For HIV-negative men, purposefully not having sex with other dudes carrying the virus sounds like a reasonable strategy to prevent contracting HIV. If you know a potential sex partner is HIV-positive, steering clear brings your risk level down to zero percent, since you’re not exposing yourself to the virus. (And yes, this includes sex with condoms.) For HIV-positive men, there’s also, seemingly, an advantage to avoiding sex with other poz guys: No risk of exposure to another strain of HIV that could further damage your immune system and complicate your drug regimen. Except now we’re being told this technique — of keeping your pee-pee away from anyone carrying the virus — is “bankrupt in terms of actual risk reduction”?
That’s what gay men’s health activist Trevor Hoppe is arguing, whose main point seems to be this: “exposure does not equal transmission.”
[W]e need to evaluate whether or not there is actually any risk worth avoiding by excluding HIV-positive men from your pool of eligible partners. Thus, to help illustrate this, let’s attempt to assess the risk of transmission between a known HIV-positive partner and an HIV-negative partner when condoms are used. There is no data to suggest that many HIV infections occur in these contexts, absent condom failure — rates of which are outrageously low (between 0.4% and 2.3%, depending on who you ask). If we take a generous account, let’s presume that rate is 2%. In a single incidence, then, the risk of potential exposure is 1:50.
That sounds like quite a big “if” factor to us, no? One in 50? Depending on your sex routine (read: if you’re a prude or a, um, professional sex partner), you’re going to reach that magical 50 number quite quickly, all but guaranteeing exposure. But exposure isn’t the villain, says Hoppe.
But exposure does not equal transmission. You can be exposed to the virus and not actually seroconvert. Thus, we need to add into this equation the risk of transmission per sexual encounter in the absence of condoms,which vary depending on a number of factors: whether the poz guy is insertive or receptive, his viral load, genital ulcerations, etc. Let’s say the poz guy is doing the fucking, for example’s sake. The generic risk in this scenario for a receptive HIV-negative man is 1:122 — that is, statistically speaking, there is a 1 in 122 risk of seroconversion after getting fucked once without a condom by an HIV-positive man (see here for a summary of this data). If we multiply these two risks together, we get something like a 1 in 6000 probability — give or take. According to risks of death statistics, this puts a person’s risk of seroconversion in this abstract, theoretical scenario somewhere between their risk of death by electrocution (1:5000) and their risk of death by drowning (1:8942). Obviously, this is a gross use of statistics — but I think it helps illustrate the point: the risk of transmission between serodiscordant couples in one sexual encounter when using condoms is EXTREMELY low. Just about negligible. And this example likely grossly overestimates the risk, due to the fact that condom failure is not the same as sex without condoms. Many people will quickly realize the condom has broken, leading to a much smaller window of possibility for exposure. Thus, the 2% exposure rate included in this example is likely much, much smaller in practice.
Obviously, if we extend this risk over time, then we run into increased risk of transmission for a variety of reasons — namely condom fatigue reported within serodiscordant couples. But if you use condoms, your risk of becoming infected from hooking up with a HIV-positive guy is probabilistically very low. Thus, excluding them from your dating pool cannot and should not be considered a risk reduction strategy — unless you are having unprotected sex.
Oh, and if you do so? You’re just helping perpetrate that stigma that HIV-positive folks are boogeymen.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
If you ask any HIV-positive man what kinds of difficulties come with seroconversion, many will immediately respond that stigma and the resulting fear of disclosure are today some of their most pressing concerns. New medications have alleviated what used to be a very immediate sense of death, and their adverse side-effects have been dramatically reduced with even more recent advances in treatment protocols. Rather than “purely” medical, the problems that men describe today with living with HIV are very much in the realm of the social.
Take for example a scenario another friend (we’ll call him Matt here) described to me recently at a gay bar in Detroit. Matt was dancing with a cute young man, who curiously told him that “You should stay away from me. I’m dangerous.” Matt asked him why, and he ambiguously answered that he was contaminated. Matt then asked him directly if he was HIV-positive, at which point the guy stiffened and gave a sheepish affirmative reply before running away. In this scenario, the young man had so internalized this harmful discourse of transmission that paints HIV-positive people as dirty and dangerous, that he himself did the running away. Matt has slept with HIV-positive men before — this is not a problem for him. But he didn’t even have to not reject him — the HIV-positive man did the rejecting for him!
While this seems like a very contextual and bracketed example, I think it serves to illustrate the kind of emotional damage that stigmatizing discourses may be having on HIV-positive people’s lives. I contend that Public Health — in its ambiguous and contradictory uses of the term “serosorting” (a topic for another essay) — is part of the problem here. By refusing to explain what this term means, and by remaining quiet in the way it gets practiced, Public Health is serving to reinforce stigma against HIV-positive people by allowing many men to use it as a rationale for their exclusionary practices.
Charlie
just a way side note – you should not hyphenate HIV with either positive or negative, it is confusing, especially for fast readers who see HIV- or HIV+ as one word. HIV Negative or HIV Positive is fine, no need for the hyphen, and it avoids the confusion with HIV-
Austin
I take it this was written by someone Pos.
If the chances of being infected are so low….
how do you explain we have an hiv epidemic on our hands?
It sounds like the kind of logic I heard used by a guy in
a therapy talk group. He was Pos, and he goes to bars looking
for sex, and he doesn’t mention that he is Pos.
And if the other guy doesn’t ask for condoms, he doesn’t bring
it up. He figures it’s the other guy’s responsibility, not his.
In other words, I met my worst nightmare…a guy perfectly
willing to infect me with no warning and no remorse,
just so he can get his rocks off.
ksu499
Exposure does not equal transmission, but with no exposure there can be no transmission. And wouldn’t you beg for a do-over if you ended up being one of the 2%?
Sam
@Queerty: “Is It Wrong to Refuse to Have Sex With HIV-Positive Men?”
No.
hardmannyc
The whole question is stupid. I’ve had sex partners into the four figures and I’m negative. I attribute that to assuming ALL partners are poz, even the ones who say they’re not. So it makes no difference to me, and I never ask serostatus.
scott ny'er
yeah. i don’t want to be the 2%.
to answer the question… let me pose one…
is it wrong to refuse to have sex with peeps with herpes, syphyllis, etc?
the answer is no. If you are negative to any of the above and there is any risk that you could be infected then no. It’s your life. And you’ve only got one.
ousslander
hell no. he sounds like som sort of con man
Mr. Enemabag Jones
Is it wrong to not be a slut?
Not being slutty greatly reduces your chances of contracting anything, especially if you use a condom everytime.
JR
Hmmmm… Well, there is always a right way and a wrong way to reject someone. I don’t think that it is very classy to chew your limb off in front of someone and run down the street yelling and screaming. Yes I agree that you have to and should always treat everyone as though they have any sort of STD… BTW, it takes two to tango my friends.
There is an old saying that I abide by… ‘Pride comes before a fall’. I know plenty of guys who have (in the past) gone shrieking in terror at the thought of even touching someone with HIV, let alone having sex with them; only to find out months later that they have seroconverted and are now miserable because they don’t understand why people wont have anything to do with them. How sad is that!!
I have never rejected anyone based on their status. Just be hot, cool and sexy!!! And just be careful guys! Geeeze! And the numbers aren’t high because of condom failure… it’s due to failure of guys to USE them! The whole barebacking trend has really upset any advances that education and prevention have made. We have (as a sub culture) been taught to hate ourselves and I think that putting ourselves at risk is a major component of that self-loathing.
J.P.
I’m poz. And, yes, I use the stigma of being HIV+ as a means to deter men from being interested in me. And regardless of the risk I prefer to be with other HIV+ men because I don’t like condoms. I believe that most gay men prefer sex sans condom, and I believe that will only further the stigma because most sane HIV- men want to stay that way…which is of the good.
But at the same time, the stigma is such that when I come out as poz to a person I know for a fact is poz, typically they will lie and say they are negative. This I imagine is the biggest problem: because of the stigma, most gay men will lie about the status rather than be honest for fear of rejection. The HIV stigma thus leads to increased risk of exposure and infection. This is why the African American community has been so hard hit because of that Living on the Downlow business.
As for the worldwide epidemic, the highest number of HIV cases are in Africa and India in heterosexual couples. In Africa, the mythology is that if an HIV+ man fucks (i.e. rapes) a virgin girl, it will cure him.
And Austin the shortened version is “poz” and if you’re going to a bar looking for sex and you aren’t carrying condoms, it ISN’T the other person’s responsiblity to hold your hand and take care of you. Birk!
Mike in Brooklyn
I checked the full article and, sadly, Trevor and several of his readers, miss out on the bigger pictures. Let me first state that later this month I will turn 50; I started frequenting bathhouses at 18; and most likely became HIV+ before 20 (first tests became publicly available 1986 and poz then, but T-cell count in 1988 showed that my infection had to have been several years prior). Also, I have been in a long-term relationship, now married, since 1986 (we got tested together) and he remains HIV-.
Trevor, you have no idea about the breadth of the stigma associated with HIV+ status; and only the few of us very long-term poz, and their friends and boyfriends, who witnessed and were subject to it do. Friends turned roommates out in the streets with unlawful evictions; victims were scared to death about being identified and had no one to turn for help. My oldest cousin was one of those who learned of their infection and died within 6 weeks; alone from his immediate family. Several dear friends, even with support from their close circle, ended up returning to their outrageously bigoted families as no one else was there. It took several years and tireless efforts before groups like Project Openhand initiated social, economic, and emotional support for AIDS/HIV patients.
I am not suggesting that the stigma is not around now; but put it in perspective.
But the bigger picture is, there is no need to have sex with everyone one finds desirable. I am a slut extraordinaire but that never meant that I had to have sex with every man I found desirable or found me desirable. And why shouldn’t HIV status be one of the factors in deciding who one sleeps with?
To some I would probably would be defined as a sex addict. From learning about gay sex the first day of class as a freshman at UC Berkeley, I was having sex with somewhere between 200-300 men per year (my boyfriend and I never let our love life overly interfere with our sex lives).
For those who are HIV-, and engage in a very active sex life, does it really matter if the chances of infection are 1:50 or 1:122 or even 1:1000?! A chance of infection even if once every 2-3 years is a chance too much. HIV remains a serious disease that requires extensive and invasive medical attention. Sure I used to take over 50 pills/day and now its only 5; the new cocktails are much easier to manage and without fewer side effects. But there remains a virus inside the body that, by its very nature, is determined to spread until it consumes its host. The virus does not understand that killing the host kills the virus; but as an organism, it remains alive so long as it is able to spread to other hosts.
If you are HIV-, stay safe and play safe. While I have survived when so many others succumbed to AIDS, and I am in relatively good health, there is no getting around that every time I have a medical condition arise, there are always complications that those who do not have a weaken immune system do not. And check out last week’s New York Times Sunday Magazine article about the health condition awaiting guys like me who are arriving at older age complication 10-20 years before side-by-side HIV- guys. On yeah, I get to experience being 70 in just a couple of years instead of a couple decades; not a fun time I am looking forward to.
dontblamemeivotedforhillary
Two words: MEN LIE!
terrwill
Very simple solution as HARDMANNY wrote: ASSUME EVERY SINGLE POTENTIAL PENIS (say that five times real fast!) YOU ARE GOIN TO PUT SOMEWHERE IN OR ON YOUR BODY IS POSTIVE………..
romeo
@ Hardmannyc #4: I’m with you. I’m -, and I just assume that everyone else is poz. So do all of my partners. Asking is irrelevant. Each of us are responsible for ourselves. Barebacking is nuts. Lube inside and out, helps me a lot. Also been known to get into masturbation games. That can be fun if you use a little imagination – and zero chance of transmission that way. People I know are just as cautious as I am. I believe we should be inclusive with poz people, but there’s plenty of fun stuff that can be done with zero chance of transmission.
With this, reality just has to trump idealism.
Bob
Why do all of the articles pertaining to HIV speak only about anal sex? There are many of us that limit this activity to just their partner (or a few people). Oral sex is still a very big part of gay sex and we still do not know if it is risky. Some day it is while others say it is totally safe and let’s be honest, how many people eat the candy bar with a wrapper on it? I would like more information about my favorite activity!
Andrew ex pat Aussie in US
Wow this is a tough question…in my past (before I became a middle aged ‘married’ man) I slept with a couple of men who (to their honour and credit) informed me that they were positive as we were stripping off and jumping into bed. While I did not scream or run away, I must admit (to my shame) it freaked me out and it really put a damper on things. After we were done it was over and I did not see them again. I feel bad at my shabby treatment of these two men. Hopefully I have learned a lesson but I have not had the siutation arise since to test my resolve out. So for HIV+ gentlemen out there please accept my apologies.
Andrew ex pat Aussie in US
By the way I forgot to add that I always practiced safe sex so I knew intellectually that the chance of infection was zero but I still freaked out. Not one of my best moments at all.
Brian NJ
What a nut.
He seemed to also want to outright say — but didn’t — that it was the duty of negative guys show their commitment to positive guys by fucking them.
mark
Who am I to say if it’s wrong.
What IS wrong is that horribly photoshopped image used in the intro.
Ouch!
Jamal
While we should treat HIV people with dignity and respect, that does not mean we MUST have sex with them or be a bigot. Sex is an extremely intimate act with life or death consequences, and we should be very cautious and discriminating against who we have sex with. The problem is that many gay men are not selective enough, not that they are too selective.
romeo
@ Andrew #16: Relax, we’re all in that same boat. It’s a tough problem, but bottom line, each person has a right to protect themselves. BTW: forgot to mention – TOYS ! LOL
@ Bob #14: I’ve read and heard that risk is much lower for oral, risk is higher if you have open sores or cuts in the mouth like from dental problems. I like to get blown, but not much into giving it, though I have. Too much f*cking work most of the time. I’m a little prissy about doing some things, but it must be hot enough cause I’m not getting any complaints.
Herbo
So true: Assume that everyone else is poz. Asking is irrelevant. Each of us are responsible for ourselves.
You won’t get infected by kissing and JO-ing with a poz dude.
A Neg dude blowing a Poz guy has to be aware there is some risk (despite it being low) depending on the amount of pre-cum and the state of the Neg guy’s mouth.
Being a Neg cum guzzler or “cum dump” for a Poz dude barebacker is high risk.
A Neg “Total Top” could also get infected if his Poz bottom bleeds during anal sex and it seeps into the Top’s urethra.
B
Let’s see. You quoted some bozo saying …
“The generic risk in this scenario for a receptive HIV-negative man is 1:122 — that is, statistically speaking, there is a 1 in 122 risk of seroconversion after getting fucked once without a condom by an HIV-positive man (see here for a summary of this data). If we multiply these two risks together, we get something like a 1 in 6000 probability — give or take. According to risks of death statistics, this puts a person’s risk of seroconversion in this abstract, theoretical scenario somewhere between their risk of death by electrocution (1:5000) and their risk of death by drowning (1:8942). Obviously, this is a gross use of statistics”
Gross use of statistics? It is way beyond that. This moron is comparing the lifetime risk of execution or drowning to the risk of one sex act involving receptive anal sex with someone who is HIV+. One sex act = one time he shoots his load. While the 1:122 is probably an overestimate in this case (if he knows he’s HIV+, he’s probably on medication, which reduces the risk somewhat), how many sex acts do you think occur per year per person on the average?
B
Herbo wrote, “So true: Assume that everyone else is poz. Asking is irrelevant.” Asking is relevant. While you should assume a partner is positive as a worst case assumption (positive but doesn’t yet know it, unless he is lying), the probability that he is positive is less than 100%. For people who are positive, it is 100%. Your risk will be lower if you take that into account.
While it depends on the threshold you set for a safety margin, you might restrict yourself to mutual masturbation with someone who is known to be positive and restrict riskier sex acts (blow jobs or anal sex with a condom) to people who are not. It’s a reasonable choice to say “no sex of any kind with someone who is positive”:
going out for dinner or being friends does not require being sex partners.
Jayson
As a person living with HIV, I never find it cruel, or bigoted if people dont want to have sex with me. I respect their honesty.
Anthony in Nashville
Never had sex with someone HIV+ (as far as I know).
But I assume everyone is positive, insist on condoms, and wonder why people who aren’t in committed relationships don’t protect themselves.
I’ve had intense debates with friends who say if I barebacked once, I would understand why condoms aren’t the highest priority.
dizzy spins
I am an HIV- man who was in a medium-length relationship with someone who was positive. He disclosed on our second date, and I told him I had to think about it, but that I would honest and upfront and we would take it one day at a time. I did a LOT of research, spoke to my doctor, spoke to people in sero-discordant relationships and decided it was worth the risk. But it was a RISK. Its not just about condom use-I had to be sure not to floss before we had sex, etc.
I can only imagine the hell HIV+ men go through–facing rejection left and right, among other issues. It sucks. But I also understand why a negative guy might want to stay away. And all the P.C. bulshit gobbly-gook (which is what that guy’s rambling message was) wont change that.
Herbo
Even if somebody said they were tested NEG a month earlier (“I have papers!”) they may have been to a bathhouse a week before and are about to seroconvert.
Asking IS irrelevant. Risky behavior is risky behavior.
Though, in my opinion, if a Poz dude wants to do more than kiss & JO – then disclosure is the right thing to do.
Pete
#9 above, J.P. needs to talk to a good infectious disease expert. He maintains that he and his hiv positive friends “don’t like condoms” so they have condomless sex with each other. J.P. should know that there are different strains of hiv, and your health and longevity are compromised if you become infected with multiple strains of hiv.
Also, without condoms, you are risking other infections which will continue battering your immune system and leave you vulnerable to many new problems.
Sebs
Of course a can refuse to have sex with someone positive. Its my life, my health and my absolutely deliberate choice.
YellowRanger
Does it make you an asshole? Fuck no. It makes you a thinking, cautious human being.
“How dare you refuse to make out with that guy just because he has swine flu! You’re a bigot!”
don warner saklad
How widespread is the strategy?… of “Let’s get tested 2GETHER B4 we have sex, 4 A VARIETY of STDs.” Do sexual health checkups reduce ambiguity and can they be like anything else POTENTIAL sex partners do together? See also http://notb4weknow.blogspot.com http://continuedat.blogspot.com
romeo
It occurs to me that it wouldn’t be such a technological leap to come up with some kind of device that a bottom could insert, like some sort of anchored condom, that would give virtually the same friction as nothing at all. If the design and aesthetics were good somebody could make a zillion dollars. Even straight guys that like a little back door action with their women would probably buy it. (I know, too much information. LOL)
But still, it would make life easier for bottoms, and certainly all us tops as well.
But condoms just have to be a fact of gay life.
terrwill
ROMEO: I just invented what you are looking for!! Its called a condom and the “anchor” is called a penis!! What the hell is the difference on what you proposed???………..
hardmannyc
“I’m poz. And regardless of the risk I prefer to be with other HIV+ men because I don’t like condoms. I believe that most gay men prefer sex sans condom.”
I will never understand why people continue to argue that 1 mm. of latex somehow so depletes their sexual feeling that they just can’t see using it. I couldn’t understand it at the beginning of the epidemic, and I don’t understand it now. 1 fucking millimeter of latex!
nicholas
refusing to have sex with someone that TELLS YOU he has the virus. that’s NOT the same as having it.
gay guys have an entire different metric system already, it would be SILLY to choose to have sex or not use condoms based on what they SAY.
in fact, you are punishing the guy that tells you the truth and rewarding the one that is in denial. way to go!
romeo
@ # 33 and # 34 — It doesn’t get the same friction. I use condoms and don’t have a major problem with it, but a lot of guys do. Something like what I suggested would keep a lot more people from barebacking. Also, I don’t think a lot of guys use lube INSIDE the condom as well as outside. Makes quite a bit of difference.
Lazycrockett
I’m fine with being an asshole.
hardmannyc
^^^ That’s a really sad statement, dude.
hardmannyc
@36: As a top, I actually get a lot of pleasure out of a condom. I have heard bottoms don’t get as much, but again, I think they’re being picky, especially when it’s literally a matter of life or death and involves something so tiny.
Sometimes I think I should be a Trojan spokesman, considering how much of their product I’ve used over the last 25 years 🙂
haribo
I only discriminate against republicans and married men.
Scott
I just assume everyone’s positive and keep the number of sexual partners down: by being monogomous with one man for the past 12 years! I had sex with HIV+ people previously and probably some I didn’t know were positive. Just play safely. If your partner says he’s negative just say: that’s great but just because you are doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use condoms.
Back in the late 80’s/early 90’s I found one condom brand that actually felt pleasurable when I topped but they stopped making it, I don’t know why.
When I bottom I find that condoms don’t decrease the pleasure but there tends to be more damage to my tender tissues no matter how much lube is used.
Scott
@40 When I was young and cute I had this curious problem. My sex partners withheld information from me. Was it their HIV status? No. That they were married or, supposedly, in monogomous relationships. I can’t tell you the number of guys who told me that their “situation is complicated”. Oh? You’re married? Why yes, how’d you guess? So how do you discriminate against men who don’t tell the truth?
Hal
You’ve all probably slept with tons of positive men (some who knew their status but did not disclose it, and most who didn’t even know.) Always opt for safe sex.
don warner saklad
The correct term is always… safer
There’s never zero risk
Hank Scott
It’s not wrong to refuse to have sex with any one for any reason. And I say that as someone who is HIV positive.
If find, however, that men who are reluctant or frightened about having sex with HIV positive men are generally:
— Ignorant of the basic principles of safer sex. Always use a condom if you want to avoid infection (and by the way, the 1 in 50 rate of possible infection cited above is erroneous. There may be a 1 in 50 chance of condom failure — most citations I’ve seen say it’s much, much lower. But there’s also a relatively low rate of infection in an individual case of unprotected sex with a positive person). It’s essential that everyone know what he needs to do to protect himself and take responsibility for himself, not depend on someone confessing his status (many men who honestly think they’re negative are not; not all are lying).
— Frightened by the spectre of death, which still is closely associated with HIV, despite the development of treatments that promise a long life for those who are positive and take care of themselves. This fear surfaces often in so-called serodiscordant relationships. And it’s only natural. It’s in our nature to want a partner who will live forever and take care of us. Dating someone who has a potentially fatal disease can be frightening. I suspect that if it were possible to determine at an early age which potential romantic partners might develop cancer or heart diseases in their forties, many gay men would steer clear of them as well.
That said, I believe sex and love are places where we have the right to discriminate, whether the discrimination is based on health, waist size, religion, ethnic background, political orientation, or dick size. But we have to be nice about it.
don warner saklad
By David France
Another Kind of AIDS Crisis
A striking number of HIV patients are living longer but getting older faster—showing early signs of dementia and bone weakness usually seen in the elderly.
http://nymag.com/health/features/61740/
mark
You’re not an a$$hole for not having sex with POZ men.
NOW assume any potential partner is POZ, but doesn’t know it…yet.
Safer sex is the answer. I’ve been POZ since 85′, I’ve had longterm relationships with POZ and NEG men,(who are still NEG.)
So sleep with who you choose, it’s been my experience any guy who can’t deal with grown sex in the real world….aren’t worth the effort to try to persuade.
Keith Kimmel
I am neg and have had sex with poz folks on occasion, knowingly. Its all about knowledge, knowing fact from fiction and being secure in who you are. But that’s MY choice and I don’t have the right to make it for anyone else.
That said, its still up to the individual to decide with whom they will do the wild. If you don’t feel comfortable having sex with poz folks, then you shouldn’t – and anyone who trys to tell you otherwise is stepping just a wee little bit over more than one line in the sand.
To suggest that a refusal to have sex with a poz guy makes you an asshole is ludicrous. Its just as insane as someone saying that because I don’t have sex with black men, I am a racist. I am simply not attracted to them. My choice. If (+) is a turnoff for you, then you’re entitled to that feeling.
So I don’t agree with the tone or conclusions of the article, or alot of the comments here.
don warner saklad
It’s not really making a choice if the POTENTIAL sex partners don’t know each other’s test results. It’s a choice whether or not to go ahead if both POTENTIAL sex partners know each other’s test results BEFORE having sex by getting tested TOGETHER, for A VARIETY of STDs. See also http://notb4weknow.blogspot.com http://continuedat.blogspot.com
alan brickman
ALWAYS USE CONDONS LANCE BLACK ARE YOU HEARING THIS??
jason
When are you guys going to wake up to the fact that HIV does not cause AIDS? AIDS is a condition where the immune system has reached a very frail state. This is caused by drug use, contraction of venereal diseases, and all-round poor lifestyles. The condition known as AIDS is the end result of damage to the immune system.
There is no possibility that a virus can cause a slow deterioration of the immune system. Viruses don’t act that way.
WillBFair
Hoppe is using the same tired rationalizations the community used in the eighties. I’m glan folks are seeing through this bulls–t.
We have to stop aids in our community now. We’ve known the transmission method for years. And the available strategies have been obvious for years: positives only with positives, negatives only with negatives, honesty and caring for everyone, peer group pressure on thoughtless barebackers, condoms always for negatives except in a monogamous relationship when trust is rock solid.
If anyone’s feelings are hurt by this, tough s-it.
dontblamemeivotedforhillary
Please don’t use the words “Gay” and “Community” in the same sentence as Gay Population seems more accurate. We stopped being a community sometime in the 1990s or earlier. Semantics, I know but let’s be accurate about ourselves and the homocons within gay punditry and the increasing AIDSphobia and internalized Homophobia (Ex-Gays and Crystal-meth abuse) than ever before since Stonewall and the onset of the AIDS epidemic.
don warner saklad
by Seth Kalichman
http://denyingaids.blogspot.com
WillBFair
I know we’re many different peoples. That’s what the rainbow flag means. And of course the homocons are psychos. But I still like to think that we can look past our differences, and be one people with bonds of care and concern for all of us.
Lucky Luke
I don’t care if the chance of getting HIV is minimal, the simple fact that there’s a chance is more than enough for me not to have sex with with a HIV+ person. But, as most of you said, the important thing is to always have safe sex. ALWAYS.
People should be afraid of getting HIV, there are plenty of patients with virus strains that are resistant even to newer drugs and are still dying, even with all resources available (at least here in Brazil the treatment for HIV is free for everyone)and only know we’re finding out what happen to people after 20+ years of living with the virus.
Lance Rockland
How much of a risk is there of getting HIV from sucking a cock without a condom on it? What if the guy doesn’t come in your mouth?
don warner saklad
The correct term is always… safer
There’s never zero risk.
People can’t even get the word right, how would they get so called safer sex right every time?… Do people even agree on what are so called safer sex practices?…
don warner saklad
Evaluating a sexual practice for risk doesn’t take into account that people don’t do one thing and stop. Before and during sex you don’t know what might happen next.
PopSnap
No, and people who either lie or hide the fact that they are HIV-positive and knowingly infect someone else should be tried for attempted murder in my opinion.
hardmannyc
#57: I know of some people, including my deceased lover, who got HIV from sucking cock. BUT: they either sucked a lot (I mean A LOT) of cock; or, more likely, they had a bad gum infection. My partner had that, plus a severely compromised immune system (he was unknowingly coming down with hepitatis). It was the perfect storm for just a drop of pre-cum on an exposed gum.
Generally, though: sucking cock is not unsafe. Canada officially has said that for years. Just don’t suck it for several hours after you’ve had a root canal, for example. Common sense should be your guide.
DoItRight
Re: WillBFair – THANK YOU.
I mean, how hard is it to understand that, after more than 25 years of PSAs, literature, counseling, and workshops promoting safe, responsible sex practices, if you’re STILL inept enough not to keep the semen out of your orifices, how hard is it to understand that your trip to the amusement park is over?
I’m sick of sitting at a bar and watching men pile out of a backroom at the end of the night and seeing 3/4 of them with facial wasting and/or crix bellies, and wondering what souvenir the remaining 1/4 are taking home with them.
Beyond that, I’m fed up with having to dance around the constantly shifting, ever increasing sexual minefield that horny, unconcerned poz men represent.
I’m sick of not being able to date, and I’m sick of not being able to even casually trick. (Sidenote for those formulating a bitchy rebuttal to this: Once upon a time, it was possible for one to date or casually trick without concern for more than the risk of the clap, or crabs. Even herpes was less of an issue then. Poz guys who refuse to get out of the play pool are the sole reason it can’t happen again. That COULD change, but it WON’T unless there’s a shift of attitudes within the community.
It’s more than an issue of exclusion. This is an issue of responsibility and ethics. If you test poz, it’s not okay to keep having public sex in a dogpile of anonymous partners. It’s not okay to have sex with even one partner, if they’re uninfected. It’s not okay to be sexually reckless.
It’s not okay to say “well the other guy knows the risks, I certainly don’t have to modify MY behavior”. It’s more than that – you’re done having sex with the general(read: “uninfected”)populace.
Eventually, opinion in the gay community will mature to this level, and it will become unacceptable to be a member of those who continue to risk the lives of others through poz/neg sexual interaction, or worse, non-disclosure and intentional infection.
Rob Moore
It is a rather silly question. When someone tells you he is negative, how do you verify it? It isn’t like there is some mark or other indicator that becomes visible as soon as one is infected. In fact, it can take weeks or months to be really detectable.
I was infected with one encounter; just one. I tested negative about seven weeks prior. At the time of the test, I hadn’t had sex with anyone in several months plus I was consistent in my use of condoms, and I had not been in the more dangerous role of bottom in close to two years. The last time I had a condom failure was nearly six years earlier. I slipped up on New Year’s Eve 1993 while in Detroit on a project. In February, I came down with what I thought was flu. After several days of being sick in a hotel room, I flew home, where a doctor diagnosed me with scarlet fever, which is not very common in a 39 year old man who is apparently in good physical condition.
One year later, after a blood test for life insurance, I was diagnosed with HIV. I told no one for a while except a few very close friends. I continued to practice safer sex, but one night I just sort of blurted it out to someone I was dating on our 3rd date because it was pretty clear both of us were into each other. I never saw or talked to him, again. I continued this routine of not hiding it anymore. After a few years, my thick skin was rubbed away. These days, I simply don’t have sex with others anymore.
It isn’t that every man lost interest in sex with me because quite a few did not, but I was worn out by the reactions of a significant number who suddenly acted as if I had become less than worthy as a person. One man in whom I had no sexual interest wrecked what seemed to be turning into a great friendship. He knew from the beginning about me just because another friend who knew I had gone for a checkup casually asked how my check-up went (just fine thanks). So this newer seemingly really good friend was informed from day one.
One night, a small group of us were enjoying a really nice spring evening having dinner together at a restaurant outside. We were joking around with each other about the waiters we thought were cute and some of the patrons who struck our fancy. We were also teasing each other as good sluts gone bad. I made a teasing remark to my newer friend who responded he would never consider having sex with someone like me because I am HIV+. I think he realised he had said more than he should when no one laughed. I didn’t make scene about it, but the good humour was seriously diminished. He didn’t express any regrets for having said what he said even though it was clearly an inappropriate response to the teasing remark, which carried no implication that I wanted to get in his pants. I mention this incident as an example of how badly too many men (and women) handle it. If you don’t want to have sex with someone who has been honest and shared something with you, it is entirely unnecessary to act as if we suddenly became less worthy. It can be handled without being mean about it. After a while, I simply stopped trying. I think the last person with whom I had sex, or I should say sexual contact, was in 2003. It is simply too painful to have to come out over and over. I can’t take the risk of infecting someone without fully informing the person.
Back to my original premise. Do all of you who remain negative think that all the men with whom you have had sex were negative? Based on what? A test tells you nothing if you had sex after the test.
Anthony
This was an amazing blog entry. You folks at Queerty must’ve read my comment on the davey video entry. This stirred up a much needed debate and it got people thinking. Good job Queerty!
jason
HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. There IS zero risk of catching venereal diseases so long as you’re both healthy. We are NOT all at risk.
Those who say otherwise are simply looking for excuses for their promiscuity. Please don’t include me in your assumptions about gay male promiscuity.
threshold
I wouldn’t. If someone is HIV+, 99% of the time they had unprotected sex. This would mean that they’d be at a much greater risk of having other STIs which can be transmitted with a condom (HSV-2, syphilis, etc.), even if the risk of the transmission of HIV itself during protected sex is low.
scott ny'er
@rob moore
thanks for sharing your story. I hope all is well with you.
romeo
@ threshold #66: Condoms have been a bulwark against venereal disease since at least the 18th Century when they made them out of sheep’s intestines. I’ve never heard what you’re saying before.
@ Jason #65: you need to pull yourself together. If HIV didn’t cause AIDS then the treatments wouldn’t work. Treatments are directly linked to research on HIV. What you’re saying is dangerous and delusional.
Mike Barton
@Jason: You appear to be living in alternative reality. I have not been able to find one documented case of someone who died of AIDS that did not have the HIV virus; the HIV virus does destroy the immune system. It’s name provides a clue: Human Immunodeficiency Virus. To your comment stating that there is zero risk of catching a venereal disease as long as both partners are healthy – well, if one has a venereal disease he is not healthy (the words are opposites). I disagree with you, yet I am not making an excuse for my promiscuity since I have been monogamous for the last seven years. Don’t include me in your presumptions about gay male promiscuity.
don warner saklad
http://denyingaids.blogspot.com
Kris
@#14 Bob:
Oral sex can spread HIV infection. If the mouth has an infection or a scratch or scrape, then it can be passed to the penis. If a man has a cut on his penis, that is the other way HIV can be passed on. If the mouth and penis of your partner is 100% healthy, then there shouldn’t be any problem of passing the virus to another person. Like, I’ve read several times before, assume everybody is positive, and be 100% safe.
Todd
Short answer…..NO!
J. Clarence
I like Trevor, but this is one where I can’t say I fully agree. We can address the stigma that HIV+ men have to endure. However, we don’t shake hands with people when they are sick; and we are advised to avoid intimate contact with people if they have the flu or the cold. The situation with HIV is of course much more dire, because unlike the cold it stays with you forever and you always have the potential to pass on the virus to someone else.
It isn’t nice or fair, but it is the facts we have to live with.
Personally however I’m negative but I could see dating someone who is positive. There are ways in which we can go about trying to ensure our safety. That however is a personal choice people have to make on their own.
rLm
#63 Rob Moore asks: “Do all of you who remain negative think that all the men with whom you have had sex were negative? Based on what?”
OF COURSE NOT. And I base that on the fact that men LIE. My experience is that they’re all liars; they’ll say and do anything in order get a cock into one or more orifices, or to cum in a warm hole.
Adhering to that premise – and acting accordingly – is why I’m still negative and am here to talk about it.
–And NO, it isn’t wrong to refuse to have sex with HIV positive men.
It’s too bad about the stigma that comes with a poz diagnosis, but if poz guys would keep in in their pants instead of sticking it any place they can, there wouldn’t be an ever climbing rate of infection, and that might do wonders for wiping away the stigma.
hardmannyc
“I’m sick of not being able to date, and I’m sick of not being able to even casually trick. (Sidenote for those formulating a bitchy rebuttal to this: Once upon a time, it was possible for one to date or casually trick without concern for more than the risk of the clap, or crabs. Even herpes was less of an issue then. Poz guys who refuse to get out of the play pool are the sole reason it can’t happen again. That COULD change, but it WON’T unless there’s a shift of attitudes within the community.”
Wow, have you been on Mars for the past 25 years, not to mention this thread? They’re called “condoms.” Try them. They work. You can date. You can even fuck!
Keith Kimmel
No. 62 · DoItRight
“It’s more than an issue of exclusion. This is an issue of responsibility and ethics. If you test poz, it’s not okay to keep having public sex in a dogpile of anonymous partners. It’s not okay to have sex with even one partner, if they’re uninfected. It’s not okay to be sexually reckless. It’s not okay to say “well the other guy knows the risks, I certainly don’t have to modify MY behavior”. It’s more than that – you’re done having sex with the general(read: “uninfected”)populace.”
Oh my god are you an uninformed idiot. While I agree that poz people should NOT continue to have annon sex with multiple partners, they are NOT done having sex with uninfected people. So long as they disclose their status, its perfectly OK for a poz and a neg to get it on.
If you want to be a slut (which really seems to be what you are upset about), then use a condom. Or go to a sex club/sex party where screening is a requirement for admission.
No. 63 · Rob Moore
“It isn’t that every man lost interest in sex with me because quite a few did not, but I was worn out by the reactions of a significant number who suddenly acted as if I had become less than worthy as a person.”
Not everyone is like this. I’m not, for one. You need to change your peer group if everyone around you is reacting this way. Its the people you are hanging out with. I never fully appreciated what poz people go through until I started spending time with someone who is poz. I’m there for him through it all, not just when the party is in full swing, the music is loud and the X and such is flowing. Doctors appointments, when he is puking his guts up from the cocktail, when he caught the swine flu and was scared shitless that it was the start of a downward spiral.
Its sad that people within our own circle are willing to turn their backs on these kids because of their own insecurities. And a growing number of them are kids. Mine was 19 when he got infected, 20 now.
—-
On a lighter (and irrelevant) note: I just watched the music video for Pink Floyd’s “Learning to Fly”. I so wanna fuck that guy with the scythe in the beginning of the video. Its on YouTube, check him out. Hawt, hawt, hawt!
McShane
Where live now, it seems as if the poz guys have more, and less complicated sex than the neg guys. I had sex frequently during the 80-90 period in San Fancisco, unprotected and caught nothing.
I’m not too enthused about condoms, as I recall them, but think that sexality is the major reason for even identifying as being gay. As careless as it obviously is, I somehow don’t blame people who want to bareback , if the choice seems to be that or nothjing. I certainly don’t object to the small risk factor.
Condoms aside, given all of the medical advances made, It seems to me kind of bizzarre that they han’t thought of anything beside the truly primative condom.
don warner saklad
If so called safer sex practices and condoms work, why after so many years do we still have no headlines… HIV/AIDS Epidemic Peaks and is Now Going Down.
Jim
Don
Don’t be dumb. Safer sex practices are not used universally and all the time.
Wagnerian
It’s asshole-ish to infer that anyone owes another person sex. This is such a stupid, kind of enraging question. It places sex above everything else.
I won’t have sex with positive men if I don’t feel comfortable doing so. End of story. End of anyone’s right to question my decision. Period.
Po Mo
To those guys who won’t have sex “if [they] don’t feel comfortable doing so” with poz guys: grow up.
You’re just being dishonest with yourselves. Admit it – you’re a pussy, you’re afraid. You’re afraid of your own inevitable mortality, and you’re afraid of being on the receiving end of the ignorant stigma which you so callously dole out yourselves.
HIV is out there, hasn’t yet been eradicated, and until then you will always be at risk of contracting it. Life is risky. That’s one of the messages this article is trying to send. Only you can learn as much as you can about risks and undertake the necessary precautions to limit your risks in life. After that, your decisions on what you do or don’t do are basically based on fear or fearlessness…and too often recklessness.
HIV is still being spread because of your fear and denial. Guys like you refuse to get tested regularly, and still engage in reckless sex, stupidly trusting anyone who says they’re negative. People lie! Everyone’s an actor. Anyway, it’s people with a high viral load in their bloodstream and semen who you should avoid. And who are they? They’re unmedicated (or poorly medicated) HIV+ guys. And who are these likely to be? The guys who say they’re negative, haven’t got tested in years (if ever). I don’t know the statistics; but I know that there’s a large percentage of positive people walking around who don’t know they’re positive. That’s why the epidemic continues. Not because of poz guys who know they’re positive.
Anyone sexually active, of any age, should be tested regularly, and treated as necessary. End of story. If the stigma ended, more people would get tested. Thus, it’s the fearful, stigma-promoting guys like you who are fueling the epidemic.
I’m poz, have been for two decades, and have had great sexual relationships with handsome, “poz-friendly”, negative partners who’ve remained negative. I continue to love them mostly because of their courage and maturity when few others had it. We had anal sex with condoms, oral sex without, no problem.
I consider myself healthy, look and live well, and keep a positive outlook on life. There are many out there like me now with no visible signs of HIV or AIDS due to better treatment. I maintain an undetectable (i.e. very low) viral load because of medications and regular trips to the doctor. Some studies suggest now that poz guys like me are “essentially no risk” because of the minimal viral load in my blood and semen – google it if you want to learn more. My successful sero-discordant relationships support that assessment.
It’s very likely that exposure to a high amount of virus, plus accompanying co-factors which aid transmission (e.g. other STD’s, compromised immune system due to alcohol or other drugs, repeated unsafe sex exposure, etc), is what puts you at risk. Thus you should fear more all those supposedly negative guys than someone who bravely tells you they’re positive – at least you can better assess your risk.
If you want to live life like an ostrich with your head stuck in the dirt, it’s your decision to do so. Unfortunately, consider yourself in the majority of the population, the major reason why this world still has so many problems – like HIV. Fear is a disease. One day though you’ll have to face your own mortality – it’s inevitable.
constructionworker
No, people should be able to reject a sex partner for any reason they want, and they should be more choosy when it comes to intimacy. Ironically, most gay men spend more time picking out shoes.
nicholas
No. 80 · Po Mo, THANKS a lot!
to expect a stranger you just met to be more responsible for your health than you are is not only lazy and irresponsible, but ineffective.
it’s easy to point fingers when something beyond our control hits us, be it a natural disaster, an epidemic, or whatever. it’s also juvenile.
to spout ways of conduct that OTHERS have to follow, and blame them when they don’t is moralistic. you can only change yourself.
and to pretend you’re a free to fuck without condoms and whoever carries an infection has to be not only aware of it but have to tell you about it, is wishful thinking.
not everyone knows they have something. not everyone feels comfortable to tell. heck, to brag the fact you are negative, as an excuse for unsafe behavior is living in denial.
Rob Moore
RLM, try not to take this the wrong way, but you are a fucking, holier-than-thou moron. Since all people lie some of the time, and some people lie all of the time, my guess is that you mostly lie about your virtue. I truly hope you never get infected because it is honestly a lot of bother dealing with sanctimonious jerks squealing like Jerry Falwell at an orgy.
It’s sort of like getting pregnant. It only takes once.
Trevor Hoppe
I’m really just amazed and flattered at what a thoughtful conversation this quickly written blog entry has jumpstarted here at Qweerty. Thanks to everyone for thinking about these ideas, even if you disagree with me. I understand that these are highly emotional issues that aren’t easily resolved. I did not intend to resolve them in this piece. As I said, it raises more questions than it answered.
That said, I have a few comments in response that may help clear up a few things:
1) The title of the entry seems to say that I think you’re an asshole if you refuse to have sex with Poz guys. I don’t and I never said that;
2) Relatedly, and importantly, I think the way I framed the article at the start was perhaps not the best. By starting with my friend’s comments, it seems like I’m trying to make him out to be the problem that I’m attacking. But if you look at the way I try to frame things at the end, I’m actually more interested in criticizing Public Health institutions for a failure to explain properly the term “serosorting” and its advantages and drawbacks. By not giving men clear advice on what kinds of strategies work best when having sex with lots of people, there’s a clear failure to educate and inform. But again, by starting with an individual’s decisions, I didn’t realize that I was setting people up to believe that I thought they were bad people for making these kinds of decisions. I really don’t think that, and I’m sorry if that’s how it was understood;
3) I think men have the right to choose to have sex with whomever they want, whenever they want, however they want — but let’s not pretend that people’s “rights” can be the endgame here. People have a right to call me a faggot and tell me I’m an abomination of god for having sex with men. But obviously we don’t agree with the ideology that produces that kind opinion. Stigma produces highly negative consequences that we should be invested in reversing. We should be thoughtful in the ways that Public Health discourses on safety and health coalesce neatly with stigmatizing discourses against HIV-positive people. It’s not an accident.
That’s all for now. Thanks to Qweerty for reposting.
don warner saklad
>”Don’t be dumb. Safer sex practices are not used universally and all the time.”
And even sex partners don’t agree on what are so called safer sex practices, especially when another sex partner, another sexual opportunity comes along.
don warner saklad
Did I mention the strategy?… you can get tested TOGETHER with a POTENTIAL sex partner BEFORE having sex, for A VARIETY of sexually transmitted diseases. Ambiguity is reduced and it can be like anything else you might do together. See also http://notb4weknow.blogspot.com http://continuedat.blogspot.com
Distingué Traces
I’ve volunteered in HIV prevention.
I’m HIV-positive.
I feel I am in a position to say: a weirdly large proportion of the energy of HIV-prevention agencies is devoted to making sure HIV-positive guys get laid.
It is weird, embarrassing, and (perhaps most of all) a pretty huge waste of public money.
mark
Distigue’
I never knew of any HIV prevention agency in the least about getting POZ men laid.
I’m calling BULLSH*T on that.
@DoingItRight
you whiny self absorbed schmuck, you act like AIDS is just a big inconvience so you can’t let your inner slut out to play. AIDS didn’t just happen to you…. buttercup.
As for what consenting adults that are given information about sero-status do or don’t do, isn’t under your control, you aren’t that big.
rLm
#83 Rob Moore:
Guess I touched a nerve.
Good. Not here to be popular.
“Truly hoping” I never get infected? gee, thanks.
Me, too.
I don’t “lie about my virtue(s)”, or my faults.
I love nasty sex. Or at least, I used to. Is that the virtue about which I’m said to be mostly lying?
I don’t get to have nasty sex anymore, and you know why – because it only takes once.
And I stand my my assertion: men lie, either directly, to your face, or indirectly, by omitting discussion of certain information.
My honesty bugging you?
Or is it the fact that I think poz boys should keep it in their pants and am not afraid to say it?
Like another poster here who weighed in halfway up the page, I’m fine with being an asshole.
And…..I’m done with this thread.
P.S. to #87 DISTINGUE’ TRACES: Thanks for saying it. After sharing a frank discussion roughly a year ago with an RN who volunteers his time and talent at a local HIV clinic, I kinda figured as much. And confirming that as much as anything else I’ve observed with respect to this issue in the gay community since 1983 has helped me come to the opinion I’ve shared here.
Distingué Traces
Well, Mark, the absurd rationalizations engaged in by Trevor Hoppe are a pretty good example of what I am talking about.
So, if you’ve never known of this before, you know of it now.
dontblamemeivotedforhillary
Assholes have been around a lot longer than AIDS. Fucking an asshole could surely lead to the other without thinking of the consequences…
Bianca
Is it wrong to refuse to take a ride on a train you know has no brakes?
Jesus, how can anyone write such a self serving, irresponsible idiotic article?
Attmay
I won’t have sex with anyone I know to be HIV+. I don’t think it’s wrong to think about protecting yourself first. No ephemeral feeling of pleasure is worth worrying about the possibility of open sores or condom failure.
Even so, I am in a monogamous relationship, and we used condoms until we both tested negative and developed enough trust to give them up.
DeAnimator
No. You’re not an asshole- you’re smart and actually care about your health/life. I’m talking one night stands here though. If you fall in love with someone- obviously you know what they’re doing, etc.
ricky
if i were hiv positive i would not be having sex.
ricky
this guy needs his fucking head examined.
johnny
this guy is nuts. i gamble for a living. mostly card counting and poker with some sports betting. i see things in poker that have a 1/3000 chance of happening happen at least every month. I have had a downswing counting blackjack that theoretically should have happened only 1/5000 times.
the guy does not realize the odds he is playing with. THOSE ARE NOT GOOD ODDS TO FUCK WITH YOUR LIFE over.
djm
I don’t think it’s wrong to refuse, no, but I don’t personally have a problem. I have had serious relationships with two HIV+ guys and remain HIV- to this day. For the record, I’m mostly a bottom. There were times with one of them when we didn’t use condoms but he didn’t cum inside of me. A stupid risk, I know, but the risk was also minimized because he has an undetectable viral load.
After doing this a few times, my bf decided it was too risky to not use condoms and that was the end of it. For the record, he made no claim about medication making it not a death sentence. Instead, he said that the medication would make me feel sick and one of them (sustiva?) might cause nightmares. Not exactly enticing. He honestly wasn’t concerned about the stigma angle.
So, yeah, stupid risks were taking, mostly because I didn’t want the condoms used. However, there is no doubt I was exposed. Undetectable does not equal non-existent. That means that I WAS exposed to HIV and did not seroconvert. This is still true months after the last time we had sex.
Sydney
I agree with #38.
Much rather be an asshole about it than willingly get sick.
don warner saklad
It’s good for everybody to have as much sex as possible and as often as possible. Compare bonobo behaviors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo with chimpanzee behaviors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee Everybody can have a choice whether or not they want to have sex with somebody else depending on their test results. And to know each other’s test results they have to get tested TOGETHER BEFORE having sex. You’re not making the choice unless you KNOW each other’s test results by getting tested TOGETHER BEFORE sex. Most people aren’t going to get tested TOGETHER BEFORE having sex. For people who do the strategy, they’ll have the choice whether or not they want to go ahead and have sex. A likely scenario is one of the potential sex partners will head for the hills.
don warner saklad
If the potential sex partners get different test results the likely scenario is one of the potential sex partners will head for the hills.
Post sex STD tests are a strategy–but what do they cause a person to do? Give up sex? Have less sex? Have more sex in order to “get even”?
Testing before sex is a way to keep some sex from happening, and, consequently, prevent an STD. Post sex STD tests don’t do that. Pre sex STD tests will save some lives–some people will back out of the possibility of sex with that partner. Others may be way more cautious. Still others might wait for non-HIV STDs to be cured, if available.
McShane
While I don’t suggest that people have unprotected sex at all, I do feel very confident that exposure does not necessarily lead to infection. I was shocked when after a number of years , through the 80’s I had frequent sex with people in San Francisco: mainly anonymous sex and in bathhouses and outside in guarded areas. I was never infected. I assume thatr I had exposure with approx 4-500 different people a year. Then I was admitedly careless and not knowledgable. Clearly I couldn’t have just had sex with unexposed people.
I’ve not been exposed unsafely since then, but I think that the hypothesis id sound . I’ve meet otherpeoplr like myself. and admit that there could be factors like different peoples vulnerability.
B
McShane wrote, “While I don’t suggest that people have unprotected sex at all, I do feel very confident that exposure does not necessarily lead to infection. I was shocked when after a number of years , through the 80’s I had frequent sex with people in San Francisco: mainly anonymous sex and in bathhouses and outside in guarded areas.”
Two things to keep in mind. First, for the riskiest sex act with an infected parter, the chance of becoming infected is about 1 in 120, and is much lower for other sex acts. Only a fraction of your sex partners were likely to be infected as well. If you assume that 20% of your partners were infected, and count the last 5 years of the 80s (when the number who were infected was highest in that decade), and that receptive anal sex was all you did, the chance of you being infected comes out to 98.5% (assume 1 sex act per partner for 5 years @ 500 per year). It isn’t surprising that you’d find people in San Francisco at that time who were luck enough to “win” when the odds gave them a 98.5% chance of losing, just as a few people win the lottery.
Second, there’s a mutation that gives a small number of individuals a significantly lower risk of being infected … something about the proteins that HIV binds to on the surfaces of T cells. If you have that mutation, your risks are significantly lower.
Using first hand experience in cases like this leads to bad choices – the guy who you hear about tends to be the one who was very, very lucky.
romeo
For every one of the posters here that say they have had risky sex with HIV positive people and did not seroconvert, you all realize that thousands did the same and DID seroconvert. Your luck was comparable to winning the lottery. How many want to risk their lives on picking the right numbers?
TurnOfftheBoobTube
Simply put – you don’t have sex with anyone without a condom. Doesn’t even matter if we’re not “going down there” – no condoms, no play. Get used to it, young people! And I mean you straight kids, too!
I did find out I was with an HIV+ person in a one-night stand (but was using condoms) while on vacation. My HIV+ BFF told me not to panic (I didn’t), and to get myself tested. I did. Negative. My doctor asked for a second test. I did. Negative. Didn’t appreciate not being informed, but again, condoms and safe safe safe is the only way.
dontblamemeivotedforhillary
Why won’t Queerty post the NYMag article about Premature aging and AIDS?
E
I may be hopelessly confused here, but why should the question even be posed? Is it wrong to refuse to have sex with someone you know to be HIV positive? Think of it the other way: How would you react if someone told you that you HAVE to have sex with someone you don’t want to have sex with? For whatever reason, be it a lack of visual attraction, bad breath, obnoxious personality or serostatus. Where I come from, they call that rape. What on earth is wrong with being selective about the people with whom you have sex?! #80 Construction Worker, you hit it right on the head and I thank you for it.
don warner saklad
Are you being moral?… with an act that could spread an epidemic infection to people who’re uninfected.
See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
http://www.justiceharvard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43&Itemid=13
How to Measure Pleasure
http://www.justiceharvard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12&Itemid=9
Ron
My boyfriend just informed me that he gave a blowjob to his ex-roommate’s boyfriend who is positive. I told him we would need to wait 6 months and get tested before having sex again.
He then called and asked me, “If I turned positive, would you dump me?” I said, “yes”, without hesitation. He said goodbye forever.
I have the right to chooose to not be in a relationship with a Pos person. It’s not what I want.
That does not mean that Poz people are bad or should not be treated with respect and dignity.
I did tell him that the guy he blew should have not let him blow him without a condom, otherwise, he is risking infecting a known negative person. THAT is what I have a problem with.
don warner saklad
If you both get tested TOGETHER today, for A VARIETY of STDs, you both have a baseline. Then retesting later narrows things down more for more effective treatment if any infection is detected.
Scott
Your comparison to drowning and electrocution are outrageously bogus and misleading. The numbers that you quote are *lifetime* statistics and you are comparing that to exposure and conversion in a *single* incident. I appreciate that you are trying to make this a fact based discussion, but you need to correct and revise!
See here:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050106_odds_of_dying.html
joeperez
Here’s my response on the Integrally Gay weblog:
Queerty, a heavily Postmodern Website, recently published an article entitled, “Is It Wrong to Refuse to Have Sex With HIV Positive Men?” I don’t see an individual by-line on the article, so I will be describing the author as “Queerty”.
The article makes three unstated assumptions: First, that it is right for men to have multiple sex partners. Second, that the potential to stigmatize the class of HIV positive men and therefore hurt their feelings should be weighed heavily upon HIV negative men when they decide who to sleep with. Third, that ethical value of sex is fundamentally a risk analysis of the potential for contracting an STD.
Given that those three beliefs are the fundamental operating assumptions, it’s not surprising that the article’s answer is a qualified yes. I hope you see can its logic. If an HIV negative man routinely has protected sex with multiple casual partners and also holds strong egalitarian values such that discriminating on HIV status causes him grave internal conflict (as seems to be the case with Queerty), then it may indeed be healthy for him to refuse to discriminate in his choice of sexual partners and be satisfied that he is somehow helping to reduce social stigmatization of HIV positive men. What goes without saying is that his is a rare and relatively elite (i.e., Postmodernist) vantage point on sexual decision-making, weighing the ethics of each trick within the context of a vision of a society in which everyone is free to shag a smorgasbord of highly diverse partners in ways sensitive to the feelings of them all.
It is never absolutely wrong under any circumstances for anyone to refuse to have sex with someone else, and therefore the question, “Is it Wrong to Refuse to Have Sex With HIV Positive Men?” can be answered a definite No. But it’s worth looking at how Queerty arrived at his perspective and not dismiss it because the conclusion seems erroneous.
If we disagreed with Queerty, we wouldn’t be the only ones. A variety of commenters on the blog reject his reasoning, but from very different angles. Many analyze the sexual ethics purely on the basis of “What’s in it for me? Am I going to be safe? Am I acting with kindness towards another individual?” sorts of concerns. For example, SCOTT NY’ER:
and JR:
SCOTT NY’ER and JR come to different personal decisions, but they are derived from essentially similar considerations: they balance what is sexy for them as an individual with what is going to keep them safe as an individual. So most of Queerty’s commenters are bringing a considerably more conventional (i.e., pre-Postmodernist) sensibility to the same sets of issues, and not really engaging with the heart of Queery’s article, that angst over the dynamic relationship between his choice and the culturally-constructed reality that is HIV stigma, and his willingness to take on more relative risk to his individual health in order to create a better world as he sees it. The Postmodernist sexual actor is aware of his decision, but it’s almost not even an individual choice; it’s more like the actor is plaing a role in a cultural movie script in which he is one of many co-screenwriters.
Despite having arrived at a sense of identity beyond the strictly individualistic, Queerty’s moral considerations are definitely not yet Integral. An Integral stance in sexual ethics is to weigh the act relative to particular circumstances embedded in Structures, Types, Experiences, Angles and Modes (STEAM), rejecting any one-size-fits-all advice. An Integralist might seek to understand how each gay man is making meaning from his sexuality and encourage practical, healthy, and holistic actions within the context of the moral actor’s perspective; from there, acts may be assessed relative to absolute, intrinsic, and relative perspectives on their value.
For example, Integralists consider a variety of Angles (What does it mean to my holistic well-being? My partner’s holistic well-being? The impact, if any, on culture and society?), evaluating the acts of each party relative to all aspects of their bodily Experiences (gross, subtle, and causal bodies), and considering the moral meaning-making Structures of consciousness of all parties (e.g., impulsive and emotional, pragmatic and rational, context- and construct-aware, etc.). Different Integralists may come up with different answers to their inquiries, but at the end of the day their ethical decision-making processes will be more alike than similar.
If all of the wrangling for meta-positions within multiperspectival awareness of situations seems daunting, this is a reasonable criticism of the Integralist. What use is complexity if it results in “analysis paralysis”? That’s why if an Integral perspective fails to provide genuine helpful tools for well-being and growth, then it does not work.
One way out of the complexity: striving to act from a higher dimension of moral consciousness than brain-numbing Integral, and finding one’s self subtly aware of all these different dynamics, greeting the complexity with total acceptance and single-hearted determination, and then simply act intuitively out of love and compassion in the midst of whatever arises.
don warner saklad
The 3 SEX RULES
SEX RULE Number 1
Sex is more important than dying.
SEX RULE Number 2
Sex is more important than killing somebody.
SEX RULE Number 3
If people could change their sexual behavior we wouldn’t be here.
Rob Moore
I last looked at this thread about three or four weeks ago and have two prior posts. I really feel a need to make a final summarisation.
1. Deciding with whom one will have sex is a very personal decision. No one is obligated to have sex with someone just to spare their feelings. I have always been more inclined to top than bottom. When I am topping, I have to be turned on or it just won’t work.
2. Fear of HIV is not sufficient reason to be mean, hateful, insulting, or obnoxious. In most cases, a simple thanks but no thanks type of response is sufficient. If someone with whom I don’t want to have sex is persistent and pushy, I respond to their pushiness negatively not whether or not the person is HIV+. If one feels compelled to be an asshole without other provocation, then that one is probably an unpleasant person in other respects as well.
3. HIV+ men should not feel obligated to keep it in their pants as RLM put it. The same reasoning could be applied to say that men who are HIV- should keep it in their pants until they have a ring on their fingers and three consecutive negative tests. It is not the sole responsibility of HIV+ men to protect the HIV- men. The rule of thumb is always regard any sex partner as HIV+ and undertake appropriate precautions. That removes a great deal of anxiety. Accidents do happen but don’t act as if the world has come apart. My infection was improbable. The reality is that the virus is actually not that simple to contract. Most men who are experienced bottoms, don’t bleed and most men who top, don’t do it with an open sore on their dicks.
4. If I decide to become sexually active, again, I will only do it with someone with whom I have developed some trust, even though condoms will still be required.
octavian
Hello all,
I just wanted to say something that goes like this. Choice of sexual partners is not affected by discrimination. For this, it should be first of all reasonable, and it’s not. Since reason doesn’t play an important part in the choice of sexual partners, I think it’s unfair to say one discriminates by choosing partners of a certain kind. For instance, I do not find a single one African American male that is attractive. And it’s that, and not the fact they are African American, that makes me not having – by experience and not by choice – African American sex partners. It’s the same with hiv+ men. I don’t find sickness attractive, yet I have a lot of compassion for them. I think, and I cannot be wrong, that open-mindedness and non-discrimination have to be dealt with in other places before we deal with it in our beds. After all, it’s not like we’ve solved all other problems, we’re all equal with equal rights and it was only this issue left to solve. As for hiv+ men who seek sex, I think it’s obvious they select partners from a limited pool of people. And it’s only natural to be like that.
AxelDC
Would you make out with some with the flu?
thezak
Should Repeat HIV Spreaders Be Punished?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11910513
mark
Well after having read this article and the comments that follow i have just this to say:
A poorly written article that evoked a hysteria of poorly thought out and written responses. There was no intelligent debate here.
Those of you who spend too much time on the internet reading blogs – you need to get out more.
Those of you who spend too much time out on the scene with your legs spread – stay in and read a book or get a hobby that doesn’t involve sex.
To those of you here who aren’t getting laid – there’s a reason for this…
And to those of you here who cannot hold down a relationship – there’s a reason for that too…
YOU ARE ALL IDIOTS!!! And i sincerely feel that if this page is indicative of the mentality of the gay community then there is no hope for any of us.
The only mature response came from Po Mo but as for the rest, most of you sadly missed the point entirely.
Condoms with casual partners is a good idea – properly kept, used with water-based lubricant in a size that is right for your dick and not passed their expiry date – they are reliable. Unfortunately those people advocating this followed their statements with something completely inane or closed-minded that made me question whether they would actually be people i would want to be with, sexually or otherwise.
Sex without condoms with casual partners is your choice but if you are going down that road you have to accept the risk.