When to start HIV meds

[hntnhole]

12 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

Peace.

Thanks for your reply. 

In my humble opinion, John Lennon may have been a reincarnation of you-know-who.  Maybe in another couple of millennia there will be a religion centered around his message. 

[hntnhole]

On 6/23/2022 at 7:22 AM, ErosWired said:

I posted my lived experience, not my moral opinions, but all persons in a sane society agree - must agree - that one individual has no right to bring permanent, debilitating, and potentially deadly harm to another

I'm with you 100%.  

[hntnhole]

This discussion is exactly why I come to read stuff so often.  I really appreciate all the input - and since I'm hardly qualified to comment, for once I won't. 

[Guest]

I think with any infection or illness regardless what it may be when it threatens your health it would be wise to take the medication to resolve any current & or future problems.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, funpozbottom said:

I find it ironic that you say: "there may be too much emphasis on matters that suggest blame" and the only parts of my post you pick apart are my personal experience.

My apologies if I unintentionally crossed a line by taking your personal experiences as a starting point to address some points of view I feel strongly about.

As I said later on I've met guys who kept blaming either themselves or their sexual partner and that's something I don't think is helpful' Not saying you were or are, I did feel it necessary to comment on that cycle of blame.
And neither would I have liked to see - although this also was not your intent - to have people living with HIV and not yet undetectable, to be seen as 'wrong'.

Again my apologies if this felt like an attack, it was not intended as such but primarily as some annotations for anyone reading this thread, from all over the world wherever our fellow-members or visitors of BZ come from. BZ might be based in NYC but it's on the World Wide Web and it's influence is much greater than merely the US of A. 

[Guest]

19 hours ago, ErosWired said:

With respect, that’s like saying the guy with the gun didn’t shoot you, the gun did. When you have HIV, your body has become a de facto loaded weapon.

I don't really think the analogy to fire-arms works and it unintentionally reenforces the fetisj that HIV and AIDS are to some, because guns are seen as an analogy for their dicks, and violence an destruction are believed to be the epiphany of asserting ones man-hood.

You analogy goes totally overboard when it concerns somehow who bottoms without a condom, not knowing the status of the top that would - in you analogy of guns and weapons - always come down to playing Russian roulette. (Because you can never know somebody's status unless he has just taken the latest generation of HIV test, you where actually there and there for the results...) That bottom could be blamed for catching HIV although this was not his or her intend. And that's exactly the kind of blame I was trying to steer away from because it's just not helping anyone.
I did however intended to point out everyone's own responsibility to protect themselves and the shared responsibility to stop infection. 

That's why:

19 hours ago, ErosWired said:

It has nothing to do with deciding to forego condoms, and everything to do with deciding to forego medication - which is the subject of this topic. If a guy wants to indulge his bugchasing fetish as fantasy by taking raw cock from HIV-positive men, that’s his paraphilia to deal with. If a poz guy gets off on a fantasy of giving someone else a disease, that’s a paraphilia that would be considered abnormal by any professional psychologist, but it caused no harm if the guy can’t actually transmit the disease. The poz guy who fucks him has a responsibility to ensure that his own disease does not transmit. Anyone who says he has no responsibility to prevent his known contagious disease from infecting other people is, yes, unethical. The fact that making other people sick is your sexual kink doesn’t absolve that in any way. And placing one’s sexual gratification over another’s well-being is, yes, selfish.

Is not a valid argument.

If someone choses not to use condoms (or PrEP) to protect himself isn't that too selfish? And if a bottom got off on risking getting HIV, wouldn't that also be a 'paraphilia that would be considered abnormal by any professional psychologist'? Perhaps it's only childish as he expects his sexual partner to stop having sex, or start medication not for the guy's own health but to protect him, just so he doesn't have use a condom (or PrEP)? 

I never said or intended to imply someone with HIV had "no responsibility" but neither do I accept any implication that it's solely the infected guy's responsibility.

But why should he start taking medication earlier than is necessary; Just for someone else's wish to be fucked bareback and shot full of cum?

I'm saying all, both parties, have a responsibility and calling only one of them crazy, criminal and what not is unfair.
 

 

[rawTOP]

If HIV is a gun, then PrEP is a bulletproof vest. And the guy who wants to stay neg, but takes loads from complete strangers without asking their status, yet doesn't take PrEP would be like someone who wanders onto an active shooting range.

Where HIV isn't like a gun is that it's less likely to kill. And PrEP is far more effective than a bulletproof vest - so that analogy isn't perfect either.

When you have the ability to protect yourself and you refuse to use the protection while simultaneously putting yourself at significant risk - IMHO, the only person who is at fault is the neg guy. Simply put - in scenarios like that YOU are the only one who is responsible for your health.

Since PrEP offers very close to 100% protection, I fail to see how the toxic poz guy could be "unethical" for blowing his load up neg asses. He won't actually infect anyone unless they're actively or passively bug chasing. Now, if he's specifically targeting say closeted 18 year olds who are still living at home with parents watching their every move (and hence don't really have access to PrEP) - yeah - that's unethical. But cases like that aren't typical. But if he has some random, anonymous hookup in a park with the same kid - then I don't see that as unethical either.

There are now three different types of PrEP, so there isn't even the argument of "well, the neg guy couldn't tolerate Truvada". If you want to stay neg and you're taking loads from strangers / people you don't know all that well - then you need to be on PrEP. If you opt not to take PrEP and you get pozzed - it's because of your action/inaction, not the action of the poz guy.

All of that is a little off-topic - except to say I don't see it as unethical to stay off meds and be sexually active. But just like the neg guy should be responsible for his health - the poz guy should be responsible for his health and go on meds when it's time (CD4 <= 500, if not sooner).

[hntnhole]

First, thanks all you guys, for a first-class discussion on an issue of some importance. 

All of this seems to confirm that - for me - I made the right choice.  Having taken the available shots against various bugs, gotten on PReP, seeing the vampires monthly instead of every 3*, and then jumping into the pigpen with both feet, I think I've done everything I can to stay as healthy as possible and maintain a satisfying sexual life as well.  

Any of you disagree?

*which, according to my reasoning, would catch the presence of any bugs at the earliest possible time, and therefore make treatment all the more effective - right?  I know the institutions suggest testing every 3 months, but monthly would only be even more effective - right?  This line of thinking is geared more to the std's, rather than hiv. Gilding the lily maybe, but .... where's the harm?