Scottyrim Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 So I have read some reports that if you sleep with a nondetectable guy and bb the chances of getting HIv are slim and in fact in some ways you are safer sleeping with a nondetectable guy than one who says they think they are neg. How true do you think this is? Do you think there is a danger or not? Do you believe it is very risky behaviour or as risky as sleeping with anyone bb ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators rawTOP Posted October 20, 2012 Administrators Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 I believe it. Take a look through the section on HIV & sexual health... I'm actually going to move this thread over there now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GermanFucker Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 So I have read some reports that if you sleep with a nondetectable guy and bb the chances of getting HIv are slim and in fact in some ways you are safer sleeping with a nondetectable guy than one who says they think they are neg. How true do you think this is? By now it's not so much a question of belief anymore, there is considerable data supporting this view. Studies on the subject have to be taken with a grain of salt (like the one done in Switzerland), as they mostly deal with monogamous heterosexual couples, but the main points are valid nonetheless: Someone who (a) has been undetectable for quite some time, ( adheres to his therapy regimen, © doesn't do too many drugs (blackouts, forgetting to take meds or check up on other STDs) and (d) watches out for other STDs in general poses a very low risk. Do you think there is a danger or not? There is always some risk, but in this case it is as low as other general life risks, e.g. getting hit by a car or a broken condom when having safer sex. Do you believe it is very risky behaviour or as risky as sleeping with anyone bb ? By far not as risky as sleeping bareback with just anyone (i.e. unknown status), the exact number would depend on the exact make-up of the group you use for comparison / as a reference point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerMilner Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 The CDC just released the information in August that a bottom on Anti Retro Virals cuts his risk of infecting another by 96%. Condoms are only 97% effective, so do the math. The risk to tops is less anyway. However, this new information is related to the viral load in blood, and not necesarily in semen. But I think they will find it is the same for all bodily fluids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GermanFucker Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 But I think they will find it is the same for all bodily fluids. It's not. Usually when one starts HAART, the viral load in the blood decreases much faster than e.g. in semen. Therefore the recommendation that one should be successfully on meds for some time before doing away with condoms. Condoms are only 97% effective, so do the math. That's because guys buy condoms too large for their dicks or store them improperly. If one knows how to use condoms, it's far closer to 100%. Its the same as for undetectable guys: You gotta do it right for it to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now