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.
October 01, 2014, 04:28:17 AM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 640650
  • Total Topics: 48665
  • Online Today: 181
  • Online Ever: 585
  • (January 07, 2014, 02:31:47 PM)
Users Online
Users: 4
Guests: 146
Total: 150

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: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics  (Read 30861 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,391
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #100 on: September 23, 2012, 05:55:20 PM »
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.
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline LiveWithIt

  • Member
  • Posts: 391
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #101 on: September 23, 2012, 05:55:35 PM »
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? 
Pray God you can cope
I know you have a little life in you yet.
I know you have a lot of strength left.

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,391
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #102 on: September 23, 2012, 05:58:00 PM »
I never said I condone his actions because I don't.
And so the revision of history and back-peddling begins...........
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,702
  • 31 Years Poz
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #103 on: September 23, 2012, 06:06:38 PM »
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

Offline LiveWithIt

  • Member
  • Posts: 391
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #104 on: September 23, 2012, 06:33:24 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2012, 06:35:17 PM by LiveWithIt »
Pray God you can cope
I know you have a little life in you yet.
I know you have a lot of strength left.

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,391
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #105 on: September 23, 2012, 06:41:02 PM »
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
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,702
  • 31 Years Poz
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #106 on: September 23, 2012, 06:43:51 PM »
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

Offline jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #107 on: September 23, 2012, 07:02:46 PM »
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.



"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 mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,768
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #108 on: September 23, 2012, 08:16:27 PM »
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?
« Last Edit: September 23, 2012, 08:18:33 PM by mecch »
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 24,141
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #109 on: September 23, 2012, 08:23:19 PM »
Ivy League in action...
"I’ve slept with enough men to know that I’m not gay"

Offline Newguy

  • Member
  • Posts: 127
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #110 on: September 23, 2012, 08:40:17 PM »
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!

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,768
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #111 on: September 23, 2012, 08:50:15 PM »
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?
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,965
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #112 on: September 23, 2012, 08:59:07 PM »
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.
September 13, 2008 - diagnosed +
Labs:
Date    CD4    %   VL     Date  CD4  %   VL
10/08  636    35  510   9/09 473  38 2900  12/4/09 Atripla
12/09  540    30    60   
12/10  740    41  <48   
8/11    667    36  <20  
03/12  1,041  42  <20
05/12  1,241  47  <20
08/12   780    37  <20
11/12   549    35  <20
02/12  1,102  42  <20
11/12   549    35  <20

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,391
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #113 on: September 23, 2012, 09:00:54 PM »
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.
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,391
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #114 on: September 23, 2012, 09:01:21 PM »
Hope you don't mind, but I edited the parts of your post that didn't make sense.

LIKE
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline Solo_LTSurvivor

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,176
  • Twerk Baby Twerk
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #115 on: September 23, 2012, 09:03:31 PM »

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 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.
don't equate intelligence with lack of masculinity
Jim Phelps, Mission Impossible
____________________________

Seroconverted: Early 80s
Tested & confirmed what I already knew: early 90s

Current regimen: Atripla. 
Last regimen:  Epzicom, Sustiva (since its inception with NO adverse side effects: no vivid dreams and NONE of the problems people who can't tolerate this drug may experience: color me lucky ::))
Past regimens
Fun stuff (in the past):  HAV/HBV, crypto, shingles, AIDS, PCP

Jan 2012: 818/21%
Apr 2012: 964/22%
Jul. 2012: 890/21%
Oct. 2012: 920/23%

Still UD after all these years

Offline Raf

  • Member
  • Posts: 257
  • Bald by choice
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #116 on: September 23, 2012, 09:25:21 PM »
The forum should include a translator for mecch's posts, really.
Dx: 05/14/2008
Latest HIV Meds combo I've been taking:

Kaletra + Combivir (since 05/16/2008 - today)

Offline ds4146

  • Member
  • Posts: 317
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #117 on: September 23, 2012, 09:26:32 PM »
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.

Offline Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,702
  • 31 Years Poz
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #118 on: September 23, 2012, 09:28:28 PM »
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

Offline drewm

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,130
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #119 on: September 23, 2012, 09:40:40 PM »
I have not seen a threat erupt like this since I first started here. WOW!  :o
Diagnosed in  May of 2010 with teh AIDS.

PCP Pneumonia . CD4 8 . VL 500,000

ATRIPLA - VALTREX -  FLUOXETINE - FENOFIBRATE


Numbers consistent since 12/2010 - VL has remained undetectable and CD4 is anywhere from 275-325

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,965
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #120 on: September 23, 2012, 09:54:59 PM »
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)
September 13, 2008 - diagnosed +
Labs:
Date    CD4    %   VL     Date  CD4  %   VL
10/08  636    35  510   9/09 473  38 2900  12/4/09 Atripla
12/09  540    30    60   
12/10  740    41  <48   
8/11    667    36  <20  
03/12  1,041  42  <20
05/12  1,241  47  <20
08/12   780    37  <20
11/12   549    35  <20
02/12  1,102  42  <20
11/12   549    35  <20

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,768
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #121 on: September 24, 2012, 03:27:23 AM »
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.........)


« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 03:42:22 AM by mecch »
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,768
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #122 on: September 24, 2012, 03:29:14 AM »
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!
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline spacebarsux

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,350
  • Survival of the Fittest
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #123 on: September 24, 2012, 04:08:15 AM »
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.
Infected-  2005 or early 2006; Diagnosed- Jan 28th, 2011; Feb '11- CD4 754 @34%, VL- 39K; July '11- CD4 907@26%,  VL-81K; Feb '12- CD4 713 @31%, VL- 41K, Nov '12- CD4- 827@31%

Offline newt

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,885
  • the one and original newt
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #124 on: September 24, 2012, 05:32:00 AM »
Quote
UD VL does not equate to condom use.

No?

- matt
"The object is to be a well patient, not a good patient"

Offline spacebarsux

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,350
  • Survival of the Fittest
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #125 on: September 24, 2012, 06:12:16 AM »
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:

Quote
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
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 06:50:12 AM by spacebarsux »
Infected-  2005 or early 2006; Diagnosed- Jan 28th, 2011; Feb '11- CD4 754 @34%, VL- 39K; July '11- CD4 907@26%,  VL-81K; Feb '12- CD4 713 @31%, VL- 41K, Nov '12- CD4- 827@31%

Offline newt

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,885
  • the one and original newt
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #126 on: September 24, 2012, 06:52:01 AM »
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
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 08:22:46 AM by newt »
"The object is to be a well patient, not a good patient"

Offline Zohar

  • Member
  • Posts: 248
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #127 on: September 24, 2012, 07:42:17 AM »
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/
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 07:49:51 AM by Zohar »
''Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.''

Offline Solo_LTSurvivor

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,176
  • Twerk Baby Twerk
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #128 on: September 24, 2012, 08:01:59 AM »
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  ::)
don't equate intelligence with lack of masculinity
Jim Phelps, Mission Impossible
____________________________

Seroconverted: Early 80s
Tested & confirmed what I already knew: early 90s

Current regimen: Atripla. 
Last regimen:  Epzicom, Sustiva (since its inception with NO adverse side effects: no vivid dreams and NONE of the problems people who can't tolerate this drug may experience: color me lucky ::))
Past regimens
Fun stuff (in the past):  HAV/HBV, crypto, shingles, AIDS, PCP

Jan 2012: 818/21%
Apr 2012: 964/22%
Jul. 2012: 890/21%
Oct. 2012: 920/23%

Still UD after all these years

Offline Zohar

  • Member
  • Posts: 248
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #129 on: September 24, 2012, 08:18:09 AM »
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.
''Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.''

Offline GSOgymrat

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,031
  • HIV+ since 1993. INTJ
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #130 on: September 24, 2012, 10:28:17 AM »
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?

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,768
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #131 on: September 24, 2012, 10:40:51 AM »
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?


“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline 0608

  • Member
  • Posts: 67
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #132 on: September 24, 2012, 10:53:50 AM »
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.

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,768
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #133 on: September 24, 2012, 11:00:02 AM »
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....
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 11:06:46 AM by mecch »
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline Raf

  • Member
  • Posts: 257
  • Bald by choice
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #134 on: September 24, 2012, 11:02:03 AM »
*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.
Dx: 05/14/2008
Latest HIV Meds combo I've been taking:

Kaletra + Combivir (since 05/16/2008 - today)

Offline Zohar

  • Member
  • Posts: 248
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #135 on: September 24, 2012, 11:23:24 AM »
...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?
''Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.''

Offline wolfter

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,561
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #136 on: September 24, 2012, 11:29:11 AM »
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
Complacency is the enemy.  ;)  Challenge yourself daily for maximum  return on investment.

Offline newt

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,885
  • the one and original newt
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #137 on: September 24, 2012, 11:33:04 AM »
>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!?!
"The object is to be a well patient, not a good patient"

Offline Zohar

  • Member
  • Posts: 248
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #138 on: September 24, 2012, 11:35:37 AM »
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.  ::)
''Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.''

Offline GSOgymrat

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,031
  • HIV+ since 1993. INTJ
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #139 on: September 24, 2012, 11:40:11 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 11:44:23 AM by GSOgymrat »

Offline wolfter

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,561
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #140 on: September 24, 2012, 11:52:20 AM »
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
Complacency is the enemy.  ;)  Challenge yourself daily for maximum  return on investment.

Offline Raf

  • Member
  • Posts: 257
  • Bald by choice
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #141 on: September 24, 2012, 11:55:50 AM »
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?
Dx: 05/14/2008
Latest HIV Meds combo I've been taking:

Kaletra + Combivir (since 05/16/2008 - today)

Offline Common_ground

  • Member
  • Posts: 288
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #142 on: September 24, 2012, 12:29:20 PM »
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.

 
2011 May - Neg.
2012 June CD4:205, 16% VL:2676 Start Truvada/Stocrin
2012 July  CD4:234, 18% VL:88
2012 Sep  CD4:238, 17% VL:UD
2013 Feb  CD4:257, 24% VL:UD -viramune/truvada
2013 May CD4:276, 26% VL:UD

Offline komnaes

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,893
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #143 on: September 24, 2012, 12:57:49 PM »

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?
Aug 07 Diagnosed
Oct 07 CD4=446(19%) Feb 08 CD4=421(19%)
Jun 08 CD4=325(22%) Jul 08 CD4=301(18%)
Sep 08 CD4=257/VL=75,000 Oct 08 CD4=347(16%)
Dec 08 CD4=270(16%)
Jan 09 CD4=246(13%)/VL=10,000
Feb 09 CD4=233(15%)/VL=13,000
Started meds Sustiva/Epzicom
May 09 CD4=333(24%)/VL=650
Aug 09 CD4=346(24%)/VL=UD
Nov 09 CD4=437(26%)/VL=UD
Feb 10 CD4=471(31%)/VL=UD
June 10 CD4=517 (28%)/VL=UD
Sept 10 CD4=687 (31%)/VL=UD
Jan 11 CD4=557 (30%)/VL=UD
April 11 CD4=569 (32%)/VL=UD
Switched to Epizcom, Reyataz and Norvir
(Interrupted for 2 months with only Epizcom & Reyataz)
July 11 CD=520 (28%)/VL=UD
Oct 11 CD=771 (31%)/VL=UD(<30)
April 12 CD=609 (28%)/VL=UD(<20)
Aug 12 CD=657 (29%)/VL=UD(<20)
Dec 12 CD=532 (31%)/VL=UD(<20)
May 13 CD=567 (31%)/VL=UD(<20)
Jan 14 CD=521 (21%)/VL=UD(<50)

Offline newt

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,885
  • the one and original newt
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #144 on: September 24, 2012, 01:03:30 PM »
Since you ask the question, you are perhaps exaggerating somewhat - matt
"The object is to be a well patient, not a good patient"

Offline komnaes

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,893
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #145 on: September 24, 2012, 01:13:04 PM »
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..
Aug 07 Diagnosed
Oct 07 CD4=446(19%) Feb 08 CD4=421(19%)
Jun 08 CD4=325(22%) Jul 08 CD4=301(18%)
Sep 08 CD4=257/VL=75,000 Oct 08 CD4=347(16%)
Dec 08 CD4=270(16%)
Jan 09 CD4=246(13%)/VL=10,000
Feb 09 CD4=233(15%)/VL=13,000
Started meds Sustiva/Epzicom
May 09 CD4=333(24%)/VL=650
Aug 09 CD4=346(24%)/VL=UD
Nov 09 CD4=437(26%)/VL=UD
Feb 10 CD4=471(31%)/VL=UD
June 10 CD4=517 (28%)/VL=UD
Sept 10 CD4=687 (31%)/VL=UD
Jan 11 CD4=557 (30%)/VL=UD
April 11 CD4=569 (32%)/VL=UD
Switched to Epizcom, Reyataz and Norvir
(Interrupted for 2 months with only Epizcom & Reyataz)
July 11 CD=520 (28%)/VL=UD
Oct 11 CD=771 (31%)/VL=UD(<30)
April 12 CD=609 (28%)/VL=UD(<20)
Aug 12 CD=657 (29%)/VL=UD(<20)
Dec 12 CD=532 (31%)/VL=UD(<20)
May 13 CD=567 (31%)/VL=UD(<20)
Jan 14 CD=521 (21%)/VL=UD(<50)

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,965
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #146 on: September 24, 2012, 01:57:01 PM »
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.... 
September 13, 2008 - diagnosed +
Labs:
Date    CD4    %   VL     Date  CD4  %   VL
10/08  636    35  510   9/09 473  38 2900  12/4/09 Atripla
12/09  540    30    60   
12/10  740    41  <48   
8/11    667    36  <20  
03/12  1,041  42  <20
05/12  1,241  47  <20
08/12   780    37  <20
11/12   549    35  <20
02/12  1,102  42  <20
11/12   549    35  <20

Offline spacebarsux

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,350
  • Survival of the Fittest
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #147 on: September 24, 2012, 03:58:56 PM »
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.
Infected-  2005 or early 2006; Diagnosed- Jan 28th, 2011; Feb '11- CD4 754 @34%, VL- 39K; July '11- CD4 907@26%,  VL-81K; Feb '12- CD4 713 @31%, VL- 41K, Nov '12- CD4- 827@31%

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,906
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #148 on: September 24, 2012, 04:39:16 PM »
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? 

Offline anniebc

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,941
  • AM member since 2003
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #149 on: September 24, 2012, 04:48:45 PM »
*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 :-*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never knock on deaths door..ring the bell and run..he really hates that.

 


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.