RedPhillip
-
Posts
64 -
Joined
-
Last visited
3 Followers
RedPhillip's Achievements
-
Sorry for taking so long to reply to your friend request! Maybe I should coordinate with HardaddyMA and we'll do you rightnfor a summer break ;-)
-
Anyone near CT hmu. I can help
-
-
Found you again! Can't tell you how much I hope you'll head to the Berkshires one of these days! ;-)
-
Even with the prep this guy provided it is pretty unlikely you were infected. You don't mention how long ago this happened, but if it is more than three months ago and you haven't experienced any illness - like a really bad flu or cold - adds are strong that you did not pick up HIV from this guy. Not everyone experiences a conversion syndrome after infection, but it is fairly common. Testing is the only way to be sure one way or another. -
There is the British use of the phrase 'sort me out', which is used in the film Beautiful Thing to mean 'give me a good fuck'.
-
So what did you decide to do?
-
Are the baths any place for a neg guy?
RedPhillip replied to smoothbottom's topic in HIV Risk & Risk Reduction
Based on what I read it seems like there is certainly lots of bareback sex going on. While some poz guys undoubtedly do like the anonymous circumstances of the dark rooms I think plenty of neg guys like it too, whether topping or bottoming. If you want to limit your risk, either require condoms or decide you can trust a guy when he tells you he's negative. There are a certain fraction of men who will lie about their status or sabotage the condom in the interest of seeding you; you have to rely on your instincts about any given partner whether you allow things to happen. Some neg guys are actively seeking to get pozzed, whether they are open about it or not. Some men may be unconsciously seeking it. Others are simply willing to take their chances and are prepared to accept the results. If you want to enjoy the baths but are also wanting to limit your HIV exposure risk, don't indulge yourself in the darkrooms taking all comers. Restrict yourself to hooking up with guys you believe when they say they're negative too, or are willing to wrap up. -
Have you found the help you're looking for?
-
I am a 56 year old versatile guy - though I've been topping more in the past few years because it seems like most guys I meet are ore or less dedicated bottoms. Ideally I'd prefer flip fucking regardless of the age of my partner. As to topping or bottoming if my flipping preference isn't in the cards, it's all about the attraction and connection I have with the guy in question and vice versa. I have seen profiles where guys do make that distinction (topping younger guys only) but that's not a choice the resonates with me. In the last couple of years the oldest guy I've fucked was in his 70s somewhere, and the youngest was 20. The youngest to fuck me was, I think, 21 or 22, and the oldest in his 60s. The majority of my play partners have been 35-55.
-
I object to this part of your comment: "HIV is no big deal; pop one pill a day and you will be fine." It's true that in many people HIV can be successfully treated with "one pill a day". It's not true for everyone. The 'one pill' you mention, Atripla, is a three-drug combination, any one of which can cause unacceptable side effects in some percentage of those using it. Apart from side effects Atripla simply fails in a fraction of those who try it. Finding a drug regimen that is both effective and tolerable can be a grueling challenge. I do not mean to suggest that these difficulties affect the majority of people contracting HIV, but the possibilities are real and should be considered in making one's choices. Further, we do not know what the implications are for decades-long use of anti-HIV medications. Those effects may be minimal, though the experience of the past 20 years suggests caution at overly-optimistic assumptions. Easily managed HIV infection also requires uninterrupted access to medication. There are many things that can disrupt that access -- loss on insurance, loss of government subsidies, economic disruptions that can curtail manufacture, transport and distribution, etc. There considerations may be more or less pressing in any given person's situation, but I suggest that the relative ease of management and treatment of HIV many of us currently enjoy is more fragile and contingent than we may like to consider. I don't raise any of this to argue against barrier-free sex. The choice for barebacking is a valid one as is the choice not to bareback. It should be a fully conscious choice, as informed as it is possible to be. Acquiring HIV may not be the catastrophe it was 30 years ago but it remains a big deal.
-
Short answer is that yes, poz guys on effective medication regimens with consistently undetectable viral loads seem to be highly unlikely to transmit HIV to their partners. It is not a guarantee, but the risks are very much reduced. Here is one report that is useful: http://www.aidsmap.com/page/1429357/ Another report from the recent CROI Conference: http://aidsmap.com/Is-treatment-really-reducing-infections/page/1685888/#item1685891 There are two problems with researching this issue: 1) There has been relatively little research on the specific impact of successful antiviral treatment on HIV transmission. It is difficult to tease out the various factors and their relative importance that have contributed to a decline of new infections. Given that infection rates did not decline as much in the years prior to effective antiviral therapy (when prevention relied almost entirely on safer sex practices) as they have in the HAART era, it is logical to conclude that successful treatment has contributed to the greater decline in infection. This inference is not iron-clad, though there are good biological reasons for asserting the claim. 2) There is a degree of active hostility to any research that would provide evidence supporting any bareback sex, and especially between poz and neg partners. This makes research funding harder to secure, and makes dispassionate investigation and discussion difficult.
-
You are at much lower risk for contracting HIV if you top exclusively, but it is none the less possible. The lowest risk is, of course, topping a negative bottom. The next, and nearly as low risk, is topping a poz guy who is on effective antiviral treatment and has a consistently undetectable viral load. These two lower risk situations presume that you can trust the men in question. You remain at whatever the relative risk would be for all the rest of the STIs. If you are committed to marrying your fiancee and are equally committed to pursuing barrier-free sex (whether with men or women), you must be willing to accept the consequences of bringing an STI home and possibly infecting your partner. I do not advise trying to conduct a secret life. The duplicity necessitated by doing so corrodes all the relationships you have, most especially those which are emotionally close and/or physically intimate. With regard to your fiancee, you'd be better off having a frank and honest discussion and negotiate the ground rules for your future together. If she can't deal with your need for sex with men at all, your relationship will have huge handicaps going forward. She ay be able to accept it on condition that she doesn't know about it, that it doesn't intrude on your lives together. She may accept it but only if you promise to use safer sex practices (which will put you in a bind yet again). Whatever her position on your extra-marital needs, getting everything laid out and settled before you're married is absolutely the best course for both of you.
-
Where did you get (or give) your last load?
RedPhillip replied to rawTOP's topic in General Discussion
Last Sunday morning this guy I've been seeing fucked me twice in pretty quick succession, seeded me deep each time. Kept his DNA in me all day. Seems like I've been making up for the past couple years of rarely bottoming ;-) On the other hand I haven't loaded up a buddy in a while and miss leaving cum in a hole. -
I'm not sure where you life, Poz.Guy, but laws governing age of consent in the United States are set at the state level, not federal. Most states in the USA have age of consent at 16 (the case in Connecticut where I live). A few miles from me, in New York State, age of consent is 17. In Massachusetts, even closer to me, age of consent is either 16 or 18, depending on which statute is followed. (The situation in MA is unusual in that there are two different laws for age of consent. The 18 age is part of older law that wasn't formally repealed when the newer, lower age of 16 was legislated. The 18 age remains on the books and could be used to prosecute someone, when it would probably be thrown out because of the newer law.) A handful of states have age of consent at 18, and one state (Arkansas, I believe) has age of consent at 14. I believe there are also states that have different age of consent laws for heterosexual and homosexual sex (the age for homo sex is invariably older).
