NipLuvr212 Posted March 1 Posted March 1 13 hours ago, pubic_assistance said: Apparently it wasnt as "great" for him. His loss, I assure you pubic_assistance 1
pubic_assistance Posted March 1 Posted March 1 1 hour ago, NipLuvr212 said: His loss, I assure you What a fool I am," he said. "Here I am wearing myself out to get a bunch of sour grapes that are not worth gaping for." NipLuvr212 1
ShortCutie7 Posted March 1 Posted March 1 18 hours ago, pubic_assistance said: Well...he may have discovered that his honesty was working against him. Its unfortunate but I AM guilty of being turned off by the knowledge. Even though I DO always just approach sexual encounters as if. Its sort of like eating meat You embrace a level of denial when you eat a tasty steak. You choose to not think about where it ACTUALLY came from and what horrors that animal suffered to get a meal to your plate. Agreed, the scientific knowledge of U=U does not override the psychological impact of knowing someone is (or was) poz. pubic_assistance 1
NipLuvr212 Posted March 1 Posted March 1 5 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said: What a fool I am," he said. "Here I am wearing myself out to get a bunch of sour grapes that are not worth gaping for." Setting up a straw man, or in this case fox, is never becoming. pubic_assistance 1
pubic_assistance Posted March 1 Posted March 1 (edited) 1 hour ago, NipLuvr212 said: Setting up a straw man, or in this case fox, is never becoming. Just reminding you it takes two to tango...but for many its always "the other guy" who's wrong. Sometimes its both. Not everyone is a good match, even for a business transaction. Best to move on without the sour grapes. Makes you the bigger man. Edited March 1 by pubic_assistance spelling MikeH10 and TJMS 2
NipLuvr212 Posted March 1 Posted March 1 2 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said: Just reminding you it takes two to tango...but for many its always "the other guy" whose wrong. Sometimes its both. Not everyone is a good match, even for a business transaction. Best to move on without the sour grapes. Makes you the bigger man. so kind of you not to pass judgment mike carey and pubic_assistance 1 1
pubic_assistance Posted March 1 Posted March 1 8 minutes ago, NipLuvr212 said: so kind of you not to pass judgment I am not. I gave you both the benefit of the doubt. TJMS 1
SFChinois Posted March 1 Posted March 1 He doesn't show face so that a red flag? anyone confirm how he looks? LOL
Jack Vernon Posted March 1 Posted March 1 1 hour ago, SFChinois said: He doesn't show face so that a red flag? anyone confirm how he looks? LOL If you click on his profile he's sure to send you a direct message with a face pic. bobsboy51 1
+ nycman Posted March 2 Posted March 2 On 3/1/2026 at 7:50 AM, JayinHKNYC said: U=U If, and only if, U is actually U. If you look at the original U=U study, there were several seroconversions, when U wasn’t really U. Those got discounted, but in real life, those guys became infected with HIV. And that’s what really matters. ShortCutie7 and pubic_assistance 1 1
ShortCutie7 Posted March 2 Posted March 2 31 minutes ago, nycman said: If, and only if, U is actually U. If you look at the original U=U study, there were several seroconversions, when U wasn’t really U. Those got discounted, but in real life, those guys became infected with HIV. And that’s what really matters. Exactly. Just because a guy at one point tested undetectable doesn’t mean he is undetectable at any given moment, hence my psychological barrier I mentioned earlier (I deem it psychological because the same concept applies to a negative test). pubic_assistance and mike carey 2
JayinHKNYC Posted March 2 Posted March 2 U=U... look at the recent studies... zero seroconversions. Yes, it depends if they are not undetectable any more, you always have to weigh the risks, but too many people on this site blanket stigmatize undetectable as suspect. Venite 1
pubic_assistance Posted March 2 Posted March 2 2 hours ago, JayinHKNYC said: U=U... look at the recent studies... zero seroconversions. HIV can hide in dormant cells and reactivate and multiply during a lapse in treatment of less than a week. There are multiple examples of drug resistance occurring after many years of viral treatment and especially after infections from STI's such as syphilis. So... U does not always equal U because people get lazy and metabolisms change with other external factors ShortCutie7 1
Cretus Posted March 2 Posted March 2 17 hours ago, SFChinois said: He doesn't show face so that a red flag? anyone confirm how he looks? LOL Disagree that this is a red flag- unless they refuse to also dm you a face.
Venite Posted March 2 Posted March 2 8 hours ago, pubic_assistance said: HIV can hide in dormant cells and reactivate and multiply during a lapse in treatment of less than a week. There are multiple examples of drug resistance occurring after many years of viral treatment and especially after infections from STI's such as syphilis. So... U does not always equal U because people get lazy and metabolisms change with other external factors “HIV can multiply during a lapse in treatment”- in other words, after a lapse in treatment, they may be *not* undetectable. This does not seem like it is a rebuttal of U=U. The drug resistance point you mention also seems to suggest that when drugs don’t work, the person wouldn’t truly be undetectable. Again, that is a well known point, and doesn’t counter the idea that being truly undetectable means untransmittable. pubic_assistance 1
+ sniper Posted March 2 Posted March 2 The point is that undetectable is a point in time measurement and you have to assume the person kept on doing the things that kept them undetectable, with almost no slippage. Nobody is taking daily viral load tests. pubic_assistance and ShortCutie7 1 1
Venite Posted March 2 Posted March 2 (edited) 5 minutes ago, sniper said: The point is that undetectable is a point in time measurement and you have to assume the person kept on doing the things that kept them undetectable, with almost no slippage. Nobody is taking daily viral load tests. Of course this is true. It would be outrageous to see anyone disputing these intuitive and understandable points. This set of assertions is substantively different from the grave claim that “U=U is false”. Edited March 2 by Venite pubic_assistance and Cretus 1 1
Cretus Posted March 2 Posted March 2 (edited) I think the focus of this discussion should remain on the provider themselves. Though it grosses me out to see misinformation about U=U being spewed here, I’ll refrain and suggest folks get back to mainly discussing the provider. Edited March 2 by Cretus pubic_assistance 1
SFChinois Posted March 2 Posted March 2 Yes, this has gone in the wrong direction. I am going to meet with him today in SF and hope the pics match. he seems very sweet and the people that say he messages too much, UMMM then don't hire him or respond. He has not divulged his status to me but I am on prep and feel safe having taken this for over 10 yrs. Education is key so.... + Vegas_Millennial and Cretus 1 1
mike carey Posted March 3 Posted March 3 5 hours ago, Cretus said: I think the focus of this discussion should remain on the provider themselves. Though it grosses me out to see misinformation about U=U being spewed here, I’ll refrain and suggest folks get back to mainly discussing the provider. Yes, gentlemen please remember that there is a Men's Health forum where we can discuss issues of HIV transmissibility, this thread is about one escort. Let's close discussion of U=U in this thread. The usual rules on staying on topic and observing moderators' warnings apply from now. pubic_assistance 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now