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.
July 31, 2014, 02:40:46 PM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
  • Total Members: 23096
  • Latest: john_l
Stats
  • Total Posts: 632523
  • Total Topics: 47905
  • Online Today: 287
  • 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: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics  (Read 27551 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline drewm

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,044
  • Mmmmmm Hmmmmmm!
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #200 on: September 25, 2012, 02:49:53 PM »
Barebacking without disclosure/consent is never appropriate. That being said, there are a couple of ways to ensure safer sex. A.) Always use condoms B.) Be loyal in a monogamous relationship where both partners know the deal etc.

All this thread has accomplished is proving the obvious. There are some who will run around barebacking putting others at risk regardless (See A.) There are others who because of a moral* conviction would never knowingly put anyone at risk. There are also internet trolls who will say and do some pretty incredulous stuff just to whip everyone up into a frenzy.

*mor·al   [mawr-uhl, mor-]
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
MAY 2010
VL>500,000 CD4>8

JUNE 2010 STARTED ATRIPLA

DEC 2010
VL>30 CD4>323

Atripla. Valtrex, Trilipix, Fluoxotine

Offline Buckmark

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,520
  • Would you like to tie me up with your ties, Ty?
    • Henry's Home Page
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #201 on: September 25, 2012, 02:52:48 PM »
That's not quite the 'simple question' it first appears to be.

The question asked of you really was quite simple:

do you think it's ok for positive people to infect others with HIV?"

You are just not choosing to answer.  You weren't asked whether you thought it was a crime to infect others with HIV.  You were asked whether you thought it was OK for positive people to infect others.    As Ann said above, what's your answer?  Yes or No?

Can you answer straightforwardly?  Or will you go off on another tangent?
"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things:
     One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell.
     The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love."
- Butch Hancock, Musician, The Flatlanders

Offline Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,503
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #202 on: September 25, 2012, 02:54:31 PM »
You are a dove, a saint, if you will.

No, I'm no saint, just another pozzie like everyone else here.  When I tested poz in 1985, I began to realize that becoming poz brings with it, it's own set of requirements.  One of those was a duty, no a life mission, to make sure that my infection stopped with me.  If you have ever watched anyone dying of AIDS, it's horror personified.  It's a horror you will never forget.  If you have ever watched, as the life leaves someone...  well, how can anyone witness such a thing... and not be changed?

As I have aged, I've watched the spectrum of HIV/AIDS change dramatically, yet none of that really matters to me.  At some point, each of us must stand and be counted in how we conduct our lives.  For me, when someone comes here and posts feelings that border on homicidal, I expect to happen, exactly what happened in this thread and I would expect no less.  That's because the majority of the folks here are decent human beings and they have learned, through their infection, that life demands from them a higher calibre of character.

They are able to transcend the need for self-preservation only and hold absolutely no doubts, as to their infection stopping with them.  Zohar, I think that is what you may not understand.  Nobody here is proclaiming to be superior, however we do question your morales.  Personally, I cannot fathom how you can make the callous statements you make, without it making your skin crawl.  I feel dirty simply replying to your post.  It's why I have remained in the background, but no longer.

You seem unable to grasp the idea that we are responsible for what we do, whether we like it or not.  We have an incurable disease that can and will kill us, if we give it the chance.  Even with the current treatments, AIDS continues to kill millions of people.  How you can be so blasé about your possibility infecting others, is beyond my grasp and I suspect the majority of the other posters.  It's your attitude that I find revolting, as if you have no responsibility to never infect another human being with your infection.

This is all I have to offer, because nothing anyone says here, can change the darkness in your soul.  Your own words expose a darkness that is simply too deep for anyone here to fathom.

It's not like we didn't try.

Joe

Offline LM

  • Member
  • Posts: 409
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #203 on: September 25, 2012, 03:20:18 PM »
This discussion is not about personal morals, or about what works for others need not apply to you.

This is not a variant of the French Burkha-Ban Debate Part 2!

This is about what is RIGHT or WRONG in Absolute Terms, on a balance of probabilities, taking into account longstanding scientific evidence and data, as well as the vital and inextricably linked issues of ‘stigma & criminalization’ that HIV+ people are confronted with. These matters are wedded to our collective notions of personal responsibility and the public perception thereof. Whether or not you like it. Whether or not you see it.

I get the feeling you (and a few other people) might be eager to defend criminalization. You know why it's a question of personal morals? Because many (probably most) HIV- people think we are monsters even if we use condoms. And hey, there IS a risk of infection even using condoms, right?

Also, I think there is a huge misunderstanding of the stigma of HIV. The stigma and prejudice related to HIV are not because one person or another sleeps around infecting others. It's simply because people are ignorant and like to judge others. That's it.

Take homophobia, for instance. Some of the main "arguments" for people that hate homosexuals is that gays are "promiscuous and have AIDS" (Paris Hilton, anyone?). So, should we throw stones at a gay guy every time he sleeps around or gets HIV? "You see, you're the reason they think we are like this!!" and stuff?

See what I mean?

Now, I think I made it clear before that I don't think having bareback sex with someone of an unknown status is the right thing to do. But I don't think it warrants being called a monster, sociopath, etc. I think that sort of reprimand replicates the same hatemongering speech that is used against us.

So, in my opinion, I think the most reasonable thing to say in those cases is something like: "I think you should be aware that, even if the chances are slim, you might be infecting someone, even if he doesn't seem to care about it, and that it may cause a lot of pain and grief to that person, possibly even death, not to mention how it might be considered a crime, depending on where you are. So think twice about this and stuff."...

Instead of "You are a monster, the cause of our suffering!!!", etc.

Offline LiveWithIt

  • Member
  • Posts: 377
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #204 on: September 25, 2012, 03:53:29 PM »
But I don't think it warrants being called a monster, sociopath, etc. I think that sort of reprimand replicates the same hatemongering speech that is used against us.

I agree.  There are true sociopaths and monsters out there that have HIV, refuse to take meds so that their viral load will be high and go out there  to try to intentionally infect people.  When you trivialize calling people sociopaths and monsters what you are in effect doing is calling anyone with HIV the same thing. 
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 03:56:25 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 anniebc

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,937
  • AM member since 2003
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #205 on: September 25, 2012, 04:53:52 PM »
And I would hope that no matter how much stigma you've challenged, or how angry you've been when educating people, you haven't resorted to name calling.

i have never needed to, only when I come across selfish, uncaring idiots like you.

Jan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never knock on deaths door..ring the bell and run..he really hates that.

Offline newt

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,877
  • the one and original newt
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #206 on: September 25, 2012, 05:01:56 PM »
(ahem outta here for a bit, comment/question withdrawn, this thread is going nowhere, world is not ready for treatment as preventative perhaps, needs to be, it's a game changer, soz, bad form this deleting original post, and mucho soz to Jan, see you after Christmas - matt)
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 05:28:52 PM by newt »
"The object is to be a well patient, not a good patient"

Offline Mus1cl0V3R

  • Member
  • Posts: 38
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #207 on: September 25, 2012, 05:28:43 PM »
A)
There are true sociopaths and monsters out there that have HIV, refuse to take meds so that their viral load will be high and go out there to try to intentionally infect people.

B)
If you have unprotected sex with strangers without disclosing your status

Other than the issue of whether meds are being taken:
How is A any different from B?

Offline Zohar

  • Member
  • Posts: 234
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #208 on: September 25, 2012, 05:36:13 PM »
The question asked of you really was quite simple:

do you think it's ok for positive people to infect others with HIV?"

You are just not choosing to answer.  You weren't asked whether you thought it was a crime to infect others with HIV.  You were asked whether you thought it was OK for positive people to infect others.    As Ann said above, what's your answer?  Yes or No?

Can you answer straightforwardly?  Or will you go off on another tangent?

You see, the thing is, I don't think this really is a straightforward question as I said earlier. Again there seems to be this mindset of a number of people who want to reduce HIV transmission  to a black and white matter. It's not, and that's why I linked to a page that at least in part addressed both sides. Call it 'going off at a tangent' if you must, I say it's exploring the issue which I thought was the purpose of these forums.

As far as my own positive status is concerned, I really don't believe that the person who infected me deliberately set out to do so. We had sex and unfortunately the virus was transmitted. It's fairly likely that he acquired HIV in the same way, and the person who gave it to him probably did too.

So, I don't judge the person who infected me because I can't see how that would help me,  the HIV community, or the world at large.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 05:40:03 PM by Zohar »
''Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.''

Offline BT65

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 9,863
  • Vegas baby!
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #209 on: September 25, 2012, 05:41:07 PM »
I am just aghast at the lengths and heights some people will go to to make their actions appear justifiable. 

I am also a lts'er, Zohar (and co-horts); diagnosed in 1989.  I have, along with Killfoile, JK, and other lts'ers, laid next to dear, close friends who wasted away and died from AIDS, when there weren't the meds there are now.  And even now, I had a client die from AIDS just last year.  His options ran out.

I can tell that you have never done this, so this is my wish for you:  that you would someday have to lay next to someone who is dying from AIDS, someone you deeply care about, and someone perhaps you have infected, and see the horrific ends that person will experience.  And I hope you feel the guiltiest person alive, to knowingly have caused this experience to happen.

Or...you could always start considering other's lives, and rights to their lives, and all the aspirations that go with those lives.   I read this thread because a few people I really care about are getting very emotionally involved with this.  But it seems zohar is not a person to get emotional over, unless that emotion is disgust. 
I've never killed anyone, but I frequently get satisfaction reading the obituary notices.-Clarence Darrow

Offline LiveWithIt

  • Member
  • Posts: 377
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #210 on: September 25, 2012, 05:48:30 PM »

I can tell that you have never done this, so this is my wish for you:  that you would someday have to lay next to someone who is dying from AIDS, someone you deeply care about, and someone perhaps you have infected, and see the horrific ends that person will experience.  And I hope you feel the guiltiest person alive, to knowingly have caused this experience to happen.



Why would you wish that on anyone.  I wouldn't even wish it on my worst enemy.  It's just vile. 
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 BT65

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 9,863
  • Vegas baby!
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #211 on: September 25, 2012, 05:52:00 PM »
Why would you wish that on anyone.  I wouldn't even wish it on my worst enemy.  It's just vile.

Because sometimes tne only way someone will change their behavior is by being faced with the consequences of it.  What you all are arguing is vile.  Beyond that.
I've never killed anyone, but I frequently get satisfaction reading the obituary notices.-Clarence Darrow

Offline lincoln6echo

  • Member
  • Posts: 109
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #212 on: September 25, 2012, 05:52:31 PM »
I am interested to  understand, Jan, if a condom had been involved, whether you (or others) would feel as strongly?

This is a genuine open question.

- matt

Hey Matt..

I think what this whole thread is getting at is a persons knowing that they are at risk of infecting someone else and not taking reasonable precautions in the best interests of the other person.  It's about attitude along with action.  IE, disclosing and using protection.  Now.. someone is going to throw out there that it's not "high risk" if the insertive person is UD (who after all, Zohar said he was the insertive person in penetrative sex..that's how all this got started lets remember, not oral, not kissing, not whatever....oh and hardly had a choice in the matter apparently either) but we all know there are risks even if someone is UD. At the end of the day, it's about his attitude toward others and his absence of personal responsibility. 

If someone takes, "reasonable and expected" precautions to protect the health of another, that's all one can ask. 

Let's say someone meets a guy at a bathhouse who after disclosing their own status as positive/UD, and the other guys says he's negative but agrees to have sex as long as a condom is used.  Is there still risk?  Sure..the condom could break. Does that happen a lot? I don't know, i've not seen stats on that, but it does happen.  Could the negative person get infected? Yes, as low as the probability is..it could happen.  How unfortunate.  Were 'reasonable precautions" taken?  Yes, in my mind they were.  Full disclosure and reasonable precautions were taken.  But, you roll the dice and that's they way they land.  Aside from abstinence, there will always be a risk.  It's that simple. 

Now let's say we compare that to Zohar's example of himself who did none of that, but claims he's not responsible for the other persons health..."don't ask don't tell" as it were. Let's say he infected said power bottom who apparently overtook him by force and now has HIV.

Personally, i'm going to look upon that HIV + person very differently in both of those scenarios. 

One took reasonable precautions to protect the negative person, but the negative person, who was given full information in which to make an informed decision chose to roll the dice as he chose.  He bears part of that responsibility for his now HIV positive status.   

In the other scenario, like Zohar's, he was too caught up in his own destructive pleasure seeking head space to even consider someone other than himself. 

This could have been a one off, caught up in the moment scenario which as imperfect people, this does happen. 

But as Zohar has proven over and over again through this thread he's no where near willing to take responsibility for his actions which is clearly not a one off but a deep seated pattern in his life.

Very sad. 


Offline Zohar

  • Member
  • Posts: 234
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #213 on: September 25, 2012, 05:52:47 PM »
.....this is my wish for you:  that you would someday have to lay next to someone who is dying from AIDS, someone you deeply care about, and someone perhaps you have infected, and see the horrific ends that person will experience.  And I hope you feel the guiltiest person alive, to knowingly have caused this experience to happen.

Wow.  Just wow.
''Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.''

Offline BT65

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 9,863
  • Vegas baby!
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #214 on: September 25, 2012, 05:55:44 PM »
Wow.  Just wow.

Well, if you can't take the heat and all that (change your behavior).  I actually said the same words you posted after I read several of your comments.
I've never killed anyone, but I frequently get satisfaction reading the obituary notices.-Clarence Darrow

Offline LiveWithIt

  • Member
  • Posts: 377
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #215 on: September 25, 2012, 05:59:03 PM »
Because sometimes tne only way someone will change their behavior is by being faced with the consequences of it. 

What you wrote about wishing that people had a loved one die of Aids in your arms  is what a  sociopathic  monster would write. 

A sane person would write I hope you never have to experience......
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 06:01:18 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 lincoln6echo

  • Member
  • Posts: 109
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #216 on: September 25, 2012, 06:01:29 PM »
Zohar said:

As far as my own positive status is concerned, I really don't believe that the person who infected me deliberately set out to do so. We had sex and unfortunately the virus was transmitted. It's fairly likely that he acquired HIV in the same way, and the person who gave it to him probably did too.


"and they told two friends, and so on and so on and so on...."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgDxWNV4wWY&feature=related

It may not have been a deliberate act, but it most certainly was a preventable one.

The buck can stop with a person like you or the rest of us who are positive by disclosing our status.

Why don't you understand this?

You disgust me.


Offline BT65

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 9,863
  • Vegas baby!
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #217 on: September 25, 2012, 06:03:19 PM »
What you wrote about wishing that people had a loved one die of Aids in your arms  is what a  sociopathic  monster would write.

I didn't wish it on "people,"  I wished it on someone who thinks it's alright to go around having unprotected sex with others, their rights be damned. 

And don't even get me started on sociopathy.  You need to look up Dr. Robert Hare and read his psychopath checklist.  You and zohar fit the descriptions pretty well.  They use that, by the way, at several institutions.  BTW, I study forensic psych.

And now I have to bow out of this nightmare.  My neck is killing me. 
I've never killed anyone, but I frequently get satisfaction reading the obituary notices.-Clarence Darrow

Offline LiveWithIt

  • Member
  • Posts: 377
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #218 on: September 25, 2012, 06:06:07 PM »
I didn't wish it on "people,"  I wished it on someone who thinks it's alright to go around having unprotected sex with others, their rights be damned. 

And don't even get me started on sociopathy.  You need to look up Dr. Robert Hare and read his psychopath checklist.  You and zohar fit the descriptions pretty well.  They use that, by the way, at several institutions.  BTW, I study forensic psych.

And now I have to bow out of this nightmare.  My neck is killing me.

Your opinion of me means nothing to me, but you really should check yourself in to a hospital for some mental cleansing.  PS Guilt makes your neck hurt. 
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 mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,254
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #219 on: September 25, 2012, 06:09:21 PM »
Righteousness appears to prevent some people from thinking through a paradigm shift.  Righteousness being one.  Anger, loss, marginalisation, simplicity, parochialism, isolation, sickness, bias.

Cred from the plague years doesn't seem relevant to this argument. To me. I understand if it informs some of you.  I'm the same age as some LTS, buried lovers, lived in fear in my own sex life.  Informs me.... sometimes.  Surprise: cred, history, not always relevant to the state of HIV today and sometimes its dead weight.

At the end of the day, I do see two valid, but contradictory "world views", and it doesn't blow my mind.  Seems to short circuit some logic boards around here, in contrast.

Some of this moral righteousness contributes terribly to stigma and a few people can't even consider that.  How that might work. 

A virus has no morals and even some of you who know that, have shown lazy logic or emotional responses, which lead to morals finally being applied, thinking about these dilemmas, to the virus, to transmission, to HIV+ people, to so many different kinds of sex.

Occasionally, extended to the logical conclusion of some such arguments appearing in this thread, almost any sex, protected or not, detectable or not, with disclosure or without, is finally immoral by an HIV+ person. By the final logic of some of the weirder schemes presented here.  It does mirror, rather alarmingly, criminalisation rationales.  ironically. (i'm actually not "alarmed". still think its a thought provoking thread.)

« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 06:22:27 PM by mecch »
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline Zohar

  • Member
  • Posts: 234
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #220 on: September 25, 2012, 06:13:36 PM »
Righteousness appears to prevent some people from thinking through a paradigm shift.  Righteousness being one.  Anger, loss, marginalisation, simplicity, parochialism, isolation, sickness, bias.

Cred from the plague years doesn't seem relevant to this argument. To me. I understand if it informs some of you.  I'm the same age as some LTS, buried lovers, lived in fear in my own sex life.  Informs me.... sometimes.  Surprise: cred, history, not always relevant to the state of HIV today and sometimes its dead weight.

At the end of the day, I do see two valid, but contradictory "world views", and it doesn't blow my mind.  Seems to short circuit some logic boards around here, in contrast.

Some of this moral righteousness contributes terribly to stigma and a few people can't even consider that
.  How that might work. 

A virus has no morals and even some of you who know that, have shown lazy logic or emotional responses, which lead to morals finally being applied, thinking about these dilemmas, to the virus, to transmission, to HIV+ people, to so many different kinds of sex.

Occasionally, extended to the logical conclusion of some such arguments appearing in this thread, almost any sex, protected or not, detectable or not, with disclosure or without, is finally immoral by an HIV+ person. By the final logic of some of the weirder schemes presented here.  It does mirror, rather alarmingly, criminalisation rationales.

Well said.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 06:15:59 PM by Zohar »
''Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.''

Offline Buckmark

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,520
  • Would you like to tie me up with your ties, Ty?
    • Henry's Home Page
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #221 on: September 25, 2012, 06:18:01 PM »
You see, the thing is, I don't think this really is a straightforward question as I said earlier. Again there seems to be this mindset of a number of people who want to reduce HIV transmission  to a black and white matter. It's not, and that's why I linked to a page that at least in part addressed both sides. Call it 'going off at a tangent' if you must, I say it's exploring the issue which I thought was the purpose of these forums.

As far as my own positive status is concerned, I really don't believe that the person who infected me deliberately set out to do so. We had sex and unfortunately the virus was transmitted. It's fairly likely that he acquired HIV in the same way, and the person who gave it to him probably did too.

So, I don't judge the person who infected me because I can't see how that would help me,  the HIV community, or the world at large.

You are quite skilled in avoiding answers to questions, redirecting the conversation away from topics you want to avoid, and turning things around to make it appear as if you are somehow are victim.   You're equally adept at embracing ambiguity and relativism, so it's no wonder you can enjoy unprotected sex without disclosing to partners, which you said you would do again.   I'm not sure how you can care so little about others.  But, you're lack of concern for others is clear. 
"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things:
     One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell.
     The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love."
- Butch Hancock, Musician, The Flatlanders

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,254
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #222 on: September 25, 2012, 06:23:25 PM »
I question why some members have carte blanche for name-calling and slander, while others get read the riot act.
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline newt

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,877
  • the one and original newt
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #223 on: September 25, 2012, 06:23:42 PM »
Quote
but we all know there are risks even if someone is UD

The thing is, this very day, I was called a "traitor" for suggesting, just suggesting that being on treatment with an undetectable viral load was equal in terms of reducing the risk of HIV transmission as condoms, with lots of science slides. Joseph Sonnabend was laughed at for suggesting HIV was preventable with condoms an these days all I see is me and a many others being tutted at for suggesting the world has changed and treatment is also protective.

2011 was the year the world of HIV prevention science changed folks, get your fucking heads round it.

The science is a struggle, it provokes many emotions, I acknowledge that, but being substantially noninfectious as a prevention strategy, embrace it.

Yes I did post "I am interested to  understand, Jan, if a condom had been involved, whether you (or others) would feel as strongly? This is a genuine open question." but alas, would have rathered (?) this went off the grid, life is to short for grief etc.

Really am now taking a forum holiday, maybe even a long term break.

This thread: pearls before swine, and sharpening your pitch forks and going up the windmill to see if Frankenstein's creation will throw you the keys comes to mind.

The risk of transmission without treatment with condoms for fucking, if this is the gold standard, hallmark, whatever, is the same or perhaps a little worse as being on treatment and no condoms.

People need to get their head round the science, and then what they feel about it. Treatment is as least as protective as condoms. Which is not in either case a cast iron guarantee eh?

- matt (the one and only) newt


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

Offline LM

  • Member
  • Posts: 409
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #224 on: September 25, 2012, 06:28:20 PM »
Bravo, mecch and newt.

Online Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,903
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #225 on: September 25, 2012, 06:34:31 PM »

People need to get their head round the science, and then what they feel about it. Treatment is as least as protective as condoms. Which is not in either case a cast iron guarantee eh?

- matt (the one and only) newt[/font]


I haven't been very involved in this thread, but my thought is that while I understand the science certainly what it seems that you're neglecting is the practical appliance of this science, meaning specifically as this thread was initially framed about an encounter in a sex club, an environment I must assume that you realize is wholly different than in a steady relationship. A negative person in a sex club can tell if someone is utilizing a condom or not, but they can't verify whether or not someone's last laboratory test indicated that they are undetectable, or more pointedly whether or not the guy has been on a meth binge for the past week and not taken his medication, etc. etc.

Science is nice but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Real life and all of that...
"I’ve slept with enough men to know that I’m not gay"

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,254
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #226 on: September 25, 2012, 06:52:41 PM »
Well there is also the challenge of apples and oranges in this thread.  I benefitted from the good arguments about how its respect for others to disclose in all circumstances. 

And yet people keep slipping this into a discussion of transmission risk as a big component of why "disclosure is respect", (so disclosure is moral, non disclosure immoral).

Its two related but not identical issues.... 

People don't tell me all SORTS of things before sex.

But yeah, two wrongs don't make a right. 

But this wrong (people keep secrets from sex partners) is not the same supposed wrong of being an AIDS monster.

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

Offline Buckmark

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,520
  • Would you like to tie me up with your ties, Ty?
    • Henry's Home Page
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #227 on: September 25, 2012, 06:55:08 PM »
Your opinion of me means nothing to me, but you really should check yourself in to a hospital for some mental cleansing.  PS Guilt makes your neck hurt.

I'm confident that your opinion of and advice to BT65 means as little to her, as hers does to you.
"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things:
     One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell.
     The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love."
- Butch Hancock, Musician, The Flatlanders

Offline Zohar

  • Member
  • Posts: 234
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #228 on: September 25, 2012, 07:43:12 PM »
You are quite skilled in avoiding answers to questions, redirecting the conversation away from topics you want to avoid, and turning things around to make it appear as if you are somehow are victim.   You're equally adept at embracing ambiguity and relativism, so it's no wonder you can enjoy unprotected sex without disclosing to partners, which you said you would do again.   I'm not sure how you can care so little about others.  But, you're lack of concern for others is clear.

Haha. The last thing I think of myself as is a 'victim' (re-read my thoughts on the person I was infected by), although it's true that some people here are seemingly allowed to get away with calling me names and being openly abusive. To be honest, though, I only draw attention to that because a) I think it debases the quality of the discussion and b) it is against the forum rules, as I understand them.

The personal attacks don't bruise or sting, so in that sense they are pointless, but I do wonder if people might look at these forums and decide not to join/post because they don't want to get attacked. Is this community only really for people that, basically, just agree with each other all the time? Singing to the choir, as it were.  But I also get the point made earlier on in the thread that people might be put off the site by someone with views like mine. So, I guess it's a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other.
''Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.''

Offline Mus1cl0V3R

  • Member
  • Posts: 38
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #229 on: September 25, 2012, 08:39:06 PM »
Is this community only really for people that, basically, just agree with each other all the time? Singing to the choir, as it were.
I find it funny how you continue to try and frame the conversation
as if it were only a difference of opinion.

I think you crossed that line when you so callously had unprotected
sex with another person without disclosure.

This thread should probably be closed as you've learned nothing from it.

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #230 on: September 25, 2012, 08:59:52 PM »
i have never needed to, only when I come across selfish, uncaring idiots like you.

Jan

Damn-it Jan, you've given me no option but to give you yet another time out. Because you had one recently, this one is going to be for thirty days. This is the second time in this thread you've resorted to name calling - and you were given a pass the first time.

What part of "no name calling" don't you get? I know you're an intelligent woman who has done more than most of our membership combined to combat hiv stigma and ignorance.

What mystifies me is why you cannot simply replace the word "idiots" in your above statement with the word "people" before you hit the post button. I do it all the time. Believe me. If I can refrain from calling people names in the Am I Infected forum, for fucks sake you can do it here.

Jan, I'm giving you a thirty day time out for name-calling. Wise up already and learn how to be diplomatic when tearing someone a new asshole. Got it?

In regret and much head shaking,
Ann
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 Raf

  • Member
  • Posts: 254
  • Bald by choice
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #231 on: September 25, 2012, 09:02:34 PM »
Ahh, how refreshing is to return from work, and see the moral and mental gymnastics of the zohar defense force. Let's begin:

You are a dove, a saint, if you will.

I dunno if he's a saint, but at least he's more concerned about other's well being and knows about HIV better than you.

I agree.  There are true sociopaths and monsters out there that have HIV, refuse to take meds so that their viral load will be high and go out there  to try to intentionally infect people.  When you trivialize calling people sociopaths and monsters what you are in effect doing is calling anyone with HIV the same thing.

No. We are not calling everyone with HIV monsters. We are calling monsters those who use the UD status as excuse to fuck without protection or even disclosing, spreading this virus just like a Typhoid Mary.

I can tell that you have never done this, so this is my wish for you:  that you would someday have to lay next to someone who is dying from AIDS, someone you deeply care about, and someone perhaps you have infected, and see the horrific ends that person will experience.  And I hope you feel the guiltiest person alive, to knowingly have caused this experience to happen.

There is no need to go that far BT, karma is a wheel, maybe someday Zohar will find on the nightclub another "Zohar" who gives him another gift on the form of Hepatitis C or B, Syphilis, etc.... Now he can be a true and hardcore Typhoid Mary.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 09:08:48 PM by Raf »
Dx: 05/14/2008
Latest HIV Meds combo I've been taking:

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

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,959
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #232 on: September 25, 2012, 09:16:35 PM »
So Ann,
How long are the editors, staff of AIDSmeds, POZ, Smart+Strong going to allow this toxic thread to continue? I think it has long passed its level of usefulness (if ever there was one). Unfortunately, those who started the thread have shown no intention of changing their viewpoint and have continued to assail and justify the spreading of a deadly virus with no regard for others. A review of the history of the OPs posts over the time he has been a member shows this to be a pattern that should have long ago been put to a stop. He has consistently challenged the authority and knowledge of doctors, advocated/supported others discontinuing medications, many times incited emotions by promoting nondisclosure, and the list goes on - all the while being held completely unaccountable.... just because someone doesn't post links to a denialist site or outwardly say they are a denialist - does not make their viewpoints and posts any less damaging than those of known self-promoting denialists....

If anything, the thread's ongoing existence and the tolerance of it by the mods has jeopardized the credibility of the site - and has many long-term members thinking about going in a different direction (even if it be temporarily) - away from the Forums.

One has to wonder why it is being allowed to continue - when much less incindiary threads have been locked down.

With Tim battling to keep the Forums profitable (or at least above water) I would think that this thread's presence and ongoing and unchecked existance can't play positively into a sustainable model of success for the site.

Maybe this is the goal - drive long-term members away who have been a part of supporting thousands of people who have come to this site - while allowing those who have been here a short time and who have shown over and over again that their goal is to damage, destroy, and incite anger and disunity to stick around unchecked.

Would be interesting - the same as there appears to be an interest in the path the thread will take - to see what S+Ss' Mr. Grayzel, Mr Anderson, and the members of the POZ National Advisory Board think about such a damaging thread being allowed to continue. The overall context of the thread undermines the long-term prevention message and message of life-giving support that I have long thought POZ.com and the Forums stood for.

I am very disappointed that this thread has been allowed to continue this long - particularly when it was long ago evident that it was serving no useful purpose - and, in the eyes of many, is almost tantamont to allowing a denialist thread to exist.

Just as we say there is a responsibility of members to practice safe sex and to not spread the virus - there is an equal responsibility of the moderators and those who oversee this site to not allow for the continued and ongoing promotion of these same damaging messages to go unchecked - while finding it necessary to timeout members who "call names."  In the end, I wonder how many people have died over the years from being called a name on an open forum - compared to the number of people who have died or will live the rest of their lives with an illness with no known cure because not only did someone not disclose and think it was okay - but they were then allowed to continue over a few day period and several dozen post to continue to espouse and justify this behavior.

This thread long ago passed the realm of a healthy debate.....

Just my thoughts for what they are worth.

With much disappointment,
-Phil
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 jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #233 on: September 25, 2012, 09:16:55 PM »
(ahem outta here for a bit, comment/question withdrawn, this thread is going nowhere, world is not ready for treatment as preventative perhaps, needs to be, it's a game changer, soz, bad form this deleting original post, and mucho soz to Jan, see you after Christmas - matt)

Needs to be. Will be when more than 25% of people on treatment experience viremic control. We aren't nearly, nearly there yet. When there's a once-a-week option, when resistance is not an issue, and when the public and the public's government has finally wrapped their collective heads around the fact that receptive fellatio is, barring seriously extreme and so far impossible to quantify circumstances, safer sex.

But not nearly now. Come back with that in five years, at the earliest.

"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 jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #234 on: September 25, 2012, 09:22:18 PM »
I agree.  There are true sociopaths and monsters out there that have HIV, refuse to take meds so that their viral load will be high and go out there  to try to intentionally infect people.  When you trivialize calling people sociopaths and monsters what you are in effect doing is calling anyone with HIV the same thing.

I rather think that a history of flamebaiting the members of a support forum for HIV is sociopathic behavior.

"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 Zohar

  • Member
  • Posts: 234
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #235 on: September 25, 2012, 09:23:06 PM »
Ahh, how refreshing is to return from work, and see the moral and mental gymnastics of the zohar defense force. Let's begin:

I dunno if he's a saint, but at least he's more concerned about other's well being and knows about HIV better than you.

No. We are not calling everyone with HIV monsters. We are calling monsters those who use the UD status as excuse to fuck without protection or even disclosing, spreading this virus just like a Typhoid Mary.

There is no need to go that far BT, karma is a wheel, maybe someday Zohar will find on the nightclub another "Zohar" who gives him another gift on the form of Hepatitis C or B, Syphilis, etc.... Now he can be a true and hardcore Typhoid Mary.

I'm not sure if you've seen Newt's post above (#223)but if not, take a read.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 09:37:20 PM by Zohar »
''Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.''

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #236 on: September 25, 2012, 09:27:54 PM »
You know what? It's not like the majority of participants in this thread are women in third world countries where disclosure could mean life or death to themselves and their babies.

Every single one of you in this thread is an adult in a FIRST world country and there is simply NO reason for any of you to NOT disclose your hiv status - regardless of VL, regardless of condom usage, regardless of whatever.

You're hiv positive. Suck it up- but stop hiding it.

You know, the whole the more we hide, the more we HAVE to hide is SO relevant. If we all came out as positive, what the hell do you think they're going to be able to do to us? What are they going to do when they find out that we're they're next-door-neighbours, we're someone they stood in the check-out line with yesterday, or that we're they're kid's teachers, the person who served them at Starbucks, or made their sandwich at Chicfilla (or however you spell that despicable company's name) or the person who just nodded and said hello as we passed in the street?

This is why people's experiences like Jan's, who I had to give a TO to, are so relevant. And mine too, along with my boyfriend and a couple other people I know locally. We, like Jan, live in tiny little ISLAND (read that as no escape) communities. But yet Jan and I and other people I know have stood up against these small communities and said -

We're poz. You could be too, there but for the grace of [insert deity here] go you.

And you know what? Our communities have responded with compassion and understanding. They respect us for not hiding who we are and the fact that along with being active, NORMAL parts of our communities, well, we just happen to have a virus as well.

The ONLY way we're ever going to get rid of the stigma we face is to come out of that goddamn stifling closet so many of us consign ourselves to upon diagnosis.

Don't presume to tell me I'm wrong. When I was first diagnosed - on a tiny, conservative island - I feared petrol bombs through my letter box and worse. None of it ever happened.

THE MORE WE HIDE, THE MORE WE HAVE TO HIDE.

And it doesn't make it any easier when people go around barebacking without disclosing their status. Good lord, why can't people understand this?



I see others have commented while I've been ranting. I'm going to post first and respond after, because I have and will stand by what I've done and said so far in this thread.
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 jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #237 on: September 25, 2012, 09:32:24 PM »
Your opinion of me means nothing to me, but you really should check yourself in to a hospital for some mental cleansing.  PS Guilt makes your neck hurt.

Guilt makes one's neck hurt? Never heard that before. I did hear that contentiously flamebaiting a support forum for a devastating illness makes one's genitals shrink.

"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 jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #238 on: September 25, 2012, 09:34:00 PM »
I question why some members have carte blanche for name-calling and slander, while others get read the riot act.

I got a warning for cuntwaffle. And it's a sign of endearment. Life is arbitrary. Maybe there is a cabal bent on bullying others on this forum.

"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 jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #239 on: September 25, 2012, 09:35:45 PM »
Bravo, mecch and newt.

I honestly love that you rarely fail to wade in against certain members of this forum, no matter what the position. It must make you feel terrific to offer such information and support here.

"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 Raf

  • Member
  • Posts: 254
  • Bald by choice
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #240 on: September 25, 2012, 09:36:47 PM »
I'm not sure if you've seen Newt's post above (#223)but if not, take a read. Reply #223

read it, and I need more than that to change my opinion about you and your sociopath behavior. But as I've said, let's hope you meet your "perfect" match someday.
Dx: 05/14/2008
Latest HIV Meds combo I've been taking:

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

Offline Zohar

  • Member
  • Posts: 234
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #241 on: September 25, 2012, 09:40:34 PM »
read it, and I need more than that to change my opinion about you and your sociopath behavior. But as I've said, let's hope you meet your "perfect" match someday.

The same to you.
''Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.''

Offline thunter34

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,305
  • His name is Carl.
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #242 on: September 25, 2012, 09:41:49 PM »
I've stayed completely out of this god awful thread, and will continue to do so other than to say this:

As rough as it is, I support Ann and Tim's decision to let this thread stay.  What are we supposed to do?  Refuse to have certain discussions because "they" might be watching?  And where in this whole thread would anyone get the idea that this behavior from the OP was officially endorsed by the site? 

I just don't see it.

AIDS isn't for sissies.

Offline Raf

  • Member
  • Posts: 254
  • Bald by choice
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #243 on: September 25, 2012, 09:43:51 PM »
The same to you.

Unlike you, I take my measures.Given your behavior,  I suppose your STDs scans are an humor festival.
Dx: 05/14/2008
Latest HIV Meds combo I've been taking:

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

Offline jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #244 on: September 25, 2012, 09:46:00 PM »

2011 was the year the world of HIV prevention science changed folks, get your fucking heads round it.

The science is a struggle, it provokes many emotions, I acknowledge that, but being substantially noninfectious as a prevention strategy, embrace it.


Your assumption that I have not read nor understood the very same studies you present is adorable. Believe it or not, some people here are just as smart and capable of statistical/data analysis as you.

We all have our bias. Whether it's being an LTS and seeing the death and destruction of AIDS, or being adamant at being infected in a manner inconsistent with scientific study, or using one's own behavior to color the accuracy and widespread use of spanking new suppositions regarding HIV infection, and treatment as prevention thereof.

Will U/D become the new Neg? Probably. But until we have a better understanding of seminal viral vs. blood viral load, and until viral load testing is as rapid as an ELISA, then at the end of the day we are again asking (or not asking) people to take our claims of undetectable at their word.

In almost any other sexual act, this might be a very sound idea, scientifically speaking. But when using it to justify one's past, present and future choice to engage in the absolute highest risk behavior, it is at the very best a dark mark on our entire community.

I hope your time away from the forums allows you a chance to regroup and heal. You have not been the same since your own terrible loss.

"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 Zohar

  • Member
  • Posts: 234
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #245 on: September 25, 2012, 09:46:48 PM »
Unlike you, I take my measures.Given your behavior,  I suppose your STDs scans are an humor festival.

That's great.

All the best.   ;)
''Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.''

Offline LM

  • Member
  • Posts: 409
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #246 on: September 25, 2012, 09:54:59 PM »
I honestly love that you rarely fail to wade in against certain members of this forum, no matter what the position. It must make you feel terrific to offer such information and support here.

Just what kind of cheap attack is that? Really, I don't even know what you are talking about. I haven't disrespected anyone here and you come and tell me I have other motivations just because I agree with some people and disagree with others?

I'm seriously asking you to illustrate what you said.

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #247 on: September 25, 2012, 09:56:01 PM »
So Ann,
How long are the editors, staff of AIDSmeds, POZ, Smart+Strong going to allow this toxic thread to continue? I think it has long passed its level of usefulness (if ever there was one). Unfortunately, those who started the thread have shown no intention of changing their viewpoint and have continued to assail and justify the spreading of a deadly virus with no regard for others. A review of the history of the OPs posts over the time he has been a member shows this to be a pattern that should have long ago been put to a stop. He has consistently challenged the authority and knowledge of doctors, advocated/supported others discontinuing medications, many times incited emotions by promoting nondisclosure, and the list goes on - all the while being held completely unaccountable.... just because someone doesn't post links to a denialist site or outwardly say they are a denialist - does not make their viewpoints and posts any less damaging than those of known self-promoting denialists....

If anything, the thread's ongoing existence and the tolerance of it by the mods has jeopardized the credibility of the site - and has many long-term members thinking about going in a different direction (even if it be temporarily) - away from the Forums.

One has to wonder why it is being allowed to continue - when much less incindiary threads have been locked down.

With Tim battling to keep the Forums profitable (or at least above water) I would think that this thread's presence and ongoing and unchecked existance can't play positively into a sustainable model of success for the site.

Maybe this is the goal - drive long-term members away who have been a part of supporting thousands of people who have come to this site - while allowing those who have been here a short time and who have shown over and over again that their goal is to damage, destroy, and incite anger and disunity to stick around unchecked.

Would be interesting - the same as there appears to be an interest in the path the thread will take - to see what S+Ss' Mr. Grayzel, Mr Anderson, and the members of the POZ National Advisory Board think about such a damaging thread being allowed to continue. The overall context of the thread undermines the long-term prevention message and message of life-giving support that I have long thought POZ.com and the Forums stood for.

I am very disappointed that this thread has been allowed to continue this long - particularly when it was long ago evident that it was serving no useful purpose - and, in the eyes of many, is almost tantamont to allowing a denialist thread to exist.

Just as we say there is a responsibility of members to practice safe sex and to not spread the virus - there is an equal responsibility of the moderators and those who oversee this site to not allow for the continued and ongoing promotion of these same damaging messages to go unchecked - while finding it necessary to timeout members who "call names."  In the end, I wonder how many people have died over the years from being called a name on an open forum - compared to the number of people who have died or will live the rest of their lives with an illness with no known cure because not only did someone not disclose and think it was okay - but they were then allowed to continue over a few day period and several dozen post to continue to espouse and justify this behavior.

This thread long ago passed the realm of a healthy debate.....

Just my thoughts for what they are worth.

With much disappointment,
-Phil

Yeah. OK. If you really think the entities you cite read these forums on a daily basis, damn, think again. Mate, it's just me basically, a volunteer who gives a shit. (Sorry Tim and Andy and any other of our volunteers. You know what I mean and I wouldn't diminish your roles for all the tea in China, as they used to say in our youth.)

And if you don't think this is a discussion that needs to go on in the positive community, well, why not? For fuck's sake man, this is a new realm we're delving into. You cannot seriously compare this to the denialist movement. There is at least one very good website that contains all the rebuttals to their idiocy - but we are the only website on the forefront where evolving prevention is concerned. Denialist are so 1990's. We're in the 2010's now and we need to address the new issues - like it or fucking not.

You know, this whole thing with some wanting this thread to be shut down reminds me of the early hiv - 'scuse me - AIDS activism movements where SILENCE = DEATH.  How in the fuck can we NOT have this discussion? Yes, it leaves a fucking horrible taste in my mouth too to read the comments of some posters - like the bottom of a budgie's cage - but SILENCE = DEATH.

Like it or not, we HAVE to talk about the fact that some think that the Swiss Statement gives them license to bareback without disclosure.

Focus on WHY this is so wrong, without resorting to personal attacks, and maybe, just maybe, we might manage to educate the newly diagnosed and stop them spreading their virus.

Castigate me all you want. Some of you who are claiming that you want to leave here because we've permitted this dialogue might just find me joining your ranks - because you wanted to stifle this IMPORTANT discussion.

Don't you get it? Some person who engaged in dubious activities posted a thread here, and the vast majority of people explained why those activities were ... reprehensible. Is this a subject we want to bury our heads in the sand about, or is it actually a learning experience for the positive community?

We HAVE to have these discussions in the positive community, like it or not, agree with everyone or not.

SILENCE = DEATH

Ann
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 jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #248 on: September 25, 2012, 10:01:17 PM »
I've stayed completely out of this god awful thread, and will continue to do so other than to say this:

As rough as it is, I support Ann and Tim's decision to let this thread stay.  What are we supposed to do?  Refuse to have certain discussions because "they" might be watching?  And where in this whole thread would anyone get the idea that this behavior from the OP was officially endorsed by the site? 

I just don't see it.

Thing is, the Powers that Be might have done just that, were some members not willing to throw themselves upon the banhammer in order to present an opposing view. Emotional? Absolutely. Sometimes recklessly so.

But there will come a time then this forum will simply not be able to function as advertisers flee the site. Perhaps jettisoning the LTS folks who dare peek out from their underground bunker will allow the cutting edge of HIV prevention, and treatment as prevention, to flourish.

What, exactly, would happen if I used the existing science to persuade AIDSMEDS to change it's official safer sex messages? I am honestly curious. Because if Newt/Zohar/Live (et al)'s position is rational and reasonable, then why not, exactly?

My stats for viremic control among HIV positive people on treatment is from a study that originated in the USA. Surely a first world country, for the moment.

 

"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 drewm

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,044
  • Mmmmmm Hmmmmmm!
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #249 on: September 25, 2012, 10:04:39 PM »
SILENCE = DEATH

Sometimes it's hard to hear for all the screaming.
MAY 2010
VL>500,000 CD4>8

JUNE 2010 STARTED ATRIPLA

DEC 2010
VL>30 CD4>323

Atripla. Valtrex, Trilipix, Fluoxotine

 


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.