I was decieved. Now what? Legal action?

[AlwaysOpen]

I hope with the Truvada PEP kit you also got a condom, and will be responsible for covering your cock if fucking will cause this much drama for you. Maybe I missed it ( and I am tired and going through a round of allergies/sinus, so I may well have -) but you talked enough with this guy before the bedroom to do dinner and socializing, and long before you walked into this guys house you had no idea of who he really was?ver hear of John Wayne Gacy?? You got lucky just getting scared from fucking a hole raw. If he was sketchy in the bedroom, I am willing to bet- especially if you honestly look back- that he was sketchy in other things you talked with him about. You now know one more thing- your cock thinks worse than you do, so don't let it do your decision making in the future

[taku]

Tightslider/ Thank you for your sympathy.

AlwaysOpen/ I cannot agree more with every sentence of yours. Also thank you.

[BttmReady]

Stay outta his refrigerator.

[taku]

Stay outta his refrigerator.

Don't worry. I am pretty sure I am banned from every bit of his turf already.

[curiouspuppy429]

Of course you shouldn't pursue legal action. To legally compell someone to tell you something before you willingly have sex with them - sex you know to be risky in a situation you know to be risky is completely wrong. You put yourself in a risky situation and while it's too bad he wasn't more gracious and up front about it when you asked he answered that he thought he was safe and there is evidence that undetectible guys are pretty safe, so he didnt even really lie to you.

You have every right to be a little mad at him and regret it but suck it up and deal with the consequences of your decisions and the risks you knowingly took. Besides, what are you going to do - go to trial and tell a courtroom full of straight people the details of what you did? You had scratches? Were he negative you'd have been putting him at risk, so your moral high ground is shaky at best.

[Scottyrim]

Firstly I am sorry for what you are going through.The fear the guilt and the anger are all natural reactions .

I have to say your honest answers do not make you a saint.You firstly suggested. he was lying yet you went through with it.While looking through his cabinet you find medicine,mainly because you are suspicious.Then you leave freaked without a goodbye and wonder why he is not co operative ?To nail the coffin you suggest you might sue him.

No you have not acted like a saint .You have had a very human response,but so has heFear drove you away.Fear probably drove him not to tell you.

Having been as scared as you in this situation I totally get what you did.Hell I can see a time when I did the same.You will be safe.What you describe is pretty low risk.But to sue him why.At the end of the day why did you go through with it if you had concerns.Because he said what you wanted to hear?

The chances of having already had some sort of sex with someone HIV would be high

Good luck hope you're well.

[NiceHard1]

I believe that the term "are you safe" to mean "do you use condoms"

I know that some people use this as a euphemism for "are you HIV negative" but I find this to be almost as derogatory to poz guys as "are you clean".

He's also probably not lying about having been tested in the past 3 months. Most poz guys get tested much more often than negative guys, to monitor their viral load and CD4. I go about every 3 or 4 months myself.

As others have noted, you were probably in a much more low risk situation with this guy than with a random guy who thought he was negative, but was really untested for a year, unknowingly poz, and with a very high transmittable viral load.

I often suggest to guys who want to stay neg and bareback that they ironically might want to stick with the known quantity of guys who are undetectable on meds as their HIV prevention strategy

[JamesL100]

Yes you are a whiny person and the sort I have learned to avoid in bed. If he had been negative, honest, with all the hard copy results you demand I think the bareback guilt would still have got to you and you would be looking for other reasons to blame him. eg oh my god his bedsheets hadn't been washed with a laundry receipt so should I sue in case I picked up crabs from this guy's last visitor? I must see his cleaning rota in case anyone might have left a germ in the shower or on the toilet seat.

I've been told by clinics to disclose a result for minor STDs with guys I slept with safely and I've had this reaction from some guys, usually blaming me that they might have brought something home to their wife/boyfriend who they never informed me of. I can't undo the past but I make sure I learn for the future and as I say I avoid these guys as the hassle is too much for me to deal with.

[taku]

curiouspuppy429/ You got me right. I should not put the legal action thing on the title. That was not the point. I myself also am against criminalization of HIV status revelation at large but it's a personal case and my reaction was not 100% rational. I just wanted to remind him how serious it is and bring him back from avoidance. I still have no problem to described what I did in front of full of straight people at a courtroom though. The law still define what he did as a crime and I have no problem to use it if I need to.

Scottyrim/ My description was not correct. When I said I "dressed up and ran away" it was figurative. I was shocked but wanted him to be honest. So I stayed there quite a bit (about 10 min) and brought him to the living room in clothes and talked with him about the safety. I was not bold enough to confront him at the spot, but slightly pushed him to speak from his side. He did not. So to say, I don't think I was that rude in that sense. Obviously he did not want to talk about it and was irritated by it (me?) though.

NiceHard1/ Thanks for the words. However, I don't agree with you that "Are you safe?" is a derogatory or degrading as "Are you clean?" question. I understand the problem with "clean" thing. But safety is a matter of probability. It's more neutral and objective. Even though the chance is low (I have read most of related papers myself, not the news paper articles), still there is a chance and it is not zero. Also, I understand what you are saying about the test intervals. But in the light of the disclosure law, will he be justified? I made two questions, which are not perfectly clearly but also clearly enough for most people. I am pretty sure I have a case if I push it.

I am not ignorant about the issue and understand the irony of the partner's HIV status and BB safety. However, I wanted to make my decision based on the open information. If he is poz, he should let me know what his VL is now, instead avoiding the issue and saying "Leave me alone." I wanted him to be honest as I was. I believe it's a fair game. Maybe naive, but still fair. I believe you are not saying he has a right to avoid this issue and I have nothing but to be "cautious" myself.

JamesL100/ If you find me whiny and avoid me, it's totally fine with me. I never pretend to be someone I am not and if he was smart enough, he saw my whininess already through the two meetings (you probably noticed I am not laconic in person over the screen). In this case, he did not care as much as you do and decided to go for it. So in short, this is not your business. Also about the crabs, if I have an enough reason to believe I got it from a specific place, I will ask of course. Not only for me but for other. I once called Hyatt where I stayed for that issue. In the same sense, I don't see no problem to call someone I slept with if he might have crabs in his bed. There is no reason to avoid that kind of "accusation." Not everyone's skin is thin as yours and avoidy about any kind of responsibility.

Anyway thank you for your words, and I agree with you about one thing; I wish I don't want to meet people like the guy who deceived me or you who are so sympathetic with him. Let's not.

Edited November 26, 2012 by taku

[rawTOP]

I'll just add my two cents... When he answered "yes" to "are you safe" he was telling the truth. You saw the meds - that means he's on meds, and probably undetectable or close to it. Google "Swiss Statement" and you'll see it's pretty much accepted scientific fact that it's nearly impossible for a undetectable person to transmit HIV (with certain caveats). On top of that you were the top. Being a bareback top is nearly as safe as being a safe sex bottom. I've literally fucked hundreds of guys bareback - of all HIV statuses including poz and NOT on meds - I don't have immunity - and I'm still neg.

So you were not deceived. The sex you had meets the modern definition of "safe sex". Your over-reaction is just sad... Your fear and knee jerk reaction to criminalize a guy for being poz is just fuckin' scary... Educate yourself...

[taku]

I'll just add my two cents... When he answered "yes" to "are you safe" he was telling the truth. You saw the meds - that means he's on meds, and probably undetectable or close to it. Google "Swiss Statement" and you'll see it's pretty much accepted scientific fact that it's nearly impossible for a undetectable person to transmit HIV (with certain caveats). On top of that you were the top. Being a bareback top is nearly as safe as being a safe sex bottom. I've literally fucked hundreds of guys bareback - of all HIV statuses including poz and NOT on meds - I don't have immunity - and I'm still neg.

So you were not deceived. The sex you had meets the modern definition of "safe sex". Your over-reaction is just sad... Your fear and knee jerk reaction to criminalize a guy for being poz is just fuckin' scary... Educate yourself...

I know the paper and read it even before you posted it here. Not the news paper article. The real article. You must also know that paper was and is still in controversy. In science world, one "Revolutionary" paper does not change the view of the whole field. It barely happens. A bottom on meds is safe? No. The chance that they are not infecting other people is statistically significant, but that does not mean just 'safe'. Scientists' term is different from laymen's and I know that. Also, how do I know he was on meds? That study is based on the patient's adherence to the meds. If he sometimes skip the pills, which happens often in real life, the story turns into a totally different level. To get this information, I need to talk with this guy, but he is refusing to talk. Asking his VL is too much? When he was not very honest with me from the first, how can I trust him to say "I am undetectable" or "My VL is XX copies/mL"? No hard feeling needs to get involved. I can be happy to see the hard copy of his test results without a wincing. Once again, only his right not to reveal is important and not my right to know what I was exposed?

I have no problem with "educating myself" part. I know probably more than most people here. Reading hard and cold science papers is my job and I read my portion. However, still it does not change the fact that he led me to wrong conclusion by vague information; in 'common sense,' which you may have forgotten because you spent too much time here (as a site owner), those two questions are considered to be related to your HIV status and I believe I tried my part.

Over-reacting? Maybe, probably. However, as you can see, that's because I am not a regular random barebacker and when it happens for the first time, it's a shock to some people. Once again, if he were honest with me from the first, I was ready to be reasonable with him about our sex. I understand his infection probability is significantly low. The problem is the notice came too late.

Besides that, I appreciate your effort as a site owner/organizer. Thank you.

Edited November 26, 2012 by taku

[Neg20yrold]

Sorry, but I've always thought of it as if you're the one wanting safe sex then you should be the one who provides the condom. Not only were you the fucker, you're the one wanting safe sex (regardless of whether the bottom lied about being safe or whatever) - if you had any doubts, it was down to you to wear a condom.

Don't blame the bottom for something that YOU could have prevented. Seriously, do people not realise that safe sex is a two way thing.

[bberik]

As soon as you said yes to fucking without a condom you were at risk. There is no such thing as safe sex without a condom. A person can carry the virus since the last test he had. So the chances of getting hiv from a neg person is bigger than from a person on meds. If an undet gets the virus since his last test, at least he's on meds already. A socalled neg isn't.

[taku]

Sorry, but I've always thought of it as if you're the one wanting safe sex then you should be the one who provides the condom. Not only were you the fucker, you're the one wanting safe sex (regardless of whether the bottom lied about being safe or whatever) - if you had any doubts, it was down to you to wear a condom.

Don't blame the bottom for something that YOU could have prevented. Seriously, do people not realise that safe sex is a two way thing.

I admit that that was a problem caused by me.

BTW, my tone may be confusing as I am conflicted right now, but I am not blaming him. I want to talk with him and get more information available.

The avoidance and defesiveness of POZ guys is understandable but is not always justified.

That's my point.

Thank you for your comment.

Edited November 26, 2012 by taku

[taku]

As soon as you said yes to fucking without a condom you were at risk. There is no such thing as safe sex without a condom. A person can carry the virus since the last test he had. So the chances of getting hiv from a neg person is bigger than from a person on meds. If an undet gets the virus since his last test, at least he's on meds already. A socalled neg isn't.

I get your point and always knew that. If I heard his status from him, I have probably felt much better.

But when someone hides it, it makes you feel like he's hiding more on his back. That's what I feel.

If he was open and telling me how well he's taking meds and what his VL is, I would buy that. But he was not.

Edited November 26, 2012 by taku