|
Jazzy1973
|
|
Member
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 02/08/09
|
|
Posts: 10
|
|
Loc: Richmond,Va
|
|
KNOWING SPREADING HIV AROUND
#244503 - 02/12/09 07:42 PM
|
Reply
|
Quote
|
|
|
wHY DO PEOPLE KEEP GOING AROUND SPREADING THIS TO EACH OTHER KNOWING U HAVE THIS?
wHY CAN'T SOME ONE FIND SOME ONE THAT HAS HIV TOO?
QUESTIONS I ASS BECAUSE I KNOW SOMEONE WHO GOES ON LINE AND MEET PEOPLE AND HAVE SEX WITH THEM& AFTER THEY GET FINISH THAN THEY TELL THE PERSON.
THAT'S WRONG!
Post Extras:
|
|
hopefulone
|
|
Master
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 12/05/08
|
|
Posts: 130
|
|
Loc: NY, NY
|
|
|
my god that is awful so very gaetan dugas.
there are many people who engage in this activity with little concern for others....motives are varied...its awful...
Post Extras:
|
|
|
|
Quote:
wHY DO PEOPLE KEEP GOING AROUND SPREADING THIS TO EACH OTHER KNOWING U HAVE THIS?
wHY CAN'T SOME ONE FIND SOME ONE THAT HAS HIV TOO?
QUESTIONS I ASS BECAUSE I KNOW SOMEONE WHO GOES ON LINE AND MEET PEOPLE AND HAVE SEX WITH THEM& AFTER THEY GET FINISH THAN THEY TELL THE PERSON.
THAT'S WRONG!
Almost as bad as people typing their entire post in capital letters .. perhaps .. or perhaps not.
Aside from cautioning that you don't know for certain what anyone else's HIV status is: I have to say that, unless I completely misunderstand you, I find your idea that we (those of us who are HIV-positive) carry the entire burden of responsibility - and that we have to keep ourselves to ourselves - quite Neanderthal and offensive.
The direct implication of what you say is that we - irrespective of whether or not we are engaging in safe sex - have an obligation to disclose to everyone, to ascertain the HIV status of all our sexual partners and to only have sex with people who tell us that they too are HIV-positive.
Whilst I do accept that an HIV-positive individual's knowledge of their HIV status gives them a certain amount of power, and therefore a larger share of the responsibility .. I also have no qualms in saying that unless they are forcefully raped, anyone who engages in unsafe sex has to accept a large portion of the responsibility for their own destiny .. especially if they are engaging in unsafe sex during casual encounters and relying on a total stranger declaring something that could leave them vulnerable to gossip and violence.
Whilst I wouldn't do it myself and don't actually agree with it (I wont even have causal unprotected sex with other people who tell me that they are HIV-positive) I would have to go so far as to say that I have some degree of sympathy for the argument which says that it is quite reasonable for anyone who is HIV-positive to assume that anyone else who is stupid enough to engage in unprotected casual sex must also be HIV-positive, or has a sick and unfathomable desire to be HIV-positive .. because making that same assumption is also one of the fundamentals that should help anyone, who is HIV-negative, stay HIV-negative. If the formerly HIV-negative individual chose not to live by that assumption, then more fool them if they later let anger consume them when they can't accept responsibility for the consequences of the thrills they sought.
Since the vast majority of people who know they are HIV-positive will go to great lengths to ensure that they don't knowingly spread the virus, most HIV is spread by people who don't even know that they are infected (which, in the developed world, is upwards of 40% of people who are HIV-positive) .. and that just goes to show:
- the sheer lunacy of relying on declared HIV-status (or even the lack of declaration) for your protection
- if you ever engage in (or have even just once engaged in) unprotected sex with strangers, it could be you that is the one who is guilty of doing the spreading
I would go so far as to say that it is because of the attitudes of people like you that so many people who are HIV-positive don't feel able to declare their status .. and worse, also why so many gay men today still feel that they are ultimately better off not testing and not knowing.
If, as you claim, you really know someone who is doing what you state; why aren't you addressing your concerns directly to them? Personally, I suspect that you know no such person and simply want to vent your personal anger and / or prejudice whilst shrouding it in an veil of acceptability. .
--------------------
There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
Post Extras:
|
|
Nebulous
|
|
Member
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 01/15/09
|
|
Posts: 17
|
|
|
|
|
The ONLY safe behavior, when engaging in casual sex, is to assume your partner is HIV+. Frankly, there is so much infidelity amongst gay men that I don't even consider a HIV- partner a very safe situation and would still use safe sex.
Relying on the other person to divulge their status is nice in a perfect world, but in this world, most of them don't even know their status.
Now all that said, a person of known HIV+ status that solicits casual unprotected top anal encounters without divulging his status is not only a criminal in my state, but deserves neutering.
Edited by Nebulous (02/14/09 09:15 PM)
Post Extras:
|
|
|
|
Quote:
but deserves neutering
Achieving what? Outside of heated online arguments, and the sort of nonsense I avoid by not reading tabloid newspapers, that has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read.
And - just out of interest - would you extend that same neutering treatment to married men who think they may be infected with HIV; but refuse to take the test for many years and boast about continuing to have unprotected sex with their wife .. concurrently with having unprotected sex with multiple other partners of both sexes? If not, I'm just itching to know why 
--------------------
There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
Post Extras:
|
|
|
|
Stressing once again that I don't agree with the silence approach, I do think that a Canadian study report entitled Silence, assent and HIV risk goes a long way to explaining the various mindsets which are at play when some gay men (both positive and supposedly negative) have unprotected sex with partners of unknown HIV-status .. but amongst the men who were HIV-positive, there was a universally strong desire to avoid passing on their HIV infection.
Through interviews, the researchers found that everyone seems to think that everyone knows the rules of the cruising game .. except there are very different versions of the rules of the game and everyone has their own interpretation the rules.
An HIV-positive man may think that the rules are that only someone who is already HIV-positive will be stupid enough to cruise for unprotected casual .. whereas the HIV-negative man might think that only people who are HIV-negative will solicit for unprotected sex. The HIV-positive man might think that each partner is responsible for their own protection .. the HIV-negative man may think that the entire burden of responsibility is with the HIV-positive man.
Quite understandably, in online settings which rely on public disclosure in a publicly accessible place, HIV-positive men will often assume that anyone whose status was left undeclared (as it will be for most HIV-positive men) is in fact HIV-positive - because anyone who is HIV-negative isn't going to be shy about declaring that. HIV-negative men will often assume that anyone who doesn't openly declare that they are HIV-positive must be HIV-negative.
Many HIV-negative men assume that anyone ticking 'safe sex only' is indicating that they are HIV-positive .. and that those indicating a willingness to engage in unprotected sex must be HIV-negative. HIV-positive men tend to assume the exact opposite.
HIV-negative men rely on direct and explicit disclosure (but rarely ask, because they expect it to be volunteered) .. whereas many HIV-positive men fear hostility and rely on dropping hints and trying to pick up on clues - unfortunately, although these hints are easy for other HIV-positive men to understand, they aren't always as obvious to men who are less clued up about HIV. In effect: The HIV-positive man thinks he has disclosed, but his sexual partners swear that he hasn't.
Some HIV-positive men assume that a failure to introduce a condom, or to halt unprotected penetration, is understood as informed consent. HIV-negative men generally assume the exact opposite.
The whole point is that neither those who are positive nor those who are negative are generally engaging in any sort of explicit verbal communication about HIV-status and are instead relying on tacit miscommunication, faulty assumptions and differences in decision-making processes.
These are the dangers of serosorting on both sides of the fence and ultimately (in my opinion) everyone who engages in it in a cruising environment is a fool unto themselves and has the potential to be held to blame and equally guilty - so, whilst I wholeheartedly agree that it is wrong to deliberately set out to mislead, this is why I am reluctant to agree with the OP and assume that anyone is more guilty of knowingly putting others at risk; because the chances are that it is the last thing they are actually wanting to do. It is also why I am sceptical whenever anyone tells me that they were deliberately infected and, no matter how sincere they are in their belief, I have yet to meet anyone who could actually convince me that they really were.
--------------------
There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
Post Extras:
|
|
Nebulous
|
|
Member
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 01/15/09
|
|
Posts: 17
|
|
|
|
|
Ruairi thinks he's "got me" because he read my post. If you read the entire thing, you'd see that I am consistent with my post here. If I had infected people, I believed that I deserved death, not just neutering.
But more to the point, I didn't engage in unprotected anal either way.
I stand by what I said.
Post Extras:
|
|
|
|
I read your old post and saw that you are being quite inconsistent and have been irresponsible and unbelievably selfish - but I certainly don't think I have "got" you.
Quote:
But more to the point, I didn't engage in unprotected anal either way.
Well unless you changed your old post, you certainly did - or if you didn't, that certainly isn't clear - in fact you yourself even question whether one guy even used a condom and whether another came off. You also indicate that you topped in anal without a condom. Not that I actually see what difference that makes - unprotected insertive sex with multiple partners when you think you could be HIV-positive is reckless unprotected insertive sex with multiple partners all of whom you could be putting at risk (and, irrespective of whether their partner has ever engaged in anal sex, plenty of women get infected that way).
Quote:
All told, I had 13 encounters. Almost all of them were "safe" meaning I was topped protected, bareback BJs with no ejaculation or I did the topping. But...
Quote:
Did that prick even have a condom on?
Quote:
There was the time that TV was banging me and then after she pulled out, the condom was still in my ass and she pulled that out separately.
In any case, that is beside the point, I am just showing that once you start applying judgements you enter a complex moral maze and that there is a fine line of criminality that you could yourself very easily have fallen the wrong side of in many places - and would already be on the wrong side of in at least one developed country. I certainly didn't ask you to retract what you had said - merely explain the point of neutering.
So go on, do tell us what purpose would be served by this staggeringly dumb neutering idea of yours? It certainly wouldn't make the victim of the procedure any less infectious; so from where I am sitting, it just seems to me to be a needlessly sadistic ritual that I can only comprehend as an irrational knee-jerk reaction in the heat of the moment.
--------------------
There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
Post Extras:
|
|
|
|
And, as if by magic, today on Aidsmap: Serosorting raises the risk of STIs and HIV for German gay men.
Quote:
A survey of German gay men has found that ‘serosorting’ – restricting unprotected sex to partners of the same HIV status – does not work as a safer-sex strategy. The survey found that serosorting in HIV positive men increased the risk of having a bacterial sexually transmitted infection (STI) like syphilis or gonorrhoea more that fivefold.
Serosorting was also associated with a five times greater risk of a recent HIV diagnosis than using condoms and/or monogamy as a strategy, and was even more risky than having no strategy.
Quote:
This left 48% of the positive men and 44% of the negative men who said they did try and find out or at least guess their partner’s status. HIV-positive men who did this assumed their partner was negative 60% of the time and positive 40% of the time. Negative men only assumed their partner was positive 4.5% of the time (probably an underestimate: HIV prevalence in gay men in Germany was nearly 11% in 2008, according to the 2008 UNAIDS report on the global epidemic).
Quote:
73% of the time negative men ‘knew’ their partner was negative because they said so. Here, however, we must remember that knowledge of one’s status is dependent on time since the last test and behaviour since then, and as the researchers point out, fully a third of the men in the survey had never had an HIV test and 22% had a test result older than 18 months.
--------------------
There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
Post Extras:
|
|
dJohnson
|
|
Newbie
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 03/11/09
|
|
Posts: 6
|
|
Loc: Brandon, FL
|
|
|
your saying people as if everyone is doing it? most of the people on the web site are here because they take care of themselves and are not running around giving HIV to other people. not good to generalize people
Post Extras:
|
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Threaded
