PhileasFogg

I think confidence says more than aesthetics 

I think confidence says more than aesthetics 

That was back when higher education taught you what you needed to know to think and not to just get a job.
Having met you, I’d surmise that your school taught you well

I’m only quoting you because his deleted reply was in it. 

No need to defend yourself to me.  My comment is a general one

No need to defend yourself to me.  My comment is a general one

That was back when higher education taught you what you needed to know to think and not to just get a job.
Having met you, I’d surmise that your school taught you well

I have a lovely regular meeting with a guy I met online.  He’s 20.  He said up front that he’d never accept anything from me.  I made him accept a birthday gift a few months ago though - a camera he wanted.  It’s just the mutuality of the situation.  

I’m not sure what you mean,   But if younger guys can’t keep up with me, they can tap out 😅😉🤣

I took three to St John a couple weeks ago.  Their combined age was 5 yrs more than my 63 yrs
I’m with youngest one of those guys right now in Santa Monica and I’m more that 3x his age.
Age is a number.  So many other factors weigh into the chemistry and vibe.   I am healthy, in good shape, energetic…and I treat them as partners in our travels and not chattel 

I liken the HIV status disclosure of providers to an article I read a few years ago about the rather frighteningly high estimated number of commercial airline pilots in the US and globally  struggling with mental health and not seeking treatment for fear of losing their jobs.  I think regardless of one’s generosity emotionally and socially with persons who have seroconverted, the fact remains most people would think twice about hiring someone who is disclosed HIV+ than someone who is HIV+ and feigns that they are HIV-.  Simple economics make provider disclosure of HIV-, unreliable.  I am the master of my own health and wellbeing and take precautions as such.

I was quoting the percentage of drug failure even when consistently administered.
The failure rate in the general population where you find a varying consistency of administering the dosage is FAR higher. Somewhere around 15% in most communities and up to 30% in others. 
So to be completely reliant on SOMEONE ELSE taking their medication is INSANE
Being consistent in taking your meds yourself is a low risk but never a NO risk situation.
Personally I rarely bareback and I would NEVER in a million years let anyone top me bareback.(Not that I bottom anymore)..but when I WAS still taking it up the ass I never got fucked without a condom. (Yes I know a condom CAN tear...but in all my years of fucking I am unaware of that ever happening). 
 
 
 
 

Most of the replies have established this all really boils down to "our safety is in our own hands". Fidelity or provider honesty/integrity and whether clients accept provider representation at face value or not all kinda don't matter.

I did not know that.  Thank you!
To clarify - you’re referring to ART effectiveness?
If so, like birth control, cited effectiveness rates have to do with proper use (on time, daily, no antibiotics, etc).  Might the lowered effectiveness of ART be based on similar careless administration by the patient?   If so, I’d argue my stated concern is valid…if not, I need to research more to enhance my understanding. 

So the implication is that the partner was not monogamous?

Funny how human behavior conflicts with theory sometimes, right??? 🤪

I’m aware of a number who are just lying.  But as I learn of substance abuse and addiction, I begin to wonder if they have capacity to stick with the protocols

I do.  And I offer to show the results if they’d like. 

It’s not demanded.  Many don’t report.  Or they say “ask me”
 And guys on RM are not “employed,” they are “engaged” as contractors.  Labor laws do not apply to contractors.
But I think the question here is “if they do report, should they be truthful”
My interpretation of the consensus so far appears to be that “yes”
 

If the real Elvis looked like that in the 70’s, he would have lived out the rest of the century 

It’s not my thing…maybe google it?

I prefer clean shaven.  Once or twice, I might have said “it would be nice if…” but not to someone with a beard…I avoid beards 

It’s not demanded.  Many don’t report.  Or they say “ask me”
 And guys on RM are not “employed,” they are “engaged” as contractors.  Labor laws do not apply to contractors.
But I think the question here is “if they do report, should they be truthful”
My interpretation of the consensus so far appears to be that “yes”
 

There are a couple of posts out there that touch the periphery of this question, but don’t hit it directly:
In your opinion, when a provider specifically  represents themselves as “Negative and on PReP” but is actually “Positive and Undetectable,” are they:
blatantly lying  playing the grey area since, IF they are sticking to the treatment protocol, there’s little difference ok and we shouldn’t worry about it since U=U something else
And, is it your right to know and their responsibility to be transparent in disclosure
 
 
 

In U=U MSM PARTNER1/2 research combined, 1500+ individuals in some 750 serodifferent couples were completely aware of their own and their partner’s HIV status. The intention was to maintain non-transmission via sustained viral suppression throughout follow-up periods of condomless and pre-exposure drug prophylaxis-less anal intercourse. Otherwise, behavioural adjustments on the part of the seronegative partner, such as being lower-risk insertive in anal (a seronegative cohort majority), and receptive anal but without poz partner ejaculation (almost half) were clearly optional. In contrast, there would have been no strong argument for the seronegative partner to refrain from coital ejaculation.
It goes without saying that the knowable was normative and influenced the risk hierarchy. It doesn’t matter that there was non-incidence of infection in both subsample categories, stratified according to whether within-anal ejaculation by the HIV-positive partner reportedly occurred. If one wants to be aligned with U=U research in one’s own risk management there is little daylight between the norm of status awareness and the imperative of awareness, the necessity of awareness and the right to know. However, the real world outside of prevention research is not so simple. A seroconversion due to viral breakthrough in a TasP study is censored data and disqualified as posing cohort incidence greater than zero. Otherwise, all components of overall not knowing in the real world call for judicious, context specific, use of various prophylaxis options.
A limit to knowing when the information exists but is not accessible, for whatever reason, is more inclined to get hackles up irrespective of downstream health outcome. Although rights and responsibilities are ideally complementary rather than contradictory, tension arises when emphasizing one is mistaken for diminishing the other. 
As you say, Phil, information governing behavioural decisions at point of intercourse may be scientifically flawed for reasons already mentioned and beyond the scope of the truth vs mendacity consideration. Jurisprudence is not caught up with that unless it has material value in individual case adjudication.