PReP avoiders

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, tranny-trixie said:

It's a personal choice if you do or don't.  That's the heart of the matter really. Some love full unprotected sex as it is a turn on for them. Others use it to have safe fun. There is no right or wrong to it. Just enjoy what you like and have fun. 

I agree in not seeing it as right or wrong, but I do feel it important to have as much correct information and giving the choice serious thought besides weighing ones emotions. 

[PozBearWI]

10 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

Letting AIDS run it's cause without medication results in death.
The numbers of HIV-infections are not dropping immensely, last time I read about the numbers.

What do you mean with centrist?

Certainly see the value in PrEP and glad it is one of our options.  But I also understand that individuals should have domain over their own bodies; and so if someone really wishes to progress to full on AIDS (and I confess I would not see myself doing that) I respect their body, their choice.  

[BootmanLA]

7 minutes ago, WiChaser said:

Certainly see the value in PrEP and glad it is one of our options.  But I also understand that individuals should have domain over their own bodies; and so if someone really wishes to progress to full on AIDS (and I confess I would not see myself doing that) I respect their body, their choice.  

I do agree that if someone makes the *informed* choice to do just that, they should be permitted. But that presumes a level of information that few people in that situation really have. And I agree with the policy of this site that regardless of whether one should or shouldn't be allowed to do that for oneself, promoting that choice here is forbidden.

[tranny-trixie]

I'm not on prep or anything else and I don't ask my studs to use a condom.  I willing take all the risks along with all the spunk. That's just me but as there are so any dangers out there nowadays as the last few years have proved it is all about fun for me. I love being a cumdump for others to fill up

[PozBearWI]

17 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

I do agree that if someone makes the *informed* choice to do just that, they should be permitted. But that presumes a level of information that few people in that situation really have. And I agree with the policy of this site that regardless of whether one should or shouldn't be allowed to do that for oneself, promoting that choice here is forbidden.

Yes. sources of factual data seem to be less valued in recent years.  History is rife with similar times; and it saddens me we seem to have devolved to that.  And I don't see a need to promote behaviors which are likely to result in greater social harm.  

Not intending to be argumentative.  And so I hope this is not taken that way.  When you write "if someone makes the "informed" choice to do just that, they should be permitted"; suggests that some entity beyond themselves are deciding what they are permitted to do.  But we might be saying essentially the same thing.  I would put it more like "help to lead them to facts which they might use to make more informed choices".  

[BootmanLA]

Just now, WiChaser said:

Yes. sources of factual data seem to be less valued in recent years.  History is rife with similar times; and it saddens me we seem to have devolved to that.  And I don't see a need to promote behaviors which are likely to result in greater social harm.  

Not intending to be argumentative.  And so I hope this is not taken that way.  When you write "if someone makes the "informed" choice to do just that, they should be permitted"; suggests that some entity beyond themselves are deciding what they are permitted to do.  But we might be saying essentially the same thing.  I would put it more like "help to lead them to facts which they might use to make more informed choices".  

What I'm getting at here (and may not have expressed well) is that if someone has all the facts, and knows the risks, and decides that becoming poz and remaining off meds indefinitely is what they want to do, then I don't think there's any role for others to impose a change - neither by any sort of legal or pseudo-legal mandate nor by public shaming (which seldom if ever really works). But at the same time, the owners of any particular platform (such as this site) can opt to promote the public good by refusing to allow such people to promote that same behavior. Does that make it any clearer?

[Shotsfired]

On 1/23/2022 at 8:30 AM, BareLover666 said:

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).

 

 

 

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.

Sociopathic isn't the best word.  I think I should have used wrong or immoral. I am a strong advocate for protecting people's agency.  Coercive behavior like a  top forcing a neg bottom to bareback is wrong in my eyes. 

 

I was specifically referring to this one act.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, tranny-trixie said:

I'm not on prep or anything else and I don't ask my studs to use a condom.  I willing take all the risks along with all the spunk. That's just me but as there are so any dangers out there nowadays as the last few years have proved it is all about fun for me. I love being a cumdump for others to fill up

That is your choice. Sounds a bit like: 'Live fast, die young and leave a beautiful corpse'.

I think this website and many other parts of the barebacking community have embraced barebacking because it's treatable so people infected can lead normal and healthy lives be it that one then needs to use medication for the rest of ones life to keep the virus under control. And one isn't able to infect others when medication (in most cases) leads to an undetectable viral load.

Do you feel that your inclination to only bottoming (and not topping), acting like a cumdump has any relation to your feelings about risking HIV-infection (and any intention of possibly not starting treatment if it happens)?

[Guest WelshBBCigarFuck]

I don’t have an issue with PrEP, I do have an issue with the mentality of some people who go on it and suddenly think they are just able to bareback to their hearts content without consequences.

Whilst PrEP can reduce the risk of HIV contraction to negligible (or virtually nil if playing with undetectable guys), it doesn’t protect against any other STD’s or Hepatitis. Hopefully guys aren’t using the fact they are on PrEP as a reason to forgo the regular sexual checkups as they could be passing other STD’s on. Some of us may also be non-responders to the Hepatitis B vaccine (apparently anything from 5-15% don’t have antibodies after vaccination, myself included), so people barebacking purely because they are safe from HIV due to them being on PrEP is a concern to me.

[BootmanLA]

2 hours ago, WelshBBCigarFuck said:

I don’t have an issue with PrEP, I do have an issue with the mentality of some people who go on it and suddenly think they are just able to bareback to their hearts content without consequences.

Whilst PrEP can reduce the risk of HIV contraction to negligible (or virtually nil if playing with undetectable guys), it doesn’t protect against any other STD’s or Hepatitis. Hopefully guys aren’t using the fact they are on PrEP as a reason to forgo the regular sexual checkups as they could be passing other STD’s on. Some of us may also be non-responders to the Hepatitis B vaccine (apparently anything from 5-15% don’t have antibodies after vaccination, myself included), so people barebacking purely because they are safe from HIV due to them being on PrEP is a concern to me.

Here in the U.S., at least, according to the guidelines for prescribing PrEP, a health care provider should only do so after (a) confirming that the patient is HIV-negative and (b) having the patient commit to regular HIV *and* STI screenings in order to have the prescription refilled.

And most guys on PrEP probably do just that. However, as I've noted elsewhere, there's a small industry revolving around getting people on PrEP as expeditiously as possible, with telemedicine consultations instead of full-scale doctor visits, and so forth. There's not a lot built into those systems to *ensure* that these places don't become pill mills for PrEP, with no real monitoring of whether a guy who's taking it is adhering to the schedule, whether he's accidentally converted anyway without knowing it, whether he's sharing other STI's regularly, etc. These places COULD make it fairly rigorous in terms of checking up on the patients and making sure they're doing well, etc., but there's nothing guaranteeing it. 

[Guest]

I'm a transman and went on Prep for a while and had some side effects. I went off it.

Then chasing and barebacking started turning me on. My problem now is finding a man who won't flake out on me because of what gentiles I have. 

[fskn]

On 1/24/2022 at 9:20 AM, WiChaser said:

A POV regarding PrEP perhaps worthy of contemplation....  PrEP is pretty much starting HIV meds in advance of infection. 

I know from your thoughtful posts that you've considered the things I'm about to mention, but I want to mention them for people who might not be aware.

There are some big differences between PrEP for preventing HIV and ART for treating HIV:

• You need not continue PrEP the rest of your life, as you must with ART once you have HIV. For example, going through a period of reduced sexual activity, getting into a reliably monogamous relationship, or becoming primary partners with an HIV-positive person whose viral load is reliably undetectable, might reduce your risk enough to warrant stopping PrEP for months or years at a time. (A negative HIV test is crucial before starting or restarting PrEP; always involve your medical professional.)

• Whereas an on-demand PrEP option is available, HIV treatment is daily. The possibility of protecting yourself by taking medicine around the time you have sex (to be specific, 2 Truvada pills 24 to 2 hours before sex, then 1 pill every 24 hours until 48 hours after the last encounter), rather than having to take medication every day, is significant. Research confirmed years ago that "2-1-1" Truvada for PrEP is effective, and after official use in France and informal use elsewhere, the regimen appears as an option in the new 2021 US CDC PrEP guidelines. (Intermittent PrEP has not been found to reduce side effects, which are, for Truvada, either mild or uncommon.)

• Whereas the vast majority of pill-based HIV treatment regimens involve 3 drugs (whether combined in a single pill or not), pill-based PrEP regimens involve only 2 drugs (in a single pill). This does reduce side effects. The new monthly  HIV treatment injection involves 2 drugs whereas the new bi-monthly PrEP injection involves only one drug.

On 1/24/2022 at 9:20 AM, WiChaser said:

With the majority of HIV poz guys on meds and undetectable, the infection rate has to be comparatively low (if one counts loads received to infections).

This is a dangerous assumption. HIV care can be viewed as a continuum, from diagnosis to treatment to viral suppression. Public health authorities around the world measure the percentages of HIV-positive people who are at each of the three stages. The rate of undiagnosed HIV varies significantly by geographic location, by people's demographic characteristics, and also over time — as does the rate of viral suppression. We see dramatic variations even within single countries.

For example, San Francisco has achieved low rates of undiagnosed HIV and high rates of viral suppression, but even here, rates vary with a person's race and socio-economic status. Rural areas, Southern states, states with Medicaid expansion, etc., perform much worse at every stage of the continuum of care.

Also, due to the pandemic, HIV testing has fallen off sharply in the US and around the world. Less testing necessarily means more undiagnosed HIV infections.

On 1/24/2022 at 9:20 AM, WiChaser said:

Then too years ago rawTOP brought up 23 and me to learn whether one is naturally resistant or essentially immune to HIV. 

The CCR5 receptor mutation is a research-based concept, but 23 And Me and other consumer genetic testing services are not licensed for any preventive or diagnostic medical purpose, and have not been validated for such use. Only a test licensed for the purpose and ordered by a doctor (in this case, most likely in the context of a university-led research study) could provide an answer that someone could rely upon.

[BootmanLA]

5 minutes ago, fskn said:

I know from your thoughtful posts that you've considered the things I'm about to mention, but I want to mention them for people who might not be aware.....

Thank you for this thorough and clarifying post - it's the kind of thing I tend to do (as you probably know) but I'm glad I'm not the only one. 

[fskn]

On 1/24/2022 at 2:43 PM, tranny-trixie said:

I'm not on prep or anything else and I don't ask my studs to use a condom.  I willing take all the risks along with all the spunk. That's just me but as there are so any dangers out there nowadays as the last few years have proved it is all about fun for me. I love being a cumdump for others to fill up

For all that I've made opposite choices about sexual risk, having started Truvada for PrEP within a year of its approval and remained on it ever since, I admire you and your choices, @tranny-trixie.

In the early days of the HIV/AIDS pandemic in the US, some young people made the choice to have fun, knowing, in their context, that they would likely die young anyway.

I don't want to romanticize anything about HIV, nor about the difficult end-of-life experiences that many of these people suffered, but who am I to weigh the sexual pleasure they enjoyed for many years against the pain they endured for a finite period of time at the end of life? And today, death is not the likely outcome of an HIV infection.

In life domains other than sex, I've sometimes chosen to enjoy myself in the short term instead of thinking about the long term. My choices have been unusual, compared with those of my peers. I won't know until I'm on my death bed whether my choices were good ones, but boy, have I enjoyed living so far!

You don't need a pep talk from anyone, least of all me, but I think you are frank and courageous, @tranny-trixie

[Guest]

Does anyone read the fine print on meds?  Do their research deeply in depth before taking?  Like any type of pill or shot given, one should know what all they are truly getting or going to get along with the long term effects.