Remember how you've been talking about different strategies regarding HIV/AIDS, etc...chronic disease, etc...
Remember when some of us talked about the next AIDS, the emerging superbugs, etc.?
This is the next round.
There will be more.
Remember how you've been talking about different strategies regarding HIV/AIDS, etc...chronic disease, etc...
Remember when some of us talked about the next AIDS, the emerging superbugs, etc.?
This is the next round.
There will be more.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||10/15/2012|
You know this fucking sucks. I always use condoms unless I'm in a ltr, but bareback sex is so awesome. It's so fucking lame that one of lifes greatest pleasures is now no more for the most part.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||10/11/2012|
Did you read the article? We're running out of available antibiotics. Gonorrhea isn't becoming immune to being killed by antibiotics. New antibiotics would kill it.
At the moment, there just isn't a profit motive for pharma companies to develop those new antibiotics. Once some bad "superbug" of the clapp is out there, and companies can charge a shitload for their work, expect to see a new drug for sale -- and the company to reap the rewards.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||10/11/2012|
Of course.., the profit motive. All it takes is money. That is how cancer got cured in no time. As soon as there was financial incentive, there was a cure.
It takes entirely new classes of antibiotics to overcome entrenched resistance. This requires finding novel ways to exploit differences between the metabolism of bacteria and body cells. As more types of resistance develop, there are fewer such differences that can be used.
More potential toxicity and side effects have to be accepted.
Money isn't magic.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||10/11/2012|
Why is honesty/disclosure a problem, r2? Are you saying that gays are dishonest and can't be trusted?
Condoms lower risk but don't eliminate it. And they break.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||10/11/2012|
[quote]Are you saying that gays are dishonest and can't be trusted?
I think he meant men are dishonest and can't be trusted.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||10/11/2012|
[quote]Condoms lower risk but don't eliminate it. And they break.
And your point is what? That you shouldn't use them?
|by Anonymous||reply 8||10/11/2012|
Gonorrhea is easily spread via oral sex -- how many people do you know who use a condom for that?
|by Anonymous||reply 9||10/11/2012|
My point is that you should use them when appropriate. But they should not be thought of as *the* solution. Condoms do not magically make sex 'safe'.
Risk is determined by whether participants have HIV or other STDs. It is not a function of wearing a condom. You can diminish the risk by wearing a condom. But they don't make 'unsafe' sex 'safe'.
If two people don't have HIV/STDs and they bareback, this is not 'unsafe sex'.
So honesty and taking responsibility for our own behavior have to be part of the solution.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||10/11/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 11||10/11/2012|
[quote]I think he meant men are dishonest and can't be trusted.
Except ... Nobody ever tells married straight women that they should always insist their husband wear a condom because men can't be trusted.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||10/12/2012|
r1 = Paul Morris = mancunt.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||10/12/2012|
I don't blow unless the guy wears a condom. Their are a lot of guys who aren't ok with this, but frankly I don't care. You can get any number of STDs by giving head, and I choose not to take that chance.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||10/12/2012|
We need incentives to developing newer antibiotics, but that's a longer-term solution.
In the short term, we just need to play safe.
And their animation about how antibiotic-resistant strains develop is a bit over-simplified.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||10/12/2012|
Jarek does BB and he's my favorite Sean Cody model...it makes me sad and he's so hot. Anyone know anything about him?
|by Anonymous||reply 17||10/12/2012|
about disclosure: it takes trust. you need to know the other side is honest. so in long term relationships- fine. but when you meet someone at a bar after a few drinks...
|by Anonymous||reply 20||10/12/2012|
Yes r22. And straight women are perfectly safe because gay men are more at risk.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||10/12/2012|
R1, in classic form, is the TRUE cunt
|by Anonymous||reply 24||10/12/2012|
"those who bareback will die. This is not rocket science."
So which mainstream still-closeted male celebrities, followed by a major male film or tv star will die first?
You see in our society, until a celebrity gets a disease and is public about it, no one will really give a shit. It was true in the 1980's and it is true now.
Oh and if you think today's gay youth will start a new version of Act-up I WOULD NOT HOLD MY BREATH. Do not expect them to protest loudly and actually risk being disliked and "uncool"; they just were not raised that way.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||10/12/2012|
[quote]So which mainstream still-closeted male celebrities, followed by a major male film or tv star will die first?
I got it from a blood transfusion. I swear!
|by Anonymous||reply 26||10/12/2012|
So, r21, your point is that gay men are not trustworthy, ever?
Your teach-us-all-a-lesson anecdote about knowing 3 broken up couples has a ring of untruth to it. Either that, or maybe you need to hang out with people who have more integrity.
I honestly feel sorry for you.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||10/12/2012|
To be perfectly clear, gonorrhea is more easily spread through any form of unprotected sex. It is a FACT, that you can spread gonorrhea via oral to penis/anal/vagina and of course penis/anal/vagina to oral. So, those of you giving/receiving oral sex with random sex partners without condoms are really no better than people who have random bareback sex. I would suggest some people jump off of their "safe sex" soap boxes if in fact you're not using a condom during ALL forms of sexual contact. And that goes for all of these porn studios claiming to take the "safe road" with their protests of bareback. Want to be completely safe? Try having sex with your entire body encased in saran plastic wrap. Since most people will opt out of that, perhaps it's still okay to just do the best you can to keep YOURSELF safe. I'm sorry to sound like a rehash of mom or dad, but sometimes that simply means keeping it in your pants son.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||10/12/2012|
And when some doctor who is receiving kickbacks from, say, Bayer prescribes you a broad spectrum antibiotic, like Avelox, instead of one more suited to gonorrhea, we have to ask who is really causing the problem of antibiotic-resistant STDs.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||10/12/2012|
Go back on the campaign trail, R31, or should I say, Mitt. And hurry up and lose already, you're getting tiresome.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||10/13/2012|
[quote]We're running out of available antibiotics. Gonorrhea isn't becoming immune to being killed by antibiotics. New antibiotics would kill it.
I'll go ahead and assume you don't really *know* how science works. The problem isn't a lack of new antivirals; it's doctors like the one R29 mentioned who prescribe broad-spectrum antibiotics to cover ANYTHING -- whether it's gonorrhea or a simple case of the flu, which isn't even *fixable* via meds -- viral-related. Viruses mutate, and that's exactly what's happened here: when you create a drug that kills 95% of viruses in a given area, those viruses will eventually mutate into *new* areas where those treatments are ineffective. It's a basic rule of science, really.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||10/13/2012|
"I know quite a few guys like this. And I'm afraid the complete lack of personal responsibility you imply is all true. To be perfectly frank: if you're not materialistic, you can lead quite a reasonable non-working life like this, and quite a comfortable good life if you're prepared to do a few hours of cash-paid work a week, which the guys I know do. They patter along in their lives, poz and state-pampered, while the rest of us stress and strive - and to what point? Who are the smarter ones? "
You poor deluded bitch. Really think living with AIDS is a picnic? That it's a scam strategy for living life? Prove your point. Get AIDS. Live the high life.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||10/13/2012|
[quote]But, please, continue to enjoy life there where it's all rainbows and unicorns. ... Because that's not the real world.
I doubt you say "Mom, make sure dad always wears a condom because men can't be trusted. Be strong and stay safe, always! You too sis, don't think that you can trust your husband, life isn't all rainbows!" Your little pearls of wisdom evidently apply only to gay men. This is why I feel sorry for you.
It would be very unusual for someone who got HIV from a lying partner to stay in that relationship. This is definitely not an example of a successful relationship surviving 'warts and all'. Another not-believable story.
'One thrives, to this day.' No it isn't. No relationship where one guy gave the other HIV after cheating is 'thriving'. If it's even real (which i doubt) then one is a doormat. They are not 'thriving'.
Next time you want to make up stories to teach us all a lesson about the "real world" (which is CLEARLY your motive), say "I know three couples who ..." and not "I know at least three couples who ..." The latter syntax gives you away. Leave out the 'at least' and maybe your made-up stories will be less unbelievable.
I know your type. Making shit up is so not helpful.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||10/13/2012|
I'm in an 18 year relationship, r38.
Your link proves nothing. Do some men cheat? Sure. But claiming you live in the 'real world' because you believe that no gay men are trustworthy is nothing more than internalized homophobia.
Here's another tipoff that you're writing fiction to support your ideology:
In r30, you say "One thrives to this day." In r38, referring to the same couple, you say "still together but mostly because they are each terrified of being alone."
Well. .. um ...
|by Anonymous||reply 39||10/13/2012|
[quote]And when some doctor who is receiving kickbacks from, say, Bayer prescribes you a broad spectrum antibiotic, like Avelox, instead of one more suited to gonorrhea, we have to ask who is really causing the problem of antibiotic-resistant STDs.
Speaking of Avelox, I'd just like to take a moment to warn you all that Avelox, Cipro, Levaquin and any other antibiotic in this class (fluoroquinolone) are horrifically poisonous to the human body and can cripple you for life. Google it. Doctors do not disclose this.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||10/13/2012|
[quote]we have to ask who is really causing the problem of antibiotic-resistant STDs
I'd rather ask the reason why the STDs are spreading at such alarming rates.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||10/13/2012|
Your quote says 70% are ESTIMATED to have gotten HIV from a 'main partner'. Doesn't say how they estimate this. Doesn't say the nature of their relationship or whether there was dishonesty involved. They could be men in open relationships. They could be men where condoms broke. Doesn't say, because they don't know. Men who very promiscuous aren't necessarily lying to their partners. They present a problem in these studies because you don't know who got what from whom.
Yet, because of your obvious internalized homophobia, you assume that gay men are untrustworthy and you go hunting down some stat to bolster that. And you make up fictional stories to teach us about 'life in the real world'.
And what about your 'friends', are they 'thriving' or 'terrified'? You left that out.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||10/13/2012|
[quote]I'd rather ask the reason why the STDs are spreading at such alarming rates.
We know the reason. We're just unwilling to acknowledge it. "It's not our behavior, it's the virus/bacteria!"
|by Anonymous||reply 45||10/13/2012|
[quote]656 MSM in committed relationships were recruited through a sexually explicit social networking website.
Did you read that part? About where they got the survey sample from? I'm guessing it was Manhunt or Adam4Adam or something like it.
They went to sites where people would go who would be looking to fuck around ... and found men who fuck around.
This is hardly a scientific, representative study about how trustworthy gay men are. But your internalized homophobia blinds you to that fact.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||10/13/2012|
R44 is on the right track on the study, despite R43's repeated posts, who's hostility and sweeping assumptions about people he does not know is just one symptom of his rage against ..... who knows what.
As someone who teaches and writes about sex and HIV, I can tell you right off the bat that the cited study is highly problematic, even just reading its abstract. Those of us who do this work know that you CANNOT generalize about HIV contraction in any way that you can extrapolate to the population of all men with HIV and conclude how they were effected. The cited claims have all been criticized. Tracing infection cannot be done scientifically for populations based on this kind of research (or any, for that matter -- thus the "it has been estimated" disclaimer, which also is highly skewed over time throughout the epidemic as infections have varied by time and place tremendously). The ability to determine how infection occurs from individual to individual depends on far too many variables, including reliability of the men included in the study.
The ACTUAL study disclaims the sweeping conclusion in its abstract on just that point. Like all bad science, it uses questionable numbers to get attention.
The study is particularly suspect because it involves a CONVENIENCE sample, recruiting from a "sexually explicit website" and primarily basing its research on interviews and assumptions about how they were infected, not any actual scientific evidence. While it is unfair to assume that the subjects are lying, we know nothing about their sexual behavior before testing positive to consider their claims reliable, perhaps especially in light of how and where they were recruited.
As for R43's friends, even assuming he's telling the truth from what he was told, I find it bizarre. I lived in New York for the last twenty years before moving back to Sweden, with a large group of gay male friends, many of whom talk to me about their sex lives and HIV fears because of my job. I know 13 couples, about half of whom are in open relationships. None are HIV+ as far as I know, and when I asked both my friends who are in monogamous relationships -- 8 emails and counting -- none of them have any such friends or acquaintances who have ever told them that they were positive, much less by their partners. NONE. And yet R43 knows three who were infected this way and are reliable in their stories. Bizarre.
And just so you know, I'm in a monogamous relationship have been for fifteen and a half years, and negative. And my partner and I don't use condoms.
Bring on the judgment, hate, and lecturing R43. Accuse me of being naive and my partner of cheating, since you know neither of us.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||10/13/2012|
[quote] I know 13 couples, about half of whom are in open relationships
Of those half, do they have unprotected sex?
|by Anonymous||reply 49||10/13/2012|
r48, it is internalized homophobia when you start spouting about how gay men can't be trusted. Not angry at all, rather I feel sorry for you, as stated. I'll summarize it for you:
1. You think gay men are untrustworthy.
2. When called on it, you make up stories to bolster your point to make it seem like 'real life'.
3. Then you find a very flawed, problematic study and take a number from it to boost your biases, without even apparently reading the study.
4. You resort to name-calling rather than answering questions about your inconsistencies/fabrications.
5. You mock me for presuming I'm in therapy. This just exposes your puerile mindset even more.
These are the reasons I feel sorry for you.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||10/13/2012|
R49, there is no way I could know that. We don't talk about every sexual encounter they have, and I wouldn't ask.
I know about half of them are in open relationships because (1) for two of the couples, the subject came up over a dinner conversation because one of them brought up a question about a CDC study that made them made and eventually the subject turned to monogamy and they said they were in an open relationship, and (2) for the others, one person in the couple has told me when talking to me about their partner having an outside relationship or them having one.
When it has come up, they all told me they played safe. I don't know what they do in every sex act in their relationship.
The point is that they all tell me more than I want to know about their sex lives and ask me sexual questions because it's my job. They've been the guys I talk to when I write questionnaires about sex in detail to see if they make sense, so we talk about this stuff a lot. They know I lost my best friend in high school to AIDS in the early 1990s and have worked with HIV+ people.
Not only am I certain they tell me if they were positive, I just asked them and as I said eight of them have gotten back to me and said they haven't heard anyone becoming positive in years that they know, and of the eight, five are or have been in open relationships.
And my point is that the assumption that guys in relationships are barebacking outside of that relationship is unfounded. I have research to back that up as well.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||10/13/2012|
[quote]70% of gay men are infected by their main partner and that proves nothing?
It's not "70% of gay men".
It's an estimate -- a guess -- of the percentage of HIV+ men who were surveyed through a site where they were looking for sex with strangers.
Let me restate: It's not 70% of gay men. You totally misrepresented your own source.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||10/13/2012|
These threads always end up with a bunch of gay men shitting on other gay men. With so many other people treating us like crap, why do we always do it to each other. Stop with the judging.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||10/13/2012|
It's actually not a "bunch" of gay men judging, either. Hit troll-dar. It's mostly one person.
See especially the conclusion that a guy doing bareback porn -- somebody he doesn't know -- has sero-converted, or that another poster in a relationship must never had had one, and so on.
That's the kind of logic we're dealing with.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||10/13/2012|
[quote]1. You think gay men are untrustworthy.
Funny how in my post I referred to men, people or simply human beings.
You're the one who decided I was talking narrowly about gay men.
Go ask a gynecologist how many women find out they've gotten a venereal disease from their loving, committed and monogamous partner.
I referred to the human condition:
[quote]You're being horrible naive about the human condition. People are fallible; they cheat on their partners and they engage in stupid behavior.
You can argue that my view of mankind is based on some sort of internalized homophobia.
But you look a little silly when I made no reference to gay men as being any different than anyone else on the planet when it comes to fallibility.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||10/13/2012|
I thought condoms didn't protect against all STIs
|by Anonymous||reply 56||10/13/2012|
[quote]But you look a little silly when I made no reference to gay men
Maybe you don't read your own posts. Look at what you said at r41:
[quote]70% of gay men are infected by their main partner and that proves nothing?
So you tell us: What exactly do you think it proves?
|by Anonymous||reply 57||10/13/2012|
Instead of histrionics, why don't you just tell us what you think it proves?
I'm simply asking you to explain a point that YOU were making in the first place.
Do you really think that '70% of gay men are infected by their main partner' as you stated?
So does that mean you believe that 7 out of 10 of us in relationships will get HIV from our partners? Is that the point you were making?
Because it sure sounds like it was.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||10/13/2012|
But, some enough gay men really are untrustworthy. Enough so that their subsequent barebacking really matters.
I get why the poster is having a meltdown about the broad assumption that ALL gay men are untrustworthy. It's offensive. But, whether that view is a result of the other poster's "internalized homophobia" who cares?
As with all groups of people, there are lots of untrustworthy gay men, even if its not ALL gay men. And the behavior of those men is enough to make the spread of disease a substantive concern.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||10/13/2012|
[quote] ... various ridiculous strategies for choosing partners for unsafe sex (disclosure is my favorite)
Never said? RIght in r2, you mock the idea of 'disclosure'. You are basically saying gay men will lie. backpedal all you want.
If two negative men discuss their status, and decide to bareback, you find it 'ridiculous'. Why? Why is it ridiculous?
|by Anonymous||reply 62||10/13/2012|
R62, you may want to step down your fevered pitch. Disclosure - even between two totally honest partners - only works if both *accurately* know their status. With HIV, the CDC estimates that 44% of HIV positive gay men don't know they have it. Gay men rarely test for other STDs, so disclosure is even less effective. For example, 90% of people with herpes do not know it.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||10/13/2012|
OP what does this have to do with barebacking? You can get gonorrhea from oral sex you know.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||10/14/2012|
[quote]If two negative men discuss their status, and decide to bareback, you find it 'ridiculous'. Why? Why is it ridiculous?
When were they last tested and have they had any sexual partners since?
Let us know and allow me to tell you why it's ridiculous based on your response.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||10/14/2012|
I don't bareback, but I have tons of unprotected oral sex and I'm OK with the risks.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||10/14/2012|
r63, save your assumed percentages. I can't stand when people say something like "20% of people with HIV don't know they have it." If they don't know they have it how the fuck does study know they have it and that they don't know it?
|by Anonymous||reply 67||10/14/2012|
AEBN SAN FRANCISCO GAY PORN STUDIOS BEING SUED FOR DRUGS AND ALLEGED HIV CASE
RAGING STALLION FALCON NAKED SWORD
|by Anonymous||reply 68||10/14/2012|
[quote]If they don't know they have it how the fuck does study know they have it and that they don't know it?
Here you go...
|by Anonymous||reply 69||10/14/2012|
The only way you're truly going to understand, r70, is to go fuck yourself.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||10/14/2012|
R70 has more issues than Time Magazine. You may want to talk to someone dear, it sounds like you may have some self loathing stuff to work out.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||10/14/2012|
[quote]it can't possibly be pleasurable for either the "top" or "bottom"
Speak for yourself!
|by Anonymous||reply 73||10/14/2012|
Hah! R71 R72 R73 It's almost funny to see such quick, intellectually vacant reactions from such insecure people-that is, if it weren't such a sobering reminder of how intolerant we gays men are to each other and how self-destructive we are capable of being.
Since no one has any valid, germane or logical arguments to counter my post, I suppose you strengthen my argument.
Why don't I have anal sex? For the same reason I don't park my car in the mailbox. It wouldn't it! If someone's cock is big enough to have fun with-it's too big to stick up your ass. Just use common sense.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||10/14/2012|
It's not our fault you're so tightly-wound, R74! That sounds like a personal problem. I have a BIG OL' dick and trust me, guys make it fit!
|by Anonymous||reply 75||10/14/2012|
Go talk to a professional R70. You need serious counseling.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||10/14/2012|
R76 That's good advice, I wonder if I could find a counselor who could "help" me by convincing me that a dangerous, obviously painful sexual practice that I have no desire to do is a good idea. Maybe I could find a counselor who treats gay men who have to wear Depends because of the physical damage caused by the tearing and stretching to their rectum.
Can you suggest anyone R76 R71 R72 R73 R75? I have no desire to end up in adult diapers-maybe someone can explain to me what I'm missing.
Respect yourselves and your bodies.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||10/14/2012|
Oh Papa Toony, We've Gotta Loony!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 78||10/14/2012|
Papa can you see me, Papa can you fill me, Papa can you touch me....Oh Papa
|by Anonymous||reply 79||10/14/2012|
R78 R79 Not loony; sensible. And disease free, in charge of my own body and unwilling to inflict harm upon others. I'm getting bored replying to people who are so narrow minded and determined to get sick.
The sad thing is, you all probably believe you are liberating yourself by causing pain or subjecting yourself to pain and bodily injury.
Since, no one has a counter-argument (insults obviously don't count); I can honestly say I now understand how, indeed, people can be stupid enough to unquestionably "follow the crowd" and let others tell you what kind of sex to have. I'm sure whatever government or entity is creating the "Next AIDS" or whatever "superbug" they want to use to decimate gays, blacks and other marginalized populations will be as darkly successful as they were with up the introduction of AIDS into the gay population.
We never learn.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||10/14/2012|
You know you can still get STD's from rubbing your dick between a guy's butt cheeks, right R81? You might want to try celibacy. Sounds more along the lines of what you're looking for.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||10/14/2012|
[quote] save your assumed percentages. I can't stand when people say something like "20% of people with HIV don't know they have it." If they don't know they have it how the fuck does study know they have it and that they don't know it?
It's quite simple, r67. When these formerly "I didn't know" HIV+ people come in either because they have symptoms or when they come in for a routine check-up, tests confirm their status. Thereafter, they are asked how many partners have they had within the past 6 months, 1 year, etc. They are asked whether they knew they were HIV+ during the times of the sexual encounters.
It's quite simple.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||10/14/2012|
Yes, r63, which is exactly why knowing your status and being honest about it with sex partners are just as important (maybe more so) than focusing obsessively on condoms.
Condoms do reduce risk but don't eliminate it. Some of the 44% who don't know their status probably got infected while using condoms, but wrongly thought that since they did, they were safe, and stayed negative. Condoms do fail.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||10/14/2012|
Except for the part where the antibodies to HIV can take three months to show up on a test, r84. And this is the period when viral loads are highest, so someone who has recently contracted HIV is even more likely to infect someone. Also, gay men test for other STD's less frequently than straight men and women. How do you disclose a status you don't know you have?
Condoms significantly reduce risk to the point where it is almost nonexistent. Disclosure doesn't. It depends on the honesty of the partners and their own knowledge of their status. It is not an effective method of preventing any STD - condom use, limiting the number of sexual partners, and being selective about your partners will reduce your risk.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||10/14/2012|
[quote]How do you disclose a status you don't know you have?
You say you don't know. And you use condoms.
My point is condom use has to be combined with honest, open discussions. We have used condoms as a kind of crutch and avoided the more difficult issues of honesty and disclosure.
It's not an either/or choice. Also it's incorrect that condoms reduce risk to almost 'nonexistent'. That is a dangerous myth. Condom success rates are based on pregnancies. This is something HIV prevention people should be advocating to change, but the industry doesn't want to (for obvious reasons).
I agree with your last statement completely.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||10/14/2012|
Can you give any support for your argument that condoms fail, r86? There was a four-year study in the late 80s that showed serodiscordant gay couples who used condoms all the time avoided transmission 100%. Those who used them inconsistently had a 10% transmission rate. This was before the introduction of drugs that reduce the viral load (and thus risk of transmission) significantly.
Gay men have STDs at far higher rates than straight people. Many feel uncomfortable discussing them, disclosing them, or testing for them - due to internalized homophobia, general sex shame, or fear of the consequences of their sexual behavior. Pretending our community behaves like the straight community - when it is not the case - is the true dangerous myth.
Where you're on to something is in the idea that promoting condom use has encouraged riskier sexual behavior. Most gay men seem to think they will be safe with unlimited numbers of partners by using condoms.
Honest, open discussions are great - but you know we are not talking about encounters where two guys are going out for dinner and movies for a month before having sex. Gay men need to take control of their own health - not rely on the kindness of strangers.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||10/14/2012|
Here's some (rather dated) information from aidsmap.com about condom efficacy:
Studies, show that condoms used 100% of the time, though not necessarily 100% perfectly (i.e. with usual rates of breakage, slippage and so on) provide protection of about 80 to 85% against HIV (uncertainty range: 76 to 93%). In other words for every 100 cases of HIV infection that would happen without condom use, about 15 (range: seven to 24) would happen when condoms are used consistently.
Condoms offer a similar degree of protection against gonorrhoea as they provide against HIV.
They offer protection in the range of about 50 to 66% against syphilis, though this depends on factors such as the location of primary syphilis lesions.
They provide protection against chlamydia and trichomoniasis of a similar or somewhat smaller degree, with different studies showing protection rates varying from 85 to 26%.
Against genital herpes (HSV-2), estimates of efficacy range considerably; studies are hampered by the fact that people with herpes are only intermittently symptomatic and/or infectious. The best estimate we have is that using condoms more than three-quarters of the time halves the chance of acquiring HSV-2, and may reduce the chances of genital infection with the cold sore virus HSV-1 too.
One study has demonstrated that consistent condom use offers women significant protection against HPV infection by men (in the region of 73%). Another has found that condom use helps to prevent HPV infection progressing to cervical or penile cancer in both women and men.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||10/14/2012|
Also, this from a 2000 review by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID):
Breakages are estimated to occur every 166 sexual acts.
Studies show that when condoms are used in real-world conditions all the time, taking into account breakages and slippage, they provide around 80% protection against HIV.
Keep in mind that this is before it was recognized that proper HIV treatments can significantly reduce viral load and decrease transmission risk.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||10/14/2012|
Thanks for those links r89/r90. r90 repeats a stat i've seen elsewhere about 80% protection against HIV.
That's what needs to be understood.
I kind of bristle at the idea that "Pretending our community behaves like the straight community - when it is not the case - is the true dangerous myth.
Anonymous/promiscuous sex is just a bad idea in terms of public health, whether you're straight or gay. Just because I'm gay doesn't mean that my 'community' changes this fact. We need to work on the shame, self-hatred, etc you mention in order to minimize risky behavior.
|by Anonymous||reply 91||10/14/2012|
The 80% is not transmission - it's exposure. You have less than a 1% chance per act of unprotected (receptive) sex with an infected individuals. So, if the the person is positive, and is fucking you, your chances of infection are 1% of 20%.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||10/14/2012|
does my risk increase if i keep taking them one right after the other?
|by Anonymous||reply 93||10/14/2012|
I am glad that certain myths are being exposed here:
- Disclosure is flawed as you can only truly know your sero-status if you had a negative test result more than three months ago (some suggest six) and have not engaged in sexual activity with another partner since that test
- Condoms are not 100% effective however their efficacy is greatly improved by consistent use and by ejaculating after, as opposed to during, penetrative anal sex
- Many people do not know their sero-status
- r70 has, well, some issues to work through
|by Anonymous||reply 94||10/14/2012|
"Undetectable" is the new HIV-
|by Anonymous||reply 95||10/14/2012|
r92 you're saying that if you get fucked bareback by someone who's HIV+, and you are negative, you have only a 1% chance of infection?
Where does that 1% figure come from?
|by Anonymous||reply 96||10/14/2012|
The virus that causes AIDS is very fragile. There has to be a perfect storm of conditions in order to contract the virus. It is destroyed by contact with air and if ingested, stomach acids will kill it. The anus is the perfect host.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||10/14/2012|
Yes, r96. Datalounge is saying the link is invalid, but google CDC HIV transmission and it should come up. 50 infections per 10,000 unsafe acts.
Still, you should act as though it is 100% - the actual transmission process has a lot of variables, and obviously people are still contracting HIV. Usually, it is not the dramatic single slip-up - it's a pattern of ignoring risks.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||10/14/2012|
My ex-roommate contracted HIV through being raped (massive eye roll). Seriously though, that was his excuse.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||10/14/2012|
What kinds of sex acts R98? Maybe 50 in 10,000 cases when it's all averaged out but for receptive anal sex it has to be much higher.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||10/14/2012|
No, that figure is for unprotected receptive anal sex with an HIV positive man. The CDC link (which I'll try to post when I'm not on my phone) has a breakdown by act.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||10/14/2012|
Well in DL land, people would have you believe that 10 out of 10 gay men will be rasped in their lifetime.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||10/14/2012|
Exposure vs transmission seems really murky to me. How do clinicians know when someone is exposed but not infected (ie no transmission)?
|by Anonymous||reply 103||10/14/2012|
There's nothing funny about being rasped.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||10/14/2012|
[quote]There's nothing funny about being rasped.
Did I ever tell you the time about how I won my Tony for my rasping at the liberty?
|by Anonymous||reply 106||10/14/2012|
So do people like r70 think they are being injured any time they take a shit that is larger than a straw?
|by Anonymous||reply 107||10/14/2012|
[quote]Well in DL land, people would have you believe that 10 out of 10 gay men will be rasped in their lifetime.
Yea, well, if someone ever raped me and gave me HIV you best believe I'd hunt him down like a mother fucking dog. My roommate's "rapist" was, according to him, still on the loose--and yet he never expressed any concern with catching him. Strange, isn't it.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||10/14/2012|
There are many R70s, they usually remain closeted and become asexual or stick strictly to non contact forms of sex, like phone sex. The sad thing is that they are afraid and won't get any help.
|by Anonymous||reply 109||10/14/2012|
R107, You have a good point. From the responses I've read, I'm beginning my thinking should evolve. However, I'm in a 12 year monogamous relationship with a guy who's got what I consider the perfect cock. Nice length and very thick, so I think I'm still going to forego that form of sexual activity. Even though I consider myself and try to be (for lack of a better word) "straight acting." I don't see myself as a "top" and don't really want to be one, besides he's also not interested in anal sex.
R109, I swear to God, I am not closeted. I haven't been closeted since 1991. I'm not Asexual either, I love sex with men-although for the past years I have been in a monogamous relationship. The male body, particularly if it's not "porn star plastic", too thin or shaved hairless, is a desirable thing of beauty.
I'm not afraid at all of men. Well, I suppose it's limited to my man, now. But, when I was single I enjoyed myself, trust me. Since this is anonymous, just let me add: one of my favorite things to do in the whole world is give a guy a blow-job. I don't get much out of being the recipient- I blame that on being circumcised-but if it were up to me I'd enthusiastically give my partner oral sex everyday. I think he may be the one who's repressed, but after 12 years I'm still trying to "defrost" him.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||10/14/2012|
r70, you found someone who likes what you do, so what's the problem? Some people just aren't into anal. Congratulations on 12 years; it's hard to stick with someone for that long.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||10/15/2012|
you sex phobics are so judge mental.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||10/15/2012|
You hear about people like r70 when you read the abnormal psychology textbooks but they are even more stunning when you come across them in the wild.
|by Anonymous||reply 113||10/15/2012|
r114, do African-American men scare you because their penises are so much larger than that nub you call a dick?
Or are you just an angry, ignorant person?
Clearly something went very, very wrong with you along the way.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||10/15/2012|