Yes. And if they didn't tell me, even with a condom, I'd pursue legal action.
Yes. And if they didn't tell me, even with a condom, I'd pursue legal action.
In the realm of REALITY though, the behaviour most of you guys here demand is counter-productive (in the fight against HIV) as it entices people to NOT test themselves in fear of getting to know their status and having to face the dilemma of disclosure and potential (irrational most of the time) rejection and stigmatization that is so clearly here exhibited.
I don't think testing should be optional for sexually active adults.
Why are people afraid of their medical records be known to the person they just met?
What would they do to you if they know you had a heart surgery for example ?
*For the insurance company i understand but not for someone we met.
Last edited by Telstra; February 16th, 2013 at 03:26 PM.
NEVER LISTEN TO A ONE SIDED STORY AND JUDGE.
Because they can have information in them which are in sensitive nature.
NEVER LISTEN TO A ONE SIDED STORY AND JUDGE.
People can be ignorant and judgmental when it comes to some health problems. Also sometimes it's things which can make the person feel embarrassed.
People can also take advantage of others when knowing their weakness... not just insurance companies.
So yeah I'm not excited about sharing my medical history with random strangers.
Last edited by Laufey; February 16th, 2013 at 04:31 PM.
I was speaking in general when responding to his comment about medical records.
Or a promiscuous person can infect nobody when he is responsible about sexuality and he uses protection not to get infected himself, just as his partner du jour is equally supposed to do, this is the stigmatization I was talking about above... or as Laufey puts it : ignorance and judgmentalness.
I still don't understand your earlier stance: The battle cry of the 80's and 90's was SILENCE = DEATH. If we were honest now, we would change it to FUCKING A STRANGER + CONDOMS STILL = DEATH.
A lot of promiscuous people don't get checked for years or even never so although a yearly checkup for everyone would be far from bulletproof it would still decrease the number of infections a lot.
My point is there is no safe way to fuck a bunch of random strangers. Half a milimetre of latex is not enough. Antiretrovirals and supposedly a "zero load" aren't enough. "Usually I use condoms" isn't enough.
People need to know the person they're fucking, and they need to guarantee they don't infect that person by getting tested before they sleep with a new partner. So back then, activists were saying that silence about aids was deadly. They were telling people to use a condom when hooking up. But that isn't working.
Laughable, this new line of hysteria. If you're not having sexual contact with the person, you really have no right to know. If you are, you should be smart enough to use a condom - whether he does or doesn't have it, whether he lies or doesn't lie, or in some situations, doesn't know, protection lies with you. There's so much talk about self preservation, but if more people practiced what they trumpeted, then either they'd have safer sex at all times or less sex with people they could directly "trust" - and the quotations are there for a reason.
Other than where laws are concerned(and btw, Washington seems to be very much Orwellian in the way they've approached this), you should go into it assuming before the announcement, and then take it from there. Yes, always ask. But yes, always prepare just in case.
"Thereís death on the horizon,
and Iíll run to behold your sacrifice..."
If they intend to have sex, then yes I think it should be disclosed. While there is such thing as "patient confidentiality", one makes it the other's business if they are going to have an intimate encounter/relationship...
Nothing is gonna "shut down" HIV.
Telling people to have safe sex works much better than telling them to be abstinent or have few sex partners. It's just not a realistic request.
Condom usage being so common in the western world has decreased the number of infections A LOT. If it hadn't become common practice then you could multiply the number of infected people.
Once again, we try to work within the realm of what realistic, in terms of human behaviours, rather than addressing the issue through moral standards/ideals that have no ground in reality (getting tested between each and every partner... not ever gonna work) :
To this day though condoms are still the most efficient tool we have against HIV after abstinence.
That's why, to be back to the original debate, whatever your partner tells you or hides from you is irrelevant... and why I think a person you consider having sex with doesn't HAVE to tell you about his (supposed, known or lied about) HIV+ status, rather than YOU have to consider him potentially infected and take appropriate measures (use condom)... and it should be a constant when having sex with anyone, stranger or not.
Last edited by Nishin; February 17th, 2013 at 02:53 AM.
If everybody (had) used condoms during every sexual intercourse in the past 30 years, it seems to me HIV wouldn't be much of a problem anymore... (not mentioning drug use, blood transfusions or MtoChild infections right now).
In regards to ethics, I am obviously not disputing that people should have morals and care about their and their partners' health ... but once again, ethics seems irrelevant secondary to me on this issue... firstly because morals vary from cultures to cultures (whereas risks vary according to real-life practices) , and because common sense suggests responsibility should fall upon both partners rather than being delegated to one only... pragmatism here should prevail on wishful thinking.
What will you do if your partner says he is HIV+?
What will you do if your partner says he doesn't know his status?
What will you do if your partner says he is negative?
Is there a difference between what you'll do in any of the above cases and when nothing has been told?
Unless you are willing to engage in bareback there shouldn't be a difference... and if you do so, even if you have been deceived, YOU eventually took that risk (whether based on someone else 's proofs claims or not)... no?
I am not sure if the OP's question was from a moral stand or practical one, if so then yes I believe they should tell you about their HIV+ status, being a bearer of HSV, having peanuts' remains from lunch in their teeth, having jealousy/possessiveness issues, farting in bed you name it ...
in my first post I laid out the conditions under which my reply applied, under these very conditions (to what point I'm adding for precision's sake that the HIV+ person must have had a monitored undetectable viral charge for the past 6 months prior to engaging in sex, and have no other STIs) these guys are medically considered non infecting, this plus the extra precaution of using condom renders irrelevant a partner's supposed right to know of his condition.
In that setting no-one knowingly exposes another to a any deadly disease.
A poster mentioned suing such HIV+ partner even if the latter uses a condom and the risk is virtually non-existent... others have tried before and failed (see Justin Dalley case in the first link below). I believe a court will only prosecute voluntary transmissions (with intent to infect) when condoms are not used (or if they're sabotaged), IOW, once again, always use condoms !
Interesting links on the subject
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...loads/NHAS.pdfIn July 2010 the White House announced a major change in its HIV/AIDS policy, a change informed by public health law research carried out by Scott Burris, professor of law at Teple University and the director of its Public Health Law Research program.The Obama administration's National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States concluded that "the continued existence and enforcement of these types of laws [that criminalize HIV infection] run counter to scientific evidence about routes of HIV transmission and may undermine the public health goals of promoting HIV screening and treatment."
Omg! Firstly, it's dishonest to not reveal your status as positive, and this alone I would be really angry as my life gets endangered by it. Yes, it is inevitable if it happens, but the key is honesty and if the person doesn't come clean then I think the relationship would have fallen apart anyway.
Secondly, isn't it an offence not to reveal a person's status? I don't know...
"... You think the only people who are people
Are the people who look and think like you ..." - Colours of the Wind by Vanessa Williams
Math? You forgot the condom element in the equation...
Without it you obviously have a point... but that's back to 1984
I wonder if you keep forgetting it on purpose...
A protected sexual intercourse is safe, two protected sexual intercourses are safe, three protected intercourses are safe, whether you have them in the same day (what stamina!) or spread on 9 months, they're still safe intercourses (we're talking HIV here... if this was about crabs however...) if played this way (lube, condoms, paying attention to irritations etc ...).
Another math: having a high sex-drive =/= being irresponsible about it
Do you believe every HIV+ person is a careless slut fucking 5guys/day who deserve the infection or something?
My whole point is that while condoms are better than bareback, they give people a false sense of security if they're planning to fuck a bunch of randoms.
And no, I don't believe every HIV+ person is a careless slut fucking 5 guys a day. I also don't believe every HIV+ person got it in a tragic blood transfusion when they were a 14 year old haemophiliac. People need to change their behaviour, more than just by wearing a condom and continuing to fuck people they don't know whenever they feel like sex.
Here's another thread talking about men and promiscuity, straight and gay, being mostly the same in their desires and habits. Except for about 13% of gay men that are hyper-promiscuous. That is a gay cultural phenomenon that does spread disease, it's not the same for the straight guys, and no one is challenging it for fear of being accused of "judgment." But it needs to be said.
Last edited by bankside; February 17th, 2013 at 02:07 PM.
If straight guys could get away with being "hyper-promiscuous" whatever the fuck that means - they'd be "hyper-promiscuous" at a lot higher rate than 13%.
Because our culture rewards them for their promiscuity, while it seems you apparently think that ours is some kind of negative aspect of being gay. Fuck that, you know what it is - opportunity and being male, nothing more.
ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE
I guess this condom thing is where we're going to keep disagreeing ...
Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of HIV.http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htmEpidemiologic studies that are conducted in real-life settings, where one partner is infected with HIV and the other partner is not, demonstrate that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection.
http://www.avert.org/condoms.htmStudies into the effectiveness of condoms have shown that if a latex condom is used correctly every time you have sex, this is highly effective in providing protection against HIV.
The evidence for the effectiveness of condoms is clearest in studies of couples in which one person is infected with HIV and the other not (discordant couples). In a study of discordant couples in Europe, among 123 couples who reported consistently using condoms, none of the uninfected partners became infected. In contrast, among the 122 couples who used condoms inconsistently, 12 of the uninfected partners became infected.A recent review of 14 studies involving discordant couples concluded that consistent use of condoms led to an 80% reduction in HIV incidence.
The main reason that condoms sometimes fail to prevent HIV/STD infection or pregnancy is incorrect or inconsistent use, not the failure of the condom itself. Using oil-based lubricants can weaken the latex, causing the condom to break. Condoms can also be weakened by exposure to heat or sunlight or by age, or they can be torn by teeth or fingernails. Also, remember to check the expiry date of your condom!
http://www.aidsmap.com/page/1324955/Which strength condoms for anal sex?
There have been plenty of studies of condom failure (breakages, slipping off, etc.) in gay men. For instance, a Dutch study of 671 gay men, one-third of them HIV-positive, found that the overall failure rate during male-to-male anal sex was 3.7%. There was a lower failure rate for 'anal condoms' (extra-strong condoms, 3.1%) than for standard 'vaginal condoms' (4.6%). The failure rate with the use of water-based lubricants was 1.7% vs 10.3% for oil-based lubricants. The failure rate was 5.9% for use with no lubricants or saliva only.
However at the Thirteenth International AIDS Conference in Durban, a team of researchers from London's City University presented data from a study of 283 gay male couples who had been randomised to use either standard or thicker condoms for anal sex and additional water-based lubricant. Each couple was provided with nine condoms and completed a questionnaire after each sexual act.
The researchers found that condoms broke for the same reasons as previously identified in studies among heterosexual couples; unrolling the condom before fitting it to the penis, longer duration of intercourse (longer than 45 minutes), and absence of additional lubricant. Use of additional inappropriate lubricant, (oil-based or saliva) was also associated with condom breakage. Penis length was also associated with condom breakage, yet girth was not.
Basically they need to educate themselves in the different prevention strategies available (they can be combined) and use them in accordance with their practices.
Anyhow, I feel I don't have anything much to add that I haven't said on the subject... eventually what works for someone doesn't necessarily work for some one else.
If people want to feel "double safe" because someone tells them whatever they want to hear and believe it to be the truth, who am I to warn them against such naivety... *shrugs*
Everyone be safe and have fun
Last edited by Nishin; February 17th, 2013 at 03:07 PM.
Here's the study you're missing, on the effect of reducing the number of concurrent and random partners:Originally Posted by Nishin
With up to 50 percent of HIV cases being transmitted by someone in the first few months of their own infection, it really is the hyper promiscuous minority keeping HIV going. And it's also why telling someone to get an HIV test once a year is so useless if that person is going to fuck a dozen strangers (dozens?) by the time the next test comes around.
It's not responsible to fuck someone without knowing your own status because you've fucked so many different people since your last test. It's not responsible to rely on a condom when newly infected and with uncontrolled viral loads. Most of all, it's not responsible to normalise hyper promiscuity in a small minority of gay men. It isn't inevitable male behaviour. Yet it is often even celebrated as a triumph of gay liberation or something that we can go out and sport-fuck a bunch of random strangers. It's almost a gay badge of honour to 'cast off the heterosexual norms of behaviour and be real men." It is time for attitudes to change, because Darwin's principles have not, and condom use is not the magic wand some people think it is. They actually have to change their behaviour too, and exercise some self control. And some social control.
Last edited by bankside; February 19th, 2013 at 07:43 AM.
Could you please get off your high horse and stop preaching?
A lot of pleasures in life come with risks. We try to somewhat limit them but we still take the risk despite not being able to make it bulletproof safe.
It's really amazing how much we have managed to limit the infection of this disease in the western world and I choose to celebrate that rather than talk down to the ones who take some risk.
This thread is just another one of those BB justification type of threads....
Forget about it. Always be safe. Why can't people get that bit?
Let's look into the statistics:
The likelihood of getting HIV after being penetrated by a positive top, without protection, is 0,5%. I'm assuming the number is the same when the condom breaks before ejaculation.
If the positive rate for MSM population in your area is 10% then you are likely to sleep with about 10 infected men in that year if the total number was 100.
A condom is effective 98 times out of a 100.
So the chances of the condom failing while you had sex with a positive person is about 0,2%.
So sleeping with those 100 men with a condom puts you at a 0,2% risk of landing in that 0,5% HIV exposure risk.
If you are a top only then the risk is about 8 times less than that.
So of course there is some risk but not the high risk you make it out to be. Most people have behavior patterns which are far more dangerous to their health than sleeping with multiple people a year with protection.
I know a few HIV+ guys, and I didn't find out until I had hung out with them several times. Mind you, I never slept with them, and I hope they would've told me beforehand if we had. And if they hadn't, I would've been wearing a condom in any event.
You know.... it has come to my attention that due to going body surfing and swimming in the ocean I am at risk of getting bit by a shark.
However, I accept that risk. At least it's likely that that will kill me outright and not slowly over many (expensive) years.
Nonetheless, I want to know if a potential partner is positive, just as I tell a potential partner that I'm negative and would like to stay that way. So yeah, I'm totally for disclosure.
I can't believe how irresponsible some people are, knowingly spreading the disease.
It should be Illegal, it should be mandatory.
If i ever met a guy who just didn't care who got hurt, i would knock him out and brand him.
I'll try to explain my calculations better.
You sleep with 100 men and 10 of those turn out to be positive.
Considering condoms failing 2% of the time... the condom will fail with 2 men out of those 100.
But since 90% of the men are negative it is much more likely the condom will break when you are with someone negative. The 2% number goes down to 0,2% because of the negative/positive ratio.
So when you sleep with those 100 men you have a 0,2% chance of a condom breaking when you are having sex with a HIV positive person. That's not a 0,2% chance of getting HIV infected... it's 0,2% chance of a sexual activity turning into a 0,5% likelihood of HIV infection.
Even if I change the 0,5 to 3 it's still a very low number.
There are risks... it's just NOT high risk. The average person who always uses a condom will have to sleep with thousands of people. Of course you could be unlucky and it happens the first time, it's just very very unlikely if you used a condom.
You also have to realize that most people will not sleep with 100 men in a year.... so from that aspect I'm being negative rather than positive. For a lot of people you can use that number for a lifetime risk rather than a yearly one.
Last edited by Laufey; February 23rd, 2013 at 02:17 AM.
This is the source where I got the 0,5% number from: