HIV Positive Service Denial

[+ OliverSaks]

I ran across an ad today of an escort who, in the first line of his ad, states that he will not meet with HIV positive clients.

 

Do you feel that this is acceptable?

 

I don't want to influence any respnoses, but will share my thoughts later on. I have strong feelings about this...

 

-0S

[MikeyGMin]

It just seems like a more explicit way of saying, "I am DDF and you should be too." I see statements similar to that in all kinds of ads.

 

He can put anything he wants in his ad, but if he thinks he's not meeting with HIV+ clients he is in his own kind of denial.

[mike carey]

Oliver, given the inability of anyone who is not celibate and doesn't share needles to know that they are not HIV+, I would say it is naive rather than offensive to say such a thing. If you can't be sure your partner is negative, is there any point in not meeting people who know they are positive? That said, I can understand why people would want to eliminate that element of perceived risk. If you don't like it there are plenty of other guys to chose from.

[marylander1940]

I ran across an ad today of another escort who, in the first line of his ad, states that he will not meet with HIV positive clients.

 

Do you feel that this is acceptable?

 

I don't want to influence any respnoses, but will share my thoughts later on. I have strong feelings about this...

 

-0S

 

is he a clairvoyant?

 

[down_to_business]

I learned a long time ago that it doesn't matter how I feel about things, or what is fair, just, right, moral, ethical, or even legal. It is kind of the same basic thing to me as someone who discriminates against people's age, height, weight, sex, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or any host of other factors... again better to know up front of peoples refusals. I am all for peoples limiting "sad" personal choices in life, not so much in violation of local laws in business.

 

This screams a little more ignorance to me in one aspect however, because reading between the lines, it says to me " I refuse service to people who are honest about their HIV status but do offer service to people who don't get tested or lie about it"

[Epigonos]

I understand his intent and may even sympathize, however, I just don't understand how he thinks he will know. I like the crystal ball comment -- right on!

[+ sniper]

While yes, he can't know, it's basic math that by eliminating people who know they are HIV positive from a group(potential clients), the fraction of people who are in that group will go down.

However, as you observed, it's not like that has eliminated the risk of HIV, but statistically speaking, he may be reducing it. (Since less than half of people who know they are HIV+ are undetectable, and something like a quarter of HIV+ people are unaware, there are more "aware they are HIV+ and not undetectable" than "unaware they are HIV+").

Oddly enough, he could actually achieve the greatest reduction by sticking to clients who are HIV+ and undetectable. That said, it's still kind of hard for most to wrap one's head around the idea that it's easier to avoid infection by sleeping with someone who is infected....

[corymonroe]

I've never known a gay man, or straight for that matter, who doesn't have personal preferences when it comes to the sex he wants. Any cursory view of ads on Craigslist will show ordinary joes along with escorts and massage guys telling people what they want and what they're looking for, often in jaw-dropping specifics.

 

To assume anything about anyone writing, "I will not meet with HIV+ clients," would be a mistake. It's certainly fair to debate whether those are the best words to express this sentiment, but I don't see anything wrong with someone being honest about their sexual preferences because we all have them.

 

Personally, I won't hire any escort or flirt with any cruising guy who accepts barebacking in his ad. I take the guy at his word, and I'm grateful he gave me a head's up. I don't have a need to judge him. If an escort (or any guy cruising) tells me he doesn't want to have sex with an hiv+ guy, I tell him the truth about my status and I'm prepared to show him my most recent results. But, for me, barebacking is off the table, no matter how horny I am or how hot I find the guy.

 

I appreciate honest communication. I enjoy being a responsible sex partner. But the question is, how do you achieve it? How do you get to the point where you feel more comfortable with the guy you're with?

 

I wish more men could be more honest about their feelings. The more you know about your sex partner, the better the sex can be.

[rvwnsd]

Although I am HIV- (as of 12/1/2016) and on PrEP, I wouldn't hire this guy based on principal. If he thinks this line is protection against acquiring HIV, one has to wonder what other misconceptions he operates under.

[corndog]

I've never known a gay man, or straight for that matter, who doesn't have personal preferences when it comes to the sex he wants. Any cursory view of ads on Craigslist will show ordinary joes along with escorts and massage guys telling people what they want and what they're looking for, often in jaw-dropping specifics.

 

I think it's reasonable to express that you're attracted to certain physical attributes, or even personality types. I get that we all have preferences for muscly or slim guys, guys with blond hair or tan skin, guys with beards or smooth faces. But claiming to have sexual attraction only to HIV negative guys is just naive bigotry. It promotes stigma and ultimately discourages honest discussion of HIV status and protection practices. "Serosorting" is an ineffective and dangerous risk-reduction practice, and claiming something like "I'm just not sexually attracted to HIV positive guys" is ridiculous. If you want exclude HIV positive guys, I can accept that, but it's not a "sexual preference," it's a fear or phobia. Perhaps its reasonable and justified, but it is what it is, own it.

 

Rationally speaking, a guy who is honest about being "poz/undetectable" is probably your safest potential sex partner. And, the guy who says he's "clean, DDF" is perhaps the most dangerous, since HIV is most infectious during the initial phase of infection when it hasn't yet been detected. In any discussion of sex with a stranger, guys lie if they think it will help them get laid. For me, I've come to the personal realization that the only reasonable risk-avoidance strategy is to take full personal responsibility for my own health with PrEP.

 

(Also, I wish guys would stop using the word "clean" to mean they're HIV- and/or disease-free. An HIV positive guy who steps right out of the shower is probably very clean, but that doesn't mean he isn't infectious.)

[Becket]

I don't know how a comment like that would help his business. It does reflect a fear/phobia.

[caliguy]

 

(Also, I wish guys would stop using the word "clean" to mean they're HIV- and/or disease-free. An HIV positive guy who steps right out of the shower is probably very clean, but that doesn't mean he isn't infectious.)

Excellent point. Because you consider them "dirty" which I can see as highly insulting. In such a case I'd be ok with the Positive guy saying yep. Totally clean.

[kewtex]

To each his own. Even if I don't agree with an escort's likes and dislikes, at least I know whether or not to waste my time on him.

[corymonroe]

But claiming to have sexual attraction only to HIV negative guys is just naive bigotry.

I don't think it's fair or appropriate to conflate personal preferences with sexual attraction preferences. My personal preference to be honest about my health with my sexual partners and engage and encourage such discussion before having sex has nothing to do with sexual attraction.

[caliguy]

This argument reminds me of the ones that say "no black guys" in their ads. In that circumstance yes you are a racist.

[+ sniper]

I think it's reasonable to express that you're attracted to certain physical attributes, or even personality types. I get that we all have preferences for muscly or slim guys, guys with blond hair or tan skin, guys with beards or smooth faces. But claiming to have sexual attraction only to HIV negative guys is just naive bigotry. It promotes stigma and ultimately discourages honest discussion of HIV status and protection practices. "Serosorting" is an ineffective and dangerous risk-reduction practice, and claiming something like "I'm just not sexually attracted to HIV positive guys" is ridiculous. If you want exclude HIV positive guys, I can accept that, but it's not a "sexual preference," it's a fear or phobia. Perhaps its reasonable and justified, but it is what it is, own it.

 

Rationally speaking, a guy who is honest about being "poz/undetectable" is probably your safest potential sex partner. And, the guy who says he's "clean, DDF" is perhaps the most dangerous, since HIV is most infectious during the initial phase of infection when it hasn't yet been detected. In any discussion of sex with a stranger, guys lie if they think it will help them get laid. For me, I've come to the personal realization that the only reasonable risk-avoidance strategy is to take full personal responsibility for my own health with PrEP.

 

(Also, I wish guys would stop using the word "clean" to mean they're HIV- and/or disease-free. An HIV positive guy who steps right out of the shower is probably very clean, but that doesn't mean he isn't infectious.)

 

Who said anything about sex preference? It's risk tolerance. Some people avoid anal altogether because that's the highest risk activity for HIV transmission. Other people reduce their number of partners as well. Yes if someone is undetectable your risk is virtually nil, but just like an HIV test, that's a point-in-time measurement. How do you know the guy didn't go off his meds for a week right before your date? You've got the same issue. They're quite possibly also declining based on other considerations, like the uncertainty of long-term issues with HIV treatment and side effects with PreP(Prep simply has NOT been around long enough to know what the deal is, these are powerful medicines that alter the chemistry of your body) and higher risk of winding up in a caretaking role earlier than if they didn't have HIV(while yes tomorrow they could get hit by a bus yada yada yada). If I met someone tomorrow with multiple sclerosis, I'd have to think long and hard about whether to embark in a relationship with them, having seen how that progresses with a family member whose care I already take part in.

[+ saminseattle]

While yes, he can't know, it's basic math that by eliminating people who know they are HIV positive from a group(potential clients), the fraction of people who are in that group will go down.

However, as you observed, it's not like that has eliminated the risk of HIV, but statistically speaking, he may be reducing it. (Since less than half of people who know they are HIV+ are undetectable, and something like a quarter of HIV+ people are unaware, there are more "aware they are HIV+ and not undetectable" than "unaware they are HIV+").

Oddly enough, he could actually achieve the greatest reduction by sticking to clients who are HIV+ and undetectable. That said, it's still kind of hard for most to wrap one's head around the idea that it's easier to avoid infection by sleeping with someone who is infected....

 

I am really struggling with this issue right now. I have never knowingly had sex with a guy who was HIV positive, but I am seriously considering doing so in the near future.

 

For all of my adult life, I have lived with what I call the fear, a profound anxiety that I may one day contract HIV. If not in the forefront of my mind day to day, it has been ever-present in the background. I think this became ingrained in me from growing up in the 80’s and early 90’s, when having AIDS meant certain death, probably at a tragically premature age, and often after suffering physically from the disease and psychologically from social stigma and ostracism. I am sure this fear was also linked somehow to the depression and angst I felt as an adolescent when as I realized that I was gay, struggled to come out in a small conservative community, and, to a degree, internalized the notion that having gay sex was inherently dangerous.

 

Of course, when they started developing effective drugs in the late 1990’s, I knew intellectually that having HIV was no longer the death sentence that it once was. But the fear was still with me. The drugs didn’t work for everyone, at least not at first, there were reportedly terrible side-effects, and the virus would still linger for life. So I was always careful. I avoided anal sex. I tried to limit how many partners I had. When I did have anal sex, I always used condoms, and I usually used them for oral sex as well.

 

Still, I worried about it. I have seen estimates that condoms may be only 80% effective in practice, and even if they were 98% effective, that still feels risky to me. That is why I have always thought that the other person’s behavior is a relevant consideration in mitigating my own risk, and I would avoid someone if I knew they didn’t always use condoms. Certainly, I would never have had sex with someone I knew was HIV positive. What if the condom failed somehow? My interpretation of the advertiser’s post is that he is adopting this same approach. If you know someone is HIV positive…you would think that having sex with him would be statistically riskier than having sex with someone with unknown status, as @sniper pointed out.

 

But the developments of the last few years are really turning all this thinking on its head. It seems clear now that a prophylactic drug regimen, PreP, can be at least as effective as condoms at preventing HIV transmission. Further, the studies seem to show that drugs can drive down the viral load of most HIV positive people to undetectable levels and that they are essentially non-infectious at that point. I don’t want to be irrational or base my decisions on outdated science. I would also really like to see this guy, who says that he is undetectable. Of course, he could be lying, or not adhering to his medications strictly. But the odds of that seem low, and I would still be using a condom in any event. I don’t know…this is such a change of mindset from the way I’ve thought about it for the last 20 years. I am being crazy? [sorry if this is a hijack of the original thread…I’m just really trying to wrap my head around this right now.]

[+ sam.fitzpatrick]

This argument reminds me of the ones that say "no black guys" in their ads. In that circumstance yes you are a racist.

 

I beg to differ. The lack of sexual attraction to black guys does not make someone racist.

 

There are plenty of massage ads the read, "M4M only." That doesn't mean those guys are sexist.

[escortrod]

I beg to differ. The lack of sexual attraction to black guys does not make someone racist.

 

There are plenty of massage ads the read, "M4M only." That doesn't mean those guys are sexist.

To me there's a difference between a preference based on characteristics (being more or less likely to be attracted to somebody of a particular race) and absolutely excluding the possibility of being attracted to somebody of a particular race. To me the lattter is racist.

 

Maybe more importantly, I don't understand why so many people feel the need to publically proclaim their racial preferences. I see lots of profiles that specify nothing else.

[pubic_assistance]

I am going to assume that putting NO HIV POZ in your profile is going to make enough potential clients, who are HIV positive, uncomfortable that he IS likely guaranteed a rather significant reduction in the risk of catching HIV. It's not unreasonable to want to reduce your risk, in a high risk business.

[beachboy]

To me there's a difference between a preference based on characteristics (being more or less likely to be attracted to somebody of a particular race) and absolutely excluding the possibility of being attracted to somebody of a particular race. To me the lattter is racist.

 

Maybe more importantly, I don't understand why so many people feel the need to publically proclaim their racial preferences. I see lots of profiles that specify nothing else.

Have to agree. We all may have in our minds a 'type' that we consider ourselves attracted you, yet with an open mind we can allow for others of a different 'type' to enrich our lives. After all we're talking about people not products & people come in a plethora of colours, sizes & most important of all personalities. A beautiful body with a lousy personality is really ugly.

[+ OliverSaks]

I am going to assume that putting NO HIV POZ in your profile is going to make enough potential HIV positive clients uncomfortable that he IS guaranteed a rather significant reduction in the risk of catching HIV.

If you read through the thoughtful posts earlier in the thread, you might see how his method is severely faulty and indicative of a naive understanding of HIV and effective risk reduction strategies.

 

I appreciate the responses thus far in the thread; a lot of you share my viewpoints on this matter.

 

Re: condom failure rates: I'm not sure where you're getting those numbers, and exactly what failure rate are they referring to - with condoms, a "failure" with someone who doesn't have HIV virus present (either someone who is known to be negative or has an undetectable viral load), isn't really a "failure" from the standpoint of something putting you at risk for contracting HIV.

[rvwnsd]

In terms of risk tolerance, by engaging only with people who claim to be HIV - at the time of the encounter he is accepting three risks:

• The purportedly HIV- person is lying about their status
  
• The purportedly HIV - person has never been tested and is, in fact, HIV+
  
• The purportedly HIV- person has acquired the virus since his last HIV test
  

If he engaged with HIV+ and HIV - people and took the same precautions with people he believes to be HIV- as he does with people he knows are HIV+ his risk of acquiring the virus is similar, i.e. very close to zero. If he relaxes his safer sex precautions with those he believes to be HIV-, he increases his risk of acquiring the virus.

[corymonroe]

• The purportedly HIV- person is lying about their status
  
• The purportedly HIV - person has never been tested and is, in fact, HIV+
  
• The purportedly HIV- person has acquired the virus since his last HIV test
  

Interesting. Not a single bullet for the millions of gay men who happen to be hiv-, get tested regularly, are honest about their health, and wish to connect with other hiv- men. There sure seems to be a lot of negativity and cynicism on this board.

[caliguy]

Interesting. Not a single bullet for the millions of gay men who happen to be hiv-, get tested regularly, are honest about their health, and wish to connect with other hiv- men. There sure seems to be a lot of negativity and cynicism on this board.

Only if you're looking for it. He was only talking about possible risk factors by trusting someone at their word.