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 22, 2014, 10:55:59 AM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 631440
  • Total Topics: 47799
  • Online Today: 279
  • 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 26925 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,959
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #250 on: September 25, 2012, 10:06:46 PM »
Ann -
I don't disagree that this thread was a needed one....
I'm more so disappointed that it seems to have long ago (very unfortunately) outlasted its usefulness as the instrument of conveying the message and of having a civilized debate/discussion.

It has become a circular argument that has degenerated into name calling, steadfastness, and non-motion...

That was the point I was getting at...
I definitely understand the need to not "push things under the carpet."
But when a conversation/discussion is going nowhere except down - one has to question the usefulness of its continued existence - at least in this thread.....
I don't think this thread is leading to enlightenment (of course, I could be wrong) - instead, it just seems to have turned into a "pissing match."

If there would only seem to be some type of "ray of light..." maybe I would feel differently - unfortunately, it may be one of those cases where people agree to disagree (and agree to do so strongly)....

Once again, just my thoughts.
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 Mus1cl0V3R

  • Member
  • Posts: 38
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #251 on: September 25, 2012, 10:24:21 PM »
Ann -
I don't disagree that this thread was a needed one....
I'm more so disappointed that it seems to have long ago (very unfortunately) outlasted its usefulness
as the instrument of conveying the message and of having a civilized debate/discussion.
+1

Offline whymeetc

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #252 on: September 25, 2012, 10:28:14 PM »
This thread is terrifying. But I reread it and really it's just 1 psychopath and then a handful of buttholes playing devil's advocate. No, it's never ok to not disclose, and especially not ok if you're going to bareback. Nobody deserves this disease, no matter how slutty or methed out they are. This disease can ruin lives. If I wasn't lucky enough to have supportive parents who pay for my insurance I would be screwed.

I think this forum is the most popular HIV forum on the web, and being associated with Poz magazine, has a responsibility to reduce stigma against hiv positive people any way it can. I'm sure some hiv neg people have already seen this thread and left with reinforced or new prejudices against poz people. This thread should be deleted before any more damage is done.
September 4, 2012

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,357
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #253 on: September 25, 2012, 10:31:21 PM »
I simply wanted to know how people respond to questions about sex from their doctors. That's it.  But hey, here we are.

Bullshit!! 

Just look at the title of your thread -- "Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics". 
This wasn't about a question from your doctor...  it was about you telling the doctor that you had unprotected insertive anal intercourse and not liking his response to you.  So you started this thread to see if others are open and honest with their doctors.  You need not have included the details of your encounter if you ONLY wanted to know whether others tell the truth to their doctor.  The fact that you did mention your detailed encounter made it fair game for discussion.  The OVERWHELMING response has been that you are, at best, a self-centered individual who cares nothing for the health and well-being of others.

I see you just continue to avoid all the questions asked of you -- you will only just continue your justification of abhorrent behavior and deflection to unimportant and unrelated topics.

With this post, I am done with this thread.  I've banged my head against the brick wall long enough.  You are what you are and will continue to be exactly the monster that folks think of all POZ individuals.
Your few supporters, with one exceptions, are either:

People who will argue that the sky is green if the majority says it is blue or
Someone who can't put two cogent thoughts together or
A bright man who wants science to instantly change reality -- I wish it could, but it can't, not too mention the science is too incomplete at this point to use as Public Health Policy

This thread has pushed said bright man away and gotten someone a TimeOut who has more class in her little finger and has done more good for the POZ community, worldwide, than you could even comprehend doing. 
So go forth and be the Typhoid Mary monster that your behavior indicates, you are beyond hope.  Quite frankly, my 4 yr old granddaughter has more sense than you.

M
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 Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,134
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #254 on: September 25, 2012, 10:32:46 PM »
Ann -
I don't disagree that this thread was a needed one....
I'm more so disappointed that it seems to have long ago (very unfortunately) outlasted its usefulness as the instrument of conveying the message and of having a civilized debate/discussion.

It has become a circular argument that has degenerated into name calling, steadfastness, and non-motion...


As far as I'm aware, this thread has only degenerated into name-calling three times, and all three times by two people who know better. People for whom I have nothing but the utmost love and respect.

(Jonathan, you're usage of cuntwaffle was obviously not meant as the term of endearment you claim it can be when you used the word "despicable" as an adjective before the noun.)

(Jan, jeeze. Do you ever read and rethink what you've written before you hit post? You can be diplomatic and still get your point across and I'm sure you're aware of this fact. You wouldn't excel at public speaking if you didn't understand that point.)

Phil, as in real life, as in sex clubs, nightclubs, gyms, pubs, libraries, wherefuckingever, we're going to have differences of opinion. Does that mean we can shut the discussion down when we don't like what everyone has to say?

You know, to shut this thread down - at any point in time - would only say to the negative community (that so many seem to be worried about) that we have something to hide.

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

We need more honest discussions like this. We HAVE to talk about this shit. Where are we going to talk about it if not here - by the very virtue that this IS the place where people are going to get the real deal?

Allowing discussions like this does NOT take away from the credibility of this site. Allowing them does, because it gives us the opportunity to refute and educate.

SILENCE = DEATH
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 drewm

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,033
  • Mmmmmm Hmmmmmm!
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #255 on: September 25, 2012, 10:43:35 PM »
This thread is terrifying. But I reread it and really it's just 1 psychopath and then a handful of buttholes playing devil's advocate. No, it's never ok to not disclose, and especially not ok if you're going to bareback. Nobody deserves this disease, no matter how slutty or methed out they are. This disease can ruin lives. If I wasn't lucky enough to have supportive parents who pay for my insurance I would be screwed.

I think this forum is the most popular HIV forum on the web, and being associated with Poz magazine, has a responsibility to reduce stigma against hiv positive people any way it can. I'm sure some hiv neg people have already seen this thread and left with reinforced or new prejudices against poz people. This thread should be deleted before any more damage is done.

Shutting down the commentary is not going to make the issues here go away. The OP asked questions, regardless of the perceived motive, and has been answered ad-nauseum. If we start shutting down conversations that are uncomfortable or paint us in a bad light then where does it stop?
MAY 2010
VL>500,000 CD4>8

JUNE 2010 STARTED ATRIPLA

DEC 2010
VL>30 CD4>323

Atripla. Valtrex, Trilipix, Fluoxotine

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,959
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #256 on: September 25, 2012, 10:45:54 PM »
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/treatment/resources/factsheets/art.htm

The Meaning of “Undetectable” Viral Load: Persistence of Virus in Plasma and Seminal Fluid

Periodic blood plasma viral load monitoring is used to measure ART effectiveness. The goal of effective ART is the long-term suppression of plasma viral load, usually defined as the maintenance of a level of HIV virus that is below the threshold detectable by available tests. While plasma viral load tests are reliable, they have limitations: virus levels below a minimum concentration may not be detected. Studies have shown that persistent virus is found in peripheral blood mononuclear cells [9, 10] even when individuals have sustained undetectable plasma viral load levels.

Genital fluid viral loads are not routinely measured in persons on ART. Although ART reduces concentration of virus in seminal fluid [11], virus persists within cells present in seminal fluid of some men who are on ART with undetectable plasma viral load [12-13]. ART also is associated with decrease in cervicovaginal fluid viral load; however, ‘breakthrough' shedding has been observed in some studies [14-17]. Therefore, the potential for transmission exists despite sustaining undetectable viral load while on effective ART.

and...
http://suite101.com/article/undetectable-viral-load-a77404

and...
http://www.catie.ca/en/positiveside/winter-2008/sex-drugs-and-viral-load

and...
http://www.avert.org/media/pdfs/HIV-transmission-and-antiretroviral-therapy-Briefing-sheet.pdf
(particularly important in the last article is the increase in viral load in semen that occurs when accompanied with another STI... considering that many who are engaging in "anonymous" sex are prone to STIs, this makes risk of transmission much more likely...



« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 10:54:41 PM by phildinftlaudy »
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 thunter34

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,302
  • His name is Carl.
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #257 on: September 25, 2012, 10:48:22 PM »
Thing is, the Powers that Be might have done just that, were some members not willing to throw themselves upon the banhammer in order to present an opposing view. Emotional? Absolutely. Sometimes recklessly so.

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

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

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

Well, alright then.  Then answer this:  how is the line drawn in your own relationship?  I mean....you've said that you and your BF intend to BB with you in the passive role, but that isn't 100% certainly "letting the virus end with you", is it?  Statistically far safer, but not entirely....right?  And how is the fact that you've disclosed and he's agreed still freeing you from your responsibility to be absolutely CERTAIN that you don't pass the virus on?  I mean, after all, the mantra has so far been that just because someone else is willing to take the risk doesn't give you the right to indulge them.  Right?

Isn't that what you've already done to a certain degree?  Used today's science to change existing safer sex messages?

To the OP's original question, I would say that a doctor should encourage more appropriate behavior - but not berate you as his patient.  To do so, in my opinion, is only likely to stifle honesty in the future.

I understand the disapproval, but the all-out pitchfork and torch carrying mob mentality approach to this hasn't resonated very well with me either.

I still stand with Ann...learning opportunity. 
AIDS isn't for sissies.

Offline Tim Horn

  • Member
  • Posts: 799
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #258 on: September 25, 2012, 10:49:01 PM »
How long are the editors, staff of AIDSmeds, POZ, Smart+Strong going to allow this toxic thread to continue? I think it has long passed its level of usefulness (if ever there was one).

I don't agree. What we have in this thread is pretty much the full spectrum of attitudes pertaining to disclosure and safer sex (and I do think we're now at a point where maximally suppressed viral loads is a form of safer sex, which IS spelled out in our prevention lesson). This has been a highly emotional conversation -- laced with name calling, which we cannot tolerate -- that still strikes me as thought-provoking.

Phil, these forums will never be profitable -- even if everyone here was on the same moral plain, agreed on the principles of disclosure and were on the exact same page regarding the science of prevention, most high-paying advertisers want NOTHING to do with pages on AIDSmeds or POZ that involve user-generated content. My intent with "pay-for-play" subscriptions in the "Am I Infected?" forum is to offset the costs associated with running these forums to keep them off the chopping block.

If the intent was to ensure everyone receives the exact same message via AIDSmeds or POZ -- get tested, into care and on treatment immediately; always disclose; and always use condoms... no matter what their hangups -- there would be no need for these forums. But it's threads like these that make people sit up and recognize that not everyone plays by the same rules and that there's much to be learned about living with HIV from the decisions other people make (rightly or wrongly, and there's plenty of obvious pushback in this thread against some seriously misguided thinking).

On this fifth page of this thread, there still seem to be a lot of salient points being made. I'm inclined to leave it be. 

Offline LM

  • Member
  • Posts: 409
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #259 on: September 25, 2012, 10:56:19 PM »
I applaud Ann's stance on this. I don't understand why people want to lock this thread so badly, or worse, are considering leaving here because of it. That's rather childish.

One problem here is that some people think they own the place and that only their opinion is valid. Way more than once I've been attacked just because I had a different opinion. At least twice on this thread already, although I tried to be very respectful, but there were those who put words in my mouth and tried to assume what my motivations were. Just because I disagreed with the angry mob about their reaction. Unlike some people who are ready to repeat whatever others say around here, I'm not afraid to have my own opinion, even if it goes against the opinion of the majority or of someone I like and respect.

I believe, like Ann said, that this kind of thing needs to be discussed. Discussed in a rational way, with a cool head. Some of you have worked for a long time educating people and stuff but new challenges are presented and perhaps it's good to check if you're not stuck in time. Newt presented interesting data, but some people here are clearly not ready to digest it. Unless you live in Wonderland, it's a well known fact that people bareback all the time in sex clubs, saunas, whatever, without disclosure or anything. Are we going to ignore this? But then, the reaction of some of the people here, from my point of view, was very similar in tone and content to the comments from people who defend criminalization, regardless of disclosure or condom use. And like mecch said, I think this sort of attitude actually contributes way more to the stigma.

Offline jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #260 on: September 25, 2012, 11:31:12 PM »
Well, alright then.  Then answer this:  how is the line drawn in your own relationship?  I mean....you've said that you and your BF intend to BB with you in the passive role, but that isn't 100% certainly "letting the virus end with you", is it?  Statistically far safer, but not entirely....right?  And how is the fact that you've disclosed and he's agreed still freeing you from your responsibility to be absolutely CERTAIN that you don't pass the virus on?  I mean, after all, the mantra has so far been that just because someone else is willing to take the risk doesn't give you the right to indulge them.  Right?

Isn't that what you've already done to a certain degree?  Used today's science to change existing safer sex messages?

To the OP's original question, I would say that a doctor should encourage more appropriate behavior - but not berate you as his patient.  To do so, in my opinion, is only likely to stifle honesty in the future.

I understand the disapproval, but the all-out pitchfork and torch carrying mob mentality approach to this hasn't resonated very well with me either.

I still stand with Ann...learning opportunity. 

Well, it would be a bit of a hijack to tell you the hell on earth I have been going through for the last six months with my boyfriend. But then again, you know all about that, right? Unlike the folks on this forum, who I have elected not to discuss a great deal about my personal life because it is invariably thrown in my face.

My private decisions in my committed relationship are not going to be the subject of discussion in this or any thread in AIDSMEDS. Let me be crystal clear on that. The decisions I have made, based on my own commitment to my medications, my persistently UD viral load over the past year, and my boyfriend's complete and dare I mention independent study of the same science is ours to make. I certainly would not dare bring it to this thread, and am frankly taken aback that you would, or could draw a parallel to the situations.

My boyfriend has never given me permission, nor would I ask him to allow me to dissect our sexual choices on this public forum that his family has already perused. And of all people, I trusted you to know that. Key word there of course, is trusted. I try to learn from my mistakes.

To your invasive question, however, since you have risked a friendship to ask, I have been rather a renegade on these forums since I started helping out in AM I INFECTED. When I joined, Tim H and others were still claiming that any oral sex could lead to infection. Fellatio, cunnilingus, receptive or insertive. It took me months to disabuse them of the notion that any exchange of bodily fluids was a potential risk. And it took not one or two but THREE long-term serodiscordant couples' studies to bear me out, even though the information about saliva (as well as the statistics regarding cunnilingus and insertive fellatio) were clear.

And even though I do not find any evidence to support my choice, to date I have never allowed my partner to perform oral on me to climax. And I have been extremely vigilant about my rectal health, my meds, and the type of sex we did have, on a handful of occasions, before he became deathly ill. I have been his sleep-deprived caregiver for months now, with our sex life being the least of our concerns. But then again, you know that. But trust me, I will make certain that you know no more of it.

Why don't you ask the women here who conceive naturally the same question? It would be great to hear some new voices, wouldn't it?

Or is it just the gay male sex that titillates us so?


"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 phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,959
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #261 on: September 25, 2012, 11:35:45 PM »
Always good to have the credentials of OPs - but since we don't always have those, we do have previous history of posts... some of them really stood out to me (I've bolded and/or underlined those)....

1)   “It\'s long been acknowledged that HIV is present in a rectal secretions, even when someone is on HAART[/u], so I tend to believe tops who say that\'s how they became infected. Not that I think it matters what the route of transmission is really” (Post from Zohar “Living With HIV / Re: Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom” May 17, 2010)

2)   If I was doing the random sex thing, I wouldn't disclose. But as someone else said above, that's not really me anymore, so disclosure is not an issue in that scenario. My plan now is to get to know people on a series of dates and then when I feel comfortable to then tell them that I'm positive.” (Post from Zohar “Living With HIV / Re: What's your disclosure rule for summer pickups?  June 18, 2010)

3)   “Due to concerns around side effects, I've been taking a half dose of Truvada along with the full dose of my other medications which are Darunavir and Norvir, which I started just over 4 months ago. My viral load has recently dropped from over 100k to undetectable and my CD4 count is around 330, up from 80 when I first started. I've been monitored regularly and my doctor has been happy with the rate of progress.

I'm now considering taking lower doses of Darunavir and Norvir, but am undecided at this point. As Norvir is a 'booster' drug, it might perhaps make sense to keep that at its recommended level and just halve the dose of Darunavir.

So I'm interested to hear if anyone else has experimented with taking less than the prescribed dose of their HIV medication and what the outcome was” (Post from Zohar Questions About Treatment & Side Effects / Reducing the dose of HIV drugs, December 18, 2010)

4)   “Can anyone who's sexually active ever be certain that they aren't in fact infected with the virus? I had no idea I was positive when I was diagnosed, and I am sure I wasn't the first to whom their diagnosis came as a surprise. Many of the sex date sites give the option to state one's status but, in reality, the only people that really know are those who've actually been diagnosed. The rest are basically 'HIV - unknown'.

That being the case, isn't it time we sought to do away with the term HIV 'negative'?”(Post from Zohar “Living With HIV / HIV 'Negative'” July 29, 2011)

5)   Post from another member: ''Why it may not be a good idea to reduce your dose of HIV meds''

Zohar's response: "I think 'may' is the operative word here, isn't it?”  (Post from Zohar “Questions About Treatment & Side Effects / Re: Why it may not be a good idea to reduce your dose of HIV meds”  July 19, 2011)

6)   “My own experience has shown that sometimes a particular doctor doesn't always know best and the quality of my life has improved immeasurably since taking matters into my own hands - a decision which was later supported by a highly experienced HIV consultant. The point here is that these circumstances were specific to me and, convenient though it would be, a 'one size fits all' approach doesn't always yield the best outcome.” (Post from Zohar Questions About Treatment & Side Effects / Re: Unconventional treatment and adherence strategies”  July 17, 2011)

7)   I think there's a part of me that  now HATES my extroverted side as, somewhere in mind, I feel that if it wasn't for that part of my personality  I wouldn't have become infected with HIV in the first place. I think I've come to associate gay clubs/bars with negative things, like self-destructiveness, as well as a sense of feeling that I will be judged harshly for my HIV status (were it known), which makes the gay scene seem far more hostile than I ever used to experience it.

Before I was diagnosed the gay clubs and bars used to be my playground, but now, in as much as the dark thoughts that run through my mind whenever I'm there, it feels more like a battleground, and I look forward to the evening being over so I can snuggle into the safety of my own home and quiet solitude. (Post from Zohar Mental Health & HIV / Re: Has HIV Made You Reclusive? May 31, 2011)

Sounds like someone whose "tips" and beliefs I want to follow.... 
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 #262 on: September 25, 2012, 11:38:25 PM »

One problem here is that some people think they own the place and that only their opinion is valid. Way more than once I've been attacked just because I had a different opinion. At least twice on this thread already, although I tried to be very respectful, but there were those who put words in my mouth and tried to assume what my motivations were. Just because I disagreed with the angry mob about their reaction. Unlike some people who are ready to repeat whatever others say around here, I'm not afraid to have my own opinion, even if it goes against the opinion of the majority or of someone I like and respect.

I believe, like Ann said, that this kind of thing needs to be discussed. Discussed in a rational way, with a cool head. Some of you have worked for a long time educating people and stuff but new challenges are presented and perhaps it's good to check if you're not stuck in time. Newt presented interesting data, but some people here are clearly not ready to digest it. Unless you live in Wonderland, it's a well known fact that people bareback all the time in sex clubs, saunas, whatever, without disclosure or anything. Are we going to ignore this? But then, the reaction of some of the people here, from my point of view, was very similar in tone and content to the comments from people who defend criminalization, regardless of disclosure or condom use. And like mecch said, I think this sort of attitude actually contributes way more to the stigma.

I do agree that this is a discussion that should be had. I also think it was presented as flame bait. You might argue that, but the history of the OP rather firmly supports my thesis.

Insofar as using new data to form new paradigms, I am rather dismayed that no one ever bothers to read AM I INFECTED before coming to that conclusion. Or the Women's Forum, for that matter. Many of us have been talking about Treatment As Prevention for a long time. Perhaps there ought to be a separate "Science of HIV Transmission/Prevention" forum. Though God/dess knows who would want to moderate it.

My problem with the OP has always been about A) the presentation of the topic, B) the4 disregard for the consent of others when using aforementioned TAP, and C) the inability to understand, as Anne (with whom you agree) that the failure to disclose was and is contributing to the very stigma we face.

Much moreso, IMHO, than the rantings on an anonymous message board. One is, after all, real life.

As for people thinking they own the place, do you think I think that?
"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 #263 on: September 25, 2012, 11:56:43 PM »

(Jonathan, you're usage of cuntwaffle was obviously not meant as the term of endearment you claim it can be when you used the word "despicable" as an adjective before the noun.)


Oh, I never claimed that it was. I honestly hadn't thought to go to Urban Dictionary before I used it. I really thought I had made it up. It has served me very well in Atlanta traffic. I was just amused, after the fact, to discover A) that a made-up perjorative still warranted a warning, and that B) people actually call one another "cuntwaffle" as a term of endearment.

Obviously I need to be way more creative.

"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 LM

  • Member
  • Posts: 409
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #264 on: September 25, 2012, 11:59:18 PM »
I do agree that this is a discussion that should be had. I also think it was presented as flame bait. You might argue that, but the history of the OP rather firmly supports my thesis.

Insofar as using new data to form new paradigms, I am rather dismayed that no one ever bothers to read AM I INFECTED before coming to that conclusion. Or the Women's Forum, for that matter. Many of us have been talking about Treatment As Prevention for a long time. Perhaps there ought to be a separate "Science of HIV Transmission/Prevention" forum. Though God/dess knows who would want to moderate it.

My problem with the OP has always been about A) the presentation of the topic, B) the4 disregard for the consent of others when using aforementioned TAP, and C) the inability to understand, as Anne (with whom you agree) that the failure to disclose was and is contributing to the very stigma we face.

Much moreso, IMHO, than the rantings on an anonymous message board. One is, after all, real life.

As for people thinking they own the place, do you think I think that?

I didn't get the impression that it was flame bait. Could be, I don't know. What struck me was the reaction, and I wasn't the only one who felt that. Also, while I can see how failing to disclose contributes to stigma, I think calling those who don't disclose monsters contributes way more. But mecch, for instance, illustrated that already.

As for you thinking that you own the place, frankly, never got the feeling before. However, I got ticked by your uncalled attack on your previous post, especially after I addressed you respectfully, and I'm still waiting for you to clarify that.  It seems that it's related to how it isn't "allowed" to disagree with some here.

Offline komnaes

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,893
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #265 on: September 26, 2012, 12:18:05 AM »
What it really comes down to is I am afraid this new 'reality' of AIDS - some pozzies just can't wait to turn it into another 'social diseases', i.e. occasional inconveniences that should never interfere with the last frontier of hedonistic gay sex.

I seriously doubt they really care much about those Swiss reports / theories on being UD as prevention, as many were doing exactly what we still do in sex clubs, saunas, homes with or without chemical enhancement before those theories become 'mainstream'. For some, whoever open themselves up for this game of raw sex, they have forfeited their right to complain. In other words, their disregard of their own health justifies some pozzies' lack of concern of the fact that they're knowingly participating in acts that can transmit a still life threatening disease to others.
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 ds4146

  • Member
  • Posts: 317
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #266 on: September 26, 2012, 12:22:33 AM »
This is such a worthy discussion and shouldn't be closed down if for no other reason than expressions such as this: "People need to get their head round the science, and then what they feel about it. Treatment is as least as protective as condoms. Which is not in either case a cast iron guarantee eh?"

What a concept. Matt don't take a leave. Your leaving or anyone else's would be so defeating. We all have much to learn and we need discussions like this.

Stop with the loss of marketing and advertisers already. If you really want to invest in this site let's all start paying for posting or reading on "Off Forum". I will gladly pay for that laugh a day.

Although many of us may not be LTS, please don't judge that to mean that we don't have a concept of what it is like to lose and bury friends, many of them, just because we thought we had beaten the odds only to find out much later in time we had not.


That in itself is reason enough why this conversation has a purpose. Not all of us of have three, two or one degree in some field but still have common sense and the ability to read, decipher, read again and learn from it. Maybe not the first time, but hopefully the second time.

Offline Raf

  • Member
  • Posts: 253
  • Bald by choice
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #267 on: September 26, 2012, 12:50:28 AM »
What it really comes down to is I am afraid this new 'reality' of AIDS - some pozzies just can't wait to turn it into another 'social diseases', i.e. occasional inconveniences that should never interfere with the last frontier of hedonistic gay sex.

yeah, it seems some are looking desperately for an excuse to go back to have raw, random sex, without even considering the fucking virus they have inside. If I thought like the OP, I won't be hiding on the UD thing to have all the sex I want: I would just go for it.

Of course, something called conscience stops me, I certainly want this virus to end with me without infecting anyone. It's a shame that not many share that feeling.
Dx: 05/14/2008
Latest HIV Meds combo I've been taking:

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

Offline whymeetc

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #268 on: September 26, 2012, 01:17:12 AM »
7)   I think there's a part of me that  now HATES my extroverted side as, somewhere in mind, I feel that if it wasn't for that part of my personality  I wouldn't have become infected with HIV in the first place. I think I've come to associate gay clubs/bars with negative things, like self-destructiveness, as well as a sense of feeling that I will be judged harshly for my HIV status (were it known), which makes the gay scene seem far more hostile than I ever used to experience it.

Before I was diagnosed the gay clubs and bars used to be my playground, but now, in as much as the dark thoughts that run through my mind whenever I'm there, it feels more like a battleground, and I look forward to the evening being over so I can snuggle into the safety of my own home and quiet solitude. (Post from Zohar Mental Health & HIV / Re: Has HIV Made You Reclusive? May 31, 2011)

Sounds like someone whose "tips" and beliefs I want to follow....

Seeing all those posts makes me empathize with him. I was diagnosed earlier this month and I'm definitely not adjusted yet. The other day I went to the mall and I had to leave because I started to feel so resentful and anxious. It's easy to slip into a dark place with hiv (I'd probably have the secret service knocking at my door if I posted some of my thoughts), because it's such an unfair thing. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. I know those thoughts are wrong though and would never act on them.

And I don't think every opinion is equal. Should I respect someone's opinion that god kills american soldiers because of gays in america? No. Because that's insane.
September 4, 2012

Offline GSOgymrat

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,001
  • HIV+ since 1993. INTJ
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #269 on: September 26, 2012, 01:51:26 AM »
You know what? It's not like the majority of participants in this thread are women in third world countries where disclosure could mean life or death to themselves and their babies.

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

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

I agree.

As I said earlier, from my perspective, which I know is in the minority, viral transmission is not the core issue. First off, I don't agree with the moral relativist argument that everything is subjective for the same reasons that Spacebarsux described—you can rationalize the Holocaust with that philosophy. Second, I don’t believe that you can’t judge people’s action because your fear they might judge yours. I don’t believe “judge not least you be judged” or “only God can judge”—those are cop outs. I believe as human beings we need to not only be responsible for our own behavior we need to point out when people are screwing up. There is no karma, there is no divine retribution. We as a human race have to figure out how to make it on our own and just because someone has HIV, or is gay, or whatever doesn’t exempt their actions from criticism. Third, I haven’t done any name calling.

This is why as a person with HIV I should disclose to sexual partners, whether it is oral or with a condom or whatever: I shouldn’t put my desire for sex over my sexual partner’s emotional wellbeing. Most people would want to know if I have HIV and most people would feel betrayed and hurt if they found out after the fact that I purposely did not tell them. If people didn’t care about HIV then people with HIV wouldn’t be so fearful of disclosure. It doesn’t matter if there is no risk of infection, it can still cause them distress. Just think back to how you felt when you found out you had HIV, why would you want anyone to feel that for even a minute. Not disclosing before having sex is a lie of omission and inherently dishonest. There are distinctions however. The difference between men at a gay bathhouse and a couple dating for six months is the nature of the relationship, the level of trust and corresponding level of betrayal—gay men in a sex club expect there to be people with HIV and other STDs and have a brief interaction where Margaret didn’t expect John from church would not tell her about his history of I.V. drug use and HIV. This is why I care little about gay men screwing around in sex club but outraged that someone would contract HIV and continue to have unprotected sex with his wife for a year. As Ann pointed out, there are situations where one shouldn’t disclose but most of us are not in those situations.

I am not saying non-disclosure should be criminal. A man can tell a woman what she wants to hear to get her into bed and then never call her again. A woman can neglect to tell her husband she stopped her birth control because she wants a baby and he doesn’t. These are not criminal acts but theyare dishonest and undermine trust between people—they are asshole things to do.

I don’t think of people as “AIDS monsters” and don't say "he's a bad person" but I definitely judge people's actions. People are not inherently good or bad-- I don't believe in "monsters." Everyone makes bad choices, takes the path of least resistance, acts selfishly, takes destructive actions to defend their group—I do things I know are wrong. I completely understand someone saying “ideally I would like to be honest and disclose but I’m afraid of rejection,” or some other reason. What I can’t accept is “I don’t care if I hurt people” or “my needs come before theirs.” Just try to be honest with people, communicate about sex and treat people with respect.

That is my reasoning. For the people who don't believe in disclosure what are your reasons?

Offline LiveWithIt

  • Member
  • Posts: 377
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #270 on: September 26, 2012, 03:25:34 AM »
I'm sure some hiv neg people have already seen this thread and left with reinforced or new prejudices against poz people.

The damage is if any neg person starts to think they are safe playing bare in a sex club because all poz men are responsible.   Only a neg person can prevent themselves from being infected.  A poz person can prevent themselves from passing it on, but they can't prevent another poz person or a person who doesn't know what their status is from infecting others.   Any neg person out there cruising in a sex club or bathhouse may not know it but they are poz friendly and are having sex with pos guys.  Silence = Death and if you don't ask your sexual partner and you are neg you are a fool, and you better hope that they are honest because some men will lie to get off.  There are good and bad people in every community and there always will be. We can only educate neg people that they have to protect themselves.   A neg person should assume that any person they are going to have sex with is poz unless told otherwise, and then check your sources.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 03:36:54 AM 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 komnaes

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,893
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #271 on: September 26, 2012, 03:33:42 AM »
That is my reasoning. For the people who don't believe in disclosure what are your reasons?

In all the outreach programs I have been to I found myself having to defend pozzies, myself included, who decided in most cases not to disclose. I heard so many angry protests from negative gay men who told me it was absolutely their right to be told, and how their 'choice' was taken away when we don't proactively tell them about our status.

The one practical argument is that in order to be fair, there has to be a mutual agreement on accepted risk - what I mean is, while others' disregard of their health does not cancel out our duty as pozzies to keep the virus to ourselves, when it comes to disclosure, I maintain that we don't have a duty that expands to cover the total denial of any risk involved in a clearly risky sexual situation on the part of a negative partner.

Because the fact is that when we say we want the virus to stop with us, unless you're one of those that totally stop having any sex altogether or only have sex with other pozzies, we mean only that we will do our conscious best to avoid transmission. And whether we disclose or not can have no effect on how we can make good with this pledge of no transmission.

Accidents can happen. And anyone who's a reasonable adult walks into a sauna, go to a Grindr's appointment, etc, should know that the next person he fucks with may have a range of STDs, and that the risk of getting infected is real with or without disclosure, but the risk can almost be completely removed if safer sex is practiced, whereas disclosure alone does not remove the possibility of transmission.

But now it seems the line has moved so far back that being UD is the only thing that's needed as a form of 'safer sex'; and if you take that reasoning with you, it's not hard to see how some pozzies could just blocked their minds off with the reasoning that raw fucking is just like oral sex. Maybe it's true.. most likely not, because the one 'fatal' logical flaw is that even if being UD is as good as being non-transmissible, there's always a chance that our VL can increase to non-UD between tests.

And to think that all these in-fighting is over a condom.. Maybe it's worst place to insert some humor, but here goes - one of my mentors in HIV health promotion often used this line: "well, you're after all dipping into a shit hole, you might as well hear a hat."

<edited to correct typos>
« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 03:41:24 AM by komnaes »
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 spacebarsux

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,350
  • Survival of the Fittest
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #272 on: September 26, 2012, 03:59:51 AM »
All laws/ rules/ moral codes/ customs/ emanate eventually from the majority view of what society settles upon as right and wrong in a time and place; true. It was considered morally right once to condemn, even outlaw homosexual acts, it still the case amongst many global societies. Was it/is it right?  It is currently considered right by legislators in some jurisdictions to throw poz people in jail for engaging in protected sex, even when no transmission occurred, and there was no risk presented, simply because they didn’t disclose. Their definition of ‘right’, is surely an anathema to nearly all on these boards.

Please let’s not get into moral relativism. It is all too convenient to dredge up statistics and arguments so as to lend credence to virtually any ‘moral’ justification, however tenuous it seems to the person at the receiving end, most of whom would doubtless consider such an argument as a contortion or a deception. People who are anti-homosexuals also believed/believe they were/are in the right. Terrorists truly believe they are right. The Govt in Iran executing gays think they are right.

So please let’s not push this line. It is utterly puerile and only serves to underscore the adroitness of human beings in manufacturing justifications and rationalizations for palpably ‘extreme selfish acts’. It’s a load of self-serving, and naive codswallop that no rational person would swallow.

So then…..It is ultimately a question of ‘where do you draw the line?’ going not merely by scientific data but ALSO placing adequate weight on factors such as ‘stigma, public health consensus, & criminalization’ that ALL HIV+ are confronted with. A poz person’s notion of what constitutes ‘responsible and safe sex’, and the public/legal awareness and sensitivity of our actions as a community is enmeshed with the public’s perception of how we ought to conduct ourselves. Though it is in our hands to make to virus stop with us, it is not us who get to decide what the borders and limits of acceptable behaviour are. The medical experts, public health workers and, in some cases the courts do this. Whether or not we like it or see it is beside the point. We are the minority.

-A Condom IS considered the hallmark of safe sex in 2012.

Perhaps not in some non-progressive places, but in many others doctors/public health workers/ courts and the like would certainly interpret condom use as adequate protection and also a clear signal that the person did not intend to harm his/her sexual partner. The majority of these people: i.e. public health workers/doctors/ legal guys would construe the lack of a condom, even if on meds, as a cue that the poz person is callous or indifferent about others’ health. This is the reality. Whether or not we like it or agree is beside the point.

-Because a condom acts a veritable safeguard against most STIs in offering a tangible barrier, because it offers a safety-net by way of PeP in case of a break, because it’s an inveterate symbol of protection against HIV, the public attitudes are entrenched. And they matter to our lives because they do place on us limits in the ways we can act. This is the reality. Whether or not we like it or agree is beside the point.

Even if the scientific data points to suppression of VL through meds being as effective a precaution- MANY people in high places of public health and medicine would disagree.  They cite valid reasons: treatment is prone to viral break-throughs,  VL in semen may differ from plasma, co-infection of other STIs, so on and so forth. These are the people holding the reins to public health statements and thereby our sexual boundaries (in a sort of way). Their reasons may or may not be influenced politically. But their position of authority is a reality.

So much for objective realities. Now, if it is the view of certain experts that the condom mantra ought to change in keeping with the science, then I’d think the rational way to go about it would be to lobby within scientific communities that can make a difference to our ground reality, rather than go ahead and make that difference surreptitiously in a dark room by yourself: by fucking raw without disclosure! An act, which so blatantly subverts & undercuts the message that HIV advocates, have so laboriously exhorted over decades and continue to do so. If the message ought to be changed, then do something towards effectively changing it- don’t go around engaging in, what can most sympathetically be described, as ‘illicit transgressions’: engaging in unprotected sex without disclosure.

We live in a world where poz people are still forbidden to travel and work in certain places, where people are thrown into jail for engaging even in protected sex, and where no transmission occurs, in the absence of disclosure. Where the majority of people are NOT gay and do not understand the unspoken ethics of the gay sex clubs. Where lawmakers choose to be oblivious to scientific advancements in treatment and prevention.

But instead of disseminating education and allaying myths and prejudices, what do we get on this thread?  We have an exhibition of poz people committing gross misdemeanours that serve to undermine everything we stand for- people who provide justification upon culpability contortion upon evasion, who display a remarkable level of dexterity in eschewing personal onus and obligation in a bid to further their selfish, if petty ends of a few minutes of bareback pleasure.  ::)

This thread is nothing but a marvellous showcase of the vulgar insouciance of the selfish-hearted who sink to new lows in order to self-justify their reckless behaviour.

Edited for typos, surely some missed
« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 04:49:03 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 Zohar

  • Member
  • Posts: 234
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #273 on: September 26, 2012, 04:53:37 AM »
I didn't get the impression that it was flame bait. Could be, I don't know. What struck me was the reaction, and I wasn't the only one who felt that. Also, while I can see how failing to disclose contributes to stigma, I think calling those who don't disclose monsters contributes way more. But mecch, for instance, illustrated that already.

You're right. I didn't start this thread to 'flame bait'.
''Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.''

Offline Zohar

  • Member
  • Posts: 234
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #274 on: September 26, 2012, 05:48:18 AM »
...a condom acts a veritable safeguard against most STIs in offering a tangible barrier,

This should be qualified. Some of the most common STIs such as worts, syphilis, herpes, and gonorrhoea, aren't dependent on anal or vaginal intercourse for infection to occur, which means that even when condoms are used, transmission can still take place.





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

Offline spacebarsux

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,350
  • Survival of the Fittest
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #275 on: September 26, 2012, 06:14:41 AM »
This should be qualified. Some of the most common STIs such as worts, syphilis, herpes, and gonorrhoea, aren't dependent on anal or vaginal intercourse for infection to occur, which means that even when condoms are used, transmission can still take place.

Wow Zohar. Sharp observation. Sigh.

Perhaps the only good thing I can see from this is that you actually read through the wall of text I wrote and hopefully, something resonated in why so many of us consider barebacking without disclosure so wrong.

Can I ask you nicely:

- Why not simply wear a condom? Is it REALLY worth the risk (albeit small risk) ?

OR

- Serosort and bareback?

OR

-disclose and bareback?

The stark difference between oral sex vs. undetectable anal sex parallels (which I don't personally agree with but anyhow..) is that in the former, condoms reduce the entire oral exercise to a task bordering on pointlessness, which is perhaps why it has never caught on and never will. This, in my opinion, is not the case with anal sex/ penetrative sex.

Yes, all who engage in sexual acts, enter saunas and what have you, are responsible for themselves, but I can't get my head around the fact on how someone who is aware of his status can be so impervious to doing their "conscious best" (quote from Komnaes) in stopping onward transmission.
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 mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,209
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #276 on: September 26, 2012, 07:01:10 AM »
So then…..It is ultimately a question of ‘where do you draw the line?’ going not merely by scientific data but ALSO placing adequate weight on factors such as ‘stigma, public health consensus, & criminalization’ that ALL HIV+ are confronted with. A poz person’s notion of what constitutes ‘responsible and safe sex’, and the public/legal awareness and sensitivity of our actions as a community is enmeshed with the public’s perception of how we ought to conduct ourselves. Though it is in our hands to make to virus stop with us, it is not us who get to decide what the borders and limits of acceptable behaviour are. The medical experts, public health workers and, in some cases the courts do this. Whether or not we like it or see it is beside the point. We are the minority.

Edited for typos, surely some missed

Maybe read (or reread?) Frantz Fanon.  Gramsci if you can stomach reading a Marxist in 2012.

I highlight this paragraph not to call out the writer but because its one example of reasonings in this thread that make me think of just how much we accept our "subaltern" identity as handed to us, allow our selves to be constructed by hostile powers, let ourselves be interpellated (see French philosopher Althusser).  That's a post-Marxist (post Paris68) observation of power struggle, identity. (It helps for insight into colonial history and post-colonial power struggles, international relations.  It explains a power of Act Up, in my opinion.)

See I get with Gymrat and Ann on how 100% disclosure is about respect - respect for my own value and status as a HIV+ person and respect for the other.  I have to agree. 

But that respect for the other therefore includes opening myself to, many times, (not always, sometimes not even often!) another round of interpellation by an idiot, ignorant, righteous or even sanctimonious intellect that actually has no right to construct me.  Reject me, sure ok.

This is all very 80's and 90's stuff, mind you.

However, be very careful when explaining that "100% disclosure is important because that's what the status quo Ideology expects".  In so many words.  This is sort of "performance of purity".  And therefore cleanliness.  Status quo Ideology can only deal with a HIV+ person's active sexuality if the HIV+ person is 100% pure - morally impeccable, 100% without risk.  Otherwise its a dire threat.  (Some status quo Ideology would just as well deny all sex to HIV+ people and not have to think about this at all.) 

In other words, the subaltern is being constructed as "exceptionally" threatening, and "naturally" deserving of being held to a higher moral standard.  Hypocritical moral standard, because in fact it is Ideology, ("hegemony"), in doing so, shoring up its power, hiding its profiteering based on its powers, and enjoying the ease of mind that comes with the security that the subaltern is not a threat.  One thing you can be sure, Ideology, or hegemony, is quite corrupt and not pure, not clean. Do not use its "approved scripts" in constructing your own minority identity.  Perform them, maybe, when its strategically important, but don't 100% believe that is your true subjectivity.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 07:42:21 AM by mecch »
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Online leatherman

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,049
  • Google and HIV meds are Your Friends
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #277 on: September 26, 2012, 10:57:36 AM »
Only a neg person can prevent themselves from being infected.

We can only educate neg people that they have to protect themselves.
only, only, only you say several times yet that's just not true. The responsibility lies on both poz and neg partners to do what they can to prevent transmission.

poz people can help prevent neg people from being infected by doing everything in their/our power to not spread the disease. We can also educate poz people on how to protect neg people by explaining methods that help control the spread of the disease - by serosorting, using condoms, being UD, disclosure, etc. (Of course I realize that none of those methods is 100% foolproof; however, using enough of those methods can reduce the viability of transmission down to only being theoretical)

Just because one partner fails in their responsibilities does not give the other partner the right to fail also. When one partner foolishly exposes himself (ie exhibits less knowledge about transmission prevention), more responsibility should then fall to the more knowledgeable partner (the one who knows he is poz) to do more to prevent the transmission.
Silence = Death and if you don't ask your sexual partner and you are neg you are a fool,

A neg person should assume that any person they are going to have sex with is poz unless told otherwise, and then check your sources.
Never ever, ever, should a neg person ask their sexual partner what their status is. That is the most foolish and least likely way to protect your status and shouldn't even be suggested. Put simply, people lie. You should have just left your statement as "A neg person should assume that any person they are going to have sex with is poz." period

Besides if the poz person hasn't already volunteered this information on his own (the disclosure I mentioned above as something the poz person should do to help in these situations) what would make you think a neg person asking is going to pull out the real answer, when the poz person would clearly by then be hiding that information? Disclosure really only works properly/best when the poz person volunteers that information.
leatherman (aka mIkIE)


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

Offline LiveWithIt

  • Member
  • Posts: 377
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #278 on: September 26, 2012, 12:40:26 PM »
only, only, only you say several times yet that's just not true. The responsibility lies on both poz and neg partners to do what they can to prevent transmission.



Responsibility lies with both (no pun intended) but only a neg person can keep themselves neg.  I will say that a million times until people get that.  A poz person can end the disease with them, but they can't keep anyone else from infecting that neg person.   The neg person can  only keep themselves safe by not engaging in any risky behavior with anyone. 
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 0608

  • Member
  • Posts: 67
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #279 on: September 26, 2012, 01:12:43 PM »
1) A negative person should protect themselves against HIV.

2) A positive person should not engage in unprotected penetrative anal sex with a person who is negative (or since certain people are so fond of splitting hairs, "a person who doesn't believe him/herself to be positive").

THESE TWO STATEMENTS ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!!!  Nobody's arguing that a negative person shouldn't refrain from risky behaviors.  However, that doesn't in any way lessen the truth of the second statement.  They are both absolutely true; it is not a one-or-the-other situation.  Not.  At.  All.

Now about this thread:  I agree that it should not be locked (nay on censorship).  However, I ask those of us who believe in basic human decency to let this thread die a natural death.  Certain individuals are prodding and provoking us for whatever reason, and at this point, I don't see any point in trying to engage them in a rational discussion about the issues that concern us.  Let them carry on in a dark, silent room while we move on to a better place where we treat each other with respect, not selfishness.

Let's all get the bad taste out of our mouths, offer our ideas and opinions in threads where people are actually willing and able to listen to them, and leave this particular thread to rot away.

(The End... hopefully)
« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 01:14:48 PM by 0608 »

Offline benjiboy

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #280 on: September 26, 2012, 07:13:56 PM »
I have to say I am horrified by the quality of the discourse on this thread, particularly the frequent ad hominem attacks. Unfortunately, although this thread is an extreme example, I don't find it totally out of character for these forums. There is at least one other HIV forum in which I participate that manages to discuss controversial issues without descending to the depths that have been reached here. I'm afraid I now attach a major health warning to this forum when asked about it, and I myself won't be returning.

Offline LiveWithIt

  • Member
  • Posts: 377
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #281 on: September 26, 2012, 10:10:52 PM »
I have to say I am horrified by the quality of the discourse on this thread, particularly the frequent ad hominem attacks. Unfortunately, although this thread is an extreme example, I don't find it totally out of character for these forums. There is at least one other HIV forum in which I participate that manages to discuss controversial issues without descending to the depths that have been reached here. I'm afraid I now attach a major health warning to this forum when asked about it, and I myself won't be returning.

You and your 12 posts are free to leave.  I never understood why people try to  make themselves feel important by saying they are leaving a forum.  If you don't like to read a forum or can't take what's being said just leave. 
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 komnaes

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,893
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #282 on: September 26, 2012, 11:39:52 PM »
Responsibility lies with both (no pun intended) but only a neg person can keep themselves neg.  I will say that a million times until people get that.  A poz person can end the disease with them, but they can't keep anyone else from infecting that neg person.   The neg person can  only keep themselves safe by not engaging in any risky behavior with anyone.

Ha,... just listen to yourself. Are those neggies tying you on a chair like those edging videos, and then sit on your raw dick with you kicking and screaming?

It's their business to go raw fucking, sero-sorting, or WTF they do to get their asses infected by most likely people that are already infected but not knowing it, or knowingly not to get tested so they can continue to ignore it.

It's another thing entirely for us to willingly not engage in safer sex while being positive, and it's especially fucked up if your excuse is that, oh well, they gonna get it anyway with or without me raw cock up his bum.

No one is saying that it's our responsibility to keep all neggies neg, we're just saying when it comes to willingly put others at risk, are you the type of persons that will hold back or not. SO what are you?
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 Dachshund

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,941
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #283 on: September 27, 2012, 12:02:47 AM »
You and your 12 posts are free to leave.  I never understood why people try to  make themselves feel important by saying they are leaving a forum.  If you don't like to read a forum or can't take what's being said just leave.

Let's all get the bad taste out of our mouths, offer our ideas and opinions in threads where people are actually willing and able to listen to them, and leave this particular thread to rot away.

(The End... hopefully)

Offline Zohar

  • Member
  • Posts: 234
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #284 on: September 27, 2012, 03:12:04 AM »
Ha,... just listen to yourself. Are those neggies tying you on a chair like those edging videos, and then sit on your raw dick with you kicking and screaming?

They might not be tying someone to a chair but they want to take raw dick. So much so that, as I stated earlier in the thread, when I've immediately taken it out, they've put it straight back in again. Oh, and also as I stated earlier, the guy I got talking to afterwards recently was HIV positive too.
''Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.''

Offline spacebarsux

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,350
  • Survival of the Fittest
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #285 on: September 27, 2012, 03:20:48 AM »
They might not be tying someone to a chair but they want to take raw dick. So much so that, as I stated earlier in the thread, when I've immediately taken it out, they've put it straight back in again. Oh, and also as I stated earlier, the guy I got talking to afterwards recently was HIV positive too.

Whatever Zohar. You just don't get it or don't want to.

How does this address this statement of yours?:
Quote
I don't think I have made a mistake and, thus, would do the same thing again.

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 komnaes

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,893
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #286 on: September 27, 2012, 04:44:43 AM »
They might not be tying someone to a chair but they want to take raw dick. So much so that, as I stated earlier in the thread, when I've immediately taken it out, they've put it straight back in again. Oh, and also as I stated earlier, the guy I got talking to afterwards recently was HIV positive too.

Well, than I guess some people really do deserve the label "sociopath".
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 Dachshund

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,941
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #287 on: September 27, 2012, 07:00:53 AM »
Oh kiddies, y'all been played from the get go.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 08:16:56 AM by Dachshund »

Offline komnaes

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,893
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #288 on: September 27, 2012, 10:58:27 AM »
Oh kiddies, y'all been played from the get go.

Hehe.. well, we sort of knew that. But then again it's a public forums and I suppose we do need to stand our ground and state our position.
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 Assurbanipal

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Taking a forums break, still see PM's
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #289 on: October 03, 2012, 10:18:10 PM »
This was an unfair attack:

...
My private decisions in my committed relationship are not going to be the subject of discussion in this or any thread in AIDSMEDS. Let me be crystal clear on that. The decisions I have made, based on my own commitment to my medications, my persistently UD viral load over the past year, and my boyfriend's complete and dare I mention independent study of the same science is ours to make. I certainly would not dare bring it to this thread, and am frankly taken aback that you would, or could draw a parallel to the situations.

My boyfriend has never given me permission, nor would I ask him to allow me to dissect our sexual choices on this public forum that his family has already perused. And of all people, I trusted you to know that. Key word there of course, is trusted. I try to learn from my mistakes.
...

JK had already disclosed this information in this post.

...

My partner and I have elected to have unprotected sex so long as I am UD in my blood supply. The reason? I am basically a bottom, and that level seems directly proportional to the (extreme unlikelihood) possibility of infection.  As for oral, we have not crossed that bridge yet, but I have few qualms about even a blip being of any significance.

...

Furthermore, all the name-calling in this thread started with a series of posts by Jk calling the OP a sociopath.  That's a lot worse than calling someone an idiot.  It's not clear to me why the relatively mild term "idiot" merited a time out when the repeated pejorative use of "sociopath" did not. 

5/06 VL 1M+, CD4 22, 5% , pneumonia, thrush -- O2 support 2 months, 6/06 +Kaletra/Truvada
9/06 VL 3959 CD4 297 13.5% 12/06 VL <400 CD4 350 15.2% +Pravachol
2007 VL<400, 70, 50 CD4 408-729 16.0% -19.7%
2008 VL UD CD4 468 - 538 16.7% - 24.6% Osteoporosis 11/08 doubled Pravachol, +Calcium/D
02/09 VL 100 CD4 616 23.7% 03/09 VL 130 5/09 VL 100 CD4 540 28.4% +Actonel (osteoporosis) 7/09 VL 130
8/09  new regimen Isentress/Epzicom 9/09 VL UD CD4 621 32.7% 11/09 VL UD CD4 607 26.4% swap Isentress for Prezista/Norvir 12/09 (liver and muscle issues) VL 50
2010 VL UD CD4 573-680 26.1% - 30.9% 12/10 VL 20
2011 VL UD-20 CD4 568-673 24.7%-30.6%
2012 VL UD swap Prezista/Norvir for Reyataz drop statin CD4 768-828 26.7%-30.7%

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,357
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #290 on: October 03, 2012, 10:50:40 PM »
This was an unfair attack:

JK had already disclosed this information in this post.

Furthermore, all the name-calling in this thread started with a series of posts by Jk calling the OP a sociopath.  That's a lot worse than calling someone an idiot.  It's not clear to me why the relatively mild term "idiot" merited a time out when the repeated pejorative use of "sociopath" did not.

Why the hell would you come in and resurface this post -- it had died off!!  Pot stirring?  Ugh

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 jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #291 on: October 03, 2012, 11:09:59 PM »
Just pondering,

Is using a known and funny internet meme like "DIAF" considered truly pejorative?

"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 phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,959
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #292 on: October 03, 2012, 11:11:15 PM »
Why the hell would you come in and resurface this post -- it had died off!!  Pot stirring?  Ugh

My thoughts exactly Mike...couldn't agree more... it was a thread that was more than belabored and discussed with a range of emotions....
Not exactly a Zombie thread --- but a thread whose time had come and gone...
and then Assurbanipal comes in more than a week later and "resurrects" it?
What are your motives Assurbanipal?
And that was a rhetorical question.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 11:13:41 PM by phildinftlaudy »
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: 11,209
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #293 on: October 04, 2012, 06:31:53 AM »
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,699
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #294 on: October 04, 2012, 07:19:06 AM »


  I like fried catfish..
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline Raf

  • Member
  • Posts: 253
  • Bald by choice
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #295 on: October 04, 2012, 10:10:59 AM »
Don't vote for romney
Dx: 05/14/2008
Latest HIV Meds combo I've been taking:

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

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,134
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #296 on: October 04, 2012, 11:06:12 AM »
Don't vote for romney

Probably the best post in this entire 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 phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,959
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #297 on: October 04, 2012, 12:30:14 PM »
Probably the best post in this entire thread.
BRAVO!
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 Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,869
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #298 on: October 04, 2012, 03:07:30 PM »
Mittens actually owned Obama last night -- I was rather underwhelmed by Barry Soetoro
"I’ve slept with enough men to know that I’m not gay"

Online Jeff G

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 10,693
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Re: Unprotected sex, disclosure and sexual health clinics
« Reply #299 on: October 04, 2012, 06:03:00 PM »
I watched the debate with some friends and tortured them with comments like Mittens really is making some good points , maybe we should vote for him .

Half way into the debate one of my buds was so aggravated we had to take his blood pressure . 

 


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.