Undetectable

[Guest diapbttmboi]

I've taken plenty of loads but never from a guy I knew was poz. Next weekend I'm spending the whole day with a top who is poz undetectable. I'll be taking load after load during the day. What's my risk? Is it really high?

Not gonna change my mind, just curious.

[Guest JizzDumpWI]

In part how long he has been undetectable a factor since "undetectable" is a blood measure (as a rule). But the longer one remains undetectable the less active virus is likely to be in their semen. Most reports suggest one is about as safe with a poz undetectable guy bare as a guy with a condom.

[GermanFucker]

It's impossible to accurately access the risk, as a number of factors can play into it. The best estimate in my opinion is:

About as low as safer sex using condoms. I.e. while accidents can happen (the top could just have unknowingly gotten syphillis which causes a spike in his viral load), but are very rare. Under normal circumstances, i.e. if the top has been undetectable for quite some time, no drug binges (forgetting to take his meds) and other STDs, the risk is so very low that you shouldn't worry about it.

[genericuser]

While I am HIV+, I always laugh at the ignorance of people who believe that random hookups with someone who CLAIMS to be undetectable is low-risk. I guess you must believe that "No one would lie on the Internet" because you're trusting someone to be honest who you don't know, whose medical history you are unaware of and who may or may not be currently on medication.

Let's be honest, everyone knows that "Undetectable" is what countless guys who are HIV+ and everyone who is HIV- but barebacks WANTS to hear.

- Many HIV+ guys are quite thorough in making sure that a potential sexual partner who is also HIV+ is undetectable because they find it important to avoid contracting another strain of HIV.

- And guys who are HIV- have read a few of the many news reports on the various studies that show HIV virus is harder to spread if the virus is undetectable (note there are also studies that contradict this notion).

Therefore it is just easier for many people to claim they are undetectable in order to have the largest possible number of potential sexual choices.

By the way, NONE of the studies that have shown that it is difficult for an undetectable viral load from an HIV+ man to transmit the virus to a HIV- man; NONE of them take into account the inclusion of narcotics (chems, pnp, parTying) and the impact that such elements have on the immune systems of both the HIV+ and HIV- individuals.

What I am trying to say is either have the courage to be honest with yourself that you are essentially bugchasing or put a condom on because if you're worried about contracting HIV you really shouldn't be barebacking.

[fuckyouraw777]

On the other hand, I think fucking with a known person who is definitely on meds and whose blood work shows undetectable is, on balance of probabilities, safer than someone whose blood work shows detectable (for whatever reason). Fucking guys who don't have any STIs, or whatever the current politically correct term is, then obviously you're not going to get any known STIs from them, condom wearing or not. If you do get "something" then you're the unlucky person/couple/sex partners who happened to get something unknown. I remember an older friend of mine who lived pre-AIDS days commented that condoms were for straight people to stop pregnancies and when he was younger men who had sex with me didn't bother using them (but did "pretend" that they got the clap from a female prostitute if they did catch it - heh).

I don't believe there is an HIV+ person who cannot pass on the virus given sufficient determination. However under normal circumstances -- both your immune systems are healthy (in as afar as they can be healthy), there's no other STIs and the HIV is undetectable, it's probably "safer" to have sex with an undectable person than a person who is HIV+ and detectable but not completely "safe". Even with condoms it's not completely "safe" (they do break and such) and the only "safe sex" in my opinion is "no sex at all". However, that's not defining sex - celibacy isn't a natural state of affairs no matter what the various religions (and it's not just the Christians) might claim.

Really, it's the original poster's decision and the original poster will have to way up the pros and cons of what the original poster proposes to do. In my opinion, it's probably a level of "safer" if neither of you have other STis or a cold/flu (or whatever) and you don't go out of your way to deliberately damage any of your bodies' linings (by toothbrushing or doing even more kinky stuff). Common sense says to me that a water based lube without spermicides generously applied is less likely to damage either parties' mucous membranes and provide less chance for the exchange of fluids into your actual bloodstream - again if the virus doesn't get into the blood stream there's one less method of the virus actually taking hold. If I understand the literature enough, though, I'm not sure it needs to actually get into the blood stream but common sense, again, says that if it doesn't get a chance to infect you by one less method, then it has a lesser but not necessarily zero chance of taking hold.

[wood]

I've taken plenty of loads but never from a guy I knew was poz. Next weekend I'm spending the whole day with a top who is poz undetectable. I'll be taking load after load during the day. What's my risk? Is it really high?

Not gonna change my mind, just curious.

Its not a no risk activity, but its in theory a lower risk than taking random loads without knowing a status.

the big if here is that "undetectable" means that at his last check up his VL in his blood was undetectable. IIRC that means under 50 copies/ml. Viral levels do vary in seman from blood, and will vary based on the persons current health, and how strict they are about the ARV regime.

[bearbandit]

Remember that the scale for logging viral load is logarithmic, hence 2x1m is 20 and 3x10 is 30. Remember too that "undetectable" means how expensive is your VL analyser? I've seen the barrier for undetectable go from 500, to 400, to 250, to 100, to 50 (note that the highest of those numbers is only double the smallest). My hospital has changed labs - it outsources certain labwork - and undetectable is now 70 as opposed to 50. When you get down to such small numbers you're essentially talking about the annual angels's pinhead ball.

[wood]

Remember that the scale for logging viral load is logarithmic, hence 2x1m is 20 and 3x10 is 30. Remember too that "undetectable" means how expensive is your VL analyser? I've seen the barrier for undetectable go from 500, to 400, to 250, to 100, to 50 (note that the highest of those numbers is only double the smallest). My hospital has changed labs - it outsources certain labwork - and undetectable is now 70 as opposed to 50. When you get down to such small numbers you're essentially talking about the annual angels's pinhead ball.

This is good info, some labs actually mean zero now, while others may still have older equipment which could mean 100 or more. In a case of direct exposure that does make a big difference.