Internal Blast Posted January 4, 2014 Report Posted January 4, 2014 Say if a guy wants to practice HIV risk reduction by trying to get tops to use condoms what do you think is the best way to get a top to use a condom? And do you think using condoms most of the time, unless convinced otherwise in the heat of the moment is a form of risk reduction?
TigerMilner Posted January 4, 2014 Report Posted January 4, 2014 You are asking the wrong crowd here dude. This site is for and about men who love to have sex without condoms. Ask the best way to get a top to take one off or how to stealth breed a bottom and you'll get lots of answers and input. "Unless convinced otherwise in the heat of the moment..." shows there is hope for you. Of course it is risk reduction. So is not having sex. Neither one is much fun though.
BareBen Posted January 5, 2014 Report Posted January 5, 2014 Say if a guy wants to practice HIV risk reduction by trying to get tops to use condoms what do you think is the best way to get a top to use a condom? And do you think using condoms most of the time, unless convinced otherwise in the heat of the moment is a form of risk reduction? wait a minute what site is this? lol why in the hell would u want to get a top to use a condom???
Guest JizzDumpWI Posted January 5, 2014 Report Posted January 5, 2014 Reduce your risk by getting yourself on PrEP. More effective than condoms, and raw as nature intended. Next in line, or in addition, select poz guys on meds who have been undetectible viral load for a long time.
curiouspuppy429 Posted January 5, 2014 Report Posted January 5, 2014 Reduce your risk by getting yourself on PrEP. More effective than condoms, and raw as nature intended. Next in line, or in addition, select poz guys on meds who have been undetectible viral load for a long time. Bare with a poz undetectible guy is safer than sex with condoms?
Bttm2go Posted January 5, 2014 Report Posted January 5, 2014 It's your right to ask for a condom. If he doesn't want to use one, he can find someone else to fuck. This is a bareback site so you will not find too many takers here.
Guest JizzDumpWI Posted January 5, 2014 Report Posted January 5, 2014 Bare with a poz undetectible guy is safer than sex with condoms? No that was for PrEP. But poz undet is more predictable than neg guys who dont test.
Administrators rawTOP Posted January 5, 2014 Administrators Report Posted January 5, 2014 Bare with a poz undetectible guy is safer than sex with condoms? Yes. Period. I don't believe there are any documented cases of a poz guy with a consistently undetectable viral load and no other STDs making someone poz. There are plenty of documented cases of the virus being transmitted while wearing a condom - condoms fail 5 to 10% of the time.
bearbandit Posted January 5, 2014 Report Posted January 5, 2014 If a guy is undetectable, which at my hospital is reckoned at 70 copies per millilitre, then he's essentially shooting blanks. I know I must have pozzed some guys in the early eighties before we knew what we were up against, and as bad as I feel about that, there's nothing we can do to change that. We just didn't know. In the UK condoms are now reckoned to have prevented between 40% to 70% of potential infections ("what if" statistics are, by their nature, pretty vague) in the late eighties. On the other hand, you have someone like me, whose last viral load was zero, that's a number not a euphemism (I checked with three different professionals in the clinic the day they told me), a condom is going to protect you from the other STIs I tested negative for. The worst I could do would be to get you pregnant, but I guess you don't have the equipment for that. We're learning that Treatment as Protection (TasP) and Pre Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) are the new way forward. TasP relies on me taking my antivirals as prescribed and you trusting me when I say I do, while PrEP relies on you taking one pill a day. If a woman can take her daily pill to avoid pregnancy, surely you can take a daily pill to avoid HIV? Quite apart from being passion killers, condoms are unreliable - "official" statistics say their success rate is around 96%. In 1956 my mother decided she wanted a baby, while my father didn't. She took a sewing needle to the the condoms and here I am: a stealth baby. But returning from the rather icky topic of heterosexual condom (mis)use, does it not make more sense to rely on proven drugs than devices that are prone to failure? I'd agree that truvada isn't a perfect drug, but it's shown remarkable efficacy as a "proof of concept" drug. Similarly with TasP, the knowledge that I'm not infectious to others has made a huge difference to my well-being. Also of note is that integrase inhibitors, such as raltegravir (which I take) and dolutegravir (an ingredient in the four-in-one pill Stribild) seem to have the capability of getting HIV even in its hiding places: viral load in semen always seems to lag behind viral load on blood, but it looks like the integrase inhibitors are evening the score. Sorry to go on so much on the subject, but (a) it's a hobby horse in that I want to see fewer unwanted infections and ( quite apart from the joy on flesh to flesh sex, condoms are finally being proven not to be the best protection. Go get tested: if it's negative brilliant!, if it's positive hit the little fucker hard and fast.
buttboy2 Posted January 6, 2014 Report Posted January 6, 2014 thank you for an interesting and clarifying discussion. this is an interesting topics close to most of our hearts. bareback is the only true way to have sex but then no one wants to die from having an enjoyable sexual experience. by the sound of it, irrespective of your choice of protection, one should always be aware and practice prudence/caution. always good to hear about the changing face of the disease and medical advances in combatting the spread. thanks for sharing.
curiouspuppy429 Posted January 6, 2014 Report Posted January 6, 2014 Thank you. Good to know. The establishment PR and conventional wisdom out there hasn't kept up with the whole undetectible thing. So I should be looking to learn from poz guys who know they are poz and are therefore on meds? Seems so counter-intuitive, but guess it makes sense if the drugs are that effective now.
Administrators rawTOP Posted January 6, 2014 Administrators Report Posted January 6, 2014 Thank you. Good to know. The establishment PR and conventional wisdom out there hasn't kept up with the whole undetectible thing. So I should be looking to learn from poz guys who know they are poz and are therefore on meds? Seems so counter-intuitive, but guess it makes sense if the drugs are that effective now. And that's the sad part. The drugs have been this effective for 18 years now and the establishment PR is still refusing to believe the science.
bearbandit Posted January 6, 2014 Report Posted January 6, 2014 Thank you. Good to know. The establishment PR and conventional wisdom out there hasn't kept up with the whole undetectible thing. So I should be looking to learn from poz guys who know they are poz and are therefore on meds? Seems so counter-intuitive, but guess it makes sense if the drugs are that effective now. The medics read the papers, understand the science behind the drugs, but don't live with the results. We do. I have a friend who's now a health trainer - all his medical training he's done off his own bat - and frankly, I'd trust his take over that of my consultant any day. He started out as a personal trainer, become ill with HIV five years ago, and tells his doctors what to prescribe. A lot of the charity work I do is unravelling the confusion doctors cause in their patients' minds, presumably because "we wouldn't understand". One thing I'd take issue with is rawTOP's statement of 18 years - the protease inhibitors that were introduced then, as much of a breakthrough they were, were usually prescribed in harmful overdose and though still alive, thanks to the drugs, a number of us are living with the permanent side effects of those drugs. I'm afraid that the side effect issue is one we're going to have to live with for the foreseeable future as each new drug is brought to market, which is why it's so important to talk prescribed drugs with other PwHIVs...
wood Posted January 7, 2014 Report Posted January 7, 2014 And do you think using condoms most of the time, unless convinced otherwise in the heat of the moment is a form of risk reduction? This has been proven false. In fact over time unless your condom usage is 100% they have been shown to provide almost little value in stopping HIV. Simply put inconsistent usage is almost the same as no usage overtime, you are just delaying the inevitable. Now that doesnt mean everyone will become positive, its just that condoms have to be used consistantly to be effective. This is why I went on PrEP. its more effective, and easier for me to manage.
HardhatBB Posted March 24, 2014 Report Posted March 24, 2014 and some of us that bareback (and are at peace with the risk) wonder why this is such a debated issue.? I guess it takes time for a man to just accept it already. and just give in to your instinct and just fuck stop thinking too much
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