“Negative On Prep” Liars.

[SirBillybob]

It all requires revision anyway because detectable HIviremia below a newly established but higher threshold is deemed to be untransmittable. The new threshold is way above the limit of quantification. It is at the magnitude of 5 million viral particles within the average adult.

In fact, a structured treatment break from highly active antiretroviral therapy may sustain viral load control, to a point, without risking drug resistance. Transmission equivalency potential between somebody U on ART and technically carefully monitored but not U and not on ART, both less potential than somebody unaware of a problematic viremia uptick, changes the picture.

At a consent level the legality is centered in some jurisdictions on ‘reasonable’ probability of transmission. These are reasons for supplementation of simplistic labels by open inquiry between sexual partners. Even if an ad admin tried to vet providers along these lines it would be too complex. The status menu is designed to open up 1:1 information exchange, not guarantee accuracy of info. 

Edited August 27, 2023 by SirBillybob

[DWnyc]

The law usually also points to deliberate misrepresentation of status following a known diagnosis.

That is a separate issue from transmit-ability with or without U+ status.

Again we come back to the same issue: clients need to do what they feel is best for themselves and not rely on statments on a website or spoken by a provider-  but they should make best efforts to educate themselves on risk and prevention in their situation. 

[SirBillybob]

5 hours ago, DWnyc said:

The law usually also points to deliberate misrepresentation of status following a known diagnosis.

That is a separate issue from transmit-ability with or without U+ status.

Again we come back to the same issue: clients need to do what they feel is best for themselves and not rely on statments on a website or spoken by a provider-  but they should make best efforts to educate themselves on risk and prevention in their situation. 

I think that the first two paragraphs’ content is not entirely separate in application. [Just one sample piece relevant to the integration of the legal and clinical is appended.]

This is all evolving, and being aware of the factors under consideration is as important as the more elusive consensus possibility. It stands to reason that any court case would involve a deep dive into a lot of variables.

Interestingly, Hepatitis B infection, for example, is a reportable communicable disease yet does not seem to be subject to the same standards, though transmittable without intercourse, and can yield acute presentation that comes with extreme morbidity or worse. 

That said, what a provider or client should not assume is that he is above the law, at point of conventionally accepted infection transmission risk activity, itself a moving target, simply because there are developing arguments that mitigate the implications of non-disclosure as conceptualized when viral control was less advanced. 

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/hiv-vih/pdf/Consultation_paper_Survey_Questions_HIV_Non_Disclosure_Consultation_EN.pdf

Edited August 28, 2023 by SirBillybob

[SouthOfTheBorder]

in context of hiring providers & hookups of any sort - do not believe a word they say or write.  
prepare for the worst and then make your choices accordingly.
if someone is naive enough to take a providers word (or anyone) regarding sexual health/practices, then there’s really not much to say.  that same person likely makes many bad choices based on faulty information

as far as knowing specific providers aren’t being truthful - chalk it up to experience. no surprises there 
 

 

[Toomuch4u]

Glad to see some of you aren’t too naive, but be careful….they are still out there and posting….Rentmen and Rentmasseur really needs to take that off there. 

[Guest]

I find Rentmen's options on this to be very limited.

Negative, on prep could mean different things. It should be:

- Negative on Prep

- Negative and on Prep

The first statement implies that they are HIV+ and undetectable due to treatment. The latter states that they are HIV- and use Prep for safety. "Negative, on Prep" doesn't convey the information that clients need to know.

[marylander1940]

Is up to you to take a pill a day and get tested every 3 months.

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

1 hour ago, Felange said:

I find Rentmen's options on this to be very limited.

Negative, on prep could mean different things. It should be:

- Negative on Prep

- Negative and on Prep

The first statement implies that they are HIV+ and undetectable due to treatment. The latter states that they are HIV- and use Prep for safety. "Negative, on Prep" doesn't convey the information that clients need to know.

And yet the lab results for both men will simply show HIV- 😊 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Vegas_Millennial said:

And yet the lab results for both men will simply show HIV- 😊 

True. But the distinction is real and exists, and it should be known to the client.

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

4 minutes ago, Felange said:

True. But the distinction is real and exists, and it should be known to the client.

Always assume the other person cought HIV from the person he hooked up with just before you and doesn't know.  Then, protect yourself accordingly. 

Alternatively:  hire a well reviewed escort who claims he's a virgin.  Then, still protect yourself as if he caught HIV from a blood transfusion and doesn't know.

Edited June 17 by Vegas_Millennial

[Guest]

Just now, Vegas_Millennial said:

Always assume the other person cought HIV from the person he hooked up with just before you and doesn't know.  Then, protect yourself accordingly. 

Alternatively:  hire a well reviewed escort who claims he's a virgin

I always assume they are HIV+ until proven otherwise. Even when I used to go cruising or clubbing out at night.

But if the culture on Rentmen becomes overtly a culture of deception, do we really want that as a platform? I think if someone wants to be honest, they should be given the opportunity to be precise in their answers as providers.

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

1 minute ago, Felange said:

I always assume they are HIV+ until proven otherwise. Even when I used to go cruising or clubbing out at night.

But if the culture on Rentmen becomes overtly a culture of deception, do we really want that as a platform? I think if someone wants to be honest, they should be given the opportunity to be precise in their answers as providers.

Right, like how truthfully precise they are with their age on RentMen.  That kind of truthfulness.

[+ BenjaminNicholas]

You cannot expect a fringe industry to act in regulated ways.

As the GIF goes, it's just not realistic.

It's always on you to protect you.  The 'he got me pregnant' clause doesn't apply anymore.  Your health is your responsibility.

Sure, I totally understand what people SHOULD do...  But that's not the reality of human nature.

[SirBillybob]

1 hour ago, Felange said:

I find Rentmen's options on this to be very limited.

Negative, on prep could mean different things. It should be:

- Negative on Prep

- Negative and on Prep

The first statement implies that they are HIV+ and undetectable due to treatment. The latter states that they are HIV- and use Prep for safety. "Negative, on Prep" doesn't convey the information that clients need to know.

The drop down menu covers the essential status options. What it cannot do, other than not being able to resolve intentional misinformation, is display a HIV-negative person’s possible actual positive status due to the lag time between an infection unbeknownst to the person because  the person may have transmissible HIV prior to the evidence of seroconversion that informs the person accurately. PrEP is not treatment for diagnosed HIV infection. Similarly, PrEP status actual protection is not unambiguously known because there are high rates of community HIV infection incidence due to lapses in uptake adherence.

Edited June 17 by SirBillybob

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

4 hours ago, Felange said:

Negative, on prep could mean different things. It should be:

- Negative on Prep

- Negative and on Prep

The first statement implies that they are HIV+ and undetectable due to treatment.

No, there is already an accurate option to describe HIV+ and undetectable due to treatment.  It's listed as Positive, undetectable on ART.  But, it's so rarely used and the few times it is members on this forum freak out and post warnings about the provider rather than giving him a kudos for being honest and protecting himself and others by remaining undetectable. 

If I was a provider, I would not complete that section of my profile (I speak from practice, as I don't complete that section of my profile on hookup or dating apps).  When I am a customer, I assume everyone could have become positive an hour before he met me and protect myself accordingly.

[Archangel]

On 8/2/2023 at 10:33 AM, Toomuch4u said:

take care and protect yourselves

This at the end of the day.

I’m on PreP. My regular is – says so, anyhow. I believe him. We BB. But if he’s not on PreP like he says, I did my part and looked out for us both.

I had a provider refuse BB even though I’m on PreP and he says he is. His prerogative. But it does make me wonder how honest he was insofar as being worried about BB if we both are HIV negative and on PreP yet still refusing BB. Totally acceptable, but also curious at the same time. Why worry if you’re honest and clean and clear?

[SirBillybob]

The provider declining condomless insertive or receptive anal intercourse is following clinical guidance, attending to the education and recommendations that accompany best health systems counseling practices surrounding his PrEP testing for HIV and other STIs. With solid self-efficacy, his personal autonomy should override any concerns he might have that declining condomless intercourse leads to assumptions that the veracity of his HIV and PrEP status is questionable. I’d be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that his skills and experience inform him that no free pass is conferred by PrEP. If also reciprocally mistrustful on top of the non-culpable unknown, that fits neatly with the risk mitigation agenda inherent in his personal agency as a sex worker. With less than robust self-determination and prophylaxis intentionality he could be exposed to a bacterial or viral infection, or subsequently worry about it and/or suspend his commercial sex livelihood when in fact he might have preferred the enhanced protection. 

Edited June 17 by SirBillybob

[Archangel]

34 minutes ago, SirBillybob said:

The provider declining condomless insertive or receptive anal intercourse is following clinical guidance, attending to the education and recommendations that accompany best health systems counseling practices surrounding his PrEP testing for HIV and other STIs. With solid self-efficacy, his personal autonomy should override any concerns he might have that declining condomless intercourse leads to assumptions that the veracity of his HIV and PrEP status is questionable. I’d be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that his skills and experience inform him that no free pass is conferred by PrEP. With less than robust self-determination and prophylaxis intentionality he could be exposed to a bacterial or viral infection, or subsequently worry about it and/or suspend his commercial sex livelihood when in fact he might have preferred the enhanced protection. 

Many deep, undesiderated, supererogatory, obtrusive, adventitious, interloping, nugatory thanks, Dr. Ultracrepidarian—how predictably pedantic-yet-gratuitously-unmeritedly-redundantly-inappositely overt, vulgivagant, and celeberrimus! Yes, I did, in fact, acknowledge it was his prerogative, a point that apparently escaped the good doctor’s compulsion to bludgeon nuance with the cudgel of cold, clinical accuracy. While an airtight grasp of factual minutiae is, as always, impeccable in its sterile perfection, it does seem there exists a pathological inability to grasp that life, inconveniently for such a binary worldview, is saturated with risk. Every decision, action, inaction, or mere instance of continued respiration carries the latent hazard of calamity—though no doubt any such sciolist oenologaster has a peer-reviewed source ready to refute that too. But here’s a radical thought: perhaps human interaction isn’t a risk-free equation to be balanced on an epistemological abacus. And speaking of overcorrections, perhaps it’s time to shelve the beloved thesaurus and to take a healthy, introversive, endoptic, automnesic gander at a page—dare one say a sentence—from Strunk & White. “Omit needless words,” they say. Imagine the revelation, the sheer liberation, of expressing a thought without constructing a cathedral of circumlocution around it.

Edited June 17 by Archangel
It became requisite that I undertake the rectification of orthographic infelicities.

[SirBillybob]

1 hour ago, Archangel said:

Many deep, undesiderated, supererogatory, obtrusive, adventitious, interloping, nugatory thanks, Dr. Ultracrepidarian—how predictably pedantic-yet-gratuitously-unmeritedly-redundantly-inappositely overt, vulgivagant, and celeberrimus! Yes, I did, in fact, acknowledge it was his prerogative, a point that apparently escaped the good doctor’s compulsion to bludgeon nuance with the cudgel of cold, clinical accuracy. While an airtight grasp of factual minutiae is, as always, impeccable in its sterile perfection, it does seem there exists a pathological inability to grasp that life, inconveniently for such a binary worldview, is saturated with risk. Every decision, action, inaction, or mere instance of continued respiration carries the latent hazard of calamity—though no doubt any such sciolist oenologaster has a peer-reviewed source ready to refute that too. But here’s a radical thought: perhaps human interaction isn’t a risk-free equation to be balanced on an epistemological abacus. And speaking of overcorrections, perhaps it’s time to shelve the beloved thesaurus and to take a healthy, introversive, endoptic, automnesic gander at a page—dare one say a sentence—from Strunk & White. “Omit needless words,” they say. Imagine the revelation, the sheer liberation, of expressing a thought without constructing a cathedral of circumlocution around it.

As far as interaction goes, petal, yours is risk free for me. If you want to be someone that others are then inclined to handle, so be it. One would think you might be licking a few residual wounds and were reactive more to an implication of interpersonal deficiency than protesting writing style. If grandstanding helps restore equilibrium all the better. No skin off my teeth. But by all means do reveal what gets your goat because I’m not sure how you thrive. 

That said, relax, the topic theme was distrust and you had simply presented the idea of reading into somebody’s preference, one that you obviously honoured yet framed as curious, the possibility that their declaration had been misrepresented. This was in keeping with the thread. In fact, in some situations that type of attribution may uptick protectiveness beneficially. 

In actuality, sex workers that access  good prevention programs and know what’s up will aim for condom use. Perhaps that had already been emphasized upthread. Their risk factors are unique. My input wasn’t designed to shame, to negate that you complied with a decision within an encounter in which it seems you’d have opted for condomless intercourse having executed your due HIV prevention diligence on your side of the equation. By accommodating him you played a part in solidifying his comfort with his boundaries.  

Next.

Edited June 17 by SirBillybob

[Archangel]

Billy…Bob…I assure you: my issue was the pedantry in responding, not the content. Thou dost extrapolate too much—and methinks assign more impactful valuation to your logorrhea over me than warranted, apt, or frankly present. I could find something curious and respect it simultaneously, to boot. That’s the complexity of human behavior—a distinction that, as I do believe I clearly stated in the aforeposted response, is admittedly and concededly operous if you are captive to a binary view of existence.

[Archangel]

7 hours ago, Felange said:

True. But the distinction is real and exists, and it should be known to the client.

I agree.

I hadn’t considered that distinction but it’s a good one.

I also think it’s perfectly acceptable to ask directly any guy who’s fucking you what his HIV status is, in the simplest and most transparent terms. That is to say, if you ask, and he is HIV- but on HIV-treatment, the ethical thing for him to do is share that. And the same for me. If asked, I should have no qualms about discussing that with a guy who’s going to fuck me. It’s responsible. 

[Simon Suraci]

Take responsibility for your own health. 
Mature, responsible adults do.

[CuriousByNature]

19 hours ago, Archangel said:

I had a provider refuse BB even though I’m on PreP and he says he is. His prerogative. But it does make me wonder how honest he was insofar as being worried about BB if we both are HIV negative and on PreP yet still refusing BB. Totally acceptable, but also curious at the same time. Why worry if you’re honest and clean and clear?

He might be concerned about other STIs that are not prevented with PreP.  

[coriolis888]

18 hours ago, Archangel said:

I agree.

I hadn’t considered that distinction but it’s a good one.

I also think it’s perfectly acceptable to ask directly any guy who’s fucking you what his HIV status is, in the simplest and most transparent terms.

It’s responsible. 

While it is true what you say, when countless ads are false with so many things like the escorts age and size, just to name two items, why would you expect an escort to be honest about his health status?

[+ JamesB]

I'll echo what many have already said: your health is your responsibility, no one else’s. Relying on a stranger’s claim about their health status isn’t a smart way to protect yourself.

Let me give you an example. There’s a local provider who’s been around for a few years. His ads on both RMass and RMen used to state his status as: Positive, undetectable on ART. Suddenly, his RMass ad stopped mentioning his status and the one on RMen changed to: Negative, on PrEP. I guess miracles do happen.

The point is: don’t shift the responsibility for your health onto someone else. That’s a risk that may not end well.

 

P.S. No, I will not name the provider.