3 STD rates hit record high in the USA.

[MrMattBig]

I ran an AIDS information hotline in the 1980s. The callers' ignorance, not only about medical matters but about sex in general, was often mind-blowing. Younger people nowadays think they are much more sophisticated, but most of them probably still believe the self-consoling myths that people have always adopted to justify whatever it is that they do.

This behavior persists across all age demographics.

Digging deep enough, the trending lack/decrease in condom use, and laxed testing protocols for those not on prep, is related to how we as a society don't prioritize preventative health measures.

[Monarchy79]

I am all for calling a thing a thing. You are puritanical and judgmental. One thing is holding people accountable for their wrong actions, and another thing is projecting our own values to everyone else. You crossed that line.

 

Please respectfully show me where I judged anyone in my initial statement above.....

 

When you think about it, people like me actually get judged more. In fact...

1.) calling me puritanical and judgmental is a judgement...

?

[Monarchy79]

I am all for calling a thing a thing. You are puritanical and judgmental. One thing is holding people accountable for their wrong actions, and another thing is projecting our own values to everyone else. You crossed that line.

 

and from reading my post and your response, you seem a bit defensive and “triggered”. There was no offense intended towards you, but since you addressed my comments, I’d like for you to address your point further, if you don’t mind.

[Monarchy79]

I think it is more accurate to talk about less fear than about not caring at all. I am on PrEP, having lots of sex with no condoms (which is not unprotected sex, sex negative morons), and I think I am taking all the rational (to me) precautions. I would not say I am careless. Although I do not pretend to be the measurement for everyone else, I think I am representative of most PrEP users in this point.

You’re calling people

“Sex negative morons”....

 

Sir, you just “judged”, someone for having a set of beliefs and ideologies different than yours...

 

That in fact, makes you just as judgmental as those that you seem to loathe....

 

And might I add, a hypocrite....

[Monarchy79]

I am all for calling a thing a thing. You are puritanical and judgmental. One thing is holding people accountable for their wrong actions, and another thing is projecting our own values to everyone else. You crossed that line.

http://www.aidsmap.com/news/oct-2018/380000-people-prep-globally-mostly-usa-and-africa-updated

 

So probably because you're horrible at math. Probably.

 

Regardless of his math, his point still Makes sense.

statistics are actually irrelevant in this matter. The WHO and CDC had concerns in the early stages of PrEP, that it’s popularity would result in an increase of STDs, as users wouldn’t use it as intended... and they were correct.

[MrMattBig]

You’re calling people

“Sex negative morons”....

 

Sir, you just “judged”, someone for having a set of beliefs and ideologies different than yours...

 

That in fact, makes you just as judgmental as those that you seem to loathe....

 

And might I add, a hypocrite....

While hyperbolic, @latbear4blk is correct.

People out there label bare sex on prep unprotected, when it's only "unprotected" in terms of a societal norm of without a condom. But when PreP is adhered to correctly, it protects against HIV, and even if you contract other diseases/infections, because of the 3 month testing protocol enables relatively quick treatment compared to the rest of society. Which, on a good day will get tested every 6 months to a year.

 

I am not advocating in any way that people should have bare sex just because they are on PreP, but the broad strokes of labeling that decision in such a negative and ignorant fashion need to stop as well.

 

Personally, I find inquires whose first question is if I do bare as the real problem. If the concern of that interest being accommodated is put ahead of asking if I'm on PreP, stating if they are as well, discussing availability and logistics, that indicates recklessness that I rather not be apart of.

[MrMattBig]

Regardless of his math, his point still Makes sense.

statistics are actually irrelevant in this matter. The WHO and CDC had concerns in the early stages of PrEP, that it’s popularity would result in an increase of STDs, as users wouldn’t use it as intended... and they were correct.

Absolutely correct!

It's not about the math, it's more about the behavioral trends that accompany PreP.

Especially when straight guys are in relationships but hooking up with guys on the side, the issue of STDs and PreP now crosses to all demographics.

I feel the math point was made in defense because most will point to simply PreP users choosing to go bare as the problem and cause, but it's way more complicated than that. And while PreP is still mainly an LGBT prescription, those outside our community will then blame and persecute gays as being the problem and cause. So I see the math defense as hyperbolic and inaccurate as well, but considering the possible ramifications of jumping to the PreP user conclusion, completely understandable.

[Monarchy79]

 

“I am not advocating in any way that people should have bare sex just because they are onPersonally

[quote="MrMattBig, post: 1804261, member: 12625"

 

And the creators of PReP intended for it to be used in conjunction with other safe sex practices. Ironically many of those who use this medication, see it as a license for barebacking, and other practices that have contributed to the uptick in the STDs that PReP does not protect people from.

[Monarchy79]

Absolutely correct!

It's not about the math, it's more about the behavioral trends that accompany PreP.

Especially when straight guys are in relationships but hooking up with guys on the side, the issue of STDs and PreP now crosses to all demographics.

I feel the math point was made in defense because most will point to simply PreP users choosing to go bare as the problem and cause, but it's way more complicated than that. And while PreP is still mainly an LGBT prescription, those outside our community will then blame and persecute gays as being the problem and cause. So I see the math defense as hyperbolic and inaccurate as well, but considering the possible ramifications of jumping to the PreP user conclusion, completely understandable.

While hyperbolic, @latbear4blk

and even if you contract other diseases/infections, because of the 3 month testing protocol enables relatively quick treatment compared to the rest of society. Which, on a good day will get tested every 6 months to a year.

 

This is the part that concerns me.... here’s why:

1.) The other diseases are diseases. They have significant impacts to ones health if regularly contracted over and over. People are now treating these as if it’s the equivalent of having a sinus infection (which many people on this forum probably take more seriously). Continued use of antibiotics affects the body, and probably affects the body’s reaction to using PrEP as well. Imagine being on PrEP, doxycycline (for gonhorrea). A series of penicillin shots (for syphyllis), and on valtrex (for herpes) all at the same time? That has to be toxic to the body... all because of the idea that condoms are “useless”.

2. In terms of the 3 month protocol, there are other things to consider.... let’s say I’m on PrEP and feeling sexually liberated, and right after my quarterly testing for STDs, after testing negative for everything, I spend a week of , bareback orgies, a few bathhouses, had some fun in some dungeons, alleys, and strolls through parks... all bareback, all felching, all fun, and all “sex-positive”...(my next screening isn’t for 3 months)

I’m popping my PrEP pills and feel “safe and protected” between then and the next three months I could have not only contracted a few STDs, but have also unknowingly passed them on to the numerous others I have slept with because:

1.) I am too “evolved” and free to use condoms

2.) I am “sex-positive”, and I can do what I want, and no one can judge me, and

3.) I took PrEP everyday, therefore I’m contributing to “safe sex.”

This is my concern... it’s the equivalent of driving a car, and not using a seatbelt, because you have car insurance. You’re still not preventing other collisions... and your passengers are left to fend for themselves ?

[MrMattBig]

[quote="MrMattBig, post: 1804261, member: 12625"

 

And the creators of PReP intended for it to be used in conjunction with other safe sex practices. Ironically many of those who use this medication, see it as a license for barebacking, and other practices that have contributed to the uptick in the STDs that PReP does not protect people from.

 

Completely agree.

I was making the point that ironically as well, you can make the argument that transmission of STD/STI's potentially is still lower amongst PreP barebackers versus non PreP users because of the 3 month testing. I once had an inquiry who asked if I did bare, and went on to state they were "clean" but last got tested a little over a year prior. Who knows what exposure that person had over 13+months.

Most things can be transmitted without full intercourse. So the fact that there are those out there who think they don't have to get tested often because they are having intercourse with condoms is baffling.

In my opinion, while completely different obviously, the person who has intercourse with condoms with multiple partners but doesn't get tested for well over a year+, is culpable as much as a PreP user who partakes in bare sex.

[Monarchy79]

Completely agree.

I was making the point that ironically as well, you can make the argument that transmission of STD/STI's potentially is still lower amongst PreP barebackers versus non PreP users because of the 3 month testing. I once had an inquiry who asked if I did bare, and went on to state they were "clean" but last got tested a little over a year prior. Who knows what exposure that person had over 13+months.

Most things can be transmitted without full intercourse. So the fact that there are those out there who think they don't have to get tested often because they are having intercourse with condoms is baffling.

In my opinion, while completely different obviously, the person who has intercourse with condoms with multiple partners but doesn't get tested for well over a year+, is culpable as much as a PreP user who partakes in bare sex.

Good point. However, I don’t necessarily think that condom users feel less of a need to get tested. They just aren’t mandated to. I’ll go further to say that if PrEP users weren’t mandated to quarterly testing, they probably wouldn’t be tested as much either. I believe this because I feel as if the average person doesn’t visit the doctor for preventative medicine, but to address symptoms when they arrive (I’m speaking generally here, not just in regards to sexual health)

 

Now, this week, California became the first state to approve the purchase of PrEP, without a prescription, which means that those doctor visits will possibly significantly decline... which in my humble opinion, will cause the rates of STDs to skyrocket.

[Monarchy79]

Sidebar question:

What’s so wrong with being on PrEP AND using condoms?

[MrMattBig]

Good point. However, I don’t necessarily think that condom users feel less of a need to get tested. They just aren’t mandated to. I’ll go further to say that if PrEP users weren’t mandated to quarterly testing, they probably wouldn’t be tested as much either. I believe this because I feel as if the average person doesn’t visit the doctor for preventative medicine, but to address symptoms when they arrive (I’m speaking generally here, not just in regards to sexual health)

 

Now, this week, California became the first state to approve the purchase of PrEP, without a prescription, which means that those doctor visits will possibly significantly decline... which in my humble opinion, will cause the rates of STDs to skyrocket.

I am definitely going to look that up and read later.

If that's the case it will start to defeat the purpose of PreP to prevent HIV in the first place. One of the reasons behind the 3 month testing is to maintain HIV strains becoming resistant and compromising the whole system.

[Monarchy79]

I am definitely going to look that up and read later.

If that's the case it will start to defeat the purpose of PreP to prevent HIV in the first place. One of the reasons behind the 3 month testing is to maintain HIV strains becoming resistant and compromising the whole system.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1064256

[MrMattBig]

Sidebar question:

What’s so wrong with being on PrEP AND using condoms?

Super side bar, not to get into politics, but if we pushed to mandate a tax penalty for not being enrolled in healthcare coverage, why can't we also mandate some type of tax break incentive for meeting certain health obligations, such as more routine STD/sti screenings. It would take some burden off the healthcare system by preventing more issues instead of treating them after.

[Monarchy79]

Super side bar, not to get into politics, but if we pushed to mandate a tax penalty for not being enrolled in healthcare coverage, why can't we also mandate some type of tax break incentive for meeting certain health obligations, such as more routine STD/sti screenings. It would take some burden off the healthcare system by preventing more issues instead of treating them after.

 

I won’t get into politics , but I will tell you that I don’t feel that there is a limitation in the resources for STD screenings. Where I live, there are numerous resources for STD screenings, all free, and government-funded.

And there are resources for free healthcare coverage for the poor, and the homeless too.

 

I really think the issue here with sexual health is a personal accountability issue. And it’s so personal, because this revolves around personal decisions we make in how we use our bodies and our personal takes on sex, safe sex, and what’s “right”.

As there’s no clear cut answer to this question, there will probably never be a solution, except the creation of a vaccine given at birth that prevents HIV and all other STDs too.

[+ José Soplanucas]

and from reading my post and your response, you seem a bit defensive and “triggered”. There was no offense intended towards you, but since you addressed my comments, I’d like for you to address your point further, if you don’t mind.

 

LOL. Sure, someone is indeed triggered.

 

I apologize, I was just responding to your call for calling the things for what they are. I leave you enjoying your own rage.

[MrMattBig]

I won’t get into politics , but I will tell you that I don’t feel that there is a limitation in the resources for STD screenings. Where I live, there are numerous resources for STD screenings, all free, and government-funded.

And there are resources for free healthcare coverage for the poor, and the homeless too.

 

I really think the issue here with sexual health is a personal accountability issue. And it’s so personal, because this revolves around personal decisions we make in how we use our bodies and our personal takes on sex, safe sex, and what’s “right”.

As there’s no clear cut answer to this question, there will probably never be a solution, except the creation of a vaccine given at birth that prevents HIV and all other STDs too.

Absolutely! The issue is rarely just about supplying resources, but getting people to actually use those resources. It's the same issue with homelessness and drug addiction at times. There is usually plenty of resources to get someone off the street, but too many choose not to use them.

Same with STD screenings. The issue isn't really providing more resources for STD screenings, but rather how to get more to actually utilize them.

Which then is a personal accountability issue just like you mentioned.

[Monarchy79]

LOL. Sure, someone is indeed triggered.

 

I apologize, I was just responding to your call for calling the things for what they are. I leave you enjoying your own rage.

 

You’re response solidified your trigger.

 

No need for a backhanded apology... serves neither one of us any benefit.

 

I don’t have any rage. If I recall correctly, your post was filled with name calling and inflammatory statements....

 

does the term “sex-negative-moron”, ring a bell? ?

 

Anywho, I still would like for you to educate me on how you practice “safe sex”, by regular, consistent barebacking with multiple partners, and how this prevents the spread of the STDs that PrEP doesn’t protect. No judgment here... I truly need your informative take on this.

[Monarchy79]

Absolutely! The issue is rarely just about supplying resources, but getting people to actually use those resources. It's the same issue with homelessness and drug addiction at times. There is usually plenty of resources to get someone off the street, but too many choose not to use them.

Same with STD screenings. The issue isn't really providing more resources for STD screenings, but rather how to get more to actually utilize them.

Which then is a personal accountability issue just like you mentioned.

 

I agree with you 1000%!!!

[+ José Soplanucas]

You’re response solidified your trigger.

 

No need for a backhanded apology... serves neither one of us any benefit.

 

I don’t have any rage. If I recall correctly, your post was filled with name calling and inflammatory statements....

 

does the term “sex-negative-moron”, ring a bell? ?

 

Anywho, I still would like for you to educate me on how you practice “safe sex”, by regular, consistent barebacking with multiple partners, and how this prevents the spread of the STDs that PrEP doesn’t protect. No judgment here... I truly need your informative take on this.

 

You did trigger me. I do apologize, sincerely.

 

Again, I am not name calling you but calling you for what you are (puritanical and judgmental, I was not calling you a moron directly), of course in my humble opinion. It is hard to explain it when your posts are self explanatory.

 

Let's put it this way, paraphrasing a friend. 100% safety does not exist; we all take different precautions as we all have different levels of risk taking. The thing is to set the limits that make you comfortable, and then trust and relax.

 

If you think that you practice safe sex because you use condoms, you are delusional. You are puritanical and judgmental when you shame those who do accept a higher risk taking than you do.

[Chad Constantine]

I’d venture that the people of whom you speak would probably label you as “sex-negative,” a popular buzzword along with “sex-positive.”

Never heard these buzzwords. May I ask what they mean? Are these the new terms for people that "stigmatize" people HIV?

[MrMattBig]

Never heard these buzzwords. May I ask what they mean? Are these the new terms for people that "stigmatize" people HIV?

An easy way to look at it is sex positive is openess towards sex and more liberal and accepting, sex negative would be conservative and not open minded

[Monarchy79]

You did trigger me. I do apologize, sincerely.

 

Again, I am not name calling you but calling you for what you are (puritanical and judgmental, I was not calling you a moron directly), of course in my humble opinion. It is hard to explain it when your posts are self explanatory.

 

Let's put it this way, paraphrasing a friend. 100% safety does not exist; we all take different precautions as we all have different levels of risk taking. The thing is to set the limits that make you comfortable, and then trust and relax.

 

If you think that you practice safe sex because you use condoms, you are delusional. You are puritanical and judgmental when you shame those who do accept a higher risk taking than you do.

 

Again, no apologies necessary.... I’m not offended nor am I sensitive... lol.

Let’s get into the points here.

You made some good ones that gives me a better understanding as to why we disagree here...

 

1.) I agree that 100% safety does not exist. But I will explain why I feel that putting on a condom is an act of safe sex. a. It involves placing a barrier over a body part that’s being inserted into another body part b. The intent is to guard fluids that may contain bacteria, infection, or antibodies from entering. c. It protects the skin that’s connecting during intercourse as well. its the equivalent of putting your hand into an oven mitt, before touching the skillet. I’ve used condoms during sex, and have used them with those who were HIV positive (and may not have known it). Some of those people are dead. I’m alive and HIV-free. Condoms were proven to be safe for me. Secondly. Through condom use, I have had successful test results for STDs as well. I have been blessed, but I contribute this to using condoms.

 

2.) wearing seatbelts doesn’t guarantee 100% prevention from a fatality, but that doesn’t mean that the use of seatbelts should be eliminated altogether.

 

Where I disagree with you is the idea that condoms are useless because they aren’t 100% safe (nothing in life is 1. please keep in mind that millions of people who used condoms before prep are free of HIV and other STDs... I’m one of those people. These facts can’t be refuted .

 

3.) I see no “shame” in your sex practices... I actually am impressed and entertained with your posts of your wild exploits, many of which are quite hot.

 

I actually speak out of concern... I am concerned when people are blinded by liberated actions, thinking that there is no consequence or side effect. Now if you said “hey, I like bareback sex, and I’m fine with the potential risks”, then I totally respect that.

But the idea that PrEP, is this wonder pill that eliminates the use of any other precautionary measure, is just as delusional.

 

Here’s my disconnect...

You can take a PrEP pill, and prevent HIV transmission...

 

I can slap on a condom and prevent transmission of HIV, HPV, Syphyllis, Gonorrhea, Chlymidia, and other numerous infections. So the idea that condoms are useless is false, I’m living proof of that.

[Monarchy79]

An easy way to look at it is sex positive is openess towards sex and more liberal and accepting, sex negative would be conservative and not open minded

 

perfect clarification.

The term “sex positive”, usually gets muddled for me when it comes to accountability.

I’m totally open to various progressive views on sex, fetishes, and untraditional practices and relationships.

 

Here’s an example of a difference for me.... and I’ll give two scenarios where I am “sex positive”, and the other where I am puritanical.

 

Scenario #1: My name is Bob. I am positive/undetectable. I am open with all of my partners. I love bareback sex, and regularly participate in sero-converting orgies where all parties are aware of the dynamics.

totally acceptable to me. I’m totally sex positive... enjoy yourself and do your think

 

Scenario #2: My name is Bob. I am negative. I love bareback sex, but it’s safe because I’m on PrEP. I love bareback sex and have an active sex life. I’m invincible and you can’t “judge”, me.

Scenario 2 always concerns me because of the reasons I’ve stated in my previous posts. This is where I end up going down the “puritanical road”....