Silent on safe sex = not?

[Muscle Lover 2]

Just curious how the rest of you guys read profiles on RB and RMen. Working men are given the choice there of noting "always safe," "sometimes safe," "never safe," or leaving that question blank -- as best I can tell. While I realize we should treat every encounter like our chosen working man is positive and take all reasonable precautions if your own safety is important to you, I am curious about the men who do not answer that question at all. To date, I have been treating that as either "sometimes safe" or "never safe" which are things that will keep me from selecting that particular man. But I am about to head to LA and 2 of my top choices do not answer that question and I am wondering if there might be another reason for no answer other than the one I am assuming. Thoughts?

[Diverdan]

I think you are very safe to assume what you have... and before you book, you should ask them pointedly, but always insist on precautions, especially if you are the bottom.

[rvwnsd]

The definition of safe sex varies from person to person, so I make no assumptions in regards to safer sex practices or HIV status. If a guy does not provide an answer to the "safer sex" question (either in the body of his ad or in the checklist) I ask him to comment on his safer sex practices. I sometimes ask even when he provides an answer in his ad. Based on his answer, I use my judgement to determine whether to hire or not to hire. In my experience, that approach is much more reliable than making assumption.

 

One additional thought: Pointed questions often lead to pointed answers, while open-ended questions typically lead to broader answers from which to glean information that can be used when making a decision. Case in point: a job interview. Asking a candidate how many projects he has managed will lead to a number. Does that number really provide you with any information about whether he is a good project manager? On the other hand, asking the candidate for his approach to project management and to describe a project he managed successfully will provide information about his performance and can help to determine whether he is bullshitting. The same principal applies to interviewing an escort.

[Nvr2Thick]

I interpret that lapse the same way as well. There's no way of knowing why an escort chooses to omit the question, but it's a reasonable assumption. I troll BarebackRT as a way of screening the behaviors of potential hookups and escorts, and I find that a lot of guys with pristine profiles on the mainstream sites have much more clear, honest profiles on this site. A lot of guys go from omitting this question to eventually answering with "sometimes safe", "never save", or "needs discussion". That or they show up in bareback porn.

 

I've also had a few "always safe" guys try to fuck me without a condom.

[marylander1940]

I only hire guys who play safer, and use condoms for anal. I've lost friends to HIV in the 80's, yinz don't know how it feels not know what's killing them around you and wondering if you're next.

 

I think BB is immoral and if an escort is willing to risk his health doing it to make an extra buck, and doesn't care about depending from expensive meds for the rest of his life, I just wonder what else he would do for money? Grabbing my wallet, maybe?

 

I'd rather meeting someone who at least expects to have a future after escorting.

 

I usually ask on the first email if he play safe, and they usually say they do, after that I email from a different account asking to BB and 80% of the time they say they would for the same amount or an extra fee.

 

After all we're all negative and in love and business nobody would ever lie, right?

 

http://www.awesomelyluvvie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/DorothyCondoms.gif

[+ sam.fitzpatrick]

...While I realize we should treat every encounter like our chosen working man is positive and take all reasonable precautions if your own safety is important to you, I am curious about the men who do not answer that question at all. To date, I have been treating that as either "sometimes safe" or "never safe" which are things that will keep me from selecting that particular man...

 

I review how many other questions are omitted. If that is the only one, I assume that the answer is "never" and move on. But if there are other questions omitted, I assume that escort will agree to condom usage - I just need to be explicit and confirm that expectation when setting up the appointment.

[armadillo]

I assume any sexmate / escort is not disease or drug free. You should too!

 

Not to hijack this thread, consider the sexmate / escort says he is taking Truvada, and states he is compliant.

 

Would you have unprotected sex with him?

[Nvr2Thick]

 

Not to hijack this thread, consider the sexmate / escort says he is taking Truvada, and states he is compliant.

 

Would you have unprotected sex with him?

 

Wouldn't that be about the same as having unprotected sex with a partner because he says that he is HIV negative and tests frequently?

[Steven_Draker]

There's a difference between "assuming" and "knowing" that someone barebacks.

 

Omitting a question leaves it open to interpretation and allows the provider not to address it in public.

[armadillo]

Full Definition of KNOWING: having or reflecting knowledge, information, or intelligence

 

I want proof!

[jakeleyman]

I have responded to guys who state "always safe sex" and in the course of trying to figure out if we are a match, I will ask if he bb's. I get answers ranging from no, to "sometimes with guys I am sure are negative", to "yes for the right price." It was an eye-opener to read responses to that pointed question.

[Steven_Draker]

Full Definition of KNOWING: having or reflecting knowledge, information, or intelligence

 

I want proof!

 

You can google the service provider's name and the word bareback, and I'm sure you'll find some interesting information online, including bareback movies.

[rvwnsd]

Full Definition of KNOWING: having or reflecting knowledge, information, or intelligence

 

I want proof!

 

Unfortunately, there is no way to prove a guy's STD (including HIV) status, use of condoms, compliance with a Truvada regimen, or asymptomatic contagiousness with the flu or meningitis. That's why each of us needs to understand risks, determine what is and is not an acceptable risk, and take steps to mitigate that risk. For me, that means a guy who tops me wears a condom. I do not top, but if I did I would also wear a condom.

[Steven_Draker]

Unfortunately, there is no way to prove a guy's STD (including HIV) status ...

 

You don't need to prove or guess anything. Many States have laws, that require to disclose your positive status to your sexual partners.

 

http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/just-diagnosed-with-hiv-aids/talking-about-your-status/do-you-have-to-tell/index.html

[EastbayMike]

We're all breaking the law by exchanging money for sex. What makes you think people are going to obey disclosure laws?

[Steven_Draker]

I don't know what you do, EastbayMike, but here at Daddy's we offer companionship and money exchanged is for time only.

[corndog]

Given the current trends toward using Truvada as Prep, it seems possible that escorts could -- without dishonest intentions -- start responding "Always Safe" if they are on Prep but bareback. As far as I'm concerned, barebacking while on Prep is unsafe, but, unfortunately, I think many people are starting to consider it safe. I think that eventually the question will have to be reworded, but it probably doesn't really matter, since many here have had experiences with escorts who claim to be "Always Safe," but, in fact, are willing to bareback.

 

I'm afraid that requesting bareback from an alternate email address may be the best way to ferret out a reliable answer.

[rvwnsd]

...I'm afraid that requesting bareback from an alternate email address may be the best way to ferret out a reliable answer.

 

If practicing safer sex is important to you and something you regularly do, I see no reason why you must resort to deceit or "ferreting out" anything. Suppose you pose as a different client, request bareback sex, and the escort declines. Will this information cause you to relax your safer sex practices with this escort?

[Steven_Draker]

Given the current trends toward using Truvada as Prep, it seems possible that escorts could -- without dishonest intentions -- start responding "Always Safe" if they are on Prep but bareback.

 

With all due respect, and not knowing what "current trends" you're referring to, Corndog, we need to set the record straight: if you bareback, you're not safe.

 

Let's cut down the BS.

[corndog]

If practicing safer sex is important to you and something you regularly do, I see no reason why you must resort to deceit or "ferreting out" anything. Suppose you pose as a different client, request bareback sex, and the escort declines. Will this information cause you to relax your safer sex practices with this escort?

 

It is my belief that safer sex requires trust and commitment from both parties. I've heard somewhat credible reports of escorts who agree to use condoms but allow them to "slip off" in the middle of the act. It's plausible to me that this could happen without the other person noticing. I've also heard a disturbing account of an escort who hides his HIV+ status, advertises "safe only," and intentionally tries to infect clients. I'm very skeptical of this allegation, but it is too disturbing for me to ignore completely.

 

So, to me, practicing "safer sex" means more than just insisting on condoms. It means reducing risk by a variety of different means. One of those, unfortunately, is attempting to screen out escorts who are open to barebacking.

[corndog]

With all due respect, and not knowing what "current trends" you're referring to, Corndog, we need to set the record straight: if you bareback, you're not safe.

 

Let's cut down the BS.

 

Steven, I agree completely that if you bareback, you're not safe. My point was that some other people -- not me -- may consider barebacking while on Prep to be safe. I think these people are irresponsible idiots, but an escort on Prep might consider himself "safe" even though I would not.

[Muscle Lover 2]

I'm with Corndog. I will only practice safe sex but I'm not naïve. I know there is a degree of risk to doing it at all with someone who is having sex as often as some of the more popular working men. But my desire is to reduce that risk as much as possible and only employ those whom I believe honestly only practice safe sex themselves. So, to my original post, I was just wondering if anyone thought my initial impulse (to assume no answer as to safe sex should be interpreted to me "never safe" or "sometimes safe") was off base. I hate to eliminate some men simply because of that "absence" on their posting so was just curious to test my hypotheses! Thanks to all who responded. I'm afraid I'll have to stick to my normal practices in this regard.

[tanman4u]

Is it possible that different people interpret "sometimes safe" or no answer as automatically meaning barebacking? I'm thinking some guys, probably rightfully so, consider oral without a condom as unsafe. So "sometimes safe" could mean wrapped for anal but OK with no condom for oral. On the other hand "anything goes" pretty much says it all.

[Nvr2Thick]

Given the current trends toward using Truvada as Prep, it seems possible that escorts could -- without dishonest intentions -- start responding "Always Safe" if they are on Prep but bareback.

 

With all due respect, and not knowing what "current trends" you're referring to, Corndog, we need to set the record straight: if you bareback, you're not safe.

 

Let's cut down the BS.

 

Given the current trends toward using Truvada as Prep, it seems possible that escorts could -- without dishonest intentions -- start responding "Always Safe" if they are on Prep but bareback. As far as I'm concerned, barebacking while on Prep is unsafe, but, unfortunately, I think many people are starting to consider it safe.

 

.

[Steven_Draker]

.

 

... but, unfortunately, I think many people are starting to consider it safe.

 

 

As a reminder for any misguided souls:

 

 

10 things you need to know about the pill to prevent HIV

 

 

It's been called, simultaneously, a medicine to "end the HIV epidemic" and a "party drug:" Pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP for short, refers to a daily antiviral treatment that prevents HIV.

 

That's right: People who don't have the virus can take a pill a day to save themselves from getting infected.

 

Haven't heard about PrEP? You're probably not alone. The drug-maker, Gilead, doesn't advertise Truvada (its brand name) for prevention, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention only endorsed it this past May—two years after it hit the market.

 

Going forward, however, you'll be hearing a lot more. On Friday, the World Health Organization backed the antiviral, recommending all HIV-negative men who have sex with men consider taking it as part of a strategy to reduce the global incidence of the disease. But there's a lot more to the story. Here's what you need to know:

 

 

1) Public health officials are NOT recommending this pill for "all gay men," despite what the headlines say

 

The pill is "for people who do not have HIV but who are at substantial risk of getting it," according to CDC guidance. "At substantial risk" means you regularly have unprotected sex with partners of unknown HIV status. This can include men who have sex with men, heterosexual men and women, injection drug users, sex workers, and people in couples with an HIV-positive partner. In other words, not simply "all gay men."

 

The latest headlines about Truvada were so misleading that the WHO had to issue a clarification noting that they support PrEP "as an additional choice"—again, not for all men who have sex with men.

 

 

"WE KNOW FROM SURVEILLANCE THAT CONDOM USE IS NOT AS HIGH AS IS NECESSARY TO CONTROL THE EPIDEMIC"

 

 

2) Truvada is not a condom replacement

 

Public-health officials are not endorsing Truvada as an alternative to other forms of protection. "We are suggesting that for people who are already not using condoms, we have another option to help protect them from HIV infection," says the CDC's Dawn Smith, biomedical interventions implementation officer. "It's part of being practical and realistic." So the hope is that those who get prescriptions are folks who just aren't using anything to protect themselves. "We know from our surveillance systems that condom use is not as high as is necessary to control the epidemic," Smith added.

 

 

3) We don't yet know exactly how the drug will be used in real life

 

Still, this public-health message hasn't stopped some activists and AIDS campaigners from worrying aloud that the pill will undermine traditional advocacy messages about condoms—especially at a time when HIV infections are on the rise among gay men. And the truth is, we don't yet know what kind of impact PrEP will have on people's behavior.

 

To find out, there are now "demonstration trials" being run around the world. These will look at how Truvada works outside of clinical trials, the impact of non-daily use of the drug, and whether the antiviral encourages more risky sexual behavior or leads to an increase in other sexually-transmitted infections.

 

 

4) We do know Truvada only works effectively when taken every day

 

A three-year clinical trial of PrEP in HIV-negative men who have sex with men found that users got much more protection when they took the drug every day. Participants who took the drug less than half the time had a 50 percent reduction in HIV acquisition; daily users cut their risk by more than 90 percent. These results have been supported by other studies in a range of populations—from injection-drug users to heterosexual men and women. The trouble is, most people don't take their medications as their doctors prescribe.

 

 

DRUG-RESISTANT STRAINS OF HIV HAVE EMERGED WHEN PEOPLE WITH ACUTE, UNDETECTED INFECTION WERE GIVEN TRUVADA

 

 

5) Truvada can cause drug-resistant HIV infection

 

Drug-resistant strains of HIV have emerged when people with acute, undetected infection were given PrEP. This means they were positive when they started the medicine, but levels of the virus in their blood were hardly detectable because their infections were so new. They hadn't made enough antibodies to show up in a test and so they were prescribed the drug anyway.

 

There's some question about how serious this risk is for individuals and public health. For now, doctors are asked to confirm the HIV status of patients and to do follow-up and re-testing throughout treatment.

 

When asked how much of a concern drug resistance is, Smith of the CDC said, "We don't know yet. That's one of the things we'll learn as the first few demonstration projects begin telling us."

 

 

6) Besides that, it's pretty safe

 

Though Truvada for the prevention of HIV was only licensed by the Food and Drug Administration in 2012, it was first authorized in 2004 to treat HIV positive patients. That's right: the same drug used for these two purposes. Since it has been on the market as a treatment for over a decade—with very minimal side effects and harms—doctors are pretty confident in its safety profile for preventative use. There seem to be few side-effects with Truvada for prevention, the most common one being nausea.

 

 

PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SLINGING THE TERM 'TRUVADA WH0RE' AROUND, AND THE HEAD OF THE AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION CALLED THE PILL A 'PARTY DRUG'

 

 

7) "Truvada wh0res" are a thing

 

Because of the questions about whether PrEP will cause people to have risky sex and ditch condoms, there's some related stigma in the gay community. People have even been slinging the term "Truvada wh0re" around, and the head of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation called Truvada a "party drug." In response, one PrEP activist created a #TruvadaWh0re t-shirt campaign to reclaim the word.

 

Many have pointed out that this divide parallels the early days of the birth control pill and suggestions that the medication would encourage promiscuity.

 

 

8) Uptake has been slow—but that's not the full story

 

According to data from the drugmaker Gilead, by March 2013 there were approximately 1,774 people in the US taking the drug. But it's important to put this number in context. First of all, these findings were not published and peer-reviewed; they were presented at a scientific conference last year. When studied, we'll have a better picture of the PrEP landscape and it may look quite different. Secondly, Truvada has only been on the US market for prevention since 2012, a year after these numbers were gathered. It often takes decades for innovations to penetrate a market, especially in the conservative field of medicine.

 

 

9) The drug is expensive

 

Without insurance, Truvada can cost up to $14,000 a year, according to the CDC. But for most people, it is covered in their insurance programs and there's only a co-pay. There are also medication assistance programs across the US for the uninsured that will cover the entire cost of the medication.

 

 

10) HIV remains a socioeconomic crisis in America and around the world

 

Globally, men who have sex with men, prisoners, injection-drug users, and sex workers are still the groups most affected by HIV. The picture is similar in America, where the number of HIV infections has stagnated for about a decade. Here, men who have sex with men and African Americans are most affected by the virus.

 

 

When it comes to race, the same is true for youth.

 

 

 

If PrEP is going to have a chance at nudging down the HIV rate, the sub-groups most impacted by HIV will need to have better access to the health system: to get tested, see their doctors, and learn about this option; to have regular health care with proper monitoring and follow up. Unless Truvada is a miracle drug, it's not clear how a pill will do that.

 

 

source: http://www.vox.com/2014/7/14/5896887/explainer-about-the-pill-to-prevent-hiv-aids-Truvada?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_name=share-button&utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=article-share-bottom