Reducing the HIV infection rate

[thunter34]

You know...DUH.  In all the insanity of this thread, that one very crucial nugget somehow didn't even ping my radar - this would basically be a free-for-all dispensing of highly toxic medication...medication that often requires some specific side maintainance to work its magic (like the food requirements and contraindications).  Hey!  Whaddya know?  This bad idea just got worserer.

[komnaes]

I'm rather amazed this thread is still trucking along.  Go figure. 

Ditto, actually what is more amazing to me is no warning shot was fired.

[MarcoPoz]

I'm finding it difficult to understand yours at that part.  I read it the same way Grasshopper did.  It read to me like:

"I'm probably gonna slam some T and get gangfucked at the baths tonight.  Gimme some pills."

I'm rather amazed this thread is still trucking along.  Go figure. 

Wow!  Talk about reading INTO words instead of reading the words printed.  I was thinking about this issue in genreal terms and discussing the response we MIGHT be able to have in HIV prevention IF we had a full continuum of tools to use--using the correct tool for the correct circumstance for the specific individual.

I'm straight, married, monogamous and don't do drugs other than the occasional red wine or dark beer:
1- I don't go to baths.
2--I don't do T

But this is NOT about ME!

3--I don't think people who do 1 and or 2 deserve to get HIV. No one deserves to get HIV.  No one is more or less innocent than anyone else who is at risk for HIV.  As a very good friend of mine is fond of saying, "There is no immaculate infection".

Since it has been brought up however, yes, I think we should be able to experience or sexual and sensual energies in any way that makes sense for us and does not violate another's will.  We (all people) deserve to be sexually satisfied humans. So...if one chooses to get gangfucked at the baths while doing T, can't we support doing all these things in a safer way which might decrease the liklihood of HIV?  Am I the only Harm-reductionist here?

Also I never said that the availability of PEP or PrEP should limit the availability of HARRT for individuals who are HIV positive.  I mean, WHO would suggest THAT?

I am in NO way John's apologist in this thread at all.  I was simply discussing the benefits of comprehensive prevention that didn't exclude ANY option until it was deemed ineffective in a situation where it could be useful.

Since I feel as though this thread has run its course as far as discussion prevention options and now seems to be less focused on factual discussion of points of view, I'll conclude my contributions to it.

[John2038]

MarcoPoz

if you want a real advice about this forum, its to use the ignore button.
So I did and I am expecting great result.

I hopes they gonna ignore me as well !!   

John

[Ann]

Ditto, actually what is more amazing to me is no warning shot was fired.

You know, I've been puzzling over this comment since I first read it yesterday. There was a warning shot fired over one particular poster's bow in this thread, but somehow I think you're talking about the thread itself.

Why should a warning be issued over the topic? Because you don't agree with the premise? So what? Where else are we to hash these things out? If you don't like a particular topic, don't open the thread. Simple.

People are free to discuss what they like here - providing they keep their responses respectful as possible.

Ann

[komnaes]

There were occasions in the past when a thread started off nicely but then started to go off the rails and discussions became toxic, that the thread was closed just so people can calm down a bit and re-start perhaps in another thread.

To me, and I mean sincerely and without any prejudice, this thread has become off the rails and needed to refocus. Of course I can ignore it, which I did, but isn't that the assumption here is that all threads will be and can be read by everyone and also since the gravity of a lot of those issues that we discuss it needs monitoring.

Is it the way these forums are run now that if people don't like it, they can just turn away? Am I being told to just leave if I even dare to voice my concern over how a thread is going?