Quantcast

Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
E-newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 17, 2014, 07:49:48 AM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
  • Total Members: 23489
  • Latest: Cowboy
Stats
  • Total Posts: 639049
  • Total Topics: 48515
  • Online Today: 205
  • Online Ever: 585
  • (January 07, 2014, 02:31:47 PM)
Users Online

Welcome


Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and others concerned about HIV/AIDS.  Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning:  Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

  • The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own physician.

  • All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

  • Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

  • We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge.

  • Product advertisement—including links; banners; editorial content; and clinical trial, study or survey participation—is strictly prohibited by forums members unless permission has been secured from POZ.

To change forums navigation language settings, click here (members only), Register now

Para cambiar sus preferencias de los foros en español, haz clic aquí (sólo miembros), Regístrate ahora

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the symbol in each box.

Author Topic: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom  (Read 11209 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,872
I was just reading this on poz.com homepage.  I'm not sure how to feel about this.  I've always disliked these prosecutions--unless an HIVer was purposely and habitually going out and not telling people.  We've all read how tops are at much less risk.  However, I've heard several tops online say they got it that way and swear they are total tops.  The tops I know personally continue to test negative after having multiple partners for years and having bb sex.  Being a total top does seem to be a very small risk unless the top has some other STD on his penis.   

I kind of danced around this question before on here.  I'm curious how many would be willing to tell how they got the virus--top, bottom, oral?  And, you are 100% sure?  I got while bottoming.  I know I've heard some say they got it while doing oral.  They possibly may have, but I wonder whether they are forgetting some other encounter.

The story about the case is below

http://www.poz.com/articles/Canada_criminilization_HIV_1_18414.shtml 

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,705
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #1 on: May 15, 2010, 12:02:56 AM »



   I never can understand the importance of how someone became positive.  What does it help exactly?  It's not like you can go back in time and change what ya did.
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,872
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #2 on: May 15, 2010, 12:14:49 AM »


   I never can understand the importance of how someone became positive.  What does it help exactly?  It's not like you can go back in time and change what ya did.

I understand what you're saying.  It was suggested to me that I may get more responses if I had asked in a poll.  With the judge ruling the neg top was not at significant risk, it made me wonder if members would be willing to share how the virus found them.  Someone who got the virus by being a total top may say they disagree with the judge.       

Offline TabooPrincess

  • Member
  • Posts: 279
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #3 on: May 15, 2010, 02:18:17 AM »
Vaginal!  What does that make me...a bottom? lol  ;D

 :o
09/ 2008 - Seroconversion
11/2008 - Tested pos, cd4 640 vl 25400
12/2008 - cd4 794 vl 27798, 35%
03/2009 - cd4 844 vl 68846, 35%
06/2009 - cd4 476 vl 49151, 33% (pregnancy confirmed)
08/2009 - cd4 464 vl 54662, 32%
Started meds for pregnancy (Kaletra, AZT, Viread)
09/2009 - cd4 841 vl 3213, 42%
10/2009 - cd4 860 vl 1088, 41%
11/2009 - cd4 771 vl 563, 38%
12/2009 - cd4 885 vl 151 42%
Discontinued meds after baby born
02/2010 - cd4 841 vl 63781, 38%
05/2010 - cd4 1080 vl 113000, 39%
08/2010 - cd4 770 vl 109242
12/2010 - cd4 642 vl 111000, 34%
06/2011 - cd4 450 vl 222000, 33%
11/2011 - cd4 419 vl 212000, 24%
03/2012 - cd4 280 vl 118000, 26% (repeated Cd4 at 360)
05/2012 -cd4 360 vl 99,190
10/2012 Atripla, cd4 690, vl 80
12/2012 Darunavir, norvir, truvada, Cd4 680, vl u/d
07/2013 cd4 750,ud

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,872
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #4 on: May 15, 2010, 02:57:23 AM »
I was just reading this question to the HIV risk doc at thebody.  A top asks the question about his risk.  The doc says according to the CDC, they put the risk of an insertive partner with someone known to be HIV poz at 6.5 per 10,000 exposures.  Okay, we've all heard those numbers I think.  However, I was surprised he said that was a very high relative risk. 

When I see 6.5 per 10,000 exposures, I think fairly low risk.  Goes to show I need to do my homework.

http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/SafeSex/Current/Q208524.html

Offline RapidRod

  • Member
  • Posts: 15,288
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #5 on: May 15, 2010, 03:23:50 AM »
Low or High if you contract HIV does it matter? The out come is the same. HIV is preventable.

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #6 on: May 15, 2010, 07:41:49 AM »
Ted, I hate it when I see those "one in whatever" numbers being trotted out in relation to hiv infection. They're meaningless. They were pretty much pulled out of a hat. I used to have a link to a paper or study where those numbers were discredited, but I haven't a clue where it is now. (Jonathan, do you remember? I think I got it from you back in the day. The study, not the lurgy. :) )

It's refreshing to see a judge with a bit of sense. I hope he told that top that he needs to start wrapping the damned thing if he wants to STAY negative. Tops do become positive, it's just more difficult. But difficult does not mean impossible. When will people ever learn? ~sigh~ When they end up poz, I suppose, just like how I learned.

Ann
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  



"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline BlueMoon

  • Member
  • Posts: 665
  • Calling from the Fun House
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #7 on: May 15, 2010, 08:38:34 AM »
Tops do become positive, it's just more difficult. But difficult does not mean impossible. When will people ever learn? ~sigh~ When they end up poz, I suppose, just like how I learned.

Ann

You're a top?   :o
...................VL.....CD4.....%
-----------------------------------------
08/10-- ......<40.....290.....42
05/10-- ......<48.....290.....46
02/10-- ......<48.....481.....44
10/09-- ......<48.....277.....46
07/09-- ......<48.....300.....38
05/09-- ........51.....449.....39
03/09-- Added Isentress
02/09-- ........65.....299.....34
11/08-- ........62.....242.....40
08/08-- ........66.....212.....29
05/08-- ......202.....217.....27
03/08-- ....5210.....187.....21
02/08-- Began Truvada/Reyataz/Norvir
12/07-- 273,000.....157.....22
11/07-- 229,000.....209.....22
10/07-- Diagnosis

It's a complex world.

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,705
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #8 on: May 15, 2010, 08:55:00 AM »



  Wish my wife would get on top .  How can a woman who jogs 2-3 miles a day complain so quickly their legs are tired? Oh hell, just sit on my face then... ::)
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline Boze

  • Member
  • Posts: 477
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #9 on: May 15, 2010, 09:45:46 AM »
For me it was Hetero vag/oral  sex, first encounter with the woman.

So there you go - as low as the % may be, it does happen.

If you want to talk probabilities - the chance for gay top to get infected is certainly low (I guess it only happens if there are cuts and enough blood to get inside urethra). So it's seems a lot lower than vag sex. I'd be actually curious myself to know if anybody got sick that way.

 
==========
Aug08 - Seroconversion
Mar10 - Diagnosis; cd4 690 - VL 19,000
Apr10 - cd4 600
May10 - VL 4,500
Jun10 - started Atripla ; VL 113
Jul 10 - UD vl, CD4 590
Aug 10 - UD, CD4 810, 52%
Nov 10 - UD, CD4 980

Offline next2u

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,762
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #10 on: May 15, 2010, 10:00:09 AM »
in each probable encounter i flipped and flopped : )

hmm, on a sidenote, the guy that most likely shared the bug with me hit on my yesterday. he does it every now and then with a different profile...guess im still his type. problem -- his profile says he's negative (one of the many, 2 of the others say he's poz).

what a bastard.

best,
d
midapr07 - seroconversion
sept07 - tested poz
oct07 cd4 1013; vl 13,900; cd4% 41
feb08 cd4  694;  vl 16,160; cd4% 50.1
may08 cd4 546; vl 91,480; cd4% 32
aug08 cd4 576; vl 48,190; cd4% 40.7
dec08 cd4 559; vl 63,020; cd4% 29.4
feb09 cd4 464; vl 11,000; cd4% 26
may09 cd4 544; vl 29,710; cd4% 27.2
oct09 cd4 ...; vl 23,350; cd4% 31.6
mar10 cd4 408; vl 59,050; cd4% 31.4
aug10 cd4 328; vl 80,000; cd4% 19.3 STARTED ATRIPLA
oct10 cd4 423; vl 410 ;); cd4% 30.2
jun11 cd4 439; vl <20 ;); cd4% 33.8 <-Undetectable!
mar12 cd4 695; vl ud; cd4% 38.6
jan13 cd4 738; vl ud; cd4% 36.8
aug13 cd4 930; vl ud; cd4% 44.3
jan14 cd4 813; vl ud; cd4% 42.8
may14 cd4 783; vl *; cd4%43.5

Offline Hellraiser

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,136
  • Semi-misanthropic
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #11 on: May 15, 2010, 03:19:29 PM »
So I've had a somewhat change of heart...

I think if you're a neg top and you're topping a bottom who is poz and UD you'll most likely be fine.  I'll never advocate anyone neg not use protection ever though.

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 24,076
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #12 on: May 15, 2010, 03:25:19 PM »
You're a top?   :o

A total top no less (not that I've ever met one, totally that is)
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Offline azprince

  • Member
  • Posts: 153
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #13 on: May 15, 2010, 04:00:29 PM »
if you are unlucky then its unlucky, whether top or bottom, thats all that I can think of when I read this... when ever I read the info about the low risk and the almost zero risk if you use a condom, I start to appreciate what one Doctor told me:
There is no such thing as safe sex, there is only SAFER sex... any sexual activity includes some risk, even if its minimum then there is this chance that its the one shot with the loaded bullet, this really helps me absorb the whole issue of what happened  :'(
I have to admit : the good thing is that from now on;  I have no option but to succeed , still its ok to worry :))

Offline jethro

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #14 on: May 15, 2010, 04:31:38 PM »
I agree with you, tednlou. I would think it is very important to determine how we got this bug. If only to lean more to science, rather than conjecture. But, that being said, most likely for me, it was bottoming, unprotected, anonymous. I had been with a few female prostitutes at that time also, unprotected. It was a wild month for me.

Offline Hellraiser

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,136
  • Semi-misanthropic
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #15 on: May 15, 2010, 04:32:30 PM »
I agree with you, tednlou. I would think it is very important to determine how we got this bug. If only to lean more to science, rather than conjecture. But, that being said, most likely for me, it was bottoming, unprotected, anonymous. I had been with a few female prostitutes at that time also, unprotected. It was a wild month for me.

Bottoming for female prostitutes unprotected...that's a story for the grandkids.

Offline jethro

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #16 on: May 15, 2010, 04:35:40 PM »
Some stories are better off left alone, don't you think? No I was bottoming for a guy. I was on a run that month. and it got me!!

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 24,076
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #17 on: May 15, 2010, 04:49:51 PM »
Like so many on this board, my infection was entirely immaculate.
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,705
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #18 on: May 15, 2010, 05:27:20 PM »




       I'm just glad it was HIV instead of syphilis like I originally suspected. ::)
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline Boze

  • Member
  • Posts: 477
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #19 on: May 15, 2010, 06:37:10 PM »
So I've had a somewhat change of heart...

I think if you're a neg top and you're topping a bottom who is poz and UD you'll most likely be fine.  I'll never advocate anyone neg not use protection ever though.

Wait - as I understand, if someone is UD (undetectable) than you're fine (ie very low risk assuming he's UD during the encounter) no matter what you do.

I thought  the point made by OP was that being a top with someone who is positive and detectable is low risk.
==========
Aug08 - Seroconversion
Mar10 - Diagnosis; cd4 690 - VL 19,000
Apr10 - cd4 600
May10 - VL 4,500
Jun10 - started Atripla ; VL 113
Jul 10 - UD vl, CD4 590
Aug 10 - UD, CD4 810, 52%
Nov 10 - UD, CD4 980

Offline BT65

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 9,940
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #20 on: May 15, 2010, 07:03:08 PM »
For me it was Hetero vag/oral  sex, first encounter with the woman.

Hmm......
I've never killed anyone, but I frequently get satisfaction reading the obituary notices.-Clarence Darrow

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,228
  • Ninja Please
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #21 on: May 15, 2010, 07:15:14 PM »
Oh good. A disclosure thread. We don't have enough of these. I particularly like that it's dressed up as a "how did you get it?" thread. Variations on a theme do help to break the monotony.

I got HIV from unprotected anal. Most likely bottom, though I suppose it could have been on the occasions when I topped.

I don't really think about it much these days.

I gotta add though that I had lots of unprotected sex over many years before I was infected.

Would I always tell a sexual partner that I'm HIV positive? Nope. If I pick up some anonymous fuck who I'm not likely to see again, I wouldn't disclose.

MtD

Offline jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #22 on: May 15, 2010, 07:33:22 PM »
I agree with you, tednlou. I would think it is very important to determine how we got this bug. If only to lean more to science, rather than conjecture. But, that being said, most likely for me, it was bottoming, unprotected, anonymous. I had been with a few female prostitutes at that time also, unprotected. It was a wild month for me.

While I agree that transmission science is important, I am baffled at the willingness to ignore it. We HAVE first-tiered, peer-reviewed science that has taken into account the variance of patient report, and have found MULTIPLE studies on several continents that has only bolstered what the lab testing and simian/primate testing has indicated about HIV infection.

Why we should continue to assimilate anecdote and treat it as evidence is beyond me.

If someone DOES get HIV from, say, cunnilingus, then that person - and that viral strain - should be studied, and studied HARD. Because it will mean that HIV has CHANGED significantly. Ramifications for medical treatment, as well as a disturbing fundamental change in HIV theory, would necessarily follow.

Because to date, there have been exactly zero confirmed cases of cunnilingal infection. Lesbians remain the one demographic that is absolutely not on the radar for HIV infection. Such has been the case for thirty years. If that transmission vector changes, then it means dire and awful things for us all. And I mean globally.

So yes, it is important to understand HIV transmission theory and science. I have posted studies and links, largely ignored.

It is also perhaps important to determine when it is best to offer simple support without judgment, and when to confront someone who purports a transmission vector that is utterly without scientific backing. When do you draw the line? Kissing? Eating a soup laced with infected blood? Stepping on a tack? It's a slippery slope that I personally find very out-of-sync with a forum such as this.

If we offer support at the expense of scientific accuracy, then I submit that we are doing a great disservice to the person needing support, and a greater disservice to those who lurk and read, but do not post.

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

-Kimberly Page-Shafer, PhD, MPH

Welcome Thread

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #23 on: May 15, 2010, 07:35:49 PM »

Oh good. A disclosure thread. We don't have enough of these. I particularly like that it's dressed up as a "how did you get it?" thread. Variations on a theme do help to break the monotony.


Me loves 'em too.

I got it because I fucked an hiv individual raw. He didn't know, I didn't know. Whether I was on top, bottom, sideways, standing, sitting or whatever, I don't remember.

What matters is that I didn't insist on a condom and neither did he. More the fool, both of us.

The bottom line (absolutely NO pun intended) is that if you're going to put your dick inside someone's ass or pussy, or you're going to allow someone's dick to be inserted into your ass or pussy, then that dick better be wearing a bit of latex or polyurethane. Simple as. Too bad I was naive enough to not understand that bit of wisdom applied to me as well back in the day. Eh. Shit happens.
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  



"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #24 on: May 15, 2010, 07:37:59 PM »

While I agree that transmission science is important, I am baffled at the willingness to ignore it. We HAVE first-tiered, peer-reviewed science that has taken into account the variance of patient report, and have found MULTIPLE studies on several continents that has only bolstered what the lab testing and simian/primate testing has indicated about HIV infection.

Why we should continue to assimilate anecdote and treat it as evidence is beyond me.


Preach, brother.

All I can guess is that immaculate infections would like to validate each other. ~shrug~
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  



"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline blackwingbear

  • Member
  • Posts: 363
  • Hello, all you happy people....
    • THE DARK MIND OF BLACKWINGBEAR
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #25 on: May 15, 2010, 10:27:22 PM »
I'm a true versatile (I like both sides equally!) but I suspect that the occasion I caught it was when I bottomed for a partner who HAD disclosed to me that he was poz but who attempted not to cum in me - well, we both got a little too into the heat of the moment, and during an especially passionate thrust he accidentally came in me. Stupidly, we were not using protection (again, stupidly), and it happened. He was more worried about it than I was at the time - but 4 months later I was diagnosed.  :'( Life happens, and all of us occasionally make bad decisions.  :'(
It's all a sham. Politics is a big game, same as the media - and same as religion. The point is to distract & control. If we're looking at what they tell us is the "big issue", we're not looking at what they are doing. In time, there will be different causes and different minorities to pick-on. All in the name of keeping the system going, and the people distracted.

Offline Basquo

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,257
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #26 on: May 15, 2010, 10:56:34 PM »
I got it because I was a bored top, and decided to teach my bored bottom partner to top. Lesson learned. I'm again a top (safe.) Who knows what the fuck he's doing at the local sauna 12 years later.

Fact:  79% of statistics are made up.

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 24,076
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2010, 11:11:25 PM »
I got it because I was a bored top, and decided to teach my bored bottom partner to top. Lesson learned. I'm again a top (safe.) Who knows what the fuck he's doing at the local sauna 12 years later.

Fact:  79% of statistics are made up.

I've never heard of a top that wears butterfly costumes.  FASCINATING!
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,705
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2010, 11:16:26 PM »
I've never heard of a top that wears butterfly costumes.  FASCINATING!

There is only a 21% chance he's telling you the truth. :D
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline GSOgymrat

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,022
  • HIV+ since 1993. INTJ
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #29 on: May 15, 2010, 11:47:16 PM »
I've never heard of a top that wears butterfly costumes.  FASCINATING!

LMFAO!

There was nothing immaculate about my infection. I was bottoming, which I didn't regularly do, in a hot tub, which I had never done, and learned the hard way that water is not much of a lubricant. All my partner's dick needed was a tiara and it would have looked like Carrie after the prom.

Hey, you asked.

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 24,076
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #30 on: May 15, 2010, 11:58:28 PM »
Gotta love you queens.  Even when we can get you to fess up to being a bottom you still fill the post with ample caveats to minimize accusations of being voracious human cum rags.
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Offline edfu

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,084
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #31 on: May 16, 2010, 12:55:59 AM »
Would I always tell a sexual partner that I'm HIV positive? Nope. If I pick up some anonymous fuck who I'm not likely to see again, I wouldn't disclose.

MtD

Do you have protected or unprotected sex with the poor anonymous fuck to whom you don't disclose? 
"No one will ever be free so long as there are pestilences."--Albert Camus, "The Plague"

"Mankind can never be free until the last brick in the last church falls on the head of the last priest."--Voltaire

Offline GSOgymrat

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,022
  • HIV+ since 1993. INTJ
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #32 on: May 16, 2010, 01:02:54 AM »
Gotta love you queens.  Even when we can get you to fess up to being a bottom you still fill the post with ample caveats to minimize accusations of being voracious human cum rags.

I don't really want to be a voracious human cum rag but I do regret not having more sex before becoming HIV+.

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,228
  • Ninja Please
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #33 on: May 16, 2010, 01:34:22 AM »
Do you have protected or unprotected sex with the poor anonymous fuck to whom you don't disclose? 

Why don't you hazard a guess, Ed?

MtD

Offline edfu

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,084
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #34 on: May 16, 2010, 01:43:27 AM »
Well, that's one way of not answering a direct question.   I wouldn't presume to guess, but since you've previously said--if my memory is correct--that you engage in serosorting, I wonder how this revelation of nondisclosure correlates to that.   
"No one will ever be free so long as there are pestilences."--Albert Camus, "The Plague"

"Mankind can never be free until the last brick in the last church falls on the head of the last priest."--Voltaire

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,228
  • Ninja Please
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #35 on: May 16, 2010, 01:55:12 AM »
Well, that's one way of not answering a direct question.   I wouldn't presume to guess, but since you've previously said--if my memory is correct--that you engage in serosorting, I wonder how this revelation of nondisclosure correlates to that.   

Your smugly moral presumption is pretty clear. You suspect I don't practice safe sex with "the poor anonymous fucks".

The reality is that I only practice unprotected sex with others positive people. People I know to be HIV positive. It's a consensual decision arrvied at between adults who know one another. Anonymity is never involved when I have unprotected sex.

WIth people whose serostatus I do not know (one should never accept a claim of HIV negativity) then it's safer sex all the way.

That said, there remains this idea that disclosure is some sort of panacea to the problem of HIV transmission.

It is not.

Stopping HIV transmission requires each person to take responsibility for his or her own sexual health and protect themselves rather than handing that responsibility over to another person.

MtD

Offline edfu

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,084
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #36 on: May 16, 2010, 02:09:55 AM »
Well, that's good to hear.  Moral presumption was initially yours, IMO, when you referred to your sexual partner to whom you don't disclose  as "some anonymous fuck who [sic] I'm not likely to see again." I  added on the "poor,' which admittedly was my own "smug" opinion.  I'm also happy to learn that you believe in personal responsibility.       
"No one will ever be free so long as there are pestilences."--Albert Camus, "The Plague"

"Mankind can never be free until the last brick in the last church falls on the head of the last priest."--Voltaire

Offline blackwingbear

  • Member
  • Posts: 363
  • Hello, all you happy people....
    • THE DARK MIND OF BLACKWINGBEAR
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #37 on: May 16, 2010, 02:10:35 AM »
On a far lighter, even off-topic, note: Matty, I LOVE your Cthulhu avatar... ;D
It's all a sham. Politics is a big game, same as the media - and same as religion. The point is to distract & control. If we're looking at what they tell us is the "big issue", we're not looking at what they are doing. In time, there will be different causes and different minorities to pick-on. All in the name of keeping the system going, and the people distracted.

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,228
  • Ninja Please
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #38 on: May 16, 2010, 02:16:54 AM »
Well, that's good to hear.  Moral presumption was initially yours, IMO, when you referred to your sexual partner to whom you don't disclose  as "some anonymous fuck who [sic] I'm not likely to see again." I  added on the "poor,' which admittedly was my own "smug" opinion.  I'm also happy to learn that you believe in personal responsibility.       

Your approval both honours and validates me Ed. I'm so very fortunate to be the recipient of your condescension.

MtD

Offline kuttakamina

  • Member
  • Posts: 45
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #39 on: May 16, 2010, 04:55:21 AM »
I don't recall where the hell I got this damned virus, but one encounter I do remember, it was with a muscular black boy for whom I bottomed, but I don't even remember if he actually penetrated me , least of all he came inside me.

Of course, the next week I had the worst flu like symptoms and I felt like I  was dying. A trip to urgent care and they drew blood, nobody asked me if I was consenting to hiv testing, and now I think  they may not have tested me for that (or maybe they did). But the results came back positive for EBV infection and I was told that it will stay in my system for life and cause occasional fatigue and tiredness.

So exactly when I got hiv infection in unknown to me.

Offline Rev. Moon

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,782
  • Smart ass faggot ©
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #40 on: May 16, 2010, 12:56:10 PM »
Oh good. A disclosure thread. We don't have enough of these. I particularly like that it's dressed up as a "how did you get it?" thread. Variations on a theme do help to break the monotony.

Gotta love you queens.  Even when we can get you to fess up to being a bottom you still fill the post with ample caveats to minimize accusations of being voracious human cum rags.

Yawn... label this one as disclosure thread #67,786.

I got minez at a lesbian orgy.  Licking nipples.

Who in the world cares?
"I have tried hard--but life is difficult, and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent existence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else."

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,656
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #41 on: May 16, 2010, 03:45:56 PM »
pandora's box, or a big yawn, or a gaping black whole of mystery, or a big fat lie - how did you get HIV
ďFrom each, according to his ability; to each, according to his needĒ 1875 K Marx

Offline BlueMoon

  • Member
  • Posts: 665
  • Calling from the Fun House
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #42 on: May 16, 2010, 09:43:21 PM »
It's a simple matter to not participate in topics that are not interesting.  I do it every day!
...................VL.....CD4.....%
-----------------------------------------
08/10-- ......<40.....290.....42
05/10-- ......<48.....290.....46
02/10-- ......<48.....481.....44
10/09-- ......<48.....277.....46
07/09-- ......<48.....300.....38
05/09-- ........51.....449.....39
03/09-- Added Isentress
02/09-- ........65.....299.....34
11/08-- ........62.....242.....40
08/08-- ........66.....212.....29
05/08-- ......202.....217.....27
03/08-- ....5210.....187.....21
02/08-- Began Truvada/Reyataz/Norvir
12/07-- 273,000.....157.....22
11/07-- 229,000.....209.....22
10/07-- Diagnosis

It's a complex world.

Offline leatherman

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,184
  • Google and HIV meds are Your Friends
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #43 on: May 16, 2010, 10:15:35 PM »
It's a simple matter to not participate in topics that are not interesting.  I do it every day!
:D good one! ;)
leatherman (aka mIkIE)


chart from 1992-2013; updated 2/09/13  Reyataz/Norvir/Truvada

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,872
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #44 on: May 16, 2010, 11:46:31 PM »
Yawn... label this one as disclosure thread #67,786.

I got minez at a lesbian orgy.  Licking nipples.

Who in the world cares?

I've only been a member of these forums since last Fall.  I don't remember seeing anyone ask the question.  If it has been asked several times before, I apologize.  However, many topics are discussed repeatedly.  Everything HIV has probably been discussed before.  The forums could just shut down now and tell everyone to read the archives.

I realize anecdotal evidence can only tell us so much.  However, sometimes it can tell us a lot.  I feel many people get safe-sex fatigue.  I've been told if you rim, ya gotta use a dental dam.  I've been told you can get HIV from being the receptive partner of oral sex--been told ya have to avoid that too.  Many of us have been told that getting a guy's semen on our skin can be dangerous--some educators saying you could have a cut on your skin.  Hearing all this, I think some, perhaps many, feel they are going to get the virus anyway.  If educators tell us you can get HIV from letting someone suck your junk, then some may think they may as well go ahead and fuck.  They may as well bb as a bottom or as a top.  I just posted CDC stats on insertive anal sex with someone known to be poz--6.5 per 10,000 exposures.  They put receptive oral at 1 in 10,000 exposures.  If that doc says 6.5 is a "relative high risk", then 1 isn't too far from 6.5 to me.  If these stats are true, then someone receiving head may think they may as well top since the numbers don't look that different to the average person not an expert in statistics.   

We can say wear a condom and that is great advice.  We know everyone will not do that.  Just reading the posts, it seems many of us got it from being bottom.  I think hearing this anecdotal evidence is helpful to others.  We all make risk assessments everyday--about driving to sex.  I will say again that we should promote condom use to everyone.  Parents should buy them for their teenage kids.  However, I think it is good to talk to them about risk as well.  It is clear that we shouldn't lump all sex into the same risk.  I would tell my children to make sure you use a condom.  I believe I would also say if you're not going to do that, don't let someone top you without a condom for sure--which the CDC says is 50 per 10,000 exposures.  I got the virus from bottoming.  If I were only into oral sex or was the top with that same guy, my risk would have been dramatically lower.  In fact, there is a high probability I wouldn't be poz. 

This goes back to the judge saying the neg top wasn't at significant risk.  Dr. Bob at thebody is well respected and said the risk for tops was a relative high risk.  I felt asking the forum would create discussion.  Some may disagree that the risk was insignificant and agree with Dr. Bob.  Some may agree that it is an insignificant risk.  I said most I've known who are poz got it from bottoming.  Others may say most they know got it from being top.  So, anecdotal evidence could help to put stats into something people could assess the risk of unprotected sex.       

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,228
  • Ninja Please
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #45 on: May 17, 2010, 12:00:01 AM »
Dr Bob at thebody is an asshole.

MtD

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 24,076
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #46 on: May 17, 2010, 12:18:28 AM »
I got the virus from bottoming.  If I were only into oral sex or was the top with that same guy, my risk would have been dramatically lower.  In fact, there is a high probability I wouldn't be poz. 
 

You got it from barebacking, not "bottoming" -- you could have bottomed all day at Club Body Center if you'd just have slapped a condom on your trick.
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,228
  • Ninja Please
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #47 on: May 17, 2010, 12:41:40 AM »
You got it from barebacking, not "bottoming" -- you could have bottomed all day at Club Body Center if you'd just have slapped a condom on your trick.

Fucking THANK YOU.

See how that works kiddies? It's teh unprotected s3x0r what creates all the problems. Even Dr Fucking Bob knows that.

Probably.

MtD


Offline blackwingbear

  • Member
  • Posts: 363
  • Hello, all you happy people....
    • THE DARK MIND OF BLACKWINGBEAR
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #48 on: May 17, 2010, 01:16:49 AM »
Then there's the many here who feel it is their job to act as bored, uninterested & condescending as they possibly can to anyone who actually participates in discussions aside from delivering witty insults. They are simply here to knock the OP for posting in the first place and any person who sincerely replies to them. Some get their rocks off on acting holier-than-thou, and some just admit they don't care... :-\

But some of us do care.
It's all a sham. Politics is a big game, same as the media - and same as religion. The point is to distract & control. If we're looking at what they tell us is the "big issue", we're not looking at what they are doing. In time, there will be different causes and different minorities to pick-on. All in the name of keeping the system going, and the people distracted.

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 24,076
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom
« Reply #49 on: May 17, 2010, 02:18:14 AM »
How passive aggressive of you.  Well played.
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

 


Terms of Membership for these forums
 

© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved.   terms of use and your privacy
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.