... perpetuate the myth that barebacking is safe for the top.

[corndog]

He's from an era of little, if no protection. However, I do not believe, he was never a "receiver."

 

Your comment seems to perpetuate the myth that barebacking is safe for the top. This myth makes me crazy angry. It is scientifically and logically not true. And, a dangerous belief.

 

Scientifically, the risk is thought to be slightly lower, but definitely significant. link to study.

 

Logically, back at the height of the epidemic, people looked for every conceivable pattern of who was getting infected. If, back in the 80s, the pattern was as simple and obvious as "bottoms get aids, tops don't," it would have been abundantly clear.

[Guy Fawkes]

Type of activity does make a difference...

 

Estimated HIV transmission risk per exposure for specific activities and events

[table=width: 500, class: grid, align: left]

[tr][td]Activity[/td][td]Risk-per-exposure[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]...[/td][td]...[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Receptive anal sex amongst gay men, partner unknown status[/td][td]0.27% (1:370)[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Receptive anal sex amongst gay men, partner HIV positive[/td][td]0.82% (1:123)[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Receptive anal sex with condom, gay men, partner unknown status[/td][td]0.18% (1:555)[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Insertive anal sex, gay men, partner unknown status[/td][td]0.06% (1:1666)[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Insertive anal sex with condom, gay men, partner unknown status[/td][td]0.04% (1:2500)[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Receptive fellatio[/td][td]Estimates range from 0.00% to 0.04% (1:2500)[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Injecting drug use[/td][td]Estimates range from 0.63% (1:158) to 2.4% (1:41)[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Needlestick injury, no other risk factors[/td][td]0.13% (1:769)[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Blood transfusion with contaminated blood[/td][td]92.5% (9:10)[/td][/tr]

[/table]

 

 

Your comment seems to perpetuate the myth that barebacking is safe for the top. This myth makes me crazy angry. It is scientifically and logically not true. And, a dangerous belief.

 

Scientifically, the risk is thought to be slightly lower, but definitely significant. link to study.

 

Logically, back at the height of the epidemic, people looked for every conceivable pattern of who was getting infected. If, back in the 80s, the pattern was as simple and obvious as "bottoms get aids, tops don't," it would have been abundantly clear.

[doitb4ugo]

Thanks Daddy. Facts don't very often inform the truths we hold but.....

[Irtwo]

Of all those stats Daddy posted, the most surprising to me is the category: "Receptive anal sex amongst gay men, partner HIV positive". If I am reading that correctly, it's saying that a bottom who has bareback sex with HIV+ guy is at less than 1% risk?

[Xander]

Of all those stats Daddy posted, the most surprising to me is the category: "Receptive anal sex amongst gay men, partner HIV positive". If I am reading that correctly, it's saying that a bottom who has bareback sex with HIV+ guy is at less than 1% risk?

 

Here you go

 

Interpreting these figures

 

In this section, risk figures are expressed as per exposure estimates. Per exposure means the risk of infection for each individual incident during which HIV transmission could have occurred; e.g., for each separate act of intercourse.This is a more precise measure of risk than ‘per sexual partner’ (because sexual partners may or may not have HIV) or ‘per head of population’ (because people’s risk behaviour varies so much) .

 

The per-exposure measure of risk may cause activities to seem less risky. Sexually active people may be surprised at the apparently low figures that constitute 'high risk' activities. Telling a person that there is, for example, a one in 200 chance of infection could, conceivably, lead the person to think, “Only one in 200. Well, that’s not too bad”.

 

This figure does not take into account the fact that people do certain things (e.g. have sex) a lot more often than they do other things (e.g. prick themselves with an infected needle). This 'one in 200' figure means that the person would only have to have sex with the source partner 100 times for it to become more likely than not that they will catch HIV.

 

These figures also assume that the 'source partner' is always HIV-positive. For a partner of unknown status, the risk is affected by the prevalence of HIV in the relevant community – i.e., the chance that the partner does in fact have HIV.

 

Unless otherwise stated, the sexual acts are always without a condom.

[Guest]

It's a bit surprising to me that using a condom only drops the risk by about 1/3 for the top. It makes me believe that the tops are getting infected from something other than their penis. It would also be interesting to see this figure broken down between the cut and uncut guys. Many studies show uncut guys have a much higher risk.

[Walker1]

The thing with statistics, is that it is the probability. You could have sex once and still get HIV and have sex 5,000 times and not get it. That being said, the high risk even with condoms surprises me, I thought it was pretty close to zero with condoms-unless it breask etc.

 

But I wonder why it is so high in African countries-where sometimes upto 25% of the population have it. I wonder if they view sex as more natural and have a lot of it?

[seeker630]

Of all those stats Daddy posted, the most surprising to me is the category: "Receptive anal sex amongst gay men, partner HIV positive". If I am reading that correctly, it's saying that a bottom who has bareback sex with HIV+ guy is at less than 1% risk?

 

According to the study cited by the OP, the risk to to the bottom doubles if the top ejaculates inside vs. withdrawing: "The estimated per-contact probability of HIV transmission for receptive UAI was 1.43% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-2.85] if ejaculation occurred inside the rectum, and it was 0.65% (95% CI 0.15-1.53) if withdrawal prior to ejaculation was involved."

[seeker630]

It's a bit surprising to me that using a condom only drops the risk by about 1/3 for the top. It makes me believe that the tops are getting infected from something other than their penis. It would also be interesting to see this figure broken down between the cut and uncut guys. Many studies show uncut guys have a much higher risk.

 

The study cited by the OP breaks it down: "The estimated transmission rate for insertive UAI in participants who were circumcised was 0.11% (95% CI 0.02-0.24), and it was 0.62% (95% CI 0.07-1.68) in uncircumcised men." That means the risk is more than 5 times greater for uncut tops.

[wisconsinguy]

I certainly did not mean to make anyone "crazy angry" re: Jeff Stryker being a top guy. Just pointed out an observation. In addition, it was not intended to perpetuate a myth. I am well aware that all are at risk without protection. Just that the stats are different, as Daddy pointed out. One more thing. I am ALWAYS are, a bit cautious when anyone states: "Based on recent studies." I want to know, the where, when, and who in these "studies." Although I have a new screen name, I used to go by the name, "Healthguy." Was gone for a while, and trying to retrieve my password drove me "crazy angry." Take care,

[Rick Munroe]

Was gone for a while, and trying to retrieve my password drove me "crazy angry."

 

Stop perpetuating the myth that password retrieval at Daddy's is not an easy task!

[wisconsinguy]

What myth next? Women multitask better than men. I think that's true. Cause they can change a baby, stir a pot of homemade soup, and fold laundry all at the same time. Why would they want to work???

Stop perpetuating the myth that password retrieval at Daddy's is not an easy task!

[Rick Munroe]

Cause they can change a baby, stir a pot of homemade soup

 

Hmm...I don't think I'll ever have soup at a house that has babies.