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.

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.

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:

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.

and JR:

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!

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.

See here:

http://www.livescience.com/env.....dying.html

See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....imperative
http://www.justiceharvard.org/.....;Itemid=13

How to Measure Pleasure
http://www.justiceharvard.org/.....8;Itemid=9

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

the guy does not realize the odds he is playing with. THOSE ARE NOT GOOD ODDS TO FUCK WITH YOUR LIFE over.

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.

So, if you’ve never known of this before, you know of it now.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It’s sort of like getting pregnant. It only takes once.

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.

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.

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.

Don’t be dumb. Safer sex practices are not used universally and all the time.