PReP avoiders

[Mcv69]

20 minutes ago, Kimberley said:

You know Emtricitabine/Tenofovirdisoproxil (prep) are 2 of the 3 basic meds to treat a hiv infection right?

Yes and what’s your point?? I don’t use prep because it was damaging my kidneys big time, I’m not against it there is other ways to practise safe sex without using Prep or condoms it’s called trust. 

[Kimberley]

17 minutes ago, Mcv69 said:

Yes and what’s your point?? I don’t use prep because it was damaging my kidneys big time, I’m not against it there is other ways to practise safe sex without using Prep or condoms it’s called trust. 

There is one thing i learned, you can't trust any guy on his word if it becomes to bareback sex.. back in the days i trusted quite a few men and then i ended up with 3 STD's. it's true that prep have reduce new HIV infections (here with 50-60%) but there are people that still get infected each year because they don't use prep. so it's really stupid to think you are safe, because ur not. barebacking without prep will result into poz eventually for most guys. just a matter of time you will get a toxic load in ur ass just because you trusted that guy on his word

[Mcv69]

Just now, Kimberley said:

There is one thing i learned, you can't trust any guy on his word if it becomes to bareback sex.. back in the days i trusted quite a few men and then i ended up with 3 STD's. it's true that prep have reduce new HIV infections (here with 50-60%) but there are people that still get infected each year because they don't use prep. so it's really stupid to think you are safe, because ur not. barebacking without prep will result into poz eventually for most guys. just a matter of time you will get a toxic load in ur ass just because you trusted that guy on his word

I 100% get what you mean but I am a total top And only play with guys I know and every one of them are Poz undetectable or on Prep. I also never play with wired guys so I know the guys I am playing with. Iv been barebacking for close to 20 years and never caught HIV so I think my method is good so far. If I did get it I would also welcome being Poz. 

[Kimberley]

4 minutes ago, Mcv69 said:

I 100% get what you mean but I am a total top And only play with guys I know and every one of them are Poz undetectable or on Prep. I also never play with wired guys so I know the guys I am playing with. Iv been barebacking for close to 20 years and never caught HIV so I think my method is good so far. If I did get it I would also welcome being Poz. 

A bottom that is on prep or poz undetectable is not going to protect you for HIV. that is a misunderstanding that most guys forget. if a bottom gets a toxic load inside his ass, the hiv cells stay contageous for +- 24 hours. for the bottom on prep or poz no problem, but for a top that isn't on prep a high risk

[bbpoznow]

I am not on prep or any meds. I take all raw cock  of any kind , May prefer POZZ but all is good . Just need to find a top that likes mature bottoms 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Kimberley said:

you can't trust any guy on his word if it becomes to bareback sex..

that's one heck of a statement.

[BootmanLA]

9 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

that's one heck of a statement.

Agreed. That statement ("you can't trust any guy on his word if it becomes to bareback sex..") is the most overly broad, unsubstantiated piece of crap I've read this weekend. That's not to say you CAN trust everyone, but "can't trust any guy"? That's crap.

[Pozpunk]

Well, about barebackers lying,  in my opinion if a top says they’re toxic and they want to dump their load.  I’m gonna believe him and wait ass up. Even if he’s lying I’ll be naturally lubed for the next guy. 🤣

[Guest]

I never took it because I couldn’t afford it, not having insurance. But that’s not a worry now that the wife and I are poz

[atyl7u]

On 10/10/2021 at 5:30 PM, chamakodaki said:

I’ve noticed a trend where guys are against PReP because “it’s really harmful.” Or some other unfounded reason not to use it. Are these guys really against it or are they bug chasers or are they positive? Or are they conspiracy theorists? I know this is a broad question but they have a few things in common. Like being highly sexual active and into risky behavior. Why would anyone able to use PReP not use it? 

I'm not against PReP but also don't know much about it. I'm also still in a marriage to a woman, although we don't have sex anymore, but I'm not sure how to bring it up with my family doctor, and hide the use from my wife. So far all the tops that have used me have always used condoms, but I'm increasingly 'turned on' and fantasizing about having a top start fucking me while I'm restrained and helpless and having him tell me as he's about to cum that he's fucking me raw, so I can't stop him.

[Guest]

The consequences of HIV and AIDS are dangerous, but each to their own (who am I to judge). We each have our own opinion on the matter, but from a health wise perspective...let's just say having your health degenerate impacts your sexual appetite, because there will come a point where the complications outweigh the 'thrill' of the idea. Might want to take a look at the 80s where they didn't have the options that we did. 

[Shotsfired]

On 10/10/2021 at 9:57 PM, PigFaggot2904 said:

There are also gift giving toxic top breeders who won’t fuck neg f@gs who take PrEP, they call it a cop-out.

Isn't that sociopathic?

[Shotsfired]

On 10/11/2021 at 12:29 AM, timfreo said:

Don't like condoms dont like Prep. Same same. 

Being Catholic I'm against contraception. 

Are you being serious right now? Catholics also are against gay sex.

[blackrobe]

3 hours ago, Shotsfired said:

Are you being serious right now? Catholics also are against gay sex.

What staggers me about his position is that the reason why Catholic Doctrine is anti-contraception is that they hold sex needs to be open to procreation. By definition, gay sex is not procreative. So if a Catholic believes contraception is not allowed, then for the same underlying reason gay sex is also not allowed. It's also worth noting that the overwhelming majority of lay Catholics ignore the church's teaching on contraception and procreative sex. In a 2017 study (2015–2017 National Survey of Family Growth, administered by the National Center for Health Statistics), they found 99.0% of Catholic women had used birth control of some kind. For religiously non-affiliated women that number was 99.6%.

If 99% of Catholic women don't follow the church's teaching on contraception, I really don't get why a gay man would purport to. 

PrEP is not, by any definition, a contraceptive so how it got dragged into this I really can't fathom.

Edited January 23, 2022 by blackrobe

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Shotsfired said:

Are you being serious right now? Catholics also are against gay sex.

I think he was being ironic and seeing it that way it was rather funny precisely because - as you mention - Catholics are against all sex outside of wedlock.

Concerning homosexuality the Church of Rome has added to this sin of extramarital sex, a label that it's an even more serious sin because it's two (or more) people of the same gender, and these 'wise' men also have been preaching that we as gay and bisexual men (and women, lesbians etc.) suffer from something like a psychiatric condition:
an "objective disorder" as they call it. 

(Their message that sex is not natural, coming from a group of people that exclude women from their ranks, wear very stylish dresses and personally vow to not have sex with anyone (not even wanking off) is rather rich but there you have it).

 

 

26 minutes ago, Shotsfired said:

Isn't that sociopathic?

 

Perhaps the word 'immoral' or another choice of words that means the opposite of good, wise, sensible or 'just nice' comes closer to what you mean?

I'm going to take a little detour about morality now, but I'll try to keep it connected to the subject and make it at least mildly entertaining so I hope anyone who reads this will allow me this indulgence:

 

In my country General Practitioners have the opportunity to not prescribe PrEP on the grounds of their moral beliefs. That's not a huge problem, as we are free to find another doctor and there are enough who are a little more enlightened.
But anyway, these beliefs basically translate to their opinion that people should 'just' be monogamous and/or use condoms. One could call witholding the extra protection that PrEP offers against AIDS from a minority-group that has a higher risk to contract HIV sociopathic as well, and even compare this to how Nazi-Germany - including it's medical professionals at that time - treated bi- and homosexual people.

But perhaps it's just stupid and bad doctoring. 
Personally I'm convinced this is not good medical advise at the very least.

There are a few legitimate reasons for people not to go on PrEP or circumstances why they can't.
But listening to what some tops allegedly would say about it and the 'threat' of not getting fucked, is just as stupid a reason not to go on PrEP as why some so-called doctors are against the use of PrEP.

 

I really can't imagine there are very large numbers around in the first place if there even are men who are Top, are also POZ, who are not on medication and who won't fuck with someone on PrEP. And how would they even know what medication someone uses or not? This story has a large 'hear-say factor'.
And it sounds a lot like the fiction section of BZ where it is just that: 'fiction'. 

We (and sorry for being a bit longwinded) all have feelings and sometimes make illogical choices or have ideas that don't immediately make sense and that is only part of what makes us human. I myself am often unable to articulate some things in a way others can understand correctly when the subject is very close to my heart.
Sarcasm, Irony and banter are sometimes misunderstood.

But false or true apparently there's now a story going round about bad gay men who want others to harm themselves. Something like that could even be called evil and diabolical besides 'bad'. If there are a number of POZ tops who do this I'm naturally very much concerned.

But I'm just as much concerned about this potential image of gay (and bisexual) men being painted. The aforementioned Catholic Church and other's have for a long time blamed bi- and homosexual people for pedophilia and there are too many people who believe THAT to have this new 'accusation' added to this. 
(Of course we know now that the largest numbers of child-abuse cases happened within the discretion of these kinds of established religions and were for decades covered up by these faithful servants of God...
But I'm not one to point fingers. Heaven forbid).

 

As context sometimes is King, it might make sense to view this new story about how evil we are; and our different feelings, ideas and choices in the circumstances where they have come into existence. Think about this please. Take your time and from now on once in while, consider it. How is sex with another man (or woman of you're a woman) judged compared to 'straight' sex by large numbers of people, and for how long has this been part of your society of which you are a part and in which you grew up?
(...)

In any case perhaps we should reserve the term 'sociopathic' for the choice the majority of humanity has made not to invest the same kinds of funds in the discovery of a cure and some kind of vaccine against HIV, as the World apparently had lying around to spend on the current fight against Covid-19.

Both are viruses that transmit more easily when humans behave naturally (touching each-other, closeness and penetrative sex).
The difference being who they target and HIV puts people who sexually deviate from the majority, poor people or live in continents like Africa and Asia (often not caucasian) at a bit higher risk than the average 'white', Western and heterosexual person.

So besides considering the label 'sociopathic' could it be fitting to say this is even 'fascist'?

 

Very strongly I feel that how people treat each-other and how society treats parts of that society should be valued in moral, not clinical terms. I'm also absolutely convinced of your best intentions @Shotsfired  for your two contributions to this discussion.

The reason I'm focusing this much attention on this one word (sociopathic) you've used within this context is this:

It would be helpful when our shared sense of community would be a little greater than it is now.
That means perhaps we could benefit from a stronger sense of shared values.
If so this must entail that we are allowed to judge ourselves with the same standards as are set for the heterosexual majority. Not higher ones or lower, because really we should not fall into the trap that because some in the world would vilify us, we should accept more responsibility than ought to be ours.
It's up to ourselves to set the example in this. And then we can ask the same from society as a whole.

It comes down to giving ourselves a brake and not start demonising things we don't understand or don't want to hear.

For instance I've never heard the label 'bug-chaser' being used for an unplanned pregnancy where condoms weren't used. As HIV is now a manageable condition perhaps words like 'silly', 'unwise' and perhaps even 'dumb' are better suited.

There is often a double standard for men and women concerning promiscuity, but neither have been attributed an extra 'sin' for this and only women were a couple of generations ago - in the Victorian age - labelled mentally unbalanced when behaving in way that was acceptable for men but not for women.
So like modern women we don't have to accept that promiscuity or not is - in the end - just a matter of taste and inclination. (And at times simply fun).
 

I think as men we like to banter, act tough and exaggerate to make ourselves heard. This is even and perhaps precisely true for the flaming queers amongst us. 😉
When we take ourselves too seriously and really act like this, it has risks. The #MeToo movement has shown how masculinity in those cases became toxic. If some stupid twat wants a bottom not to go on, or stop using PrEP so he can infect him with HIV it's the same thing:
It's idiotic and wrong and possibly a result of gender roles, double standards and other aspects of societal norms. 
And like with all men not all of us behave like this, it's actually a minority within our minority if it even happens.

I think that this story, like our 'fiction-section' originated from realising that doing something human (sex) puts us in danger of catching a potentially lethal virus and  infecting people we have sex with, possibly therefor sometimes even like and in some very special cases for a short or longer time even love.

It's based on a horror story in my opinion, that helped us cope and relate to this very factual situation. 
If someone really decides to become this gay pozzing barebacking version of Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster or Werewolf because of this, it's still wrong and idiotic. But perhaps that guy has internalised the vilification he experienced from religion and society as a whole. And perhaps just wants to act 'like a man'.

 

These thoughts I've just shared here are not about me personally.
I've tried to take a step back and view it like a distant outsider.
But as it's about sex and that's a very personal subject for anyone (except Catholic Priests who should for this reason remain silent on the subject) I'll say this about myself:

I am at a point of time that I've learned to embrace my lust without false shame, and this has enriched me emotionally. Or at least I think so. Part of that journey has been just accepting the desires of myself and my sexual partners in the first place. Not a virus, not a disease, not the advice to always use condoms, not the choice to go on PrEP or not. 
Lust. Beautiful lust.
And since that time I have felt more than a little more alive. Just being like this takes away any inclination to hurt anyone. So that's my very personal reason why I want the focus on chasing the fears that are mentally toxic and the still present danger from some stupid virus.