Status Misrepresentation

[+ Pensant]

I assume that they’re probably not being honest so prepare accordingly.

[PileDriver]

exactly Pensant...own your own destiny

[+ PhileasFogg]

1 hour ago, PileDriver said:

in theory an easy one

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

[PileDriver]

PhileasFogg...exactly...human nature...on top of that sexual human nature...then add to that all the contrived moral crap...everyone take care of their own bodies please..no?

[TR1989]

Yes, we’re all responsible for our own health!

I started hiring masseurs just recently within the past 6-7 months. When I first started I was not on any type of medication. (In fact I’m such a newbie I didn’t even know there was so much advancement in medicine!)

The first masseur I ever went to could sense that I was a bit apprehensive. After our second session, this masseur (who has become a regular) gave me two doxycycline pills to take “for my peace of mind” and said to me just don’t drink dairy with it 😃. Talk about going above and beyond! I am forever grateful. 

I go to this one masseur and one other masseur on a regular basis. Both list “neg and on PreP” in their ads. I don’t have any reason to not believe them. 
 

I have since started taking PreP and have an Rx for doxy Pep; I’ve also been fully vaccinated (Covid, hep, Mpox). I get tested regularly. I’ve also disclosed my health info to my two regular masseurs. 
 

Having taken care of my health has helped me to feel more comfortable and to be more adventurous and to have more fun in our sessions. I also believe that it has helped the two masseurs to feel more comfortable with me and to help me explore more as well. Our sessions have only gotten better!

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

#4. I assume every man I hire is sexually popular enough to have had intercourse with at least one other person since his most recent tests. Therefore, he could be positive and transmissible by now, even if he was negative at his last test and just doesn't know it yet. I take the meds/safety precautions I desire to take care of MY health during our time together, assuming each man could be unknowingly positive and/or transmissible.

[+ Jamie21]

Don’t rely on others assurances. Your health is your responsibility. @TR1989 said it well. I agree with him. You should take all the precautions you need to give yourself sufficient peace of mind to enjoy yourself.

By all means ask your masseur or escort about his status. I like it when clients ask me because it shows they take sexual health seriously. It’s probably better though if they ask before the session…. I had a client this week who messaged me after the session asking my status because I’d topped him bareback. I told him all negative and the date of my most recent test but it’s a bit late to ask afterwards isn’t it! 

[jonasfoleson]

On 6/29/2026 at 5:53 PM, la_connor said:

HIV status should be removed from the ads.

Demanding health info as a condition of employment is coercive.

I disagree. Who is being employed l? They are contractors by definition. And peoples sexual health matters. It’s normal and should be in countries where prostitution is legal. 

[jonasfoleson]

On 6/29/2026 at 2:35 PM, MscleLovr said:

I think that in life in general it’s good to trust everyone.

I expect people I socialise with to be friendly and kind.

I hope that strangers I meet will be decent people and behave well.

All that said, I don’t trust advertising and marketing claims. And I look after my own sexual health, regardless of what others may say. 

Trust is earned. And blind trust is foolish 

[Wings246]

Unequivocally #1.  My response is entirely based on intention.  The only intention is to deceive.  He has the choice to not report in the first place, but he chooses to report.  Yet, he elects to report untruthful information.  Isn’t that the quintessential definition of a lie?

Regardless, most people will agree that most profile info on the RM page is not necessarily accurate.  So I always take it with multiple grains of salt.

[+ SirBillybob]

In Canada, representing yourself as “HIV negative on PrEP” when you know you are HIV positive, even if durably undetectable viral load, is still a factual misrepresentation. Whether that misrepresentation ultimately vitiates consent to penetrative sex is a separate legal question. The analysis begins with the fact that an untruth was told (occurred), where in the context of duty to disclose considerations in Canada in fact there is no legal distinction between a lie and silence. It does not begin by asking whether the risk of HIV transmission was negligible.

Similarly, if the facts are serious enough to attract consideration of an aggravated sexual assault charge (the legal framing of indictment that still stands, however outdated it seems), the inquiry would first acknowledge that a misrepresentation occurred. Whether charges are laid, or whether the Crown (prosecution) ultimately proves the legal elements, including based on current science whether there was a realistic possibility of HIV transmission under the applicable legal framework, are subsequent questions. None of those later determinations erase the fact that the original representation was false. 

It would be the alleged factual information distortion itself that spearheads the legal analysis within which alterations in criminalization rhetoric and guidelines are actually desired, needed, and ideally applied uniformly. For example, case law that shifts the definition of reasonably executed transmission eradication from that of [TasP + condom] to [TasP (U=U) alone]. If you’re not arguing the logical point backwards by prevailing upon transmission outcome equivalency, the lie doesn’t evaporate simply because the eventual answer to a different legal question happened to be ‘no’. 

Edited Wednesday at 09:00 PM by SirBillybob

[+ PhileasFogg]

48 minutes ago, SirBillybob said:

In Canada, representing yourself as “HIV negative on PrEP” when you know you are HIV positive, even if durably undetectable viral load, is still a factual misrepresentation. Whether that misrepresentation ultimately vitiates consent to penetrative sex is a separate legal question. The analysis begins with the fact that an untruth was told (occurred), where in the context of duty to disclose considerations in Canada in fact there is no legal distinction between a lie and silence. It does not begin by asking whether the risk of HIV transmission was negligible.

Similarly, if the facts are serious enough to attract consideration of an aggravated sexual assault charge (the legal framing of indictment that still stands, however outdated it seems), the inquiry would first acknowledge that a misrepresentation occurred. Whether charges are laid, or whether the Crown (prosecution) ultimately proves the legal elements, including based on current science whether there was a realistic possibility of HIV transmission under the applicable legal framework, are subsequent questions. None of those later determinations erase the fact that the original representation was false. 

It would be the alleged factual information distortion itself that spearheads the legal analysis within which alterations in criminalization rhetoric and guidelines are actually desired, needed, and ideally applied uniformly. For example, case law that shifts the definition of reasonably executed transmission eradication from that of [TasP + condom] to [TasP (U=U)] alone. If you’re not arguing the logical point backwards by prevailing upon transmission outcome equivalency, the lie doesn’t evaporate simply because the eventual answer to a different legal question happened to be ‘no’. 

That’s outstanding insight!

I’m fanning myself with all that dirty talk too🤓:

49 minutes ago, SirBillybob said:

vitiates consent to penetrative sex is a separate legal question.

I think vitiates just became my word of the day 😉

[+ SirBillybob]

42 minutes ago, PhileasFogg said:

That’s outstanding insight!

I’m fanning myself with all that dirty talk too🤓:

I think vitiates just became my word of the day 😉

Haha. It’s central to, taken from, the jurisprudence language. I have no control over the posing. One can always thank the courts for new emotional support words. 

Edited Wednesday at 08:33 PM by SirBillybob

[+ JEC]

The only answer here is to (1) assume everyone is positive and (2) take responsibility for your own sexual health.

There's much more to think about here than HIV (for which there is prep and treatment):

• A sex worker (or, anyone with frequent partners) will very likely have herpes, which has not prep or treatment.  So, at a minimum you are exposing yourself to herpes.
• Same for HPV - no prep no treatment.
• Both Herpes and HPV can be transmitted orally.

(1) assume everyone is positive and (2) take responsibility for your own sexual health.

[SecretProvider]

Best practice is to assume everyone is positive, and protect yourself accordingly - whether that be condoms or prep.

It's not the 90s anymore. You are responsible for your own health. The beauty of prep is if you are taking it, it doesn't matter what your partner is saying/doing.

FYI - A doctor client told me that 90% of his gay patients that test positive were in monogamous relationships, and so were not using protection be it condoms or prep. 

Edited Wednesday at 10:05 PM by SecretProvider

[+ PhileasFogg]

1 hour ago, SecretProvider said:

A doctor client told me that 90% of his gay patients that test positive were in monogamous relationships, and so were not using protection be it condoms or prep.

So the implication is that the partner was not monogamous?

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

1 hour ago, PhileasFogg said:

So the implication is that the partner was not monogamous?

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

21 hours ago, PhileasFogg said:

23 hours ago, SecretProvider said:

A doctor client told me that 90% of his gay patients that test positive were in monogamous relationships, and so were not using protection be it condoms or prep.

So the implication is that the partner was not monogamous?

It's sad, but that makes sense.  A married man doesn't talk to his doctor about taking Prep because he's afraid his husband will find out, so he jeopardizes both of their's health instead.

The true "status misrepresentation" amongst gays is MONOGAMOUS.

I've slept with countless husbands who told me "Don't tell my husband, we're monogamous", when the other husband was already sleeping with me.

Edited Thursday at 09:18 PM by Vegas_Millennial

[+ SirBillybob]

13 hours ago, PhileasFogg said:

So the implication is that the partner was not monogamous?

The implication, for all intents and purposes, is that there is no sexual partner spared having a particular transmittable retroviral infection on board. If everybody would please just concede to that mantra, getting with the program and behaving accordingly, then there would be no need for additional discussion and we could dodge the endless repetition of the only and most obvious solution. Any other questions on the topic amount to a dead end. Apologies to anyone offended as a result of vainly grasping the notion of exceptionalism and its relevance to best practice. It is the nineties, after all, albeit with transmission mitigation: presume that gay men as a collective have a disease that is demographically somewhat unique, cheating a common method of spread. 

In fact, any communication whatsoever about relational fidelity that was regularly but fruitlessly associated with the specific disease prevention arrives at the same health management cul-de-sac. If there were to have been any flaw in the assumption of uniform seropositivity then all that is required is the assumption of breach of monogamy across the board. Problem solved, for the umpteenth time. Yeah Pharma, and prophylaxis simplicity.

Let us all bow down and give thanks for the persistent searing insight that amounts to zero by thirty, if only all involved would just remove their head from the sand and embrace it.

Edited Thursday at 01:23 PM by SirBillybob

[PileDriver]

SirBillybob yes, personal responsibility with Prep and Doxy Prep and antivirall medications mitigate...its 2026 after all... but be aware and be cautious...be responsible for your own destiny and don't depend on a hire to do it for you, no? Including all the other STDs out there. Not fool proof of course but life is not full proof. I look both ways, even on a one way street, in NYC but most undoubtedly will die being hit by an delivery guy on an e-bike before I die of HIV that I received from a hire...

 

 

[+ SirBillybob]

47 minutes ago, PileDriver said:

SirBillybob yes, personal responsibility with Prep and Doxy Prep and antivirall medications mitigate...its 2026 after all... but be aware and be cautious...be responsible for your own destiny and don't depend on a hire to do it for you, no? Including all the other STDs out there. Not fool proof of course but life is not full proof. I look both ways, even on a one way street, in NYC but most undoubtedly will die being hit by an delivery guy on an e-bike before I die of HIV that I received from a hire...

 

Right, concede that you usually cannot know completely what you are getting in to, rather than fabricate what you are getting in to. That he could hit you suggests a different and more nuanced approach to safety than an approach based on the notion that he will hit you. The latter is, for some, a more paralyzing negotiation that needlessly discounts additional information that could be available.

The risk mitigation infrastructure is not predicated on the assumption that all sexual partners are HIV-positive. It’s possible to dislike a mantra because it’s overly simplistic, even if one’s own HIV prevention playbook as a seronegative person happens to be PrEP + condom - full adherence. 

Edited Thursday at 02:10 PM by SirBillybob

[PileDriver]

exactly...even condoms are not 100%...and if any sort of oral play is involved you are open to any and all infections...but fucking relax and be aware and take precaitions and enjoy lif...look both ways before you cross but don't expect to never get hit by an e-bike, no? this topic has been beaten to death on this site over and over of course...driven most by those who are fearful but also not responsible...at least my impression...the reason is probably more nuanced..we are talking about sexual pleasure so...AND willing to old hands with those new to the game at any age and give sage advice but, we did just celebrate Gay Pride...for me that comes these days with Gay Responsibility...maybe just hit a hornets nest...

Edited Thursday at 02:10 PM by PileDriver

[+ SirBillybob]

Hold hands? But with a spare small lube bottle containing sanitizer. 

[+ PhileasFogg]

@SirBillybob, I agree.  while we all acknowledge need to own our responsibility for our own health, there is still question that relates to all the “it’s #1” responses

Assuming someone is Undetectable but not forthcoming:

U=U until it doesn’t.   We make a presumption that they are sticking with the protocols.  Life style choices - including addiction or travel - may interfere and put uninfected partners at risk.  While I’m protecting myself, if I have doubt about their adherence to protocols, that might affect my decision to engage  

IMO, this is multi dimensional and true ownership of self protection includes trust AND verification.

I don’t add that in counterpoint, but to bring this back to my initial question. 

Edited Thursday at 02:30 PM by PhileasFogg

[PileDriver]

Lol..of course and a bottle of mouth with peroxide...seldom play outside my decades old relationship...but self responsibility works...had syphilis once (lordy I new I made a mistake the second my cock went in) but dealt with it immediately...and gonorrhea once..similar scenario...how stupid was I..learned my lesson and moved on...decades now with zero STDs... I take responsibility for my body and actions

 

Edited Thursday at 02:35 PM by PileDriver