An escort who is HIV +

[LADoug1]

I too had an HIV+ person tell me after we had sex. Couldn’t understand why I was upset since I was the one who didn’t ask.

 

I also assume all guys are positive and practice safe sex only. I’m a product of the 80’s.

[OneFinger]

I hired a very hot guy and when he showed up at the hotel he told me he was HIV+. I didn't send him away and went on with the session because I always play safe. Would I hire him again?? In a microsecond.

[twinkboylover28]

I tested negative on Halloween. What a relief.

 

My HIV specialist had flyers all over his office with statistics indicating "1 out of every 5 homosexuals are living with HIV." That is very alarming, as I have never thought about it that way.

 

20% of "us" are HIV-positive.

 

TIME Magazine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published statistics more than 7-years ago which mirrored those statistics:

 

http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/26/study-20-of-homosexual-men-are-hiv-positive-but-only-half-know-it/

 

I would think the HIV rate is likely much higher today, and closer to 25% (or 1 out of every 4 homosexuals), and likely closer to 30% in San Francisco.

 

Anyways, that's just for your average "regular" homosexual living in the city. If you were to study the HIV-positive rate that is specific to male prostitutes, male escorts, and male "strippers-for-hire" I think it's only logical that the rate would be much higher among that high-risk group.

 

And HIV is hard to acquire.

 

Considering close to 25% of us are already "living with HIV", it's not surprising that the STD rate among homosexuals (compared to our straight counterparts) are as high as 10-fold, according to my HIV specialist. Think about that.

 

Not to mention the increased rate of parasitic intestinal infection and colon cancer. It kinda makes me feel dirty.

 

Another reason to wrap it up if you're not in a monogamous relationship.

Edited November 4, 2017 by twinkboylover28

[+ sniper]

Given the advent of PreP and better treatment for those infected I don't see why you would think overall HIV infection rates must be higher today than they were 7 years ago. Now for a particular cohort it's true - the rate among 30somethings today will be higher than that of 20somethings 10 years ago, but that's a function of not everybody contracting HIV at the same age.

 

I DO think that it's likely that the 18-24 cohort has higher rates now than 18-24 year olds 20 years ago, but that's a function of people coming out earlier in their "young and stupid" years when they are less likely to be careful than older people who have seen the effects of HIV. That's basically the same phenomenon as younger drivers being more likely to have a crash.

 

It remains to be seen whether that will translate to higher rates overall. The more people get into effective treatment the less the virus can spread.

[Rangar]

As for criminalization of non-disclosure it depends on the State. State specific information can be found at

 

https://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/sourcebook

[twinkboylover28]

Because like the article said, not everyone that has HIV knows they are HIV-positive. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

 

PreP is used by a very small percentage of the community as a whole.

 

You just agreed that 30 -somethings of today will have higher rates than 20-somethigns of twenty years ago, as well as 18-24 youth of today will have higher rates. Whatever the reasoning, you kind of made my point.

 

Regardless, whether it is 1 out of 4, or 1 out of 5, the fact that 20-25% of the community is HIV-positive is startling to me. I wish everyone was aware.

[+ sniper]

Because like the article said, not everyone that has HIV knows they are HIV-positive. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

 

PreP is used by a very small percentage of the community as a whole.

 

You just agreed that 30 -somethings of today will have higher rates than 20-somethigns of twenty years ago, as well as 18-24 youth of today will have higher rates. Whatever the reasoning, you kind of made my point.

 

Regardless, whether it is 1 out of 4, or 1 out of 5, the fact that 20-25% of the community is HIV-positive is startling to me. I wish everyone was aware.

No - I said 30somethings of today will have higher rates than 20somethings of TEN YEARS AGO...meaning the same people.

 

Back in the late 80s early 90s 20/20 I believe did some profile of a gay teenager saying there was a 1 in 2 chance he would develop HIV during his lifetime. The incidence of HAVING HIV will increase as a cohort ages, simply because once you have it, that's it. So if you have a 1% chance of contracting HIV in a given year, assuming that risk stays the same, a group of 20 year olds who have a 1% incidence of HIV will, in 10 years, be a group of 30 year olds roughly 10% of whom have HIV. That does not mean the population as a whole had an increase in incidence, because there are new 20 year olds with a lower rate entering the population, and older people with higher rates exiting the population. It's even possible that the rate in the population could also be going up without transmission rates going up as people getting treatment live longer relative to the uninfected.

 

**** Please note the above was a gross oversimplification of the numbers and risks are obviously not constant across a lifetime or a population as people's behavior changes.

 

New HIV infections are in fact decreasing.

http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2017/february/20170216_CDCreport

 

None of this is to say that HIV is no biggie. Just that things are getting better but are masked by increased awareness. yeah 30 years ago fewer people got HIV because fewer people were doing things with the potential to transmit in the first place.

[+ saminseattle]

I am undetectable. The chances of passing it is less than 1% or so.

 

For some people, like me, a 1% chance still sounds too high. But people should know that based on all the research, the odds of HIV being transmitted through condomless anal sex if the HIV-positive partner is undetectable are far, far, far, far less than 1%. Indeed, there has never been a recorded case of such transmission and after studies covering tens of thousands of such sexual encounters, the best estimate for the chances of transmission from someone who is undetectable is zero. http://www.beyondpositive.org/2014/03/06/study-reports-hiv-transmission-undetectable-men/ Recently, the CDC issued a memo admitting that that HIV-positive people who are able to maintain an undetectable status (defined as less than 200 copies per milliliter) are simply not infectious. https://www.hivplusmag.com/undetectable/2017/9/27/breaking-cdc-officially-recognizes-undetectableuntransmittable-hiv-prevention

 

So, as an example, if I had condomless anal sex with someone who was HIV-positive but undetectable, my odds of contracting HIV would actually be less than if I used a condom with someone whose status I did not know, who could potentially be positive. (Remember, condoms have a failure rate significantly greater than zero and some studies suggest that in the real world, where people don't necessarily use them perfectly, they may only be about 80% effective. http://www.thebodypro.com/content/70694/condoms-tried-tested-and-true.html).

 

Of course, I can't know if someone is really undetectable any more than I can know if he is really HIV-negative. A few people lie, and many people have gaps between tests and are simply unaware. Plus, there are many other STIs to worry about, some incurable, and condoms can provide some protection again these risks. So, my answer to the original question would be that I would have sex with someone who told me he was HIV-positive but undetectable, but I would still use condoms for anal sex, just as I would with someone who told me he was HIV-negative.

Edited November 4, 2017 by saminseattle

[Pepper Young]

Undetectable = Untransmittable.

I got other STD's from escorts so I tend to worry more about that than HIV. And yes, I would hire an HIV+ escort and not think twice about it. (Props to him for having the balls to admit it in the first place.)

[rvwnsd]

I tested negative on Halloween. What a relief.

 

My HIV specialist had flyers all over his office with statistics indicating "1 out of every 5 homosexuals are living with HIV." That is very alarming, as I have never thought about it that way.

 

20% of "us" are HIV-positive....

 

Quick question: Did the flyers actually say "homosexuals?" Forgive me for being a stickler, but they typically refer to "men who have sex with men" and/or "gay and bisexual men."

 

...TIME Magazine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published statistics more than 7-years ago which mirrored those statistics:

 

http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/26/study-20-of-homosexual-men-are-hiv-positive-but-only-half-know-it/

 

I would think the HIV rate is likely much higher today, and closer to 25% (or 1 out of every 4 homosexuals), and likely closer to 30% in San Francisco.....

 

You might be surprised to learn that San Francisco did not make the list of top 10 US cities by HIV infection rate (it was #21) published by HIV Plus magazine. Additionally, you might be surprised that California, New York, and Illinois have a lower rate of HIV infection and individuals in those three states are at a lower risk of infection than individuals are in several Southern states according to the CDC.

Edited November 5, 2017 by rvwnsd

[mike carey]

@rvwnsd an educated and open gay community as opposed to a closeted and less informed one, perhaps?

[+ BenjaminNicholas]

An escort who knows his status and is honest about it is admirable. An sex worker who's positive and hiding it from his clients is a time bomb.

 

PrEP, contrary to what people tell you, is still not in wide use and just because someone says they're on the pill doesn't mean they are. Women have played this game with birth control and now it's our turn to try to read between the lines.

 

Bottom line: Condoms still serve their purpose.

[caliguy]

An sex worker who's positive and hiding it from his clients is a time bomb.

 

I don't understand the point your making. If your doing it like myself and others here it shouldn't matter if they are or aren't. My question is what is the "time bomb" you're referring too?

[rvwnsd]

@rvwnsd an educated and open gay community as opposed to a closeted and less informed one, perhaps?

The map included in the CDC article would seem to indicate that is true.

 

PS: I corrected my original post, as my intent was to say one was at greater risk in certain locales, not that certain locales posed a greater risk.

[twinkboylover28]

Quick question: Did the flyers actually say "homosexuals?" Forgive me for being a stickler, but they typically refer to "men who have sex with men" and/or "gay and bisexual men."

 

 

OMG. Do we seriously have to politicize the statistics?

Yes, it said M4M WHICH IS THE SAME THING.

 

It's insane we have to walk on egg shells when it comes to this topic. The bottom line is 20-25% is startling and unacceptable. And M4M are obviously at higher risk in big cities compared to rural communities and farmlands. Maybe we need to start putting bumper stickers on our cars that say "20%" for people to get informed.

 

I think we would all agree that the HIV-positive rate is insanely too high in the community.

Edited November 6, 2017 by twinkboylover28

[twinkboylover28]

 

**** Please note the above was a gross oversimplification of the numbers and risks are obviously not constant across a lifetime or a population as people's behavior changes.

 

New HIV infections are in fact decreasing.

http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2017/february/20170216_CDCreport

 

None of this is to say that HIV is no biggie. Just that things are getting better but are masked by increased awareness. yeah 30 years ago fewer people got HIV because fewer people were doing things with the potential to transmit in the first place.

 

20% - 25% is not improvement. The new study said for the first time in decades the HIV infection is down among M4M. The HIV-positive rate is still astronomically high among M4M and more people in our community need to be informed.

Edited November 6, 2017 by twinkboylover28

[twinkboylover28]

Undetectable = Untransmittable.

I got other STD's from escorts so I tend to worry more about that than HIV. And yes, I would hire an HIV+ escort and not think twice about it. (Props to him for having the balls to admit it in the first place.)

 

 

Other STD's are curable and more manageable (not all). There is nothing noble about being HIV-positive, just like there's nothing noble about being poor.

Edited November 6, 2017 by twinkboylover28

[twinkboylover28]

@rvwnsd an educated and open gay community as opposed to a closeted and less informed one, perhaps?

 

Riiiight. My HIV-specialist doctor is a closeted, self-loathing homophobe with faulty statistics.

 

I know you were referring to the stats posted by rvwnsd, and my heart goes out to everyone HIV-positive, but we as a community need to stop sugar-coating and politicizing the stats to make them sound more favourable and no big deal, and start living in reality.

 

A lot of us, including myself, could have easily been HIV-positive if we weren't so "lucky". My whole point is I think 20-25% is way to high for the community, and people need to be much more informed how prevalent and risky it is. Am I wrong?

Edited November 6, 2017 by twinkboylover28

[+ sniper]

Consider that precautions have a failure rate. Consider also that in the case of HIV, once the failure occurs, that's it. As opposed to a birth control failure, where once a failure occurs, the parties still have the option of abortion to "remedy" the situation. Then consider that there are hundreds of thousands of new pregnancies per year.

Consider also that we are a country with relatively shitty access to HIV testing and treatment for those who have it.

Even if the rate of peoples taking precautions is improving over time, the absolute number of infections each year may go up as the population increases and the population of men who actually do explore their sexuality increases. When I was a senior in high school, I'm pretty damn sure of the 20 or so of us who later turned out to be gay, maybe two had actually done anything. I live in my hometown and there are more than that many teenagers on Grindr within a 3-mile radius and from the looks of things they've done it all already.

And the absolute number of infections is now going down - given the large increase in MSM, that means things are relatively speaking getting much better.

[+ sniper]

It's also possible that stat is overstated as many MSM will decline to identify themselves as such for an interview, but we know more precisely how many people have HIV due to reported statistics.

I have to say the majority of the people I know who seroconverted recently are, to put it bluntly, troubled. You can rail about condoms and PreP all you want but it's hard to get a bipolar person with substance abuse issues to be careful. I can't talk my bipolar unmedicated sister into just getting a job, any job, before she's on the street. I just thank God she's postmenopausal and can't go get herself knocked up to give her someone who will love her.

Other things to consider - in the case of HIV the horse got out of the barn too late. There were already a million people with HIV in the country decades ago. So we hit a critical mass of infected people before we had TRULY effective means of prevention. Couple that with poor access and bad mental health treatment and the numbers are not likely to get where they should.

[twinkboylover28]

Consider that precautions have a failure rate. Consider also that in the case of HIV, once the failure occurs, that's it. As opposed to a birth control failure, where once a failure occurs, the parties still have the option of abortion to "remedy" the situation. Then consider that there are hundreds of thousands of new pregnancies per year.

Consider also that we are a country with relatively shitty access to HIV testing and treatment for those who have it.

Even if the rate of peoples taking precautions is improving over time, the absolute number of infections each year may go up as the population increases and the population of men who actually do explore their sexuality increases. When I was a senior in high school, I'm pretty damn sure of the 20 or so of us who later turned out to be gay, maybe two had actually done anything. I live in my hometown and there are more than that many teenagers on Grindr within a 3-mile radius and from the looks of things they've done it all already.

And the absolute number of infections is now going down - given the large increase in MSM, that means things are relatively speaking getting much better.

 

No. No. No. No.

 

You don't get to equate being HIV-positive with killing your own baby and having an abortion. Straight people get HIV too. Pregnancy has absolutely nothing to do with acquiring HIV.

 

You're making my point that whenever the topic of HIV comes up, we have to walk on egg shells because people will always try to politicize and sugar-coat the issue, making crazy excuses and comparisons or whatever you want to call it to assuage the FACT that 20-25% of GAY MEN are HIV-positive. This is a FACT. Whether numbers went down for one quarter or not. It is a FACT, alarming as it is, that 20-25% of M4M are HIV-positive. I think it's beneficial that the more people in the M4M community who know this fact the better educated decisions and precautions we can make/take.

 

We should all be on the same team to inform our fellow M4M community of this alarming statistic in an effort to reduce it. Wouldn't you agree???

 

Instead of trying to excuse away the astronomical rate of HIV-positive cases in the M4M community, we should be trying to reduce the FACT that 20-25% of us are "living with HIV" as they like to call it these days.

Edited November 6, 2017 by twinkboylover28

[twinkboylover28]

It's also possible that stat is overstated as many MSM will decline to identify themselves as such for an interview, but we know more precisely how many people have HIV due to reported statistics.

I have to say the majority of the people I know who seroconverted recently are, to put it bluntly, troubled. You can rail about condoms and PreP all you want but it's hard to get a bipolar person with substance abuse issues to be careful. I can't talk my bipolar unmedicated sister into just getting a job, any job, before she's on the street. I just thank God she's postmenopausal and can't go get herself knocked up to give her someone who will love her.

Other things to consider - in the case of HIV the horse got out of the barn too late. There were already a million people with HIV in the country decades ago. So we hit a critical mass of infected people before we had TRULY effective means of prevention. Couple that with poor access and bad mental health treatment and the numbers are not likely to get where they should.

 

We live in the USA where HIV-testing and treatment is excellent. People from all over the world, especially Canada, cross the border to get treatment for various health issues in the USA.

 

I agree with you 100% on the bipolar issue, regardless if they are bipolar with substance abuse issues, mental illness is horrible. But, here we go again trying to excuse away the issue/fact.

 

It just boggles my mind that instead of agreeing that we need to educate, inform, and reduce the astronomical rate of HIV-positive cases in the M4M community...all I read is excuses, comparisons to apples-and-oranges, and sugar-coated political bs.

 

The big picture and bottom line is that the rate of HIV-positive men in the M4M community is way too high. Period! It's Frightening. I'm 43 and had no clue the rate of HIV-positive cases was this high until I had to get tested.

 

I still wouldn't have known if it wasn't for the fact that my HIV-specialist had flyers in his office for people to take home indicating the rate of HIV among M4M community is 1 out of 5!

 

20% is startling!

 

This is a fact even to this day. Are you onboard that the M4M community needs to do a lot more work to get these facts out to protect the community, or should we continue to make analogies and burrow our heads in the sand with claims that "things are all good and slowly improving" even though the rate remains at 20-%?

Edited November 6, 2017 by twinkboylover28

[+ sniper]

No. No. No. No.

 

You don't get to equate being HIV-positive with killing your own baby and having an abortion. Straight people get HIV too. Pregnancy has absolutely nothing to do with acquiring HIV.

 

Will you maybe develop some reading comprehension? I didn't "equate being HIV-positive with killing your own baby and having an abortion." I made parallels between failure rates of prevention methods. There are much more effective per dollar spent methods of preventing pregnancy, yet we have massive numbers of unintended pregnancies each year. I'm saying it doesn't take gays being especially worse than straights in level of precaution taken to result in a large fraction of the population being HIV+. I'm saying there's an upper bound on what you can expect simply due to human nature. Countries with much lower rates either are places with the death penalty for homosexuality or socialized medicine, i.e. effective treatment for the infected which is what will really stop the spread.

[+ sniper]

If you are 43 and had no clue the rate was this high you are part of the fucking problem because you weren't paying attention. I could understand a 23 year old not knowing, but you were a teenager when the shit started hitting the fan and should have been keeping yourself informed.

[+ sniper]

We live in the USA where HIV-testing and treatment is excellent.

 

IF you have money. Our HIV testing is not excellent because you have to ask for it specifically and fill out another form. There are historical reasons for that, but it suppresses the number of people who get tested. Other countries negotiate down the cost of HIV treatment and have socialized coverage. In the US people lose jobs, can't afford the COBRA premium, and might stop taking the pills for a month or two at a time until they can get their coverage sorted out.

 

There are things people may come to the US for. HIV treatment is not one of them.