HIV Positive Service Denial

[+ sam.fitzpatrick]

Actually it does mean you're sexist. I prefer having sex with men rather than women. When I choose a potential partner I only consider men. I am sexist when it comes to sexual activity.

 

If an escort or anyone excludes potential partners based only on race that is the definition of racism. I have always been more attractive to non-white men as sexual partners. When it come to sex, I am racist towards white guys.

 

Mike - If "when it comes to sex..." part was always used labeling someone a racist, I might buy it. But without that lead in, it has a very different connotation that is unfair.

 

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 latter 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.

 

Rod - If an escort has never been able to get it up for someone with certain characteristics, as a client I would want to know before scheduling an appointment with the guy rather than just taking the chance that I might just be the first guy with those characteristics that turns him on. While I know there are some escorts that overcome their personal preferences to provide this most personal of services, but not everyone is able to do so. I don't see how that alone makes the guy racist.

[+ sniper]

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.

...

 

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.]

 

My crude calculus is basically the older you are, the less you should worry about it, as there are simply fewer years ahead to be impacted by it. If I were 21 and had 60 or 70 years of life ahead of me, I'd be concerned about spending all of them on powerful meds, and I worry that a lot of kids have been sold a bill of goods that HIV is no big deal, and a couple of my younger friends have seroconverted and discovered that well, actually it is kind of a big deal. Now in my mid-40s and financially secure I'm a little more tolerant of the risk. If I were 75 I really wouldn't be too concerned, as I wouldn't be on the meds long enough to have concerns about side effects - something else would kill me first in all likelihood.

[corndog]

Who said anything about sex preference?

The poster that I quoted specifically mentioned HIV status as a "sex preference."

 

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.

How do you know which guys are "honest about their health?" I can understand that you want to connect with other hiv- men, but it is naive to think that you can know which guys are honest about that. If you want to be in control of your health, you have to assume that anyone could be HIV positive, and act accordingly.

[+ WmClarke]

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.]

What a heartfelt post, @saminseattle

 

You are not being crazy. It is a very different world.

 

Just as you fear(ed) HIV, in the 70s I feared *any* venereal disease (as they were called back then)--due to Sex Ed telling us all about them. I was sure I would get syphilis (or gonorrhea!) if I did anything with another person (even a fellow middle schooler).

 

As I grew up, that fear transferred to herpes and then HIV/AIDS.

 

In the last year, my fear of contracting HIV has dropped considerably. Safer sex rules!

 

Within the last year, I have slept with two men (one several times) who are HIV+ (one has been positive since 1981!). Both said they were undetectable but we still practiced safer sex. It has been several months since I slept with either one of them, and every HIV test since then has been negative for me.

 

As an added measure, I am now on PrEP. The only way to be safer is abstinence.

 

Sorry to be so wordy, but your post really resonated with me. I used to have so much fear in me. I am gradually flushing it out of my system.

[corymonroe]

How do you know which guys are "honest about their health?"

 

Having a discussion and asking the right questions is a good way to learn a lot.

 

I can understand that you want to connect with other hiv- men, but it is naive to think that you can know which guys are honest about that.

Life is not 100% risk free. But a decent conversation can get you much closer.

 

 

If you want to be in control of your health, you have to assume that anyone could be HIV positive, and act accordingly.

I agree with that. It's been my experience that a lot of guys (and some escorts) care about their health, and they're not afraid to welcome a discussion about it. These are my favorite guys.

[rvwnsd]

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....

 

Perhaps you ought to quote the entire post, which was about the risks associated with assuming someone is HIV- because they said they are. If someone says they are HIV - and they actually are HIV - then it goes without saying that the probability of HIV transmission is zero.

 

By the way - someone can get tested regularly, test negative, acquire the virus between tests, and transmit the virus while thinking they are HIV-. They would be answering honestly if asked about their HIV status and replied "negative as of my last test" because they were negative at the time of their last test.

 

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

 

Thank you, @caliguy

[corymonroe]

someone can get tested regularly, test negative, acquire the virus between tests

Any scenario someone presents in this discussion can happen. It has been my experience that someone, including an escort, who is hiv- and cares about his health, will do everything he can to make sure he continues to receive negative test results.

[TopTierTop]

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

Well, I certainly think he has the right to run his business any way he likes, so in that sense it is acceptable. Do I think it is ignorant and stupid? I'd have to say yes. But hell, if ignorance and stupidity won't stop someone from being elected president, I don't think it will stop someone from trying to make a living as an escort.

[TopTierTop]

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.

Well said.

[TopTierTop]

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.

Agreed. And well said.

[TopTierTop]

Actually it does mean you're sexist. I prefer having sex with men rather than women. When I choose a potential partner I only consider men. I am sexist when it comes to sexual activity.

 

If an escort or anyone excludes potential partners based only on race that is the definition of racism. I have always been more attractive to non-white men as sexual partners. When it come to sex, I am racist towards white guys.

Actually, that is not correct, and you should be glad of that, because saying you are racist in any way is never anything but negative. Racist implies power over another race. You may have a prejudice or bias, but that is not the same as racist. For example, if I choose not to meet a client who is white (would never happen haha!), I am not exercising or desiring to exercise power over him because of his race; therefore it is not racist.

[+ quoththeraven]

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.

Then don't be an escort.

[TopTierTop]

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.

I think it is very sad that someone would refuse to offer any kind of service at all to someone based on HIV status, and it does nothing to reduce their risk. Now, if there are certain sexual activities the escort does not wish to engage in because he feels it puts him at a higher risk, that is perfectly logical, but to assume in advance that an HIV positive client intends to push the escort to engage in high risk behavior is unnecessarily offensive. I am certainly all for reducing risk and for escorts to have just as much of a say in who he meets as the client does, but I manage very well by assuming anyone could be positive and taking precautions accordingly. Saying NO HIV POZ strikes me as unnecessary, ignorant, and ineffective.

[caliguy]

Saying NO HIV POZ strikes me as unnecessary, ignorant, and ineffective.

Great response man. This is the same kind of intellect that uses phrases like "straight acting". This is an irrational at best thinking person. Like I said before about racism. This is akin to Saying... "NO BLACK DUDES!" prominently on your ad. I think most of us would think of this as racist. Not to mention total asshole.

[pubic_assistance]

I think it is very sad that someone would refuse to offer any kind of service at all to someone based on HIV status, and it does nothing to reduce their risk. Now, if there are certain sexual activities the escort does not wish to engage in because he feels it puts him at a higher risk, that is perfectly logical, but to assume in advance that an HIV positive client intends to push the escort to engage in high risk behavior is unnecessarily offensive. I am certainly all for reducing risk and for escorts to have just as much of a say in who he meets as the client does, but I manage very well by assuming anyone could be positive and taking precautions accordingly. Saying NO HIV POZ strikes me as unnecessary, ignorant, and ineffective.

I disagree. To me it's deliberately harsh, as a method of deliberately offending and repelling HIV positive people. Doesn't mean he's assuming everyone left is HIV negative, and therefore no precautions need be taken. Just a matter of further limiting his risk of coming in contact with people who are infected. Clearly if you offend people, right out of the gate, they are NOT going to hire you. Of course some HIV negative people are going to find this offensive as well...so the audience gets narrowed altogether. But that's a choice he is making, and his priority.

[corymonroe]

To me it's deliberately harsh, as a method of deliberately offending and repelling HIV positive people. Doesn't mean he's assuming everyone left is HIV negative, and therefore no precautions need be taken. Just a matter of further limiting his risk of coming in contact with people who are infected. Clearly if you offend people, right out of the gate, they are NOT going to hire you. Of course some HIV negative people are going to find this offensive as well...so the audience gets narrowed altogether. But that's a choice he is making, and his priority.

If we can trust the wording in an ad is as precise as it appears in the example presented here in the first post, I agree with the psychology that supports "deliberate offense." Words can be used as a tool to achieve an end. They don't always tell us everything we wish to know about someone. If an escort, or anyone looking to have anonymous sex, wishes to protect himself from possible outcomes, this is one method that will certainly narrow his audience, and quite possibly narrow his risk. I think public_assistance did a good job explaining this hypothesis.

[corndog]

I disagree. To me it's deliberately harsh, as a method of deliberately offending and repelling HIV positive people.

I know that you're not trying to defend the behavior we're discussing, but deliberately offending people is hardly a way of reducing risk. There is an unfortunate practice known as "stealthing," where an HIV positive person deliberately sabotages or removes a condom in an effort to expose someone to HIV. It's hard to imagine what kind of person would do such a deplorable thing, but if you've offended or "disrespected" them, it might give them the crazy rationalization to choose you as their victim.

[+ Eric Hassan]

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.

 

Truvada is a medication that has been around for well over a decade. Truvada as PrEP has been FDA approved for almost 5 years now. We know what the deal is.

[+ sniper]

Truvada is a medication that has been around for well over a decade. Truvada as PrEP has been FDA approved for almost 5 years now. We know what the deal is.

People who smoke for ten years and quit are likely going to be fine. People who smoke for 40 years, they're gonna have problems. We don't know yet.

[MikeyGMin]

People who smoke for ten years and quit are likely going to be fine. People who smoke for 40 years, they're gonna have problems. We don't know yet.

I know this is a recurring theme on this board and, and for the most part, people have made up their minds and it's like wasting breath, but...

 

Don't you think taking Truvada as PrEP is very much like your cigarette analogy? Personally, I think 10 years is long enough to be considered "long-term" effects, but do you really think people will take Truvada for 40 years? There are already new therapies on the horizon and no reason to expect anyone will take it -- especially as PrEP -- for that length of time. And even if one were to take it for 20 years, there is a huge number of people who will hit that mark in another decade.

 

What I think is interesting is that I don't recall ever hearing this "long term effect" argument come from anyone young enough to actually be on the medication that long. (Obviously people whose age is known to me.) Some may consider this lack of fear as reckless youth, but I see the other side. A seemingly irrational fear by an older generation still scarred by the 80's.

[+ WmClarke]

Some may consider this lack of fear as reckless youth, but I see the other side. A seemingly irrational fear by an older generation still scarred by the 80's.

Well said.

[+ quoththeraven]

I disagree. To me it's deliberately harsh, as a method of deliberately offending and repelling HIV positive people. Doesn't mean he's assuming everyone left is HIV negative, and therefore no precautions need be taken. Just a matter of further limiting his risk of coming in contact with people who are infected. Clearly if you offend people, right out of the gate, they are NOT going to hire you. Of course some HIV negative people are going to find this offensive as well...so the audience gets narrowed altogether. But that's a choice he is making, and his priority.

The point others are making is other than reducing his appeal and thus eliminating potential clients, what he is doing is not rationally designed to its end and treats men who know they are HIV+ as a greater threat than others when they're not.

 

That it's his right to engage in risk management is not the question. It is whether his form of it is more than him being a jerk. The only upside is at least potential clients know he is a jerk.

[rvwnsd]

...Some may consider this lack of fear as reckless youth, but I see the other side. A seemingly irrational fear by an older generation still scarred by the 80's.

Agree 100%.

[TopTierTop]

The point others are making is other than reducing his appeal and thus eliminating potential clients, what he is doing is not rationally designed to its end and treats men who know they are HIV+ as a greater threat than others when they're not.

 

That it's his right to engage in risk management is not the question. It is whether his form of it is more than him being a jerk. The only upside is at least potential clients know he is a jerk.

Amen!

[+ Keith30309]

About 8 months ago while traveling I set up an appointment with a companion who seemed like a good fit: some depth of soul and wit.

In a brief phone conversation confirming the logistics he said "I want you to know that I am positive undetectable". I told him fine, no problem, I'm sure we'll have fun.

 

The truth is that after I hung up the phone I did mull it a bit. Intellectually I knew that he was likely more safe that any of the other guys I had hired, but emotionally it did give me pause to be confronted overtly with something rarely mentioned but often thought about.

 

Rationality won out and we had a wonderful encounter. I think what is noteworthy was his honesty and sensitivity to my thoughts during our time. The time together was not much different from other meetings and I was a little embarrassed about my initial emotional reaction. I like to think that I learned a little something about myself from that experience and I would hire him again if our paths crossed.

 

[EDIT: I just realized this is sort of off-topic from the OP. Disregard as needed.]