another fun opinion question-- what do you guys feel is the risk with raw sex ..

[surf18]

with a neg top banging a undetectable bottom? what kind of risk do you guys feel the top faces?
and we don't have to discuss the other std issues, were just talking about hiv issues.
all opinions are welcome.
I'm not sure personally how i feel about it.
i did it with a neg top but i told him i was poz and he said he doesn't care his bf is hiv poz and they do it raw all the time. he said he feels the risk is minimal. so it got me wondering how other feel about this opinion wise.i know we ve talked about this in the past more from a scientific sense.

[leatherman]

according to recent studies, backing up the test-n-treat routine to lower infection rates, people with (at least 6 month) undetectable VLs are at minimal risk of spreading infection; not to mention that topping has less of a biological risk of contracting HIV in the first place.

however, why anyone negative would risk even a minimal risk of acquiring HIV is beyond me.

[surf18]

knowing what i know now not me for sure!

[buginme2]

I don't like raw, I prefer my sex medium well thank you.

Technically if the poz bottom is on meds, adherent, undetectable, the risk of spreading the aids to the negative top is smaill. 

[spacebarsux]

Risk is small, some say extremely low risk.........but the risk is always there.

[Miss Philicia]

How does the negative top really know that the bottom is undetectable and adherent? Because he's being told so? Didn't you children learn not to trust what someone tells you when you asked someone years ago if they were HIV+ or not?

[spacebarsux]

How does the negative top really know that the bottom is undetectable and adherent? Because he's being told so? Didn't you children learn not to trust what someone tells you when you asked someone years ago if they were HIV+ or not?

Exactly.

And then there could be viral blips while on treatment, which again is considered very rare. But 'very rare' is not the same as 'no risk'.

[kellybryana]

I know you didn't necessarily want to mention this in the thread, but as the HIV+ bottum, I feel that you are at more risk of possibly getting something else from the neg top. My doc told me to not trust anyone but myself from here on out and to ALWAYS use condoms with EVERYONE no matter what in order to protect myself from something else. I wouldn't want to have raw sex even as an on treatment, adherent, undetectable HIV+ person. Just me though...

[mecch]

with a neg top banging a undetectable bottom? what kind of risk do you guys feel the top faces?
and we don't have to discuss the other std issues, were just talking about hiv issues.
all opinions are welcome.
I'm not sure personally how i feel about it.
i did it with a neg top but i told him i was poz and he said he doesn't care his bf is hiv poz and they do it raw all the time. he said he feels the risk is minimal. so it got me wondering how other feel about this opinion wise.i know we ve talked about this in the past more from a scientific sense.

I really wish you would ask your question simply and clearly?  What exactly are you asking. How we "feel" about what the risk of transmission of HIV is in the scenario: Top neg, bottom poz undect?  

Our "opinion".  

How we "feel" and our "opinion" - about transmission risk - MEANS shit because we aren't scientists. And don't have a mobile lab ready at the fuck site.

And furthermore, the research is probably not related to reality of your scenario - as Miss P explains.

My opinion is this is a question of ethics, not transmission.   You did your bit informing the neg top, and assuming for yourself the risk of possible other STDs - you dont want them in this discussion anyway.

My opinion is that top in question is living on his whims and hunches - probably risk is low but not inexistent.

Also, he is a skank for being in a relationship and also barebacking around town with others.  I don't think you have any ethical debt to anyone if he gets HIV.  Even if he got it from you and passed it to another of his bareback bottoms. Who we can assume knew also that hes a skank.  And anyway made the decision to bareback with him no matter what information was on the table, or not.

[newt]

I feel the risk is often experienced in a way to justify the actions that follow in the next 20 mins-2 hours.

- matt

[spacebarsux]

I feel the risk is often experienced in a way to justify the actions that follow in the next 20 mins-2 hours.

- matt

.....and possibly exonerate yourself of any blame or guilt, should the consequences be adverse. 

[surf18]

i dont know maybe im odd but i dont feel responsible for other peoples health in this matter. as just use example my raw encounter, he knew my deal, he as an adult made the choice to do it raw. it was nt like anything was hidden from him. just like i dont blame whoever gave it to me, we were consenting adults i wasnt raped and i chose to take the raw risk and i got burned. im to blame ,just as in the occurence if a neg agrees to raw sex with a poz hes responsible.
but this off topic none the less.

[mikeyb39]

Again this is not an uncommon scenario.  Majority of guys want it bareback, not only does it feel good, but its taboo.  I have a profile on bbrt which the majority of folks on this site are positive/undetect. I get at least one or two responses a week from negative guys wanting sex with a positive guy.  One guy told me he was tired of having to worry about getting HIV and that he just don't care anymore.

I don't have unsafe sex with neg guys, but no matter how much you tell these folks that they don't want it, it doesn't sink in.  These guys are on a mission, but I don't want to be the one to put someone in this situation.  I had that 'i don't care' attitude and here I am and knowing what I know now i'd happily go back to the way it was before.

I'm lucky so far I haven't had any major issues such as OI'S, but mentally and physically it takes a toll on you and then you have to deal with family, friends etc.  I don't think these guys think that far ahead they just know there is medications to take for it.

[David_CA]

I'm wondering about those who say that the risk is STILL too great for a consenting top (assuming that this is from the bottom's point of view, as I understand the OP to be saying).  Don't the studies indicate that the top is as 'minimal' risk?  Doesn't a condom also mean 'minimal' risk?  Neither are truly 'safe' sex.  It's odd how many guys I know that ONLY top, never use protection, date (or have dated long-term) undetectable HIV+ bottoms... and remain negative.  What is funny to me is that these sorts of threads are the only place I see HIV+ guys either wanting protected poz on poz sex or tend to worry so much about the unprotected top with an undetectable bottom.  Real life, from what I've seen, do not work this way.  HIV+ undetectable tops with a negative bottom, in my observations, do wear a condom.

From the OP

i dont know maybe im odd but i dont feel responsible for other peoples health in this matter. as just use example my raw encounter, he knew my deal, he as an adult made the choice to do it raw.

Consenting adults that are informed know the risks.  If somebody is gonna lie about being undetectable, would they even mention being HIV+ in the first place?  I'm not really certain that they would.  Of course, they could be mistaken, but even then, if on meds and having been previously undetectable, I'd imagine their viral load would be low (with regular testing, of course). 

These are a lot of assumptions, etc, but, in the long run, disclosing HIV status and the neg partner taking the less risky position (top)... I'm not so sure that I'd have a problem with it either. 

[Miss Philicia]

I feel the risk is often experienced in a way to justify the actions that follow in the next 20 mins-2 hours.

- matt

What exactly does this mean?

[Miss Philicia]

i dont know maybe im odd but i dont feel responsible for other peoples health in this matter. as just use example my raw encounter, he knew my deal, he as an adult made the choice to do it raw. it was nt like anything was hidden from him. just like i dont blame whoever gave it to me, we were consenting adults i wasnt raped and i chose to take the raw risk and i got burned. im to blame ,just as in the occurence if a neg agrees to raw sex with a poz hes responsible.
but this off topic none the less.

So if someone anonymous on the street politely asks you to push him in front of an oncoming bus would you oblige him that favor?

btw, I should be clear that I have different standards for tricks as opposed to a relationship (including a steady fuck buddy) in terms of trusting exactly what someone's health is as well as their mental state. It's just a simple matter of being a responsible adult. Then again, perhaps I'm just conservative (clutch the pearls, indeed). Some of this comes from having a detectable viral load for 13 years of treatment, so I am comfortable using condoms during sex.

[james3000]

Here in Canada they are prosecuting and Jailing people for this. Suppose the person turns around and says you  never told them it becomes a he said he said type of situation and guess who usually gets the blame.
I stopped having sex after being diagnosed. I can Jerk off to porn but I feel OK with that.
I don't know but you could become exposed to drug resistant HIV rare but I think it has happened.

[buginme2]

Here in Canada they are prosecuting and Jailing people for this. Suppose the person turns around and says you  never told them it becomes a he said he said type of situation and guess who usually gets the blame.
I stopped having sex after being diagnosed. I can Jerk off to porn but I feel OK with that.
I don't know but you could become exposed to drug resistant HIV rare but I think it has happened.

Thats just sad. 

And promoting abstinence To a bunch of poofs, peeshaw.

Seriously , I dont think I would do the nasty unprotected with a stranger no matter what their viral load, but with a partner Is another story.   When I tested positive my partner went to the HIV dr with me and the Dr gave my boyfriend quite a bit of information about the risks (since he is negative).  The chances of transmission with a negative top and positive bottom who is undetectable and adherent is low.  The chance of transmition from oral sex was pretty much non existant. 

[David_CA]

Here in Canada they are prosecuting and Jailing people for this. Suppose the person turns around and says you  never told them it becomes a he said he said type of situation and guess who usually gets the blame.
I stopped having sex after being diagnosed. I can Jerk off to porn but I feel OK with that.
I don't know but you could become exposed to drug resistant HIV rare but I think it has happened.

If it can't be proved that you disclosed, how can it be proved that you didn't wear a condom?  I'd read up a bit more on resistance, etc before becoming celibate, but that's just me. 

[james3000]

I have drug resistance and I am not going to take any chance of giving to anyone else I would not be able to live with myself for doing that.
Read this article http://criminalhivtransmission.blogspot.com/2007/11/canada-gay-man-guilty-of-aggravated.html

[David_CA]

I have drug resistance and I am not going to take any chance of giving to anyone else I would not be able to live with myself for doing that.
Read this article http://criminalhivtransmission.blogspot.com/2007/11/canada-gay-man-guilty-of-aggravated.html

From the link above:

Ryan Handy, 25, had pleaded not guilty in court in London for knowingly spreading the virus when he had unprotected sex with a 52-year-old man in February 2005.

I'm not sure how he 'knowingly spread' the disease when the other guy has tested negative.  I don't think that this is quite the same thing that we're discussing.  However, if what you're doing is working for you, then cool.

[james3000]

I agree but you see how fucked up the Justice system is in this case.
HIV transmission did not occur yet they still threw the book at him the crown attorney's here are ruthless.

[David_CA]

I agree but you see how fucked up the Justice system is in this case.
HIV transmission did not occur yet they still threw the book at him the crown attorney's here are ruthless.

Hell, anything but 'regular' straight sex was illegal in many parts of the US until '06, but that didn't stop us from fuckin' (obviously).  These cases were prosecuted, too.  Still, my preference is with other HIV+ guys... it's just more appealing to me.  Also, I prefer to disclose before sex; take that information and act on it accordingly.

[james3000]

i don't know maybe I'm odd but i don't feel responsible for other peoples health in this matter. as just use example my raw encounter, he knew my deal, he as an adult made the choice to do it raw. it was nt like anything was hidden from him. just like i dont blame whoever gave it to me, we were consenting adults i wasnt raped and i chose to take the raw risk and i got burned. im to blame ,just as in the occurence if a neg agrees to raw sex with a poz hes responsible.
but this off topic none the less.

The unfortunate truth is you are responsible for other people's health= example I had a bad flu and had to go to the hospital and put on a face mask to prevent as much as possible to expose the virus to another sick person. I think you would have to look at the state of mind of the neg person

[newt]

Here in Canada they are prosecuting and Jailing people for this.

Yes it's an international scandal, other enlightened countries are laughing at Canada's public prosecutors. A lot of focus on one guy when 1,000s seroconvert through consensual sex, disclosure or no, every day. It is unjust and does nothing for the standing of justice or public health. With modern treatment, the general risk of death from HIV in a lifetime is somewhat less than suicide and slightly more than from falling accidentally (US figs, CDC does a nice slide on this).

Actually this last bit sucks cos if you have HIV you are more likely to die from HIV related illness than fall and break your neck etc, but I still think it a witch hunt.

The unfortunate,  indeed casual, perhaps even reckless, truth about flu is people get on the metro/bus every day with it, cos they have something important to do (like type or file), and a few people with flu later their granny dies, or if it's H1N1 and they's a fit, young man they die. But no-one gets sent to prison. I hate a double standard, especially when it's culturally endorsed. I will cede equity when I see a tabloid newspaper with the headline COMMUTER FLU MONSTER.

And let's face it, a commuter journey is not a mutually consensual activity.

- matt

Edited for spelling and one extra word

[Inchlingblue]

and we don't have to discuss the other std issues, were just talking about hiv issues.
 

You can't separate the two because the presence of other STDs facilitates the transmission of HIV.

In a monogamous sero-discordant relationship with the poz partner being undetectable maybe it's OK but when you have sex on the side or if you are single and having sex with multiple partners it's precisely other STDs that could make the difference between transmission or no transmission.

[james3000]

In many countries, the intentional or reckless infection of a person with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is considered to be a crime. This is often conflated, in laws and in discussion, with criminal exposure to HIV, which does not require the transmission of the virus and often, as in the cases of spitting and biting, does not even include a realistic means of transmission.[1][2] People who do so can be charged with criminal transmission of HIV, murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, or assault. Some states have enacted laws expressly to criminalize HIV transmission (or HIV exposure), as in the United States, while others charge under the existing laws, as in the United Kingdom. source Wikipedia
The States and UK are no better.

[james3000]

You may want to also look at the case of 'Typhoid Mary' to give a historic perspective

[socalpoz]

I know I am recently diagnosed, but in the last six months what I have learned we are all responsible for our own actions. I am more in tune with what's going on with my body than ever, I exercise, eat right and I try to live my life to the fullest.

I agree with others (Miss P, etc) sex hook ups with strangers or casual acquaintances should be treated differently that with a long term partner. There are always risks, I just can't understand taking any risk on your own health with stds etc. you really are putting your self at risk for hep. and just like HIV you can't tell if they are a carrier!

[wolfter]

I know I am recently diagnosed, but in the last six months what I have learned we are all responsible for our own actions. I am more in tune with what's going on with my body than ever, I exercise, eat right and I try to live my life to the fullest.

I agree with others (Miss P, etc) sex hook ups with strangers or casual acquaintances should be treated differently that with a long term partner. There are always risks, I just can't understand taking any risk on your own health with stds etc. you really are putting your self at risk for hep. and just like HIV you can't tell if they are a carrier!

Makes me smile when a newbie "gets it" so quickly.

[newt]

hmmm typhoid...

16–33 million cases annually, 216,000 deaths. Murder prosecutions nil.

I rest my case. It's unjust.

- matt

[Raf]

with a neg top banging a undetectable bottom? what kind of risk do you guys feel the top faces?
and we don't have to discuss the other std issues, were just talking about hiv issues.
all opinions are welcome.
I'm not sure personally how i feel about it.
i did it with a neg top but i told him i was poz and he said he doesn't care his bf is hiv poz and they do it raw all the time. he said he feels the risk is minimal. so it got me wondering how other feel about this opinion wise.i know we ve talked about this in the past more from a scientific sense.

My opinion? well, as you may know, even if the poz bottom is Undetectable, there is a slight chance of infection, and even it is low, it exists. And I don't play with other's people health, so it's condom, or nothing. I won't allow them to repeat my mistake (or at least not with me). And besides, I don't want a reinfection or another STD.

If I were with a long term partner, the rules would be the same. Even if he insisted on top me raw knowing the risks, he'll get a NO from me. I won't put a loved one in risk, even if it's minimal.

[mikeyb39]

so let me get this straight.  I should NOT go to this sex party tomorrow night?   This thread is putting a downer on my weekend plans.  lol.  I believe this super-infection things has been blown completely out of the water....There isn't even enough evidence to support the hypothesis.

[buginme2]

so let me get this straight.  I should NOT go to this sex party tomorrow night?   This thread is putting a downer on my weekend plans.  lol.  I believe this super-infection things has been blown completely out of the water....There isn't even enough evidence to support the hypothesis.

  Mikey go to your sex party by golly.  Don't let the prudes and puritans ruin an absolutely lovely evening.  You'd probably have a better chance of catching typhoid mary than some new designer resistant AIDS.

Speaking of which, I CALL IT, Typhoid Mary will be my new drag queen name (if I did drag).

[spacebarsux]

In many countries, the intentional or reckless infection of a person with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is considered to be a crime. This is often conflated, in laws and in discussion, with criminal exposure to HIV, which does not require the transmission of the virus and often, as in the cases of spitting and biting, does not even include a realistic means of transmission.[1][2] People who do so can be charged with criminal transmission of HIV, murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, or assault. Some states have enacted laws expressly to criminalize HIV transmission (or HIV exposure), as in the United States, while others charge under the existing laws, as in the United Kingdom. source Wikipedia
The States and UK are no better.

I find this whole criminalisation of HIV business unfair and unjust in the extreme. Why on earth would they create a 'viral-subclass' in the first place?

Do they also throw people in Jail for passing on HPV which causes cervical cancer and also results in death?

[wolfter]

so let me get this straight.  I should NOT go to this sex party tomorrow night?   This thread is putting a downer on my weekend plans.  lol.  I believe this super-infection things has been blown completely out of the water....There isn't even enough evidence to support the hypothesis.

You SHOULD go!  I'd already be there if invited.  Agree about the super-infection thing.  Personally, if I'm with another pozzie and we're both UD and other wise clean (couldn't resist the term), I see no need for protection.

[Matty the Damned]

so let me get this straight.  I should NOT go to this sex party tomorrow night?   This thread is putting a downer on my weekend plans.  lol.  I believe this super-infection things has been blown completely out of the water....There isn't even enough evidence to support the hypothesis.

O.o

Remind me, how did you get the ass-flu? By asking for permission?

Just go and get yourself banged like a Salvation Army drum. For all our sakes.

MtD

[elf]

How does the negative top really know that the bottom is undetectable and adherent? Because he's being told so? Didn't you children learn not to trust what someone tells you when you asked someone years ago if they were HIV+ or not?

Nuff said.
''Trust no one'' (by Dana Scully  )

[David_CA]

Quote from: Miss Philicia on August 04, 2011, 11:45:13 pm

How does the negative top really know that the bottom is undetectable and adherent? Because he's being told so? Didn't you children learn not to trust what someone tells you when you asked someone years ago if they were HIV+ or not?

 Nuff said.
''Trust no one'' (by Dana Scully  )

Not really 'nuff... as I said above

If somebody is gonna lie about being undetectable, would they even mention being HIV+ in the first place?  I'm not really certain that they would. 

   Are we now worried about people lying about their viral load?   

[mecch]

Nuff said.
''Trust no one'' (by Dana Scully  )


Not really 'nuff... as I said above    Are we now worried about people lying about their viral load?   

OCD territory 

[David_CA]

OCD territory 

That's what I'm thinking.  I've only run into such 'concerns' here... never in real life. 

[New Poz Guy]

As a newly poz, still shell shocked guy, I definitely want to weigh in on this.
I am described perfectly by mikeyb as one of those (formerly) neg guys on a mission.
As a bi guy sexually, I had no qualms about having bareback sex with all sexual partners because:
A. it felt better and B. I'm a top and top's don't usually get this thing. 
I have NEVER bottomed in my entire life, never had sex with anyone who ever admitted to being poz, and guess where I ended up....
Neg, hellbent sexual guys that don't care enough about themselves to care about others, won't learn until they have it forced on them. It's so damn clear to me now...