I was decieved. Now what? Legal action?

[chaser]

Taku get down off the cross!

[taku]

Taku get down off the cross!

You need the wood?

[chaser]

no but someone else might and you sure have been on it for a while now!!!

[rawTOP]

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.

The only controversy over the paper is by "Condom Nazis" who insist it can't be true - much like Fox News insisted Romney would win. Theirs is an opinion that's not based in fact and evidence. The Swiss Statement is based on real-world data. The Swiss Researchers could not find evidence of infection by people who were consistently undetectable, no STDs, etc.

That said there were limits to the statement and one of them was that they only researched straight couples. I think it's practically criminal that no one has done a similar study of gay men given that we still bear much of the brunt of HIV/AIDS.

If there's no statistically significant chance of infection, then something is "safe". Beyond that you're talking random acts of weirdness. You could get hit by a bus when you cross the street next time. That doesn't make it generally unsafe to cross the street.

The point is we've all been told that wearing a condom is the benchmark for what's considered "safe". Being a bareback top nearly reaches the standard set by safe sex bottoms. Being a bareback with a poz bottom who's on meds definitely meets that standard.

People encounter risk every day in life and they think nothing of it. The only reason you're freaking out is because you've drunk the KoolAid given to you by puritanical types who want us to see sex as "dirty" rather than natural and instinctual.

[taku]

Not that I don't respect you (I do), but you don't sound like a trained scientist. At least not in human related one.

That study has been already referenced in many research papers and not all were positive about its soundness. Have you checked pubmed? Scientists are very skeptical people and we barely call something simply safe.

You brought the car and street analogy. You are right. We still walk and drive in the streets. Why? Because there are bunch of rules and common courtesy. If there is no rules, the cars must have been banned or people will not walk on the streets.

You also got one more thing right. I like Koolaid and have no intentiom to stop drinking it. It is delicious. Also I have no problem with enjoyable sex with or without a condom. I just want to know what I am doing based on all available information and my state happened to project my right by the law.

Edited November 26, 2012 by taku

[rawTOP]

Not that I don't respect you (I do), but you don't sound like a trained scientist. At least not in human related one.

That study has been already referenced in many research papers and not all were positive about its soundness. Have you checked pubmed? Scientists are very skeptical people and we barely call something simply safe.

AFAIK, none of the denialists have shown anywhere near the level of infections to defeat the main point of the Swiss Statement. Saying "well, there's one over here..." doesn't disprove the general concept. Everything in life has risk - the thing you need to get out of the Swiss Statement is that the level of risk of having sex with a poz guy who's on meds is about the same as most other things you don't think twice about. Poz guys really can say "yes" when you ask them "are you safe?" - because they are - probably even more so than a neg guy who hasn't been tested in a while who could have a high viral load.

You remind me of the guys who will have safe sex with 500 guys and never ask about the other guy's status (because a condom was used), then they freak out when they have one incident of unprotected sex. Then they get tested, find out they're poz, and blame it on the unprotected sex when those 500 guys they had "safe sex" with were the equivalent of 25 to 50 incidents of unprotected sex. So it's 25 to 50 times more likely that they got pozzed while having safe sex - yet they blame the one incident of unprotected sex for their conversion.

And just so you know, I'm a "PhD dropout" in Sociology - did most of the coursework before deciding I wanted to do other things with my life. I've taught stats & research methods on the college level and was rather good at it... I also worked for some rather incredible social scientists. One of which has gone onto be the President of a major university. Bottom line I understand scientific principles and can read stats. But I don't sound like a scientist because I was also taught how to accurately distill stats into words anyone can understand.

[BHPig]

Taku - you are one sad man. I feel sorry for this guy - it was his misfortune to have slept with you.

[Guest Matias47]

So, reading cold, hard scientific papers is your job -- you know more than most people, yet you freaked out about the scratches on your hand because you gave him a hand job. What happened to your scientific knowledge?

I've read the Swiss study and many others as well. The main point of controversy does not come from evidence that they did anything incorrectly, or that their conclusions were wrong, but that by publishing the paper they might encourage unsafe behavior.

You say that you're against HIV criminalization laws, but you're willing to use them. Ah, hypocrisy, thy name is whiney-boy.

However, I do think some good can come out of this situation -- To everybody on this board and all of your friends -- DISCLOSE your status. Do you really want someone like this to be able to possibly put you in jail? Hell, I think this shows we should get signed agreements before lubing up.

Now, all that said, I said in a previous post that whiney-boy should be slapped into next week. I still feel that way, but his partner in this situation, let's call him, "dumb ass," deserves some bitch-slapping as well. Yes, the question was vague, but I think whiney-boy is absolutely right when he says that most of us would understand that the "safe" question is asking HIV status and dumb ass was equivocating.

What we have here is failure to communicate.

Or, if you will, a case of the irresistible douche meeting the immovable scum bag.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Matias47

[taku]

You don't need to explain me how to read statistics. I have nothing better to do in my life and missed the chance to drop off my PhD course.

No one denies that HAART lower the infection rate significantly. But does that mean having sex with poz bottom is "safe"? I doubt any level-headed scientist answer that without a hesitation. You can also find many papers about the same question on Pudmed or other citation search engines. As you must know, that Swiss cohort study was assumed three things: 1) adherence to the meds, 2) VL has been stabilized and undetectable at least last six months 3) no existence of other STDs. Ok, I found HIV meds in his house. But does that assure any of this? I gave him a chance to explain this before and after sex and he did not give me information.

So, I ran to ER yesterday and got PEP. I had to talk with 2 MDs and a nurse there and described what happened. Guess how many of them cited "Swiss Statement" and told me "He was safe" so I did not need the expensive and even aggressive post exposure treatment? None. In clinic, a risk is a risk.

If you decide not to bother to ask your partner's status, or to still do with him whatever his VL is, it's your choice. I don't judge. I agree your chance of conversion is statistically low. But I want to gather all possible information before I make my own decision. If he was honest, I should have asked him his VL and discuss. At this point, all I got was his blunt text saying he was undetectable. What ground should I trust him on? It's funny anyone but me in this site seems like knowing him better than I do.

Edited November 26, 2012 by taku

[taku]

Matias47/ I agree most of thing say here.

I sounded dumb in a sense. But it was even before 24 hours of the incidence and it was my first time of this kind of deception.

Don't you think it's kind dramatic to find someone's HIV meds right after your fuck? Let me enjoy my drama.

I also agree I am hypocrite. But I am aware of it and don't sugarcoat it. I'd happily be an opportunist to screw a jerk who messed with me.

" a case of the irresistible douche meeting the immovable scum bag" I kind of like that. I may use that for my wedding card.

Thanks for your comment.

Edited November 26, 2012 by taku

[rawTOP]

No one denies that HAART lower the infection rate significantly. But does that mean having sex with poz bottom is "safe"? I doubt any level-headed scientist answer that without a hesitation.

They would hesitate for one of two reasons. 1) There is no such thing as safe anal sex - only "safer sex". 2) They haven't read up on the literature. Most doctors have not read the critical per-incident risk studies and hence can't intelligently tell you whether a pill can be as effective as a condom.

Taku - Do not reply to this thread again. If you do I will ban you (temporarily). You're not really listening to people - you're just being argumentative and pig headed. I realize a lot of that has to do with fear - but it's your unwillingness to face that fear that bothers me. You need go away and just think... Plus - I really don't like you. I sincerely distrust anyone who would consider legal action in the situation you describe. Based on that - you're just not a nice person. So basically be a nicer person or go away.

[taku]

Go ban me. I am pretty sure lots of people want that too.

Sorry to see your lack of acceptance range. I expected more than that from a site talking about anonymous sex and STD collecting.

And, probably you don't want to know, I still consider the legal action. Maybe even a civil claim.

It may help this jerk suffered and may get him pay my medical fee for PEP; probably partially because I am too nice to ask him to pay all when I admit my own mistake.

It was good to talk with you. I am not sarcastic here.

[Guest]

Up until you ask him point blank if he's HIV + he has not committed a crime. He is also not required to offer up that information either. Any good lawyer could argue all you asked is if he was safe. Safe could mean a variety of things. Since you were also not infected, the burden of proof would be placed on you to prove that the bareback sex actually happened.

Based on everything you said, I don't see anything more happening then the guy getting a restraining order against you.

Also, you fully disclose you understand the dangers of unprotected sex with others. If his defense attorney saw that, they would rake you through the coals with it. If you don't want to freak out and embrace becoming POZ, then don't BB with anyone. Ever.

[rawTOP]

Taku's been banned for 3 months. Guys like him are just creepy...

[Guest Matias47]

Up until you ask him point blank if he's HIV + he has not committed a crime. He is also not required to offer up that information either.

Actually, in most cases, that's incorrect. We don't know what state the whiner is in we can't say specifically, however if he was in, say, Ohio, Iowa, New Jersey or quite a few others with strict statutes, then the full responsibility falls on the POZ person to disclose before any contact, even kissing takes place. They do not require any questions be asked by the other party. Also, there have been convictions in "he said, he said," cases.

Any good attorney could tell you that.