Sexual Health and Outing HIV+ People Publicly

rochey84 · 05-08-2015 3:38pm #1

Hey Guys and Girls,

I'll try keep this as brief as possible, last night I was on Gaydar chat (please don't judge me) and as always there was a guy looking for bareback which is his prerogative and the prerogative of the person/people he is sleeping with. However a HIV positive member decided to out this lad has being poz himself, a claim that was hotly refuted but it got me thinking, we're all adults on Gaydar (or at least we're meant to be) if one of us makes a decision to have bareback sex with a lad we meet online should that be our choice and risk to take, or should we, for want of a better word, "out" the people that we believe to be HIV+. Another worrying thing I've noticed on Gaydar and Grindr (again please don't judge me) is the lack of awareness of sexual health and people who don't get tested at all. I'm not talking about the older members of the community here either I'm talking about young lads in their 20s and 30s who should know that you don't need to be showing symptoms to be carrying something. I personally try to get tested every 6 months but in reality it's probably more like once a year and thankfully have never had an STI and hope to keep it that way.

So good lads and ladies of boards, do you get tested and how often do you get tested? If not why not?

I really don't want this to go into a preachy judgy thread so if someone doesn't get tested and explains their reasons let's not lecture them please?

InitiumNovum · 05-08-2015 7:13pm

Anyone who meets up with some randomer off the internet for bareback sex should just assume beforehand that this person has HIV and should be prepared to live with the consequences. There is no room for wishful thinking. It doesn't really matter if they've been "outed" as being HIV+ or not. Anyone who's willing to take someone they only just met by their word is being foolish.

If you're not in a monogamous relationship, or if you're in a monogamous relationship but doubt how faithful your partner is, then your should get tested every 4-6 months. There's no point getting tested straight after the act because you'll likely get a false negative, you have to wait 4-6 months to be absolutely sure the blood test is correct. If you're really worried and want to reduce (but not totally eliminated) the chances of contracted HIV, then you should talk to your local STI test clinic about PEP within 72 hours after the possible contraction. Though be weary, if you take the course once, it's likely it won't have the same effect the next time.

rochey84 · 05-08-2015 7:23pm

InitiumNovum wrote: »

Anyone who meets up with some randomer off the internet for bareback sex should just assume beforehand that this person has HIV and should be prepared to live with the consequences. There is no room for wishful thinking. It doesn't really matter if they've been "outed" as being HIV+ or not. Anyone who's willing to take someone they only just met by their word is being foolish.

If you're not in a monogamous relationship, or if you're in a monogamous relationship but doubt how faithful your partner is, then your should get tested every 4-6 months. There's no point getting tested straight after the act because you'll likely get a false negative, you have to wait 4-6 months to be absolutely sure the blood test is correct. If you're really worried and want to reduce (but not totally eliminated) the chances of contracted HIV, then you should talk to your local STI test clinic about PEP within 72 hours after the possible contraction. Though be weary, if you take the course once, it's likely it won't have the same effect the next time.

Just in case this needs repeating if you need PEP you don't have to wait for the nearest STI clinic go to the nearest A&E the sooner you get it the higher the chances of it's effectiveness!

newacc2015 · 05-08-2015 7:27pm

If you HIV+ and undetectable. The risk of spreading the virus is close to zero. Look up the Proud survey, that found in a few hundred couples with a negative partner and HIV+ undetectable partner, even without condom use, not a single negative person contracted HIV from their partner( some contracted it, but with testing the strain, they didnt get it from their partner).

I know the Americans say you should get tested every 3 months. Here in Ireland, getting tested every 6 months appear to be amazing. I put off testing, as its inconvenient to get tested in Dublin. You can go James and sit there for the day. Or the GMHS, which is like third world medical clinic with the paint peeling off the ways. There you have to wait a few hours. We need to extent the times and days for getting tested. Plus waiting up to 2 weeks for results is ridiculous. In most US cities, you can walk into a free clinic. Get tested without wait and have your results on the spot.

I think more needs to be done to get foreign nationals tested. I think we should do what Bavaria, Germany does, which requires all foreign nationals (EU citizens excluded) to get tested for HIV if they are staying longer than 180 days. When you have a sizeable amount of new HIV infections being from certain countries. If the individuals arent getting tested by choice, they should be required to as part of their GNIB application.

InitiumNovum · 05-08-2015 7:35pm

newacc2015 wrote: »

Or the GMHS, which is like third world medical clinic with the paint peeling off the ways. There you have to wait a few hours. We need to extent the times and days for getting tested. Plus waiting up to 2 weeks for results is ridiculous.

I don't recall the GMHS being that bad. And even if there was "paint peeling off the wall" I don't see how that would hinder an accurate test. Lol. I also do not recall having to wait there over 90 minutes. The very first time you go in there's a long wait, because you have to register, etc..

rochey84 · 05-08-2015 7:51pm

InitiumNovum wrote: »

I don't recall the GMHS being that bad. And even if there was "paint peeling off the wall" I don't see how that would hinder an accurate test. Lol. I also do not recall having to wait there over 90 minutes. The very first time you go in there's a long wait, because you have to register, etc..

I was there last week and it wasn't my first time and it was 2 and a half hour wait, and I got there bang on at 4:30 and was number 3 on the list.

However it wasn't even a week for the result, but I do agree it would be handy if they extended the opening hours but for a free service they do a damn good job as it is, the HSE is strained enough without adding to it!

newacc2015 · 05-08-2015 10:46pm

rochey84 wrote: »

I was there last week and it wasn't my first time and it was 2 and a half hour wait, and I got there bang on at 4:30 and was number 3 on the list.

However it wasn't even a week for the result, but I do agree it would be handy if they extended the opening hours but for a free service they do a damn good job as it is, the HSE is strained enough without adding to it!

I hate the mentality, this because its free. The long wait time and restrictive hours are acceptable. They estimate every new HIV infection costs the NHS £350k in a lifetime of care. If the GMHS was extended to a few more nights a week. The catching of new infections and getting people undetectable, so they dont spread it, would probably cover the cost.

Catching and treating HIV infections, is probably one of the few diseases, that if treated saves the tax payer money. Treating a one off cancer patient costs the taxpayer money. Diagnosing someone with HIV and getting them undetectable, will save the tax payer money if they dont spread the virus to anyone else.

jimdublin15 · 05-08-2015 11:09pm

rochey84 wrote: »

.

So good lads and ladies of boards, do you get tested and how often do you get tested? If not why not?

I get tested for STI's annually.
Excluding HIV as I am HIV+.

My reasons for annually checking is I practice exclusively safe sex so my risks of other STI's is relatively low, however I still consider it best practice to have a check up annually.

Saying that I could do my check up for free at the clinic however instead I actually pay and have it done privately.

rochey84 · 06-08-2015 9:23am

newacc2015 wrote: »

I hate the mentality, this because its free. The long wait time and restrictive hours are acceptable. They estimate every new HIV infection costs the NHS £350k in a lifetime of care. If the GMHS was extended to a few more nights a week. The catching of new infections and getting people undetectable, so they dont spread it, would probably cover the cost.

Catching and treating HIV infections, is probably one of the few diseases, that if treated saves the tax payer money. Treating a one off cancer patient costs the taxpayer money. Diagnosing someone with HIV and getting them undetectable, will save the tax payer money if they dont spread the virus to anyone else.

To be fair the fact that the state provides free testing is pretty decent, if you want quick service and more availability go private.

I don't understand the mentality of moaning about a free service I think my GP practice charges €100 for STI testing and that isn't as comprehensive as the GMHS. It's each individual's responsibility to get tested and in a perfect world we would all go private to save the state an awful lot of money!

Pumpkin PJs Fan No.9 · 06-08-2015 11:23am

rochey84 wrote: »

Hey Guys and Girls,

However a HIV positive member decided to out this lad has being poz himself, a claim that was hotly refuted but it got me thinking, we're all adults on Gaydar (or at least we're meant to be) if one of us makes a decision to have bareback sex with a lad we meet online should that be our choice and risk to take, or should we, for want of a better word, "out" the people that we believe to be HIV+.

A few points:

a) People lie about their age and many other things online (Shock! Horror!).

b) When people are thinking with their genitals they don't always have much concerns for consequences until after the fact - and some not even then.

So I think the HIV Guy doing the outing is doing all you using these kind of apps a great favour. If it makes you think twice about unprotected sex with a total stranger - well, I'd say that's a positive. No?

As for STI checks, well, you'd be stupid not to; if you have an active sex life with multiple partners or your partner has multiple partners, partners, partners, I would say it is essential.

rochey84 · 06-08-2015 2:10pm

Pumpkin PJs Fan No.9 wrote: »

A few points:

a) People lie about their age and many other things online (Shock! Horror!).

b) When people are thinking with their genitals they don't always have much concerns for consequences until after the fact - and some not even then.

So I think the HIV Guy doing the outing is doing all you using these kind of apps a great favour. If it makes you think twice about unprotected sex with a total stranger - well, I'd say that's a positive. No?

As for STI checks, well, you'd be stupid not to; if you have an active sex life with multiple partners or your partner has multiple partners, partners, partners, I would say it is essential.

Thanks for the input, my original point was that we are all adults and that we should all be considering the implications of our actions ourselves and shouldn't need someone else to out a HIV+ person that is looking for bb, because if you're willing to go bb with a stranger off the internet you should be prepared to face the consequences and if we were talking about someone outing a gay person I think we would all be outraged, but for some reason we don't extend this outrage to STI's. As I said in my original post I play safe and get tested at least once a year as it is.

Pumpkin PJs Fan No.9 · 06-08-2015 2:46pm

rochey84 wrote: »

Thanks for the input, my original point was that we are all adults and that we should all be considering the implications of our actions ourselves and shouldn't need someone else to out a HIV+ person that is looking for bb, because if you're willing to go bb with a stranger off the internet you should be prepared to face the consequences and if we were talking about someone outing a gay person I think we would all be outraged, but for some reason we don't extend this outrage to STI's. As I said in my original post I play safe and get tested at least once a year as it is.

You seem fixated on one aspect of sexual health, i.e: contracting HIV via BB. Is there not other STIs transmitted via skin-to-skin? You seem to be missing the bigger picture.

And depending on the amount of sexual partners one may have within a given time period - getting tested only once a year, is that really safe?

Also, why is your outrage directed towards the person making people aware of another user of these "hook-up" sites highly irresponsible actions? Again, I can only see that as a positive thingy. And, comparing it to been "outed": No, I don't see how that is relevant.

rochey84 · 06-08-2015 3:05pm

Pumpkin PJs Fan No.9 wrote: »

You seem fixated on one aspect of sexual health, i.e: contracting HIV via BB. Is there not other STIs transmitted via skin-to-skin? You seem to be missing the bigger picture.

And depending on the amount of sexual partners one may have within a given time period - getting tested only once a year, is that really safe?

Also, why is your outrage directed towards the person making people aware of another user of these "hook-up" sites highly irresponsible actions? Again, I can only see that as a positive thingy. And, comparing it to been "outed": No, I don't see how that is relevant.

The "fixation" as you see it comes within the context of the original post (i.e. the guy who may or may not be HIV+ looking for bb sex and the other site users saying not to do it because he is HIV+)

With regard to what I said about my own testing habits let me clarify again for you I ensure that I get tested AT LEAST once a year, I actually aim for every 6 months but due to work and other demands on my life I don't always make it every 6 months, if I were to be showing symptoms I would imagine that I would swiftly get myself to my GP or VHI Swiftcare clinic ASAP, but since this hasn't happened as of yet I haven't needed to do it.

On your final point this is the way I see it, we don't know if the user was HIV+ or not and if he was we don't know if he would have disclosed this himself before meeting in private on his own terms or not rather than having that taken from him by someone shouting publicly about his status and even if he chose not to is the person he is planning to hook up with not an adult who should know the risks of unprotected sex and should be able to make a decision about taking this risk by themselves or not?

I'm hoping I've made the link between being outted and some relative stranger telling the world your status clear, but if not I'll try again here with 2 little stories for you:

Meet Johnny, Johnny is 15 and is starting to realise that he might like men instead of women, to explore this Johnny goes to a gay venue and meets Tom, Tom and Johnny hit it off and as they leave the venue together holding hands they are spotted by Johnny's classmate Bill who, the next day tells the whole school that Johnny is gay and likes boys. Johnny has lost the opportunity to come out on his own terms and has been publicly outted before he himself has come to terms with his sexuality.

Meet Tim, Tim is a 35 year old gay man that enjoys casual hook ups, Tim will occaisionally have unprotected sex and has recently been diagnosed with HIV, he doesn't like this to be the first thing people learn about him as all they see then is the label, however after chatting to guys on line in private for a while he will always disclose his status before meeting them, this gives the guys a chance to get to know Tim before meeting him and before discovering that he is HIV+, Tim has no problem if a guy chooses not to meet after finding out his status but likes to tell people on his own terms. Tim once chatted to Mick, Mick was outraged that Tim was HIV+ and the next time he saw Tim on line he told the whole chat room that Tim was HIV+ leading to a lot of abuse coming at Tim from all angles from people that didn't know him. This takes the power from Tim as now he feels people only see the label HIV+ and not the nice person that he actually is.

Hope those 2 stories helped to draw the comparison for you.

Edit: Just re-read that there and the implied tone of condescension was not intentional just wanted to be as clear as possible about why I saw a link!

Pumpkin PJs Fan No.9 · 06-08-2015 3:53pm

rochey84 wrote: »

The "fixation" as you see it comes within the context of the original post (i.e. the guy who may or may not be HIV+ looking for bb sex and the other site users saying not to do it because he is HIV+)

With regard to what I said about my own testing habits let me clarify again for you I ensure that I get tested AT LEAST once a year, I actually aim for every 6 months but due to work and other demands on my life I don't always make it every 6 months, if I were to be showing symptoms I would imagine that I would swiftly get myself to my GP or VHI Swiftcare clinic ASAP, but since this hasn't happened as of yet I haven't needed to do it.

On your final point this is the way I see it, we don't know if the user was HIV+ or not and if he was we don't know if he would have disclosed this himself before meeting in private on his own terms or not rather than having that taken from him by someone shouting publicly about his status and even if he chose not to is the person he is planning to hook up with not an adult who should know the risks of unprotected sex and should be able to make a decision about taking this risk by themselves or not?

I'm hoping I've made the link between being outted and some relative stranger telling the world your status clear, but if not I'll try again here with 2 little stories for you:

Meet Johnny, Johnny is 15 and is starting to realise that he might like men instead of women, to explore this Johnny goes to a gay venue and meets Tom, Tom and Johnny hit it off and as they leave the venue together holding hands they are spotted by Johnny's classmate Bill who, the next day tells the whole school that Johnny is gay and likes boys. Johnny has lost the opportunity to come out on his own terms and has been publicly outted before he himself has come to terms with his sexuality.

Meet Tim, Tim is a 35 year old gay man that enjoys casual hook ups, Tim will occaisionally have unprotected sex and has recently been diagnosed with HIV, he doesn't like this to be the first thing people learn about him as all they see then is the label, however after chatting to guys on line in private for a while he will always disclose his status before meeting them, this gives the guys a chance to get to know Tim before meeting him and before discovering that he is HIV+, Tim has no problem if a guy chooses not to meet after finding out his status but likes to tell people on his own terms. Tim once chatted to Mick, Mick was outraged that Tim was HIV+ and the next time he saw Tim on line he told the whole chat room that Tim was HIV+ leading to a lot of abuse coming at Tim from all angles from people that didn't know him. This takes the power from Tim as now he feels people only see the label HIV+ and not the nice person that he actually is.

Hope those 2 stories helped to draw the comparison for you.

Edit: Just re-read that there and the implied tone of condescension was not intentional just wanted to be as clear as possible about why I saw a link!

Okay, completely ignoring the fact that apps like Grindr and such are ostensibly instant "hook-up" mediums. The fact remains, your initial post was about someone been outed as HIV+ whilst cruising for BB and most likely NSA too - now that, in my eyes, is beyond the pale and people should be aware of his negligent, ****ty behaviour; it is an entirely different scenario to the one facing your hypothetical Tim, who seems to be acting in a rather decent manner of getting to know a person before disclosure.

The two parables you put forward are not really relevant to this: your initial concern.

rochey84 · 06-08-2015 3:57pm

Pumpkin PJs Fan No.9 wrote: »

Okay, completely ignoring the fact that apps like Grindr and such are ostensibly instant "hook-up" mediums. The fact remains, your initial post was about someone been outed as HIV+ whilst cruising for BB and most likely NSA too - now that, in my eyes, is beyond the pale and people should be aware of his negligent, ****ty behaviour; it is an entirely different scenario to the one facing your hypothetical Tim, who seems to be acting in a rather decent manner of getting to know a person before disclosure.

The two parables are not really relevant to this your initial concern.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough in the original post, we don't actually know if the original guy is actually HIV+ in fact he denied it with much gusto, we also don't know if he is a nice person or not cause I've not spoken to him. What in your opinion makes the word of the person outting him, perhaps falsely, more valid than his? Or do you prefer to twist the scenario because you don't like Gaydar and Grindr and want sit in very vocal judgement of those who use such apps and sites? I only ask this as the tone of your posts have come across as very judgemental.

Thanks

Pumpkin PJs Fan No.9 · 06-08-2015 4:28pm

rochey84 wrote: »

Maybe I wasn't clear enough in the original post, we don't actually know if the original guy is actually HIV+ in fact he denied it with much gusto, we also don't know if he is a nice person or not cause I've not spoken to him. What in your opinion makes the word of the person outting him, perhaps falsely, more valid than his? Or do you prefer to twist the scenario because you don't like Gaydar and Grindr and want sit in very vocal judgement of those who use such apps and sites? I only ask this as the tone of your posts have come across as very judgemental.

Thanks

You are now accusing me of judging you?

Look, you have been on the defensive from the very first post with closed brackets comments such as: "Don't judge me" - before I, or anyone else, ever replied.

In your initial post you voiced your concerns about the amount of young gay men using these sites, who seem entirely unaware of the sexual health risks and don't get tested- i don't know if that is the case, but you seem worried about it. So when some anonymous user starts saying so-and-so has this disease; the reality that people on some of these sites may be actually acting recklessly - well, it slaps you in the face and you don't like it. And since you don't want to be faced with that, you voice your outrage and compare it to being "outed" at a very vulnerable age in a cliche story. If you are being sensible and safe you have no need to feel so outraged.

My opinion on these dating or hook up sites is also irrelevant.

rochey84 · 06-08-2015 5:24pm

Pumpkin PJs Fan No.9 wrote: »

You are now accusing me of judging you?

Look, you have been on the defensive from the very first post with closed brackets comments such as: "Don't judge me" - before I, or anyone else, ever replied.

In your initial post you voiced your concerns about the amount of young gay men using these sites, who seem entirely unaware of the sexual health risks and don't get tested- i don't know if that is the case, but you seem worried about it. So when some anonymous user starts saying so-and-so has this disease; the reality that people on some of these sites may be actually acting recklessly - well, it slaps you in the face and you don't like it. And since you don't want to be faced with that, you voice your outrage and compare it to being "outed" at a very vulnerable age in a cliche story. If you are being sensible and safe you have no need to feel so outraged.

My opinion on these dating or hook up sites is also irrelevant.

I coulda put money that you'd use the "don't judge me" bits against me, that was an attempt at keeping things somewhat light!

Second, tell me where I used the word "outrage" with regard to how I feel about this?
Yes I'm concerned that there are young men taking risks but not to the point that it "slaps me in the face" again maybe I wasn't clear enough on this point so I'll try again, is it ok for anonymous user 1 to claim that anonymous user 2 is HIV+ with no substance to it other than "I know" especially when user 2 has stated that he is not HIV+, you have pretty much said that user 1 is doing us all a favour and I countered with I believe that as adults we should be able to make our own decisions and know the risks of having unprotected sex with a stranger and accusations true or otherwise of our status made in public are unfair and akin to outing someone.
I would imagine that being HIV+ is a deeply personal thing and the individual concerned should have the right to have that information disclosed on their own terms, do you not agree?

Pumpkin PJs Fan No.9 · 06-08-2015 5:54pm

rochey84 wrote: »

I coulda put money that you'd use the "don't judge me" bits against me, that was an attempt at keeping things somewhat light!

Second, tell me where I used the word "outrage" with regard to how I feel about this?
Yes I'm concerned that there are young men taking risks but not to the point that it "slaps me in the face" again maybe I wasn't clear enough on this point so I'll try again, is it ok for anonymous user 1 to claim that anonymous user 2 is HIV+ with no substance to it other than "I know" especially when user 2 has stated that he is not HIV+, you have pretty much said that user 1 is doing us all a favour and I countered with I believe that as adults we should be able to make our own decisions and know the risks of having unprotected sex with a stranger and accusations true or otherwise of our status made in public are unfair and akin to outing someone.
I would imagine that being HIV+ is a deeply personal thing and the individual concerned should have the right to have that information disclosed on their own terms, do you not agree?

But this thread is entitled: "Sexual Health and Outing HIV+ People Publicly", not "Sexual Health and Outing Of Possible HIV+ People Publicly" (maybe fix that to suit your argument)

And, if anonymous user 2 is cruising for BB with no regard for any potential partners, then yes, I would say, it is a public service announcement to out him.

But, if we again take Hypothetical Tim (next comic book hero? and all round bon vivant), in that instance, I agree, it is a horrible thing to out someone on a dating site as having such a life-altering malady.

rochey84 wrote: »

if we were talking about someone outing a gay person I think we would all be outraged, but for some reason we don't extend this outrage to STI's.

If you are being safe, you shouldn't be worried.

If users on here also use these hook-ups, well, I do think it is a little concerning that the "Nos" are slightly edging it in your poll though. Granted, it is early days.

Regards,

No.9
_____________________

And you would have put money on it... Please...

rochey84 · 06-08-2015 6:11pm

Pumpkin PJs Fan No.9 wrote: »

But this thread is entitled: "Sexual Health and Outing HIV+ People Publicly", not "Sexual Health and Outing Of Possible HIV+ People Publicly" (maybe fix that to suit your argument)

And, if anonymous user 2 is cruising for BB with no regard for any potential partners, then yes, I would say, it is a public service announcement to out him.

But, if we again take Hypothetical Tim (next comic book hero? and all round bon vivant), in that instance, I agree, it is a horrible thing to out someone on a dating site as having such a life-altering malady.

If you are being safe, you shouldn't be worried.

If users on here also use these hook-ups, well, I do think it is a little concerning that the "Nos" are slightly edging it in your poll though. Granted, it is early days.

Regards,

No.9
_____________________

And you would have put money on it... Please...

Ok but this is the crux of the matter, we don't know if user the user looking for bb sex is poz, all we know is that he is looking for bb sex, do we not trust adults in this country that engage with him to ask the question or for him to volunteer the information himself but on his terms like in private chat? You've said that you don't use these sites so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't know that on Gaydar it is possible to have private conversations with people before you meet your entire interaction does not have to be public so I would work on the premise that we're all adults and as adults we should not need a random person telling us that another random person has any sort of malady.

I'm sorry my thread title is missing that word potentially but I thought that I had covered that in the opening post and then further on with you personally.

Also I'm not worried as such I just find it interesting.

And the quote with the word outraged needs to be taken into context which in fairness you quoted just didn't highlight it was about someone being outed as gay that people would be outraged about. But nice try. Also I made a point of saying that we DON'T extend that outrage to people with STI's being outed publicly.

Good Luck

Annasopra · 06-08-2015 7:23pm

Mod

Guys can we try to keep this discussion general and not personalise it

who is this · 19-08-2015 5:44pm

rochey84 wrote: »

To be fair the fact that the state provides free testing is pretty decent, if you want quick service and more availability go private.

newacc2015 wrote: »

I hate the mentality, this because its free. The long wait time and restrictive hours are acceptable.

Both of these are pretty short-sighted statements. Making testing a choice between either: difficult and time-consuming (the first time I went to GMHS I got there at 5 and had to come back the next week because they couldn't see me, all after waiting 3 hours), or being prohibitively expensive, will put people off getting tested.

It should be easy, convenient and free because that's the only way you'll increase take-up. If you "know" there's nothing wrong with you, then you're probably not going to want to sit around for hours in James or GMHS, or fork out €100 for them to tell you what you already "know.

rochey84 · 19-08-2015 7:39pm

who is this wrote: »

Both of these are pretty short-sighted statements. Making testing a choice between either: difficult and time-consuming (the first time I went to GMHS I got there at 5 and had to come back the next week because they couldn't see me, all after waiting 3 hours), or being prohibitively expensive, will put people off getting tested.

It should be easy, convenient and free because that's the only way you'll increase take-up. If you "know" there's nothing wrong with you, then you're probably not going to want to sit around for hours in James or GMHS, or fork out €100 for them to tell you what you already "know.

We shouldn't have to be encouraged to get tested, we are all adults and choose to have sex it is our responsibility to make sure that we haven't contracted any STI's. Yeah the first time I was in the GMHS I was there for 4 or 5 hours but I made the choice to have more than 1 sexual partners so safe or not it is my responsibility to make sure that I am not passing anything on to future partners if that means giving up an evening to be extra certain then I'll do it.

Leonard Hofstadter · 19-08-2015 7:43pm

I'm sorry, but doing bb with a complete stranger is just totally foolish. I think it's even worse that people want to have one night stands specifically looking to bb a complete randomer! Yes, I know HIV isn't the disaster it once was and it can be treated and people can lead perfectly normal lives these days, but I'd rather remain clean if that's OK. I also find it worrying that younger people are doing it when there is so much awareness about safer sex etc in college. I totally agree with the above, of course those of us who have an active sex life should be tested as much for our own health as for ensuring we don't pass on something to someone else.

It's the kind of thing that gave gay men such a bad reputation in the 80s (as we all had HIV/AIDS apparently :rolleyes:) and certainly didn't help us in our (valid) efforts to try and be treated as equals by the rest of society. I think there is still a hangover from this with certain sections of society, unfortunately. Perhaps because I'm paranoid about it, but I certainly would never bb someone (or allow someone to do the same thing to me) until I was in a committed relationship with that person.

rochey84 · 19-08-2015 7:51pm

captainspeed wrote: »

I'm sorry, but doing bb with a complete stranger is just totally foolish. I think it's even worse that people want to have one night stands specifically looking to bb a complete randomer! Yes, I know HIV isn't the disaster it once was and it can be treated and people can lead perfectly normal lives these days, but I'd rather remain clean if that's OK. I also find it worrying that younger people are doing it when there is so much awareness about safer sex etc in college. I totally agree with the above, of course those of us who have an active sex life should be tested as much for our own health as for ensuring we don't pass on something to someone else.

It's the kind of thing that gave gay men such a bad reputation in the 80s (as we all had HIV/AIDS apparently :rolleyes:) and certainly didn't help us in our (valid) efforts to try and be treated as equals by the rest of society. I think there is still a hangover from this with certain sections of society, unfortunately. Perhaps because I'm paranoid about it, but I certainly would never bb someone (or allow someone to do the same thing to me) until I was in a committed relationship with that person.

I'm not being confrontational here or anything but I think, and I stress think, that your attitude is the reason there is no longer open conversation, HIV isn't the only risk to unprotected sex, but people don't want to raise the discussion, you give off a very judgmental image in the opening of your post which wouldn't encourage me, if I was ignorant on the issue, to discuss it with you. So I would obviously reach out to the people that practice it and again, in my ignorant, unresearched, uneducated opinion, wouldn't exactly be honest in the risks associated with it. I've bolded the part that I think is judgmental and I wasn't having a go I hope you know that!

Also on another note, I once read that the use of the term "clean" is considered offensive to people who are HIV positive as it implies that those that are HIV+ are "dirty" but that's just a side note!

Leonard Hofstadter · 19-08-2015 8:19pm

rochey84 wrote: »

I'm not being confrontational here or anything but I think, and I stress think, that your attitude is the reason there is no longer open conversation, HIV isn't the only risk to unprotected sex, but people don't want to raise the discussion, you give off a very judgmental image in the opening of your post which wouldn't encourage me, if I was ignorant on the issue, to discuss it with you. So I would obviously reach out to the people that practice it and again, in my ignorant, unresearched, uneducated opinion, wouldn't exactly be honest in the risks associated with it. I've bolded the part that I think is judgmental and I wasn't having a go I hope you know that!

Also on another note, I once read that the use of the term "clean" is considered offensive to people who are HIV positive as it implies that those that are HIV+ are "dirty" but that's just a side note!

I certainly don't want to put people off having the discussion, but I do find it crazy that after most of us (especially my generation) going to college and being warned of the dangers of unprotected sex (not just for gay men but for men and women in general) and that still people wanting to bb! Yes, of course people shouldn't be afraid to ask about it, but in fairness it's not the 1980s where sex education consisted of Nuns saying something like 'good Catholic girls don't need to know what condoms are'.

Indeed, HIV isn't the only STI, the reason I only mentioned it was because of the OP and the thread title.

I'm sorry if clean is offensive, I don't want to stigmatise HIV+ people any more than they already are by society at large, but I thought that was the word people use to say they've no infections, I've definitely heard people talk about being 'clean' many times.

rochey84 · 19-08-2015 8:27pm

captainspeed wrote: »

I certainly don't want to put people off having the discussion, but I do find it crazy that after most of us (especially my generation) going to college and being warned of the dangers of unprotected sex (not just for gay men but for men and women in general) and that still people wanting to bb! Yes, of course people shouldn't be afraid to ask about it, but in fairness it's not the 1980s where sex education consisted of Nuns saying something like 'good Catholic girls don't need to know what condoms are'.

Indeed, HIV isn't the only STI, the reason I only mentioned it was because of the OP and the thread title.

I'm sorry if clean is offensive, I don't want to stigmatise HIV+ people any more than they already are by society at large, but I thought that was the word people use to say they've no infections, I've definitely heard people talk about being 'clean' many times.

I understand what you're saying and I know that you don't want to discourage the conversation which is why I pointed out that your tone was judgmental so that you wouldn't in future. I agree that it isn't the smartest choice anyone could make having unprotected sex. And yes I agree that sex education has come a very long way however there is still ignorance regarding same sex relationships and I think there is an onus on us that use chat services and hook up apps to educate, not in a preachy way but to educate all the same.
Regarding the clean thing, it was actually Panti Bliss who said it was offensive and explained the reasoning behind it, before I read that I would have been very guilty of using the term myself all the time, so rightly or wrongly when I hear it being used with regard to HIV or any STI's I find myself saying what I read.
And you're right HIV is in the thread title and my OP but as someone else pulled me up on my continued reliance on HIV was narrow minded so I'm now trying to be more inclusive of all STI's lol

27061986a · 29-08-2015 4:17pm

InitiumNovum wrote: »

Anyone who meets up with some randomer off the internet for bareback sex should just assume beforehand that this person has HIV and should be prepared to live with the consequences. There is no room for wishful thinking. It doesn't really matter if they've been "outed" as being HIV+ or not. Anyone who's willing to take someone they only just met by their word is being foolish.

If you're not in a monogamous relationship, or if you're in a monogamous relationship but doubt how faithful your partner is, then your should get tested every 4-6 months. There's no point getting tested straight after the act because you'll likely get a false negative, you have to wait 4-6 months to be absolutely sure the blood test is correct. If you're really worried and want to reduce (but not totally eliminated) the chances of contracted HIV, then you should talk to your local STI test clinic about PEP within 72 hours after the possible contraction. Though be weary, if you take the course once, it's likely it won't have the same effect the next time.

Outdated info regarding window period. The test that's used now 4th generation/Duo test is highly accurate at one month or 28 days. Bare in mind if you commenced PEP then this window period will be extended.

Sexual Health and Outing HIV+ People Publicly

Have you ever been tested for STI's and if so how regular? 28 votes

Comments