Should a HIV+ person tell people he is positvive before meet?

[Telstra]

I have a friend who is positive. He fucked a guy without a condom assuming that the guy would never have agreed to getting fucked without a condom unless he was also positive, but the guy getting fucked assumed my friend was negative, assuming he would never have fucked him had he not been negative. Fortunately, the guy getting fucked remained negative. They are now in a LTR, and I don't know what their condom protocol is. No one should assume anything.

Is it correct that with the latest generation of drugs, that the levels of virus are so low as to decrease the chances of transmission?

Yes, no one should assume anything but the hiv+ guy should tell the other guy before having sex.
I had afew guys who wanted to be fucked with no condoms and they didn't ask me any questions.

[Rolyo85]

The horrifying thing is how many guys just assume "it'll be ok".

Personally, I think that in a hook up context, the guy should be forthright from the get go, and in a dating - as soon as things seem to be going anywhere.

[voyager1994]

if there's going to be a sexual contact, an HIV+ person has a legal and moral obligation to tell the partner(s).

[Scealle]

I think if they are going to have sex then yes.

[bankside]

Two important ideas there, both worth answering separately...

Bankside, yes, you are correct.

But in the context of the question here it's like "If I go to work and get a cold, is it the fault of the person who gave it to me?"

Yep. My boss yells at us if we show up at work sick. "Quit coughing around all the rest of the people I'm obliged to grant sick leave to. Get your ass home and come back when you won't cause a chain reaction of lost productivity." Smart boss.

You have to have some personal awareness/responsibility of the risk and the setting. In this case, sexual hookups with people you really don't know and would be stupid to expect are just going to "do what's right."

Here, I don't disagree with your point. But I do question the public health message that goes along with it from the official land of Gay Public Health Advocacy™. We've told two generations of gay men to remember to wear a condom when they're out fucking whatever stranger they met that day. The risk of hook-ups is downplayed so we don't sound "judgmental." And the condom is turned into a magic wand that is supposed to make people feel safe.

But if you would be stupid to expect that the stranger you're fucking is just going to "do what's right" then you'd be stupid to expect a condom is going to fix that problem.

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.

[Laufey]

It's funny though how many bosses are the opposite and pressure workers to show up when they are sick Short term thinkers.

[Hard-up1]

To clarify my post was about when they are about to have sex. Before that point you have every right to keep it a secret.

Agreed, but if you introduce it into the interactions earlier, you decrease the risk of the other person thinking you withheld it in an attempt to get further. Many of us would certainly date a man with HIV, but we would like to be the one to be making an informed decision as we chose to get more deeply involved.

[-Callum-]

Yes. And if they didn't tell me, even with a condom, I'd pursue legal action.

[Nishin]

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.

[bankside]

I don't think testing should be optional for sexually active adults.

[Laufey]

I don't think testing should be optional for sexually active adults.

Good luck enforcing that.

[-Callum-]

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 can selfishly say I am fine with that...I didn't say I wouldn't have sex with them, but I would want to know. Ditto with any STD.

[Telstra]

Off topic:
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.

[Laufey]

Because they can have information in them which are in sensitive nature.

[Coward92]

I don't think testing should be optional for sexually active adults.

Agreed.
It should be a mandatory yearly check-up.

[Telstra]

Because they can have information in them which are in sensitive nature.

I know that but why hide if you have a heart surgery?
Isn't it better to let people know your heart conditions so they can understand why you walk abit slow or abit careful ... etc because of your heart ?

[Laufey]

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.

[Telstra]

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.

I do, if i have medical problems, i would like people to know if we are chatting about things.
Of course not for insurance companies.

[bankside]

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.

I don't think it should be a goal of HIV+ people to sleep with ignorant and judgmental strangers by hiding their status.

[Laufey]

I was speaking in general when responding to his comment about medical records.

[bankside]

Agreed.
It should be a mandatory yearly check-up.

A promiscuous person can infect a lot of people between the time he gets HIV and a yearly check-up comes around. An HIV test is worthless once someone has sex with a new partner.

[Nishin]

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.

[Laufey]

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.

[bankside]

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.

[MoufOfKhaos]

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.

[Nishin]

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.

Are you saying condoms are not working ??

[bankside]

Are you saying condoms are not working ??

We tell promiscuous people that all they have to change about their sex lives is to wear a condom. That's not true. They need to ease up on the strangers. They need to get tested between partners. And then, a condom is a smart idea. That would shut down HIV in a couple of years.

[dereperez]

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...

[Laufey]

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.

[Nishin]

We tell promiscuous people that all they have to change about their sex lives is to wear a condom. That's not true. They need to ease up on the strangers. They need to get tested between partners. And then, a condom is a smart idea. That would shut down HIV in a couple of years.

I don't know where you live... I suppose prevention strategies and messages differ depending where one lives or on the target population' specifics (ie drug users in Eastern Europe/Russia), I notice you choose to focus on "promiscuous" people as if only this population was concerned by HIV... I don't believe the wear condoms message is the only strategy in place even amongst this population, if you'd pay attention to prevention campaigns you'd notice the promotion of getting tested is also pushed along with risks reduction recommendations (don't cum inside, use loads of lube, check yourself for bruises etc...) especially for groups like barebackers for whom wear condoms is irrelevant.

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) :

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.

Exactly, using condoms works and helped greatly reduce infection rates in the West, in other parts of the world where condoms are less relevant other strategies are used (circumcision, early treatment when infection found, clean needles distribution, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), viral load monitoring within a given community etc etc ...).

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.

[Hard-up1]

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.

Whereas this may be true from a personal safety perspective, it is not true from a public health perspective, nor from a personal ethics perspective.

Having Hepatitis C or Tuberculosis is relevant condition is one is working in a public place of employment like a ticket kiosk, a restaurant, a day care, or another job like that. Public health codes vary and require disclosure and/or treatment as a prudent and sensible course of action for containment of the contagion.

Whereas on a personal ethics level, a sex partner can have every ethical and moral reason to expect disclosure of known communicable disease when having an encounter. If it is later shown that such information was intentionally withheld, the deception is appropriately the basis for calling into question the personal integrity of the deceiver.

At some point, couples, many if not most, make a decision to have unprotected sex in the confines of a monogamous relationship. The trade-off is a known risk, to be sure, and to your point, both have accountability for taking such a risk. So, when one exists monogamy without disclosing, the culpability is in fact shared, if not necessarily evenly.

Condoms are mostly effective, but not totally, so the post is relevant about it not being enough to abrogate the responsibility of disclosing. One who knowingly exposes another to a deadly disease is indeed morally accountable if he withheld such knowledge, and there is no soft-peddling of that issue with anything about pragmatism or rights to privacy.

[loki81]

should he tell everyone in the world? probably not, I'd say personal medical information should be disclosed on a need-to-know basis.

that said, I'd include potential sexual partners inside that "need to know" group... if you're meeting up specifically for the purposes of hooking up, I'd say it should be disclosed beforehand. if you're meeting up for a date, I'd say it should probably be disclosed shortly into the dating process at least (first or second date)

[Hard-up1]

Maybe the campaign to encourage ethical sexual behavior should be labelled, "Do ask. Do tell."

[bankside]

I don't know where you live... I suppose prevention strategies and messages differ depending where one lives or on the target population' specifics (ie drug users in Eastern Europe/Russia), I notice you choose to focus on "promiscuous" people as if only this population was concerned by HIV... I don't believe the wear condoms message is the only strategy in place even amongst this population, if you'd pay attention to prevention campaigns you'd notice the promotion of getting tested is also pushed along with risks reduction recommendations (don't cum inside, use loads of lube, check yourself for bruises etc...) especially for groups like barebackers for whom wear condoms is irrelevant.

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) :

It's not a moral thing though, not directly. I'm not upset because I think "people are having too much sex" or anything like that. I'm upset because their voluntary behaviour is spreading disease. The strategy missing from that list you mentioned is telling people "stop fucking random strangers." Is it realistic to tell people with an infectious disease to modify their behaviour? Do we have a right to do so, especially if they have decided to accept the risk? Yes, and yes. We would lock people up with typhoid or ebola or so many other infectious diseases without even thinking about it. If some people are indifferent to the risk of HIV and it continues to spread because of their behaviour, it would be fine for the rest of us to stop it.

[Nishin]

Whereas this may be true from a personal safety perspective, it is not true from a public health perspective, nor from a personal ethics perspective.

Can you develop further? ... I fail to understand your pov: why wouldn't it be true from a public health perspective?
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 ...

[...]
Condoms are mostly effective, but not totally, so the post is relevant about it not being enough to abrogate the responsibility of disclosing. One who knowingly exposes another to a deadly disease is indeed morally accountable if he withheld such knowledge, and there is no soft-peddling of that issue with anything about pragmatism or rights to privacy.

I do think there is ... 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.avert.org/criminal-transmission.htm

In 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."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...loads/NHAS.pdf

[Nishin]

It's not a moral thing though, not directly. I'm not upset because I think "people are having too much sex" or anything like that. I'm upset because their voluntary behaviour is spreading disease. The strategy missing from that list you mentioned is telling people "stop fucking random strangers." Is it realistic to tell people with an infectious disease to modify their behaviour? Do we have a right to do so, especially if they have decided to accept the risk? Yes, and yes. We would lock people up with typhoid or ebola or so many other infectious diseases without even thinking about it. If some people are indifferent to the risk of HIV and it continues to spread because of their behaviour, it would be fine for the rest of us to stop it.

This is incorrect... the problem doesn't lie in fucking random strangers (thus there is no point enforcing such judgemental/moralistic point) but in how the fucking is done and that's what prevention concentrates on...

[umjreon88]

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...

[TX-Beau]

This is why if you're hooking up, always presume it's possible and protect yourself accordingly.

Yes if you are going to have sex with someone and have an STD you SHOULD tell, but not everyone is going to, so play safe ALWAYS.

[Telstra]

should he tell everyone in the world? probably not, I'd say personal medical information should be disclosed on a need-to-know basis.

that said, I'd include potential sexual partners inside that "need to know" group... if you're meeting up specifically for the purposes of hooking up, I'd say it should be disclosed beforehand. if you're meeting up for a date, I'd say it should probably be disclosed shortly into the dating process at least (first or second date)

One person is not the world and no he shouldn't tell the world.

[bankside]

This is incorrect... the problem doesn't lie in fucking random strangers (thus there is no point enforcing such judgemental/moralistic point) but in how the fucking is done and that's what prevention concentrates on...

People fucking more new random partners so close one after another that they don't have time for an accurate HIV test (i.e. "Time to next random fuck" < "HIV antibody window") is a good way for a person to spread HIV. It's not moralizing, it's math.

[Nishin]

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?

[bankside]

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?

No, I keep saying it pretty much up front: I'm questioning the condom element in the equation. When you fuck 5 people you don't know, a half-milimetre of latex is not equivalent to the Magic Safety Genie™. You don't know if all 5 of those guys know how to use a condom, or if they even want to use a condom, or if they're honest enough to use it even when you agree to. "OOPS - Sorry - it must have slipped off…and then accidentally landed in the trash can over there…" It's a stranger who may care more about getting off than your life, and who probably figures you can't be too worried about disease if you're willing to fuck a random dick at the bath or from a random ad on craigslist 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.

[TX-Beau]

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.

[Nishin]

I guess this condom thing is where we're going to keep disagreeing ...

No, I keep saying it pretty much up front: I'm questioning the condom element in the equation. When you fuck 5 people you don't know, a half-milimetre of latex is not equivalent to the Magic Safety Genie™. You don't know if all 5 of those guys know how to use a condom, or if they even want to use a condom, or if they're honest enough to use it even when you agree to. "OOPS - Sorry - it must have slipped off…and then accidentally landed in the trash can over there…" It's a stranger who may care more about getting off than your life, and who probably figures you can't be too worried about disease if you're willing to fuck a random dick at the bath or from a random ad on craigslist or something.

That can happen with the ONE fuck you get after 6 years of abstinence... why would you want to let someone fuck you without checking he has the rubber (correctly put) on... do check.

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.

I looked into the condom data ...

Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of HIV.

Epidemiologic 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.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

http://www.news-medical.net/news/201...n-by-7825.aspx

Studies 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.avert.org/condoms.htm

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.

http://www.aidsmap.com/page/1324955/

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.

I agree, they need to learn to use condoms properly and consistently. They also need to test themselves on a regular basis, consider using Truvada as PrEP or PEP when promiscuous and on a fucking spree etc etc ...
Basically they need to educate themselves in the different prevention strategies available (they can be combined) and use them in accordance with their practices.

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.

That's a reality that needs to be worked WITH, not AGAINST.

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

[dereperez]

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...

This, pretty much.

[illgetbi]

If I was HIV positive, I probably would share my status whether the other person asked for it or not. I just wouldn't feel comfortable otherwise.

But I'm not poz, and I don't think it's my place to make that decision for people who are. Lying about one's status is one thing; simply not declaring it is another. I don't consider the latter a form of deception.

And anyway, disclosure in these situations is ultimately irrelevant.

Either party could have the virus and not know it yet.

Honesty =/= truth.

[bankside]

That's a reality that needs to be worked WITH, not AGAINST.

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

Here's the study you're missing, on the effect of reducing the number of concurrent and random partners:
http://mobile.aidsmap.com/Partner-re.../page/1746143/

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.

[Laufey]

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.

[cgymike]

This thread is just another one of those BB justification type of threads....

Rinse...repeat...

Forget about it. Always be safe. Why can't people get that bit?

[figjam]

This thread is just another one of those BB justification type of threads....

Rinse...repeat...

Forget about it. Always be safe. Why can't people get that bit?

^^^^^^

Exactly - simple common sense. Still do not know what Nishin tried to prove with some of the nonsensical comments in this thread. One would think sexual responsibility came second nature in this day and age.