Often repeated by the straights: "Just because someone has HIV doesn't mean they're a slut"

[valldelxeno]

I'm bored and figured I'd bring up a topic that has always confused me. And I mean always - since I was in high school I was just like, wait a minute, shit don't add up, but never said anything to anyone because people are too sensitive. 

I'm going to preface this by saying of course this line the straights say a lot is technically true. People can get HIV from blood transfusions, sharing needles, needlestick, or vertical transmission. And even within sexual transmission, having sex with 1 person i.e. the person you caught it from isn't exactly slutty behaviour. 

BUT...

Given how hard it is to catch HIV, especially for the top, doesn't someone who isn't even vaguely promiscuous (let's say 1 partner per year, idk I don't talk to my straight friends about this stuff so I don't know how much sex they have) have an infinitesimally small chance of catching HIV? Especially if they are straight, so sex is probably vaginal (less risk) and the partner probably isn't a gay or bi man (so less prevalence). 

Just using my example (my little black book is coming in handy), I've had taken 2 loads from unmedicated guys and I've topped 1 guy who was unmedicated. I've also bottomed for 11 guys of unknown status and topped for 1 guy of unknown status. (Yeah my sex life has been pretty slow, although my true body count is considerably higher, it's just that in Barcelona basically everyone over 35 is undetectable) And I don't have HIV, and as far as I can tell my case is not atypical in this regard. It's something like a 2% chance of transmission top to bottom, assuming the top has a fairly robust viral load, no? Now I can't remember my sixth form statistics class, but my gut says that even if we were talking about 13 unmedicated guys, the chances of remaining negative would not be minuscule. (Some better at maths than me please help!)

There's also my personal observation that poz men tend to be a bit more attractive (and not just in attitude to sex) and I wouldn't be surprised if the average dick size is bigger as well. Because being hot and having a big dick = more sex = more chance of catching HIV. It just seems kind of logical, then, that given that a high proportion of sluts (and I use the term endearingly) catch HIV, there's going to be a surplus of sluts in the HIV-positive population, no?

Have I explained what I mean?

Now obviously I realise that the point of the message is to get people to not slut-shame people with HIV. And people shouldn't slut-shame people with HIV, but not because of anything to do with the HIV itself, which given the main transmission method is somewhat ironic - but because slut-shaming is the most ridiculous thing on the planet to begin with. 

And with that I think it's time I arranged for my next shot of vitamina.

[Guest WelshBBCigarFuck]

I’ve always found poz guys far more Openminded and less inhibited when it comes to sex, whether they are undetectable or not, I’ve had quite a few poz fuckbuds over the years because I do like sex to be far more natural, uninhibited and frankly hornier.

I don’t agree with slut shaming, over the years I have been round the block so many times I have probably worn out the pavement. I don’t consider myself a slut, yes I have had a few thousand sexual partners over 30 years, mostly random fuck and go’s, but I just consider it that I have a high sex drive. Some guys wear the term slut as a badge of honour and if they like it then there is nothing wrong with it.

Does having a lot of sexual partners put you at higher risk, most likely, but then I must be really pushing the law of averages as I am still negative, always barebacked and have never been on PrEP. Undoubtedly barebacking has a risk of contracting HIV (less if you play with undetectable guys or are on PrEP), but you can’t necessarily equate amount of sex with contracting HIV, I’ve known guys who have contracted it after only seeing a few guys.

So in a way I kind of agree with the premise that having HIV doesn’t make you a slut, but on the other hand I feel the sentiment is unnecessary as the definition of slut varies from person to person and you could contract HIV through a single encounter (or as previously mentioned via blood transfusions, needles, vertical infection etc)

[valldelxeno]

31 minutes ago, WelshBBCigarFuck said:

Does having a lot of sexual partners put you at higher risk, most likely, but then I must be really pushing the law of averages as I am still negative, always barebacked and have never been on PrEP.

I would suggest that's less of a statistical anomaly and more an indication that you're likely genetically immune. About 10% of Europeans are.

[ErosWired]

It might be more accurate to say that having HIV doesn’t prove that you’re a slut - yes, the virus is surprisingly not as easy to catch as you might think, but it’s not impossible to get it on your first fuck. It only ever takes one fuck. Nor is the fact of one being on PrEP further evidence that you had to be slutty to catch it, because PrEP is not an ironclad guarantee. 

[garsento]

I think it also quite possible that people who contract HIV might well lose their inhibitions as a consequence.

Consider: If the worst that you have to fear from gay sex is getting HIV with all that implies, and you get HIV anyway, why not lose your inhibitions? If the worst has happened, so what? Why not?

[evilqueerpig]

Don't slutshame me for being poz...slutshame me for being a slut!

[fskn]

@valldelxeno, one thing to consider is the three-stage HIV "continuum of care" or "care cascade":

1. testing/diagnosis,

2. linkage to treatment/retention in treatment, and

3. sustained viral suppression.

The worldwide goal is to reach 90% of the eligible population at each successive stage. Ideally, 90% of HIV-positive people would know their status, 90% of those who know they are positive would be taking medication, and 90% of those taking medication would have an undetectable viral load.

Western, high-income countries fail miserably, and the results vary widely within the same country. The percentages of low-income earners, people of color, immigrants, young people, and also trans people, with unsuppressed HIV are higher than for the general population. Someone in a disadvantaged group (less access to HIV prevention information, testing, PrEP, and PEP), especially if the person has sex with other members of a disadvantaged group (higher prevalence of unsuppressed HIV), is at a much higher risk of getting HIV, even with a small partner count.

Edited March 5, 2022 by fskn

[viking8x6]

19 hours ago, valldelxeno said:

doesn't someone who isn't even vaguely promiscuous (let's say 1 partner per year...) have an infinitesimally small chance of catching HIV?

Not really. The chance is very small, but far from infinitesimal, and depends a whole lot on how promiscuous that 1 partner per year happens to be. As many other people here have already said, it only takes one. And some of your assumptions (e.g. gay/bi men are more likely to carry HIV) are not necessarily true - they vary widely in different places and life situations.

In 2019 (the most recent year for which I readily found statistics), nearly a quarter of new HIV cases in the US were heterosexuals. So their chance of contracting HIV (on average) is about one quarter that of gay/bi people. The fact is, the chance in either case is pretty darn small (far less than 1 in 1000), and even quite a lot of promiscuity isn't going to make it all that big unless the person in question is actively seeking out infectious partners.

[ErosWired]

@valldelxeno - In addition to @fskn’s point above, bear in mind as you’re fucking bareback that a small but not insignificant segment of your potential pool of sexual partners is (insanely) actively trying to either catch or transmit the disease. There’s a whole section of this site dedicated to corralling that lunacy in one place. As long as giver/chaser culture exists, everyone will face an unnecessarily increased risk of exposure from the “brotherhood” of irresponsible fuckers walking around with untreated infections and high viral loads.

[ErosWired]

6 hours ago, garsento said:

Consider: If the worst that you have to fear from gay sex is getting HIV with all that implies, and you get HIV anyway, why not lose your inhibitions? If the worst has happened, so what? Why not?

Because the worst hasn’t happened. Worse would be transmitting your HIV to another person once you gave yourself over to sexual abandon.

This is part of the pernicious myth that drives chasers - the notion that getting HIV is the key to sexual liberation. It’s absolutely not, if you have an ethical molecule in your body. I service a lot of men, but in order to do so, I have to monitor my state of health rigorously, and keep constant vigil on the Enemy Virus that’s got a permanent forward base of operations in my body and is constantly trying to find ways to mount a successful attack not only on myself, but to invade another foreign territory. I take my ART every single day, without fail, and I have missed exactly one dose in 7 1/2 years. Even so, I’ve had occasional blips where My viral load went detectable, and when that happens, I’m out of service. Period. Until it’s back under control. The vigil is daily, without end, and if a guy wants to be a Poz slut with any sense of personal responsibility at all, that’s what he’s in for.

That’s why not.

And I haven’t even mentioned that getting HIV doesn’t mean you can’t get it worse. There’s always a slight risk, even on ART or PrEP, of being exposed to a drug-resistant strain of the virus and getting superinfected with a version that your meds can’t keep in check. It’s not a common thing, but it’s possible. I know it makes me think hard about what I’m doing sometimes.

Edited March 5, 2022 by ErosWired

[garsento]

2 hours ago, ErosWired said:

Because the worst hasn’t happened. Worse would be transmitting your HIV to another person once you gave yourself over to sexual abandon.

I do not think we are in fundamental disagreement.

I was not thinking of bugchasing, never mind bugspreading. I was thinking more of people who encountered HIV in the course of a normal sexual career, people who might well have been inhibited for fear of HIV. In settings where HIV is essentially a perfectly treatable long-term condition, many people might well wonder why not explore.

[BergenGuy]

7 hours ago, viking8x6 said:

In 2019 (the most recent year for which I readily found statistics), nearly a quarter of new HIV cases in the US were heterosexuals. So their chance of contracting HIV (on average) is about one quarter that of gay/bi people.

You can't really say that since you're comparing absolute numbers vs. rates.  Heterosexuals may make up 25% of new HIV cases, but they're 90%+ of the population, more or less.  So, their chance of contracting HIV is substantially less than one quarter of that of gay/bi people.

[valldelxeno]

On 3/5/2022 at 3:39 PM, evilqueerpig said:

Don't slutshame me for being poz...slutshame me for being a slut!

Sorry, that wasn't the intention (although I think you know this) 

But I don't even slutshame for being a slut 😛 I've never known it as the walk of shame, always the stride of pride 

[evilqueerpig]

3 minutes ago, valldelxeno said:

Sorry, that wasn't the intention (although I think you know this) 

But I don't even slutshame for being a slut 😛 I've never known it as the walk of shame, always the stride of pride 

Walk by my side!

[120DaysofSodom]

I wear both terms "Slut" and "POZ" as badges of pride so its hard for anybody to slut shame a totally trash can cum dump like me haha, though many have tried. Total agreement with OP that POZ guys are more appealing to me, as I love the feeling of POZ cum being blown in my hole.