Should I try BB?

[Guest cardoc49]

I think that there is a first time for everything. If you want it now more than you have in the past, or you're in a frame of mind that considers the possibility more seriously now, you may be ready. Just don't delude yourself. Go into with a factual understanding, and then make up your mind if the rewards outweigh the risks. You can even PrEP if you're so inclined.

I mean shit, you're on Breeding Zone. I'd say you're hungry for it.

Hi bottomcub85:

thanks a for your kind and clever post - its a great and caring piece of advice - and yes: I'd say it too: YOU ARE HUNGRY FOR IT:-)

[Rayne]

This doesn't really mean much. Most of the HIV blood test you'll get if you go to a doctor are regular antibody test that have about the same window period than oraquick does. It is true that you can order an RNA HIV test and that one has a two week period, but it's expensive and you have to ask explicitly. Some std clinics are doing RNA HIV tests by default, so he may want to try that.

I was referring to the RNA testing, so you basically expanded upon that lol. It meant something to mention it, since I was not entirely direct with it, mostly because I forgot what type of testing methods are used. From my knowledge, and in the link I posted, if you test positive with a standard test (basic otc method or otherwise), then they perform the RNA test (I'm assuming that's the confirmatory test my link mentioned). For what it's worth, you basically clarified some vague language

My two cents... If you've never barebacked before and you're not ready for the possibility of picking up an STD, namely HIV, you shouldn't bareback with this guy, or any guy for that matter. This advice is coming from someone who had barebacked for five years, both as a top and a bottom, and recently converted to poz.

I am looking at your situation similar to how I look at mine... I should have never started barebacking. Why? Because I was never mentally prepared for the possibility of getting HIV, though I wasn't willing to compromise on barebacking either. Now that I have HIV, I am kicking myself and beating myself up with regret.

While I am not going to judge anything you say, I will say that your view, poptronic, is definitely one that is biased. Then again, we're all biased; but my implication is that your recent pozzing may be skewing your response, for better or worse only time will tell. Nothing negative meant by the comment, just an observation to consider. I hate sounding condescending when I don't mean to be, so my apologies if it came off as such.

However, considering what you've said, we should also consider your reaction to this in a different light. I'll use my motorcycle example, since it's a fairly good one (in my opinion): if I were to crash, and I managed a mangled leg to the point of amputation, should I beat myself up in spite of the accident, or try to learn a lesson from it? I could be hard on myself for taking the risk, but I could learn a lesson from how I managed the risks by the safety precautions I took to prevent further injuries, and so. The lesson I learn is subject to my interpretation of the odds regarding my accident; I'm much more likely to be in any accident on a motorcycle, but even just walking down a walkway next to a main road subjects me to an accident with a vehicle (albeit a minor chance). We take risks every day, with every decision we make; what many forget to think about is whether we find these risks worth taking at the time we make our decisions. Yes, bareback sex is very risky, and it can very well and up in a lifelong change to your lifestyle, and compromise your health quite drastically; however, is the risk worth the pleasure we obtain from it? Looking at it from the abstract point of view, are the risks of serious injury worth leaving your home for a gallon of milk? Naturally, every one of us needs to consider the risks involved with sex, but we need to make decisions based on whether we feel the risk is worth it, instead of basing our decisions on some sort of fear. It should also be noted that while, in the short term, risky sex may cause unwanted side effects, over the long term, it will actually help increase the immune system due to the constant risk of infections. In the long term, safe sex and monogamy are ultimately bad for all species; this is similar to the theory that sterilised environments creating a better breeding ground for superbugs/viruses because of the lack of practice our immune systems get on germs. Again, just another idea to consider, but it is not intended to create bias one way or the other.

Now, while many of us moved to bareback only after we started indulging in it, there many who have gone back to safe sex; this forum skews the observation of these facts, since this is a bareback forum, but it's true nonetheless. I have actually met a fair amount of people (of all sexual identities/genders) that have switched back to protected sex because they didn't think the risks were worth taking. While it's much less likely that the OP, Essence, is going to resort to safer sex down the road after a single bareback session, primarily due to the feeling and the thrill that he may enjoy, it's possible the fear/risk is not entirely going to be worth a repeat performance. We won't know his particular response until after he makes his decision, and follows through with it, granted he makes the decision to bareback. As mentioned by most of us, and in my previous link, tests only verify that the person was negative/positive as of a certain time frame, so there is definitely a risk involved. Even if the guy topping him pulls out, I believe there is still a risk of micro tears/abrasions that could potentially lead to him being susceptible to infection from precum; don't quote me on it, as this is simply recollection from past research, and I could be remembering incorrectly. Whatever the case, I'm glad that Essence is taking the time to consider the choice wisely, instead of making an impulsive decision. The fact that he's asking a group, who's combined knowledge on STDs is quite massive on the collective scale, means that this will likely be a choice made with careful thought (even if the decision is made up on the spot when the time comes).

In a round about way, I'm really just repeating myself, but I think it expansion was warranted on some level. Personally, I think he should take the plunge, and base the rest of his sexual encounters on the solo event; however, I don't consider my opinion to be the correct route, as it's just one route to consider. And, while I do value what you've said, poptronic, I think your view is a little too biased to merit neutrality; again, I mean that with no disrespect, in any way. It is valuable, nonetheless, as it does yield the value from someone in your position; and if it's taken over mine, or anyone else's for that matter, I think the outcome will be positive (no pun intended, but I can't think of any other way to word it safely... "safely" was a pun... I'll stop now lol).

[Guest cardoc49]

I was referring to the RNA testing, so you basically expanded upon that lol. It meant something to mention it, since I was not entirely direct with it, mostly because I forgot what type of testing methods are used. From my knowledge, and in the link I posted, if you test positive with a standard test (basic otc method or otherwise), then they perform the RNA test (I'm assuming that's the confirmatory test my link mentioned). For what it's worth, you basically clarified some vague language

While I am not going to judge anything you say, I will say that your view, poptronic, is definitely one that is biased. Then again, we're all biased; but my implication is that your recent pozzing may be skewing your response, for better or worse only time will tell. Nothing negative meant by the comment, just an observation to consider. I hate sounding condescending when I don't mean to be, so my apologies if it came off as such.

However, considering what you've said, we should also consider your reaction to this in a different light. I'll use my motorcycle example, since it's a fairly good one (in my opinion): if I were to crash, and I managed a mangled leg to the point of amputation, should I beat myself up in spite of the accident, or try to learn a lesson from it? I could be hard on myself for taking the risk, but I could learn a lesson from how I managed the risks by the safety precautions I took to prevent further injuries, and so. The lesson I learn is subject to my interpretation of the odds regarding my accident; I'm much more likely to be in any accident on a motorcycle, but even just walking down a walkway next to a main road subjects me to an accident with a vehicle (albeit a minor chance). We take risks every day, with every decision we make; what many forget to think about is whether we find these risks worth taking at the time we make our decisions. Yes, bareback sex is very risky, and it can very well and up in a lifelong change to your lifestyle, and compromise your health quite drastically; however, is the risk worth the pleasure we obtain from it? Looking at it from the abstract point of view, are the risks of serious injury worth leaving your home for a gallon of milk? Naturally, every one of us needs to consider the risks involved with sex, but we need to make decisions based on whether we feel the risk is worth it, instead of basing our decisions on some sort of fear. It should also be noted that while, in the short term, risky sex may cause unwanted side effects, over the long term, it will actually help increase the immune system due to the constant risk of infections. In the long term, safe sex and monogamy are ultimately bad for all species; this is similar to the theory that sterilised environments creating a better breeding ground for superbugs/viruses because of the lack of practice our immune systems get on germs. Again, just another idea to consider, but it is not intended to create bias one way or the other.

Now, while many of us moved to bareback only after we started indulging in it, there many who have gone back to safe sex; this forum skews the observation of these facts, since this is a bareback forum, but it's true nonetheless. I have actually met a fair amount of people (of all sexual identities/genders) that have switched back to protected sex because they didn't think the risks were worth taking. While it's much less likely that the OP, Essence, is going to resort to safer sex down the road after a single bareback session, primarily due to the feeling and the thrill that he may enjoy, it's possible the fear/risk is not entirely going to be worth a repeat performance. We won't know his particular response until after he makes his decision, and follows through with it, granted he makes the decision to bareback. As mentioned by most of us, and in my previous link, tests only verify that the person was negative/positive as of a certain time frame, so there is definitely a risk involved. Even if the guy topping him pulls out, I believe there is still a risk of micro tears/abrasions that could potentially lead to him being susceptible to infection from precum; don't quote me on it, as this is simply recollection from past research, and I could be remembering incorrectly. Whatever the case, I'm glad that Essence is taking the time to consider the choice wisely, instead of making an impulsive decision. The fact that he's asking a group, who's combined knowledge on STDs is quite massive on the collective scale, means that this will likely be a choice made with careful thought (even if the decision is made up on the spot when the time comes).

In a round about way, I'm really just repeating myself, but I think it expansion was warranted on some level. Personally, I think he should take the plunge, and base the rest of his sexual encounters on the solo event; however, I don't consider my opinion to be the correct route, as it's just one route to consider. And, while I do value what you've said, poptronic, I think your view is a little too biased to merit neutrality; again, I mean that with no disrespect, in any way. It is valuable, nonetheless, as it does yield the value from someone in your position; and if it's taken over mine, or anyone else's for that matter, I think the outcome will be positive (no pun intended, but I can't think of any other way to word it safely... "safely" was a pun... I'll stop now lol).

Rayne: You deserve the prize for the best post of the month - very much can be learned from it and from you, thanks for taking time and effort

xx

Carsten

[Rayne]

Rayne: You deserve the prize for the best post of the month - very much can be learned from it and from you, thanks for taking time and effort

xx

Carsten

Thank you, very much. I really do appreciate that. I'm sure there will be at least a few flaws in what I've said (I am human after all), but I think it can be useful when processed with a neutral mindset. It's difficult enough in any society to approach what any one person says with a neutral state of mind, so I always try to make sure I do not come off more one way than the other, especially considering my heavy biases pertaining to my personal ideologies and philosophies. I'm just glad my effort wasn't in vain for at least one person.

[Bttm2go]

Only you can decide. However, taking raw cock and loads is addicting. Once you go down that road it will be hard to turn back. Good luck and have fun.

[VersatileBreeder]

While I am not going to judge anything you say, I will say that your view, poptronic, is definitely one that is biased. Then again, we're all biased; but my implication is that your recent pozzing may be skewing your response, for better or worse only time will tell. Nothing negative meant by the comment, just an observation to consider. I hate sounding condescending when I don't mean to be, so my apologies if it came off as such.

However, considering what you've said, we should also consider your reaction to this in a different light. I'll use my motorcycle example, since it's a fairly good one (in my opinion): if I were to crash, and I managed a mangled leg to the point of amputation, should I beat myself up in spite of the accident, or try to learn a lesson from it? I could be hard on myself for taking the risk, but I could learn a lesson from how I managed the risks by the safety precautions I took to prevent further injuries, and so. The lesson I learn is subject to my interpretation of the odds regarding my accident; I'm much more likely to be in any accident on a motorcycle, but even just walking down a walkway next to a main road subjects me to an accident with a vehicle (albeit a minor chance). We take risks every day, with every decision we make; what many forget to think about is whether we find these risks worth taking at the time we make our decisions. Yes, bareback sex is very risky, and it can very well and up in a lifelong change to your lifestyle, and compromise your health quite drastically; however, is the risk worth the pleasure we obtain from it? Looking at it from the abstract point of view, are the risks of serious injury worth leaving your home for a gallon of milk? Naturally, every one of us needs to consider the risks involved with sex, but we need to make decisions based on whether we feel the risk is worth it, instead of basing our decisions on some sort of fear. It should also be noted that while, in the short term, risky sex may cause unwanted side effects, over the long term, it will actually help increase the immune system due to the constant risk of infections. In the long term, safe sex and monogamy are ultimately bad for all species; this is similar to the theory that sterilised environments creating a better breeding ground for superbugs/viruses because of the lack of practice our immune systems get on germs. Again, just another idea to consider, but it is not intended to create bias one way or the other.

Now, while many of us moved to bareback only after we started indulging in it, there many who have gone back to safe sex; this forum skews the observation of these facts, since this is a bareback forum, but it's true nonetheless. I have actually met a fair amount of people (of all sexual identities/genders) that have switched back to protected sex because they didn't think the risks were worth taking. While it's much less likely that the OP, Essence, is going to resort to safer sex down the road after a single bareback session, primarily due to the feeling and the thrill that he may enjoy, it's possible the fear/risk is not entirely going to be worth a repeat performance. We won't know his particular response until after he makes his decision, and follows through with it, granted he makes the decision to bareback. As mentioned by most of us, and in my previous link, tests only verify that the person was negative/positive as of a certain time frame, so there is definitely a risk involved. Even if the guy topping him pulls out, I believe there is still a risk of micro tears/abrasions that could potentially lead to him being susceptible to infection from precum; don't quote me on it, as this is simply recollection from past research, and I could be remembering incorrectly. Whatever the case, I'm glad that Essence is taking the time to consider the choice wisely, instead of making an impulsive decision. The fact that he's asking a group, who's combined knowledge on STDs is quite massive on the collective scale, means that this will likely be a choice made with careful thought (even if the decision is made up on the spot when the time comes).

In a round about way, I'm really just repeating myself, but I think it expansion was warranted on some level. Personally, I think he should take the plunge, and base the rest of his sexual encounters on the solo event; however, I don't consider my opinion to be the correct route, as it's just one route to consider. And, while I do value what you've said, poptronic, I think your view is a little too biased to merit neutrality; again, I mean that with no disrespect, in any way. It is valuable, nonetheless, as it does yield the value from someone in your position; and if it's taken over mine, or anyone else's for that matter, I think the outcome will be positive (no pun intended, but I can't think of any other way to word it safely... "safely" was a pun... I'll stop now lol).

Rayne, you made some good points here, but respectfully, I'm going to agree to disagree with a few of them.

Yes, the opinions I expressed are absolutely biased. But they are biased for exactly the same reason the OP, Essence, posted the original thread. He is neg and wants to bareback, but is afraid of the risks. I was in exactly the same boat five years ago and I chose to bareback, though I was unaccepting of the risks that go with it. I chose to bareback, but it created a constant aura of fear and conflict in my mind. If Essence wants to remain disease free and chooses to bareback, he will be in exactly the same boat. There is no way to safely bareback unless one goes on PrEP or is in a 100% monogamous relationship and even in those cases, there are still no guarantees. PrEP isn't perfect and a person who is thought to be staying monogamous can stray and bring HIV back to his unsuspecting partner.

As for the "everyone take risks everyday" argument, I've heard this one before but I don't buy it. Driving a car to work, a person has a risk of getting into a fatal crash, yes. But that is a necessary risk one has to take. If people didn't take the necessary risks to live their everyday lives, where would we be in the world? Barebacking is no different than skydiving, riding a crotch rocket at 120 mph, or doing dangerous drugs. Those things are not necessary risks to living everyday life. Those are dangerous behaviors that can lead to unwanted results.

If a man gets into a fatal car crash on his way to work, is anyone at his funeral going to say, "he really should NOT have been driving to work that morning." Or if someone gets sick from food poisoning eating at a restaurant, is anyone going to tell her that she should not have been eating out at a restaurant? No. But rather if someone is engaging in risky behaviors, like riding a crotch rocket very fast and dies, people are going to shake their heads at his funeral at how foolishly he died.

So I'm not trying to tell Essence that he should or should not bareback. What I am trying to do is paint a picture from my own personal experience as to what can happen to a person who does while trying to stay negative. We are all informed individuals, but sometimes just being informed is not enough. Essence knows bareback sex is a risk, but he can understand its implications better if he sees the experience through someone else's eyes who has suffered the consequences.

[Guest faggot hole]

Understand this. Once.you've taken raw cock it will be very, very difficult to go back to "the other way." That is another consideration you must make in coming to a decision.

[Rayne]

Rayne, you made some good points here, but respectfully, I'm going to agree to disagree with a few of them.

Yes, the opinions I expressed are absolutely biased. But they are biased for exactly the same reason the OP, Essence, posted the original thread. He is neg and wants to bareback, but is afraid of the risks. I was in exactly the same boat five years ago and I chose to bareback, though I was unaccepting of the risks that go with it. I chose to bareback, but it created a constant aura of fear and conflict in my mind. If Essence wants to remain disease free and chooses to bareback, he will be in exactly the same boat. There is no way to safely bareback unless one goes on PrEP or is in a 100% monogamous relationship and even in those cases, there are still no guarantees. PrEP isn't perfect and a person who is thought to be staying monogamous can stray and bring HIV back to his unsuspecting partner.

As for the "everyone take risks everyday" argument, I've heard this one before but I don't buy it. Driving a car to work, a person has a risk of getting into a fatal crash, yes. But that is a necessary risk one has to take. If people didn't take the necessary risks to live their everyday lives, where would we be in the world? Barebacking is no different than skydiving, riding a crotch rocket at 120 mph, or doing dangerous drugs. Those things are not necessary risks to living everyday life. Those are dangerous behaviors that can lead to unwanted results.

If a man gets into a fatal car crash on his way to work, is anyone at his funeral going to say, "he really should NOT have been driving to work that morning." Or if someone gets sick from food poisoning eating at a restaurant, is anyone going to tell her that she should not have been eating out at a restaurant? No. But rather if someone is engaging in risky behaviors, like riding a crotch rocket very fast and dies, people are going to shake their heads at his funeral at how foolishly he died.

So I'm not trying to tell Essence that he should or should not bareback. What I am trying to do is paint a picture from my own personal experience as to what can happen to a person who does while trying to stay negative. We are all informed individuals, but sometimes just being informed is not enough. Essence knows bareback sex is a risk, but he can understand its implications better if he sees the experience through someone else's eyes who has suffered the consequences.

I can see what you're getting at, and whether or not I agree with it doesn't matter; I was just trying to make it clear, to those who may not have noticed, that your opinion is biased due to you becoming poz when you weren't willing to accept the risks. My personal opinion is biased from the fact that I'm wiling to accept those risks. The elaborations are just extra lol.

Whether you agree with the way I phrase things, or what examples I may use, it really doesn't matter. Whether it's accurate or not, it gets my point across. The reason I find it more accurate than not, is because looking at it from your perspective makes the risk "worth it" on a relative scale. If someone takes excessive risk, it's their fault; but if they take "normal" risk, no one can blame them for taking that risk? To me, that's a poor double standard; to other people, it could be completely reasonable. As far as being informed goes, whether or not it's enough is somewhat irrelevant; it's how we use the information at hand to live our lives that is much more important. While you may think that your particular experience may be more relevant to his situation, because you ended up being poz, what about those who became poz and didn't have as much of a problem with it? Are those guys going to have as much relevance to Essence's situation, as they were once in the same boat?

I'm trying to be rhetorical because, whether you're trying to or not, you're coming off a bit strong. I may be as well, but until someone calls me out on it, I won't know. I'd just hate to see someone make a decision out of fear; and forgive me for saying this, but your view is riddled with fear. Just an observation, from one perspective, with all due respect (of course).

[Guest JizzDumpWI]

i don't see poptronic's posts as attempting to cause the OP a fear based response. He candidly shared his view and experience as a bi guy; and is presently grappling with what his recent conversion plays into his life view. Essence just starting out and perceiving himself as bi at the moment has something in common with poptronic. What I get from pop's posts is the completely valid statement that this might be Essence's future, and to encourage him to think about that.

That is well balanced by your posts Rayne that encourages us to live life more fully. None of us gets out alive, so what we do in between birth and death is defining. So you offer up the valid position to live life fully.

Bottom line of all this is that those of us who engage in raw sex, even being on PrEP; carries risk. Each needs to decide how much is enough for ourself; factoring personal goals and desires. Essence has a series of honest posts here he can use as he wishes. I think we've all given him information that will, we hope, help him work through his own struggle.

Like you Rayne, I accept that sex the way I like it carries an acceptable level of risk for me. PrEP helped that, but were it not an option I would still be taking raw cock and cum. Why I never pozzed is a mystery to me. I've had a much longer bare life without PrEP than with it. I've never had plans for a family though. I might have a different view if that was a factor in my future. Along the way I have picked up the popular STI's: had them treated...

But I know guys who converted on their first fuck. Guys who seem to have a constitution making them ripe for infection. Irrespective of virginity OP knows if he is quick to get flu when it is going around.

We all also know men here who have been living with HIV reasonably well, some very well. Some though, albeit very few, don't do well at all and for them it might as well be the early years of the AIDS crisis.

Thanks for reading my post.

JDW

[Rayne]

i don't see poptronic's posts as attempting to cause the OP a fear based response. He candidly shared his view and experience as a bi guy; and is presently grappling with what his recent conversion plays into his life view. Essence just starting out and perceiving himself as bi at the moment has something in common with poptronic. What I get from pop's posts is the completely valid statement that this might be Essence's future, and to encourage him to think about that.

You know... I feel a bit stupid for not noticing that lol. Looks like I need to remember the basics sometimes *facepalm*

That is well balanced by your posts Rayne that encourages us to live life more fully. None of us gets out alive, so what we do in between birth and death is defining. So you offer up the valid position to live life fully.

Glad I could help balance things out; just wish I didn't overlook some things right now lol. I look a bit of a twat right now to some hahaha. Oh well, you live and learn.

We all also know men here who have been living with HIV reasonably well, some very well. Some though, albeit very few, don't do well at all and for them it might as well be the early years of the AIDS crisis.

Thanks for reading my post.

JDW

This reminded me of my uncle, and a couple guys I've chatted with on a4a. There's a 20 year old guy I exchanged a few messages with, and he's undetectable right now, but he's seeming to have a fairly happy and healthy life. From what I've asked, and what he comes off as, he seems to be pretty good. Then again, I haven't met him just yet. But, on my uncle's end, I had the pleasure of witnessing his fuck flu over the holidays. But now, thanks to meds and a healthy dose of cannabis each day, you wouldn't expect him to be any different than before he converted (you wouldn't immediately assume he had very severe HIV either, his body is probably in better shape than ever before). He has met, and told me about, a fair amount of other poz guys he's met that didn't have such a great outcome, so I know it isn't as easy for everyone who gets it; that would be fairly naive.

I don't know if I made this point already, so forgive me if I'm repeating myself, but: we never know how life will be with one set of choices until we've made it. While some prefer to live in a fearful state, it's much more natural for them; and on the flip side, it's much more natural for me to be cold and calculating, taking things as they come. I just would hate to see someone make a decision that makes them question their choice down the road, wondering if they should have taken the alternative option. I'm not talking about regrets, where you wish you made that choice; I'm talking about that haunting question that makes you wonder if life would be any different, or just the same? Kind of like if you found out the person you let cut in line winning the lottery, and you wonder if you would have won if you didn't let them cut you. That kind of thought.

[Guest JizzDumpWI]

Rayne a twat you are NOT. And definitely NOT stupid... We need advocates to remind us to live perhaps more than cautionary tales. I love the lottery conundrum. Live or regret, which will bring us to happiness?

[Rayne]

I was being more facetious, and self-critical. Lol

I actually took the lottery metaphor from a news article I read years ago. That's actually happened, a fair amount of times; and while it may be a scratchers that one, and the next person was playing the Powerball, it makes the person wonder, "What if that was me?". There's also been a fair amount of winners who spend a few bucks on a casino's slot machine, and walk away with millions; yet, the person who was before them pumped in thousands just before this "lucky" winner took over the machine (fair game, as the previous player left legitimately). At what point do we just realise that what we get does have anything to do with what we deserve, what we worked hard for, or what we want? We just get what we get. It's a pretty shitty way to think, at least for most people, as it doesn't really align with most belief systems (from capitalism, to Christianity, to most any belief system you name). While it sucks, it explains a lot in a very simplistic way. Some of us, due to statistics and genetic build, will be infecting on our first poz load; some of us will NEVER get pozzed, even if we try for decades, fucking ourselves with a toilet brush until near death, and then take loads (a bit much, but you get the point); some of us will eventually get it, at some point, just because we can't hide from the statistical probability of catching it.

Fear can be rational, but acting out of fear isn't always entirely rational (though it can be). Unless we act rationally, fear will likely make our lives filled with regrets.

[Essence7]

Thank you for all who replied, it's given me a lot to consider and think about.

I'm not worried about getting addicted to bareback sex, I know it'll be hard to go back but I generally have a high level of self control and I wouldn't want to put myself in risky situations often,

But... I don't really want to put myself in risky situations at all. I know I get a little paranoid at safe sex and diseases, so I can't even imagine how I'd feel for 3 months if I did this. I'd be afraid until I knew for sure. So ultimately, I think I'll wait it out.

This is just difficult because It's something I think I should experience, and something I want to do, but alas the risk just isn't worth it for me. I'll have to wait and hopefully one day find the right person to do it with.

[Rayne]

Sounds like you're making the best choice for you. Personally, I hope you can come around to giving it a shot one day, whatever the circumstances you do it under (hopefully not forcefully, that would suck). You'll most likely enjoy it, but with your current state of paranoia... you'll probably freak out mid-orgasm lol. Sorry, but the image is too funny to not picture.

Hopefully staying safe works out for you in the long run, both STD wise and enjoyment. Some people like it, which I've never understood, but whatever. I've been nearly talked into safe sex because this guy actually liked condoms. I guess it's like a latex fetish or something. Maybe that area of kink would be more to your liking? Just a thought.

[fskn]

Essence7, please ask a doctor or clinic with a gay male client base about fourth-generation HIV antibody tests, which, though still antibody tests, have shorter window periods than the older versions in common use. Your doctor or lab technician will be surprised that you asked.

To be clear, you may also request a qualitative PCR RNA viral load test, which detects HIV, not antibodies, reducing the window period to a matter of days. Public health clinics with a progressive philosophy and a high-enough patient volume reduce the cost of this test by dividing and pooling blood samples from multiple patients. Only if the pool is positive are the individual samples that were set aside actually tested. Pooling samples in this way lengthens the window by a matter of days (few copies of HIV in a large pooled sample are harder to detect), but the effect is small.

I'm on PrEP, and a top, though I made the decision to bareback even before starting PrEP. I would not give up the pleasure or the connection made possible by bareback sex. If I were very worried about HIV or other STDs, I would have a frank discussion with my sexual partner(s). Instead of looking at printed test results -- easy to fake and likely to be HIV antibody test results only, in any case -- I would propose going to a clinic together for PCR viral load tests. In a situation where you know your sexual partner and have time to plan ahead, the time (and possible expense) will let you enjoy an incredible sexual experience, that will hopefully foster trust, reduce fear, and lead to many more experiences.

Edited March 14, 2014 by fskn