HIV Positive Service Denial

[Larstrup]

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.

 

Removing stigma and ignorance one person at a time. You've just made the world a better place Keith, even though you might not feel that way.

[+ quoththeraven]

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.]

Yours was an entirely human and understandable reaction, and you worked through it maturely using reason and logic.

 

It's not emotions like fear that are the problem. The problem is acting as though catering to them is just another risk management strategy that is equivalent to others in effectiveness and in moral terms. It is not.

[Larstrup]

It's not emotions like fear that are the problem. The problem is acting as though catering to them is just another risk management strategy that is equivalent to others in effectiveness and in moral terms. It is not.

What does that even mean?

 

Wherever/whenever you have risk factors, you're going to have fear. The only thing that diminishes fear is education, and the willingness to allow that education/information to guide you within your own character and behaviors.

[pubic_assistance]

Personally, I would not meet up with someone who I know is HIV positive. Same way, I wouldn't meet up with someone with a cold sore.

[corymonroe]

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.

A lot of people are ignorant about many things. If the perception of ignorance makes someone a jerk, and I say no to having sex with jerks, I may end up celibate.

 

If the escort's visuals or turn-ons fulfill your fantasy, I suspect a lot of men are willing to overlook "jerk." I've had my share of 1-minute to 1-hour encounters. I don't really want to know how many of those were jerks, but I'm sure there were plenty. Beyond 1 hour, jerk status may matter more.

 

Personally, I don't mind when a guy reveals more about himself in an ad. The more they write, the better I feel about my decision. It's the guys who say nothing in their ad that leave no impression.

[caliguy]

Personally, I would not meet up with someone who I know is HIV positive. Same way, I wouldn't meet up with someone with a cold sore.

Interesting analogy. If you meet up with someone with a cold sore the likely hood of them passing it is nearly 100%. Well, if you kiss them anyways. A better analogy would be someone with herpes but no outbreaks.

[pubic_assistance]

Interesting analogy. If you meet up with someone with a cold sore the likely hood of them passing it is nearly 100%. Well, if you kiss them anyways. A better analogy would be someone with herpes but no outbreaks.

I mean, that I can choose to avoid kissing them, of course. But I know myself. I am going to obsess over that cold sore. I wanted to be bluntly honest, and I am sure that some people will say I'm a bigot. But just wanted to toss that out there, that I am not comfortable having sex with people who I know are HIV positive. I obsess over the risk and can NOT have a good time. Tried a few times, but gave up. Just how my brain is wired. So it's nice to say it's "unfair", to reject people based on their status, but it is also just a reality that some people aren't comfortable working around the issue. Sexuality is a series of mental/emotional impulses that need to line up in the right way to get you to that head space. You can't force yourself to be politically correct, in the bedroom.

[Larstrup]

I obsess over the risk and can NOT have a good time. Tried a few times, but gave up. Just how my brain is wired.

 

Hopefully, for you, it's not as bad as your obsession with Michelle Obama's unfortunate looks and fashion sense. That would be just horrible for you.

[pubic_assistance]

Hopefully, for you, it's not as bad as your obsession with Michelle Obama's unfortunate looks and fashion sense. That would be just horrible for you.

Didn't realize I had an obsession about Michelle Obama, as much as I had an opinion. oxo

[TopTierTop]

While I do believe in being clear about who I am more or less likely to be a good match for, and will tell a potential client when I don't think I am a good match, I just find it unnecessary to say I would not meet up with someone without finding out what he is looking to do and deciding whether I am interested in doing or willing to do that with that person. That is going to vary based on different circumstances (age, interests, physical compatibility, health status etc.), but there are few circumstances under which I assume that I have nothing valuable to offer a potential client. If there is something I am unwilling to do with a particular client, it is up to him if he still wants to meet me for what I AM willing to do.

 

I am not sure I believe that everyone who is HIV+ is necessarily only interested in me for the purpose engaging in risky activities. I don't make that assumption. Regardless of proclaimed HIV status, if a potential client wants me to take risks I am not willing to take, I would just say we are not a good match.

[rvwnsd]

...Regardless of proclaimed HIV status, if a potential client wants me to take risks I am not willing to take, I would just say we are not a good match.

Well-said!

[caliguy]

 

I am not sure I believe that everyone who is HIV+ is necessarily only interested in me for the purpose engaging in risky activities. I don't make that assumption. Regardless of proclaimed HIV status, if a potential client wants me to take risks I am not willing to take, I would just say we are not a good match.

My experience has been those that make a big deal about status are usually the ones looking to engage in the risky activities. When I hear that I'm rolling my eyes and already expecting them to want to to take it much further. They just want you to say those magic words "I'm clean" and wallah. Now we can have sex like it's 1970. Never once been proven wrong.

[pubic_assistance]

My experience.

Not sure why I am being credited with the above quote, as you are responding to TopTierTop, not a statement of mine.

[+ sniper]

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.

 

I'm saying we don't know what's going to happen to people's bodies 40 years down the road period. We already know long-term HIV survivors have a host of problems associated with the long-term use of the medications.

And I'm also saying that people are notoriously shitty about adhering to drug regimens. The PreP studies done are not truly double-blind and don't account for the selection bias.

Hell. we all knew we should be using condoms since the early 80s yet the HIV rate climbed continuously until effective therapies came along, and didn't drop off as fast as you'd think it would because the second there was a treatment people got even worse about using condoms.

[+ quoththeraven]

I'm saying we don't know what's going to happen to people's bodies 40 years down the road period. We already know long-term HIV survivors have a host of problems associated with the long-term use of the medications.

And I'm also saying that people are notoriously shitty about adhering to drug regimens. The PreP studies done are not truly double-blind and don't account for the selection bias.

Hell. we all knew we should be using condoms since the early 80s yet the HIV rate climbed continuously until effective therapies came along, and didn't drop off as fast as you'd think it would because the second there was a treatment people got even worse about using condoms.

An escort on PrEP has control over his adherence just as he has over his condom usage. Relying on others' characterization of them status is not sensible risk management and depends on factors outside of the escorts' control and knowledge. It also puts up an irrational and unfair barrier to potential customers.

 

As I said before, if this is a deal breaker, then escorting is not an appropriate career choice.

[+ Eric Hassan]

I'm saying we don't know what's going to happen to people's bodies 40 years down the road period. We already know long-term HIV survivors have a host of problems associated with the long-term use of the medications.

And I'm also saying that people are notoriously shitty about adhering to drug regimens. The PreP studies done are not truly double-blind and don't account for the selection bias.

Hell. we all knew we should be using condoms since the early 80s yet the HIV rate climbed continuously until effective therapies came along, and didn't drop off as fast as you'd think it would because the second there was a treatment people got even worse about using condoms.

 

You're correct that we don't know what will happen to people's bodies in 40 years. Is that a reason to not use something that could help us stay healthier now? And do you really think that long-term survivors of HIV would think it wasn't worth it for the problems associated with meds?

 

Also, please read the research on PrEP before making the assertions you have made. If you have, and you can still make those assertions, please reference your sources.

[+ sniper]

Of course long-term survivors will take the side effects over death. That's not the question. I'm just saying that HIV is still something you want to avoid because while treatable it's far from "just take a couple of pills every day and you'll be totally fine," which is an attitude I see among my younger friends doing stupid things.

 

The "99 percent redction" stat was extrapolated from data based on levels of medication in people's blood. Out of 2500 people in the study, 1250 each on placebo and Truvada, do you know how many people actually took the medication every day? Four.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/upshot/is-truvada-the-pill-to-prevent-hiv-99-percent-effective-dont-be-so-sure.html

 

I am not saying you shouldn't use it if you have a lot of partners or do more risky things.