your own relationship? I mean....you've said that you and your BF intend to BB with you in the passive role, but that isn't 100% certainly "letting the virus end with you", is it? Statistically far safer, but not entirely....right? And how is the fact that you've disclosed and he's agreed still freeing you from your responsibility to be absolutely CERTAIN that you don't pass the virus on? I mean, after all, the mantra has so far been that just because someone else is willing to take the risk doesn't give you the right to indulge them. Right?
Isn't that what you've already done to a certain degree? Used today's science to change existing safer sex messages?
To the OP's original question, I would say that a doctor should encourage more appropriate behavior - but not berate you as his patient. To do so, in my opinion, is only likely to stifle honesty in the future.
I understand the disapproval, but the all-out pitchfork and torch carrying mob mentality approach to this hasn't resonated very well with me either.
I still stand with Ann...learning opportunity.
Well, it would be a bit of a hijack to tell you the hell on earth I have been going through for the last six months with my boyfriend. But then again, you know all about that, right? Unlike the folks on this forum, who I have elected not to discuss a great deal about my personal life because it is invariably thrown in my face.
My private decisions in my committed relationship are not going to be the subject of discussion in this or any thread in AIDSMEDS. Let me be crystal clear on that. The decisions I have made, based on my own commitment to my medications, my persistently UD viral load over the past year, and my boyfriend's complete and dare I mention independent study of the same science is ours to make. I certainly would not dare bring it to this thread, and am frankly taken aback that you would, or could draw a parallel to the situations.
My boyfriend has never given me permission, nor would I ask him to allow me to dissect our sexual choices on this public forum that his family has already perused. And of all people, I trusted you to know that. Key word there of course, is trusted. I try to learn from my mistakes.
To your invasive question, however, since you have risked a friendship to ask, I have been rather a renegade on these forums since I started helping out in AM I INFECTED. When I joined, Tim H and others were still claiming that any oral sex could lead to infection. Fellatio, cunnilingus, receptive or insertive. It took me months to disabuse them of the notion that any exchange of bodily fluids was a potential risk. And it took not one or two but THREE long-term serodiscordant couples' studies to bear me out, even though the information about saliva (as well as the statistics regarding cunnilingus and insertive fellatio) were clear.
And even though I do not find any evidence to support my choice, to date I have never allowed my partner to perform oral on me to climax. And I have been extremely vigilant about my rectal health, my meds, and the type of sex we did have, on a handful of occasions, before he became deathly ill. I have been his sleep-deprived caregiver for months now, with our sex life being the least of our concerns. But then again, you know that. But trust me, I will make certain that you know no more of it.
Why don't you ask the women here who conceive naturally the same question? It would be great to hear some new voices, wouldn't it?
Or is it just the gay male sex that titillates us so?
-
Always good to have the credentials of OPs - but since we don't always have those, we do have previous history of posts... some of them really stood out to me (I've bolded and/or underlined those)....
1) “It\'s long been acknowledged that HIV is present in a rectal secretions, even when someone is on HAART[/u], so I tend to believe tops who say that\'s how they became infected. Not that I think it matters what the route of transmission is really” (Post from Zohar “Living With HIV / Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom” May 17, 2010)
2) “If I was doing the random sex thing, I wouldn't disclose. But as someone else said above, that's not really me anymore, so disclosure is not an issue in that scenario. My plan now is to get to know people on a series of dates and then when I feel comfortable to then tell them that I'm positive.” (Post from Zohar “Living With HIV / Re: What's your disclosure rule for summer pickups? June 18, 2010)
3) “Due to concerns around side effects, I've been taking a half dose of Truvada along with the full dose of my other medications which are Darunavir and Norvir, which I started just over 4 months ago. My viral load has recently dropped from over 100k to undetectable and my CD4 count is around 330, up from 80 when I first started. I've been monitored regularly and my doctor has been happy with the rate of progress.
I'm now considering taking lower doses of Darunavir and Norvir, but am undecided at this point. As Norvir is a 'booster' drug, it might perhaps make sense to keep that at its recommended level and just halve the dose of Darunavir.
So I'm interested to hear if anyone else has experimented with taking less than the prescribed dose of their HIV medication and what the outcome was” (Post from Zohar Questions About Treatment & Side Effects / Reducing the dose of HIV drugs, December 18, 2010)
4) “Can anyone who's sexually active ever be certain that they aren't in fact infected with the virus? I had no idea I was positive when I was diagnosed, and I am sure I wasn't the first to whom their diagnosis came as a surprise. Many of the sex date sites give the option to state one's status but, in reality, the only people that really know are those who've actually been diagnosed. The rest are basically 'HIV - unknown'.
That being the case, isn't it time we sought to do away with the term HIV 'negative'?”(Post from Zohar “Living With HIV / HIV 'Negative'” July 29, 2011)
5) Post from another member: ''Why it may not be a good idea to reduce your dose of HIV meds''
Zohar's response: "I think 'may' is the operative word here, isn't it?” (Post from Zohar “Questions About Treatment & Side Effects / Re: Why it may not be a good idea to reduce your dose of HIV meds” July 19, 2011)
6) “My own experience has shown that sometimes a particular doctor doesn't always know best and the quality of my life has improved immeasurably since taking matters into my own hands - a decision which was later supported by a highly experienced HIV consultant. The point here is that these circumstances were specific to me and, convenient though it would be, a 'one size fits all' approach doesn't always yield the best outcome.” (Post from Zohar Questions About Treatment & Side Effects / Re: Unconventional treatment and adherence strategies” July 17, 2011)
7) I think there's a part of me that now HATES my extroverted side as, somewhere in mind, I feel that if it wasn't for that part of my personality I wouldn't have become infected with HIV in the first place. I think I've come to associate gay clubs/bars with negative things, like self-destructiveness, as well as a sense of feeling that I will be judged harshly for my HIV status (were it known), which makes the gay scene seem far more hostile than I ever used to experience it.
Before I was diagnosed the gay clubs and bars used to be my playground, but now, in as much as the dark thoughts that run through my mind whenever I'm there, it feels more like a battleground, and I look forward to the evening being over so I can snuggle into the safety of my own home and quiet solitude. (Post from Zohar Mental Health & HIV / Re: Has HIV Made You Reclusive? May 31, 2011)
Sounds like someone whose "tips" and beliefs I want to follow....
-
One problem here is that some people think they own the place and that only their opinion is valid. Way more than once I've been attacked just because I had a different opinion. At least twice on this thread already, although I tried to be very respectful, but there were those who put words in my mouth and tried to assume what my motivations were. Just because I disagreed with the angry mob about their reaction. Unlike some people who are ready to repeat whatever others say around here, I'm not afraid to have my own opinion, even if it goes against the opinion of the majority or of someone I like and respect.
I believe, like Ann said, that this kind of thing needs to be discussed. Discussed in a rational way, with a cool head. Some of you have worked for a long time educating people and stuff but new challenges are presented and perhaps it's good to check if you're not stuck in time. Newt presented interesting data, but some people here are clearly not ready to digest it. Unless you live in Wonderland, it's a well known fact that people bareback all the time in sex clubs, saunas, whatever, without disclosure or anything. Are we going to ignore this? But then, the reaction of some of the people here, from my point of view, was very similar in tone and content to the comments from people who defend criminalization, regardless of disclosure or condom use. And like mecch said, I think this sort of attitude actually contributes way more to the stigma.
I do agree that this is a discussion that should be had. I also think it was presented as flame bait. You might argue that, but the history of the OP rather firmly supports my thesis.
Insofar as using new data to form new paradigms, I am rather dismayed that no one ever bothers to read AM I INFECTED before coming to that conclusion. Or the Women's Forum, for that matter. Many of us have been talking about Treatment As Prevention for a long time. Perhaps there ought to be a separate "Science of HIV Transmission/Prevention" forum. Though God/dess knows who would want to moderate it.
My problem with the OP has always been about A) the presentation of the topic, B) the4 disregard for the consent of others when using aforementioned TAP, and C) the inability to understand, as Anne (with whom you agree) that the failure to disclose was and is contributing to the very stigma we face.
Much moreso, IMHO, than the rantings on an anonymous message board. One is, after all, real life.
As for people thinking they own the place, do you think I think that?
-
(Jonathan, you're usage of cuntwaffle was obviously not meant as the term of endearment you claim it can be when you used the word "despicable" as an adjective before the noun.)
Oh, I never claimed that it was. I honestly hadn't thought to go to Urban Dictionary before I used it. I really thought I had made it up. It has served me very well in Atlanta traffic. I was just amused, after the fact, to discover A) that a made-up perjorative still warranted a warning, and that B) people actually call one another "cuntwaffle" as a term of endearment.
Obviously I need to be way more creative.
-
I do agree that this is a discussion that should be had. I also think it was presented as flame bait. You might argue that, but the history of the OP rather firmly supports my thesis.
Insofar as using new data to form new paradigms, I am rather dismayed that no one ever bothers to read AM I INFECTED before coming to that conclusion. Or the Women's Forum, for that matter. Many of us have been talking about Treatment As Prevention for a long time. Perhaps there ought to be a separate "Science of HIV Transmission/Prevention" forum. Though God/dess knows who would want to moderate it.
My problem with the OP has always been about A) the presentation of the topic, B) the4 disregard for the consent of others when using aforementioned TAP, and C) the inability to understand, as Anne (with whom you agree) that the failure to disclose was and is contributing to the very stigma we face.
Much moreso, IMHO, than the rantings on an anonymous message board. One is, after all, real life.
As for people thinking they own the place, do you think I think that?
I didn't get the impression that it was flame bait. Could be, I don't know. What struck me was the reaction, and I wasn't the only one who felt that. Also, while I can see how failing to disclose contributes to stigma, I think calling those who don't disclose monsters contributes way more. But mecch, for instance, illustrated that already.
As for you thinking that you own the place, frankly, never got the feeling before. However, I got ticked by your uncalled attack on your previous post, especially after I addressed you respectfully, and I'm still waiting for you to clarify that. It seems that it's related to how it isn't "allowed" to disagree with some here.
-
What it really comes down to is I am afraid this new 'reality' of AIDS - some pozzies just can't wait to turn it into another 'social diseases', i.e. occasional inconveniences that should never interfere with the last frontier of hedonistic gay sex.
I seriously doubt they really care much about those Swiss reports / theories on being UD as prevention, as many were doing exactly what we still do in sex clubs, saunas, homes with or without chemical enhancement before those theories become 'mainstream'. For some, whoever open themselves up for this game of raw sex, they have forfeited their right to complain. In other words, their disregard of their own health justifies some pozzies' lack of concern of the fact that they're knowingly participating in acts that can transmit a still life threatening disease to others.
-
This is such a worthy discussion and shouldn't be closed down if for no other reason than expressions such as this: "People need to get their head round the science, and then what they feel about it. Treatment is as least as protective as condoms. Which is not in either case a cast iron guarantee eh?"
What a concept. Matt don't take a leave. Your leaving or anyone else's would be so defeating. We all have much to learn and we need discussions like this.
Stop with the loss of marketing and advertisers already. If you really want to invest in this site let's all start paying for posting or reading on "Off Forum". I will gladly pay for that laugh a day.
Although many of us may not be LTS, please don't judge that to mean that we don't have a concept of what it is like to lose and bury friends, many of them, just because we thought we had beaten the odds only to find out much later in time we had not.
That in itself is reason enough why this conversation has a purpose. Not all of us of have three, two or one degree in some field but still have common sense and the ability to read, decipher, read again and learn from it. Maybe not the first time, but hopefully the second time.
-
What it really comes down to is I am afraid this new 'reality' of AIDS - some pozzies just can't wait to turn it into another 'social diseases', i.e. occasional inconveniences that should never interfere with the last frontier of hedonistic gay sex.
yeah, it seems some are looking desperately for an excuse to go back to have raw, random sex, without even considering the fucking virus they have inside. If I thought like the OP, I won't be hiding on the UD thing to have all the sex I want: I would just go for it.
Of course, something called conscience stops me, I certainly want this virus to end with me without infecting anyone. It's a shame that not many share that feeling.
-
7) I think there's a part of me that now HATES my extroverted side as, somewhere in mind, I feel that if it wasn't for that part of my personality I wouldn't have become infected with HIV in the first place. I think I've come to associate gay clubs/bars with negative things, like self-destructiveness, as well as a sense of feeling that I will be judged harshly for my HIV status (were it known), which makes the gay scene seem far more hostile than I ever used to experience it.
Before I was diagnosed the gay clubs and bars used to be my playground, but now, in as much as the dark thoughts that run through my mind whenever I'm there, it feels more like a battleground, and I look forward to the evening being over so I can snuggle into the safety of my own home and quiet solitude. (Post from Zohar Mental Health & HIV / Re: Has HIV Made You Reclusive? May 31, 2011)
Sounds like someone whose "tips" and beliefs I want to follow....
Seeing all those posts makes me empathize with him. I was diagnosed earlier this month and I'm definitely not adjusted yet. The other day I went to the mall and I had to leave because I started to feel so resentful and anxious. It's easy to slip into a dark place with hiv (I'd probably have the secret service knocking at my door if I posted some of my thoughts), because it's such an unfair thing. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. I know those thoughts are wrong though and would never act on them.
And I don't think every opinion is equal. Should I respect someone's opinion that god kills american soldiers because of gays in america? No. Because that's insane.
-
You know what? It's not like the majority of participants in this thread are women in third world countries where disclosure could mean life or death to themselves and their babies.
Every single one of you in this thread is an adult in a FIRST world country and there is simply NO reason for any of you to NOT disclose your hiv status - regardless of VL, regardless of condom usage, regardless of whatever.
You're hiv positive. Suck it up- but stop hiding it.
I agree.
As I said earlier, from my perspective, which I know is in the minority, viral transmission is not the core issue. First off, I don't agree with the moral relativist argument that everything is subjective for the same reasons that Spacebarsux described—you can rationalize the Holocaust with that philosophy. Second, I don’t believe that you can’t judge people’s action because your fear they might judge yours. I don’t believe “judge not least you be judged” or “only God can judge”—those are cop outs. I believe as human beings we need to not only be responsible for our own behavior we need to point out when people are screwing up. There is no karma, there is no divine retribution. We as a human race have to figure out how to make it on our own and just because someone has HIV, or is gay, or whatever doesn’t exempt their actions from criticism. Third, I haven’t done any name calling.
This is why as a person with HIV I should disclose to sexual partners, whether it is oral or with a condom or whatever: I shouldn’t put my desire for sex over my sexual partner’s emotional wellbeing. Most people would want to know if I have HIV and most people would feel betrayed and hurt if they found out after the fact that I purposely did not tell them. If people didn’t care about HIV then people with HIV wouldn’t be so fearful of disclosure. It doesn’t matter if there is no risk of infection, it can still cause them distress. Just think back to how you felt when you found out you had HIV, why would you want anyone to feel that for even a minute. Not disclosing before having sex is a lie of omission and inherently dishonest. There are distinctions however. The difference between men at a gay bathhouse and a couple dating for six months is the nature of the relationship, the level of trust and corresponding level of betrayal—gay men in a sex club expect there to be people with HIV and other STDs and have a brief interaction where Margaret didn’t expect John from church would not tell her about his history of I.V. drug use and HIV. This is why I care little about gay men screwing around in sex club but outraged that someone would contract HIV and continue to have unprotected sex with his wife for a year. As Ann pointed out, there are situations where one shouldn’t disclose but most of us are not in those situations.
I am not saying non-disclosure should be criminal. A man can tell a woman what she wants to hear to get her into bed and then never call her again. A woman can neglect to tell her husband she stopped her birth control because she wants a baby and he doesn’t. These are not criminal acts but theyare dishonest and undermine trust between people—they are asshole things to do.
I don’t think of people as “AIDS monsters” and don't say "he's a bad person" but I definitely judge people's actions. People are not inherently good or bad-- I don't believe in "monsters." Everyone makes bad choices, takes the path of least resistance, acts selfishly, takes destructive actions to defend their group—I do things I know are wrong. I completely understand someone saying “ideally I would like to be honest and disclose but I’m afraid of rejection,” or some other reason. What I can’t accept is “I don’t care if I hurt people” or “my needs come before theirs.” Just try to be honest with people, communicate about sex and treat people with respect.
That is my reasoning. For the people who don't believe in disclosure what are your reasons?
-
I'm sure some hiv neg people have already seen this thread and left with reinforced or new prejudices against poz people.
The damage is if any neg person starts to think they are safe playing bare in a sex club because all poz men are responsible. Only a neg person can prevent themselves from being infected. A poz person can prevent themselves from passing it on, but they can't prevent another poz person or a person who doesn't know what their status is from infecting others. Any neg person out there cruising in a sex club or bathhouse may not know it but they are poz friendly and are having sex with pos guys. Silence = Death and if you don't ask your sexual partner and you are neg you are a fool, and you better hope that they are honest because some men will lie to get off. There are good and bad people in every community and there always will be. We can only educate neg people that they have to protect themselves. A neg person should assume that any person they are going to have sex with is poz unless told otherwise, and then check your sources.
-
That is my reasoning. For the people who don't believe in disclosure what are your reasons?
In all the outreach programs I have been to I found myself having to defend pozzies, myself included, who decided in most cases not to disclose. I heard so many angry protests from negative gay men who told me it was absolutely their right to be told, and how their 'choice' was taken away when we don't proactively tell them about our status.
The one practical argument is that in order to be fair, there has to be a mutual agreement on accepted risk - what I mean is, while others' disregard of their health does not cancel out our duty as pozzies to keep the virus to ourselves, when it comes to disclosure, I maintain that we don't have a duty that expands to cover the total denial of any risk involved in a clearly risky sexual situation on the part of a negative partner.
Because the fact is that when we say we want the virus to stop with us, unless you're one of those that totally stop having any sex altogether or only have sex with other pozzies, we mean only that we will do our conscious best to avoid transmission. And whether we disclose or not can have no effect on how we can make good with this pledge of no transmission.
Accidents can happen. And anyone who's a reasonable adult walks into a sauna, go to a Grindr's appointment, etc, should know that the next person he fucks with may have a range of STDs, and that the risk of getting infected is real with or without disclosure, but the risk can almost be completely removed if safer sex is practiced, whereas disclosure alone does not remove the possibility of transmission.
But now it seems the line has moved so far back that being UD is the only thing that's needed as a form of 'safer sex'; and if you take that reasoning with you, it's not hard to see how some pozzies could just blocked their minds off with the reasoning that raw fucking is just like oral sex. Maybe it's true.. most likely not, because the one 'fatal' logical flaw is that even if being UD is as good as being non-transmissible, there's always a chance that our VL can increase to non-UD between tests.
And to think that all these in-fighting is over a condom.. Maybe it's worst place to insert some humor, but here goes - one of my mentors in HIV health promotion often used this line: "well, you're after all dipping into a shit hole, you might as well hear a hat."
<edited to correct typos>
-
All laws/ rules/ moral codes/ customs/ emanate eventually from the majority view of what society settles upon as right and wrong in a time and place; true. It was considered morally right once to condemn, even outlaw homosexual acts, it still the case amongst many global societies. Was it/is it right? It is currently considered right by legislators in some jurisdictions to throw poz people in jail for engaging in protected sex, even when no transmission occurred, and there was no risk presented, simply because they didn’t disclose. Their definition of ‘right’, is surely an anathema to nearly all on these boards.
Please let’s not get into moral relativism. It is all too convenient to dredge up statistics and arguments so as to lend credence to virtually any ‘moral’ justification, however tenuous it seems to the person at the receiving end, most of whom would doubtless consider such an argument as a contortion or a deception. People who are anti-homosexuals also believed/believe they were/are in the right. Terrorists truly believe they are right. The Govt in Iran executing gays think they are right.
So please let’s not push this line. It is utterly puerile and only serves to underscore the adroitness of human beings in manufacturing justifications and rationalizations for palpably ‘extreme selfish acts’. It’s a load of self-serving, and naive codswallop that no rational person would swallow.
So then…..It is ultimately a question of ‘where do you draw the line?’ going not merely by scientific data but ALSO placing adequate weight on factors such as ‘stigma, public health consensus, & criminalization’ that ALL HIV+ are confronted with. A poz person’s notion of what constitutes ‘responsible and safe sex’, and the public/legal awareness and sensitivity of our actions as a community is enmeshed with the public’s perception of how we ought to conduct ourselves. Though it is in our hands to make to virus stop with us, it is not us who get to decide what the borders and limits of acceptable behaviour are. The medical experts, public health workers and, in some cases the courts do this. Whether or not we like it or see it is beside the point. We are the minority.
-A Condom IS considered the hallmark of safe sex in 2012.
Perhaps not in some non-progressive places, but in many others doctors/public health workers/ courts and the like would certainly interpret condom use as adequate protection and also a clear signal that the person did not intend to harm his/her sexual partner. The majority of these people: i.e. public health workers/doctors/ legal guys would construe the lack of a condom, even if on meds, as a cue that the poz person is callous or indifferent about others’ health. This is the reality. Whether or not we like it or agree is beside the point.
-Because a condom acts a veritable safeguard against most STIs in offering a tangible barrier, because it offers a safety-net by way of PeP in case of a break, because it’s an inveterate symbol of protection against HIV, the public attitudes are entrenched. And they matter to our lives because they do place on us limits in the ways we can act. This is the reality. Whether or not we like it or agree is beside the point.
Even if the scientific data points to suppression of VL through meds being as effective a precaution- MANY people in high places of public health and medicine would disagree. They cite valid reasons: treatment is prone to viral break-throughs, VL in semen may differ from plasma, co-infection of other STIs, so on and so forth. These are the people holding the reins to public health statements and thereby our sexual boundaries (in a sort of way). Their reasons may or may not be influenced politically. But their position of authority is a reality.
So much for objective realities. Now, if it is the view of certain experts that the condom mantra ought to change in keeping with the science, then I’d think the rational way to go about it would be to lobby within scientific communities that can make a difference to our ground reality, rather than go ahead and make that difference surreptitiously in a dark room by yourself: by fucking raw without disclosure! An act, which so blatantly subverts & undercuts the message that HIV advocates, have so laboriously exhorted over decades and continue to do so. If the message ought to be changed, then do something towards effectively changing it- don’t go around engaging in, what can most sympathetically be described, as ‘illicit transgressions’: engaging in unprotected sex without disclosure.
We live in a world where poz people are still forbidden to travel and work in certain places, where people are thrown into jail for engaging even in protected sex, and where no transmission occurs, in the absence of disclosure. Where the majority of people are NOT gay and do not understand the unspoken ethics of the gay sex clubs. Where lawmakers choose to be oblivious to scientific advancements in treatment and prevention.
But instead of disseminating education and allaying myths and prejudices, what do we get on this thread? We have an exhibition of poz people committing gross misdemeanours that serve to undermine everything we stand for- people who provide justification upon culpability contortion upon evasion, who display a remarkable level of dexterity in eschewing personal onus and obligation in a bid to further their selfish, if petty ends of a few minutes of bareback pleasure. ::)
This thread is nothing but a marvellous showcase of the vulgar insouciance of the selfish-hearted who sink to new lows in order to self-justify their reckless behaviour.
Edited for typos, surely some missed
-
I didn't get the impression that it was flame bait. Could be, I don't know. What struck me was the reaction, and I wasn't the only one who felt that. Also, while I can see how failing to disclose contributes to stigma, I think calling those who don't disclose monsters contributes way more. But mecch, for instance, illustrated that already.
You're right. I didn't start this thread to 'flame bait'.
-
...a condom acts a veritable safeguard against most STIs in offering a tangible barrier,
This should be qualified. Some of the most common STIs such as worts, syphilis, herpes, and gonorrhoea, aren't dependent on anal or vaginal intercourse for infection to occur, which means that even when condoms are used, transmission can still take place.
-
This should be qualified. Some of the most common STIs such as worts, syphilis, herpes, and gonorrhoea, aren't dependent on anal or vaginal intercourse for infection to occur, which means that even when condoms are used, transmission can still take place.
Wow Zohar. Sharp observation. Sigh.
Perhaps the only good thing I can see from this is that you actually read through the wall of text I wrote and hopefully, something resonated in why so many of us consider barebacking without disclosure so wrong.
Can I ask you nicely:
- Why not simply wear a condom? Is it REALLY worth the risk (albeit small risk) ?
OR
- Serosort and bareback?
OR
-disclose and bareback?
The stark difference between oral sex vs. undetectable anal sex parallels (which I don't personally agree with but anyhow..) is that in the former, condoms reduce the entire oral exercise to a task bordering on pointlessness, which is perhaps why it has never caught on and never will. This, in my opinion, is not the case with anal sex/ penetrative sex.
Yes, all who engage in sexual acts, enter saunas and what have you, are responsible for themselves, but I can't get my head around the fact on how someone who is aware of his status can be so impervious to doing their "conscious best" (quote from Komnaes) in stopping onward transmission.
-
So then…..It is ultimately a question of ‘where do you draw the line?’ going not merely by scientific data but ALSO placing adequate weight on factors such as ‘stigma, public health consensus, & criminalization’ that ALL HIV+ are confronted with. A poz person’s notion of what constitutes ‘responsible and safe sex’, and the public/legal awareness and sensitivity of our actions as a community is enmeshed with the public’s perception of how we ought to conduct ourselves. Though it is in our hands to make to virus stop with us, it is not us who get to decide what the borders and limits of acceptable behaviour are. The medical experts, public health workers and, in some cases the courts do this. Whether or not we like it or see it is beside the point. We are the minority.
Edited for typos, surely some missed
Maybe read (or reread?) Frantz Fanon. Gramsci if you can stomach reading a Marxist in 2012.
I highlight this paragraph not to call out the writer but because its one example of reasonings in this thread that make me think of just how much we accept our "subaltern" identity as handed to us, allow our selves to be constructed by hostile powers, let ourselves be interpellated (see French philosopher Althusser). That's a post-Marxist (post Paris68) observation of power struggle, identity. (It helps for insight into colonial history and post-colonial power struggles, international relations. It explains a power of Act Up, in my opinion.)
See I get with Gymrat and Ann on how 100% disclosure is about respect - respect for my own value and status as a HIV+ person and respect for the other. I have to agree.
But that respect for the other therefore includes opening myself to, many times, (not always, sometimes not even often!) another round of interpellation by an idiot, ignorant, righteous or even sanctimonious intellect that actually has no right to construct me. Reject me, sure ok.
This is all very 80's and 90's stuff, mind you.
However, be very careful when explaining that "100% disclosure is important because that's what the status quo Ideology expects". In so many words. This is sort of "performance of purity". And therefore cleanliness. Status quo Ideology can only deal with a HIV+ person's active sexuality if the HIV+ person is 100% pure - morally impeccable, 100% without risk. Otherwise its a dire threat. (Some status quo Ideology would just as well deny all sex to HIV+ people and not have to think about this at all.)
In other words, the subaltern is being constructed as "exceptionally" threatening, and "naturally" deserving of being held to a higher moral standard. Hypocritical moral standard, because in fact it is Ideology, ("hegemony"), in doing so, shoring up its power, hiding its profiteering based on its powers, and enjoying the ease of mind that comes with the security that the subaltern is not a threat. One thing you can be sure, Ideology, or hegemony, is quite corrupt and not pure, not clean. Do not use its "approved scripts" in constructing your own minority identity. Perform them, maybe, when its strategically important, but don't 100% believe that is your true subjectivity.
-
Only a neg person can prevent themselves from being infected.
We can only educate neg people that they have to protect themselves.
only, only, only you say several times yet that's just not true. The responsibility lies on both poz and neg partners to do what they can to prevent transmission.
poz people can help prevent neg people from being infected by doing everything in their/our power to not spread the disease. We can also educate poz people on how to protect neg people by explaining methods that help control the spread of the disease - by serosorting, using condoms, being UD, disclosure, etc. (Of course I realize that none of those methods is 100% foolproof; however, using enough of those methods can reduce the viability of transmission down to only being theoretical)
Just because one partner fails in their responsibilities does not give the other partner the right to fail also. When one partner foolishly exposes himself (ie exhibits less knowledge about transmission prevention), more responsibility should then fall to the more knowledgeable partner (the one who knows he is poz) to do more to prevent the transmission.
Silence = Death and if you don't ask your sexual partner and you are neg you are a fool,
A neg person should assume that any person they are going to have sex with is poz unless told otherwise, and then check your sources.
Never ever, ever, should a neg person ask their sexual partner what their status is. That is the most foolish and least likely way to protect your status and shouldn't even be suggested. Put simply, people lie. You should have just left your statement as "A neg person should assume that any person they are going to have sex with is poz." period
Besides if the poz person hasn't already volunteered this information on his own (the disclosure I mentioned above as something the poz person should do to help in these situations) what would make you think a neg person asking is going to pull out the real answer, when the poz person would clearly by then be hiding that information? Disclosure really only works properly/best when the poz person volunteers that information.
-
only, only, only you say several times yet that's just not true. The responsibility lies on both poz and neg partners to do what they can to prevent transmission.
Responsibility lies with both (no pun intended) but only a neg person can keep themselves neg. I will say that a million times until people get that. A poz person can end the disease with them, but they can't keep anyone else from infecting that neg person. The neg person can only keep themselves safe by not engaging in any risky behavior with anyone.
-
1) A negative person should protect themselves against HIV.
2) A positive person should not engage in unprotected penetrative anal sex with a person who is negative (or since certain people are so fond of splitting hairs, "a person who doesn't believe him/herself to be positive").
THESE TWO STATEMENTS ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!!! Nobody's arguing that a negative person shouldn't refrain from risky behaviors. However, that doesn't in any way lessen the truth of the second statement. They are both absolutely true; it is not a one-or-the-other situation. Not. At. All.
Now about this thread: I agree that it should not be locked (nay on censorship). However, I ask those of us who believe in basic human decency to let this thread die a natural death. Certain individuals are prodding and provoking us for whatever reason, and at this point, I don't see any point in trying to engage them in a rational discussion about the issues that concern us. Let them carry on in a dark, silent room while we move on to a better place where we treat each other with respect, not selfishness.
Let's all get the bad taste out of our mouths, offer our ideas and opinions in threads where people are actually willing and able to listen to them, and leave this particular thread to rot away.
(The End... hopefully)
-
I have to say I am horrified by the quality of the discourse on this thread, particularly the frequent ad hominem attacks. Unfortunately, although this thread is an extreme example, I don't find it totally out of character for these forums. There is at least one other HIV forum in which I participate that manages to discuss controversial issues without descending to the depths that have been reached here. I'm afraid I now attach a major health warning to this forum when asked about it, and I myself won't be returning.
-
I have to say I am horrified by the quality of the discourse on this thread, particularly the frequent ad hominem attacks. Unfortunately, although this thread is an extreme example, I don't find it totally out of character for these forums. There is at least one other HIV forum in which I participate that manages to discuss controversial issues without descending to the depths that have been reached here. I'm afraid I now attach a major health warning to this forum when asked about it, and I myself won't be returning.
You and your 12 posts are free to leave. I never understood why people try to make themselves feel important by saying they are leaving a forum. If you don't like to read a forum or can't take what's being said just leave.
-
Responsibility lies with both (no pun intended) but only a neg person can keep themselves neg. I will say that a million times until people get that. A poz person can end the disease with them, but they can't keep anyone else from infecting that neg person. The neg person can only keep themselves safe by not engaging in any risky behavior with anyone.
Ha,... just listen to yourself. Are those neggies tying you on a chair like those edging videos, and then sit on your raw dick with you kicking and screaming?
It's their business to go raw fucking, sero-sorting, or WTF they do to get their asses infected by most likely people that are already infected but not knowing it, or knowingly not to get tested so they can continue to ignore it.
It's another thing entirely for us to willingly not engage in safer sex while being positive, and it's especially fucked up if your excuse is that, oh well, they gonna get it anyway with or without me raw cock up his bum.
No one is saying that it's our responsibility to keep all neggies neg, we're just saying when it comes to willingly put others at risk, are you the type of persons that will hold back or not. SO what are you?
-
You and your 12 posts are free to leave. I never understood why people try to make themselves feel important by saying they are leaving a forum. If you don't like to read a forum or can't take what's being said just leave.
Let's all get the bad taste out of our mouths, offer our ideas and opinions in threads where people are actually willing and able to listen to them, and leave this particular thread to rot away.
(The End... hopefully)
-
Ha,... just listen to yourself. Are those neggies tying you on a chair like those edging videos, and then sit on your raw dick with you kicking and screaming?
They might not be tying someone to a chair but they want to take raw dick. So much so that, as I stated earlier in the thread, when I've immediately taken it out, they've put it straight back in again. Oh, and also as I stated earlier, the guy I got talking to afterwards recently was HIV positive too.
-
They might not be tying someone to a chair but they want to take raw dick. So much so that, as I stated earlier in the thread, when I've immediately taken it out, they've put it straight back in again. Oh, and also as I stated earlier, the guy I got talking to afterwards recently was HIV positive too.
Whatever Zohar. You just don't get it or don't want to.
How does this address this statement of yours?:
I don't think I have made a mistake and, thus, would do the same thing again.
-
They might not be tying someone to a chair but they want to take raw dick. So much so that, as I stated earlier in the thread, when I've immediately taken it out, they've put it straight back in again. Oh, and also as I stated earlier, the guy I got talking to afterwards recently was HIV positive too.
Well, than I guess some people really do deserve the label "sociopath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder)".
-
Oh kiddies, y'all been played from the get go.
-
Oh kiddies, y'all been played from the get go.
Hehe.. well, we sort of knew that. But then again it's a public forums and I suppose we do need to stand our ground and state our position.
-
This was an unfair attack:
...
My private decisions in my committed relationship are not going to be the subject of discussion in this or any thread in AIDSMEDS. Let me be crystal clear on that. The decisions I have made, based on my own commitment to my medications, my persistently UD viral load over the past year, and my boyfriend's complete and dare I mention independent study of the same science is ours to make. I certainly would not dare bring it to this thread, and am frankly taken aback that you would, or could draw a parallel to the situations.
My boyfriend has never given me permission, nor would I ask him to allow me to dissect our sexual choices on this public forum that his family has already perused. And of all people, I trusted you to know that. Key word there of course, is trusted. I try to learn from my mistakes.
...
JK had already disclosed this information in this post.
...
My partner and I have elected to have unprotected sex so long as I am UD in my blood supply. The reason? I am basically a bottom, and that level seems directly proportional to the (extreme unlikelihood) possibility of infection. As for oral, we have not crossed that bridge yet, but I have few qualms about even a blip being of any significance.
...
Furthermore, all the name-calling in this thread started with a series of posts by Jk calling the OP a sociopath. That's a lot worse than calling someone an idiot. It's not clear to me why the relatively mild term "idiot" merited a time out when the repeated pejorative use of "sociopath" did not.
-
This was an unfair attack:
JK had already disclosed this information in this post.
Furthermore, all the name-calling in this thread started with a series of posts by Jk calling the OP a sociopath. That's a lot worse than calling someone an idiot. It's not clear to me why the relatively mild term "idiot" merited a time out when the repeated pejorative use of "sociopath" did not.
Why the hell would you come in and resurface this post -- it had died off!! Pot stirring? Ugh
-
Just pondering,
Is using a known and funny internet meme like "DIAF" considered truly pejorative?
-
Why the hell would you come in and resurface this post -- it had died off!! Pot stirring? Ugh
My thoughts exactly Mike...couldn't agree more... it was a thread that was more than belabored and discussed with a range of emotions....
Not exactly a Zombie thread --- but a thread whose time had come and gone...
and then Assurbanipal comes in more than a week later and "resurrects" it?
What are your motives Assurbanipal?
And that was a rhetorical question.
-
I am team Mimi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R25ypkQx7ac
-
I like fried catfish..
-
Don't vote for romney
-
Don't vote for romney
Probably the best post in this entire thread.
-
Probably the best post in this entire thread.
BRAVO!
-
Mittens actually owned Obama last night -- I was rather underwhelmed by Barry Soetoro
-
I watched the debate with some friends and tortured them with comments like Mittens really is making some good points , maybe we should vote for him .
Half way into the debate one of my buds was so aggravated we had to take his blood pressure .
-
I watched the debate with some friends and tortured them with comments like Mittens really is making some good points , maybe we should vote for him .
Half way into the debate one of my buds was so aggravated we had to take his blood pressure .
Diabolical!
-
I accept FULL responsibility for my actions of becoming positive. I too wish the guy who infected me had told me he was poz! I would have done things differently. He had known for some time that he was poz but didn't think it was important to say anything. But again, I assumed he was neg so I can't say it is all his fault! It's my body and I should have protected it by not having unprotected sex!
What scares me the most is the possibility I WOULD GIVE SOMEONE ELSE HIV! I would not want to do that for any reason! Its hard to imagine that anyone else would consciously do so!!
It is strange that a healthcare provider who is responsible for treating you first and foremost because you are his patient, would take this attitude. I was diagnosed 6-6-12, one of the first things my doc said to me after saying he was sorry was asked if I knew who did it and encouraged me to prosecute the guy! I thought that was odd since I made the choice to have unprotected sex and I told him so! Needless to say, he neversaid another word about it! It was just as much my fault as it was the guy who gave it to me! However, I am the better person since I will not judgethe guy but rather I accept fault for my own actions!
-
A few things come to mind after reading every post in this thread:
Hats off to the moderators here. Thank you for allowing this discussion to continue despite a bit of bad behavior on the part of some. Thanks for calling out the feather fluffers when needed, but still allowing all positions to be openly aired.
As always...Ann...you ROCK!
I'm an LTSr and have struggled internally and externally with the moral and ethical labryinth that has been shared in this thread. The only axiom I've come up with is, whenever someone says that living with HIV is 'chronic and manageable' they have NO idea what they're talking about. Many times it has felt that HIV has invaded or had to be dealth with, in almost every aspect of my life: Emotional, intellectual, physical, psychological, philosophical and of course, sexual. Nothing about living with HIV, for me, has been anything like 'easy'.
In all these areas I've made some bad decisions for good reasons--as well as some good decisions. Now I've dealt with enough of it to look back over it and see the arc of how and where my decisons were made and where they came from. My hopes are that knowledge of this will help me with my future decisions.
I can freely admit that the deeply intimate, lustful, romantic and visceral act of having sex free of latex barriers and sharing everything with my sexual partner, including our cum, is one of the blessing I think I get for being human--but also something that fills me with as much fear as it does longing. I have mitigated risks and live with something 'eh, close enough'. That's my decision and there isn't anything good/bad or right or wrong with it--just my opinion.
Right now, I'm trying not to stare at my phone and will it to ring. I'm waiting the results of a biopsy of a tumor in my head--one that has made me quite deaf in one ear. I've named the tumor, Glen. My hope is that Glen is nothing more than a bulbous friend who has stayed too long on my couch and needs to be removed--not causing any ill effects in his leaving.
If it is cancer--then there are options. Just like I've had to make with HIV. I'm used to this and though it may sound like I'm being cavalier, which I'm not. I still just live as much as I can today.
The reason for my little schpeel here: I want to live a full life. I have always lived a full life. I decided that I would live life as if I would starve to death if I didn't suck every drop of the syrup each day gives, leaving nothing to go unexperienced. Yes, that changed for me, especially sexually after my HIV diagnosis. But it can be moderated so that my partner is fully aware and in control of what she/he enjoys with me, and I with them.
Live long--live full. ;-)
-
You and I literally walk the earth today because of the "bad behavior" of others.
I'm starting to find my inner Moffie easier and easier to channel. There's absolutely a place and time for bad behavior. It's usually when people are going to be aghast at it.
-
Marco sorry to hear this happening to you and hope the phone call was better news than one might think. Your post was....very heartfelt. Be good to yourself and take care, wishing the best!
-
Good news. The tumor in my head isn't cancerous!
-
Good news. The tumor in my head isn't cancerous!
Woo Hoo -- great news indeed!!
-
Good stuff, glad to hear the news Marco. You should celebrate by drenching someone with your bodily fluids. ;) Pictures of course....
-
Oh Thomas---I definitely plan to! ;-)
-
Protected sex should be practiced.
Philosophically speaking, automatically/obligatory/imposed disclosure is part of imposing slave morality on the doer of the action. Those who think disclosure is not obligatory while practicing sex with condoms have master morality:
Master-slave morality is a central theme of Friedrich Nietzsche's works, in particular the first essay of On the Genealogy of Morality. Nietzsche argued that there were two fundamental types of morality: 'Master morality' and 'slave morality'. Master morality weighs actions on a scale of good or bad consequences unlike slave morality which weighs actions on a scale of good or evil intentions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality
You should also read this:
Morality is modified in the lab
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8593748.stm
Magnetic field affects your morality. That's why my morality changes a lot.
1) Sometimes I strongly believe I should disclose before having sex, even when condoms are used (so, I put myself in a slave position, the rights of the sexual partner are more important than my right of keeping my information to myself)
2) Sometimes I strongly believe I should not disclose (so, I put myself in a master position, my rights are more important than the rights of the sexual partner)
In my country, there are no disclosure laws (only intentional transmission without use of condoms can get you charged), but I still have trouble balancing my slave and my master morality (apparently I'm under influences of various magnetic fields),so I have been abstaining from sex for 4.5 years (ever since I got the virus).
Take care, and focus on good things in life.
More meditation, less gym.
Throw away your TVs (mind control machines), and your cellphones (tracking devices).
Believe in Love.
-
Elf are you getting some? Last I remember, you had been celibate since diagnosis. Maybe I'm remembering completely wrong.
-
Penguins and horses are two of my favorite animals....
Penguins are so fun and playful - yet have a slight aura of dignity...
And horses - so majestic and calm, yet strong.
Yep - I love penguins and horses.
-
never mind, my bad. This thread should die already.
-
I've not been here for a while so surprised, albeit pleasantly so, to find this thread is still going. It's obviously a discussion worth having.
-
Penguins and horses are two of my favorite animals....
Penguins are so fun and playful - yet have a slight aura of dignity...
And horses - so majestic and calm, yet strong.
Yep - I love penguins and horses.
Perhaps with global warming the two will be able to mate. Horsquins would be like the coolest animals on earth, only warmer!
-
Perhaps with global warming the two will be able to mate. Horsquins would be like the coolest animals on earth, only warmer!
Imagine an Olympic Water Polo with Horsequins! SOme asshat would likely crossbreed with a Killer Whale though, and ruin it. And then date Sheryl Crow.
-
I've not been here for a while so surprised, albeit pleasantly so, to find this thread is still going. It's obviously a discussion worth having.
Actually, the last 30 posts have had little to do with the original subject.
It's time this was locked.
*click*
-
Ann wins the day! LOL LOL LOL Go, Ann!