LONG article about PrEP on Gawker, of all places, with lively comments.

[mecch]

http://gawker.com/what-is-safe-sex-the-raw-and-uncomfortable-truth-about-1535583252

[Dr.Strangelove]

What a well written and honest article! And that from Gawker...

Personally, I have mixed feelings about PreP but the gay community certainly needs an open and honest discussion about it.

[pittman]

Article was interesting, the comments were typical Internet fare.  I did notice many more of the women had the WTF reaction to the (often gay) men who were so vitriolic about those that would dare consider choosing a pill over a condom as a form of protection from HIV.

[zach]

even if hiv were cured tomorrow, i will never have unprotected sex again. i've had my kids, no need to swap fluids with anyone else. i feel like i screwed up royal once, and have learned that lesson at a high cost

having prep and pep, in order to combat the spread of the virus is great. having them to facilitate unprotected sex, i'm not so supportive of that. hiv isn't the only std out there, many others are easier to transmit and contract, and some are not as treatable as hiv.

i don't understand the drive for unprotected sex. i don't find it anymore intimate. i'm left thinking its just a fetish, bareback goo. is there something more to it i'm missing?

[pittman]

There are a few ways to look at it.

With respect to a perception of intimacy, or any other number of mental/psychological aspects, it's just going to vary from individual to individual.  Gay, straight, or otherwise, I don't think that really changes what people feel.

Another aspect is recognizing the double standard that exists between the expectations of the straight couples and non-straight couples.  Unplanned pregnancy still reigns as the key concern for many, and thus a pharmacological protection is widely accepted.  A similar approach by gay couples for protection against HIV is far from equally accepted.  We hold up different standards. 

Yet another way to look at it is from a policy analysis perspective. Abstinence is pretty darn effective against both pregnancy and STIs. Yet abstinence programs are an abysmal failure in curbing either as people don't adhere. So if you sincerely want to avoid unplanned pregnancies and STIs, then you start to move on to what actually works better: condoms, dental dams, and pharmacological methods.

[bmancanfly]

I wish they had PrEP twenty hears ago. 

I see nothing wrong with adding another line of defense against HIV.  If some people use that as an excuse to bareback more often so be it.

For those who use this as an adjunct to other safer sex practices this could be a lifesaver.  To deny them that option,  because some may abuse it,  is wrongheaded.

[zach]

i'm not suggesting denying anyone anything, abstinence to my mind defies human nature. but i really dont think that the overall usage of these types of therapies is as nobleminded as all that. i think the reality will play out, its ok to have raw bareback again.... YEAH!!!! lets get the party started

and that worries me

i'm also not saying don't study it, implement it, put it out there. it is a legitimate line of defense. we need every one of those we can get. i am interested in stopping this virus on every front, with every available weapon. if there is a side effect of some using it for other motives, so be it. we'll see where it goes.

[mecch]

Zach you got great points. Salavation Army Sold its mission on the Bowery for 30 million, moved to Brooklyn to make way for a boutique hotel.
Nobody remembers nothing nomore.

[buginme2]

Why is it acceptable for straight people to have unprotected sex and not acceptable for gay men to have unprotected sex?   It kind of boils down to that. 

It seems that whenever we discuss a prevention method that do not involve condoms (PreP, PeP, TaP) everyone yells NO! It's condoms or nothing. 

Condoms have been a huge failure in preventing HIV.  People do not use them consistently and HIV rates haven't budged in decades.

The anti-bareback talk often times comes across as blaming the victim. 

[zach]

acceptable for straights to have unprotected sex?! who says that?

from the mantra over on Am I? which I have actually used to put something together for my kids to read

"Do not have unprotected sex with anyone, your BF/GF included until you have both tested negative together and have been in a secure monogamous relationship for at least 3 months past a confirmed negative HIV test . "

now i guess simply saying GF doesn't specifically identify straights, it could mean lesbians. but i kind of read it as everyone, regardless of sexual persuasion.