PrEP is a "chemical condom"

[timfreo]

Moderator's Note: Someone quite rightly pointed out that this discussion of whether or not PrEP can be called a "chemical condom" derailed another thread. It has been split off into it's own thread. 

Prep is a chemical condom. 

[BootmanLA]

19 hours ago, timfreo said:

Prep is a chemical condom. 

Not in any sense of those words as understood in English.

A condom is a physical barrier to prevent semen from being deposited inside the vagina or rectum of another person. It also can, with varying degrees of efficacy, prevent the transmission of a number of sexually-transmitted diseases.

PrEP is a medication designed to prevent one particular virus possibly contained in that semen from infecting the recipient, with no effect whatsoever on any other sexually transmissible infection.

Now, if what you're saying is "I'm determined to become HIV-positive and therefore reject anything that might stand in the way", rejecting both condoms and PrEP may make sense (such as it is) for you. But they are in no way, shape or form the same thing. 

[timfreo]

1 minute ago, BootmanLA said:

Not in any sense of those words as understood in English.

A condom is a physical barrier to prevent semen from being deposited inside the vagina or rectum of another person. It also can, with varying degrees of efficacy, prevent the transmission of a number of sexually-transmitted diseases.

PrEP is a medication designed to prevent one particular virus possibly contained in that semen from infecting the recipient, with no effect whatsoever on any other sexually transmissible infection.

Now, if what you're saying is "I'm determined to become HIV-positive and therefore reject anything that might stand in the way", rejecting both condoms and PrEP may make sense (such as it is) for you. But they are in no way, shape or form the same thing. 

What? Sounding like your knowledge of English is somewhat impaired. 

[BootmanLA]

Just now, timfreo said:

What? Sounding like your knowledge of English is somewhat impaired. 

My language skills are absolutely unimpaired. Your statement calling PrEP a "chemical condom" is factually wrong. In any other part of this site, I'd pass over it, but this is the HIV/AIDS & Sexual Health Forum, where accuracy matters a lot more. People who understand what a condom is, but who do not understand how PrEP works (and it's clear, based on posts confusing PrEP, PEP, and HAART, that quite a few people do not understand it), need to be educated as to the differences, not have them glossed over as "a chemical condom".

[timfreo]

 A condom is a barrier. That can be physical or chemical. My statement is linguistically correct. Your choice to object on language grounds is in error. 

So, please admit your mistake and apologise. Are you big enough to do that, or will you continue to use your tunnel vision to attack genuine responses on this site?

[BootmanLA]

9 minutes ago, timfreo said:

 A condom is a barrier. That can be physical or chemical. My statement is linguistically correct. Your choice to object on language grounds is in error. 

So, please admit your mistake and apologise. Are you big enough to do that, or will you continue to use your tunnel vision to attack genuine responses on this site?

By your definition, the thing that divides lanes on the center of the highway is a condom. It's a "barrier".

The fence we put up last weekend between us and our neighbor is a condom, by your definition. It, too, is a "barrier".

The treatment for termites we put down this spring around our house is, in your words, a condom. It is a "barrier" as well.

No, I'm not going to accept sophistry of that level, especially not in service of a non-answer to the question. The fact that you may have wanted to make your response, whatever it was supposed to mean, "cutesy" by redefining words out of any sense of their actual meaning doesn't obligate me to accept your efforts. 

In any event, my choice to object is not just linguistically; it's that in a forum specifically focused on sexual health, obscuring what you mean to say with breezily given, technically incorrect and easily misinterpreted commentary doesn't serve the purpose of answering the question while at the same time conveying misinformation about sexual health. 

It sounds to me like you're overly invested in your original flippant choice of words rather than explain what you actually meant to convey in your "genuine response" with more precise language. 

[timfreo]

My words were linguistically correct. You just can't handle it when you fuck up and can't apologise. 

Prep is a chemical condom. End of story. 

There is no flippancy involved. It's a simple 5 word statement in fact and language.

Now. Show every person on this site you have the fortitude to admit your error in attacking me. Come on. Man up. Say sorry. 

[BootmanLA]

13 hours ago, timfreo said:

My words were linguistically correct. You just can't handle it when you fuck up and can't apologise. 

Prep is a chemical condom. End of story. 

There is no flippancy involved. It's a simple 5 word statement in fact and language.

Now. Show every person on this site you have the fortitude to admit your error in attacking me. Come on. Man up. Say sorry. 

What was it that Jed Clampett used to say? "Pit - ee - ful."

But you're correct that it's a 5 word statement, and it does contain language, so I'll have to give you that much. You can count and recognize words, I'll admit that.

[drscorpio]

The problem with this argument, @timfreo, is your aren't defining what  "chemical condom" means (or "linguistically correct" for that matter).  PrEP whether you mean Truvada or Descovy is a chemical; I will grant you that. They are drugs that when taken by an HIV negative person prevent them contracting HIV (I am not going to argue effectiveness.  That is a separate issue).  So if by "chemical condom" you mean "chemical that prevents contracting HIV," then I guess you would be correct, but that is a pretty nonsensical definition. Taking PrEP doesn't dull the top or bottoms physical sensation during the fuck, nor does it prevent the load from being deposited. Since these are two of the main complaints barebackers have always made about condoms, PrEP fails to be a condom in fairly major ways.  So, I agree with @BootmanLA that your characterization of PrEP as a "chemical condom" in any sense other than Poz Fetishism (which doesn't belong in this area of the forum) is incorrect. 

[BootmanLA]

Technically, the logical term for the fallacy timfreo is committing here is the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

When you say All A is X, and all B is X, therefore B is A, you've committed that logical error.

All condoms are barriers; all PrEP is barriers; therefore PrEP is a condom.

Could just as easily be:

All elephants are mammals; all humans are mammals; therefore all humans are elephants.

[kinkysuBB]

You’re right, I guess. But is that a bad thing?

A physical condom is a physical barrier. The “chemical condom” allows for skin to skin contact, so feels better physically and, for me anyway, mentally. I still get precum and then a load in my ass. That load gets absorbed into me. I get all the man and none of the virus, which to me is something foreign and unwelcome.

What’s not to like?

For a chaser, sure, it’s a bit pointless.