An escort who is HIV +

[twinkboylover28]

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.

 

Why are you even comparing being HIV-positive with abortion?

 

Apples and oranges.

[twinkboylover28]

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.

 

It's all my fault!

 

I take full responsibility.

[+ sniper]

That said I agree the rate is too high. I'm just not sure how much lower it will get at this point until/unless we get true universal healthcare in this country.

[+ sniper]

Why are you even comparing being HIV-positive with abortion?

 

Apples and oranges.

I'm comparing HIV infection with unintended pregnancy.

It's sexual activity that causes something. It's not at all unreasonable to compare them. Over one in three women has an abortion in their lifetime. In addition to that there are other women who carry their unintended pregnancies to term. So straight people have a similar "failure rate" to gay people.

[twinkboylover28]

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.

 

HIV-testing is FREE at most clinics and gay organizations; not-to-mention at State-run health locations.

[twinkboylover28]

Honestly, don't you see a pattern of EXCUSES you're making?

[+ sniper]

How often do you get tested for HIV?

[twinkboylover28]

That said I agree the rate is too high. I'm just not sure how much lower it will get at this point until/unless we get true universal healthcare in this country.

 

OMG! Here we go AGAIN ..now instead of abortion it's Universal Health Care.

[twinkboylover28]

If I'm sexually active, I get tested annualy at my annual physical unless I feel the need to get tested earlier.

 

The protocol is 30 days, 3 months, 6 months, and annually per risky event, according to my HIV-specialist.

[SuperJunior]

I’m a child of the 80s. I have as safe a sex as I can manage.

 

You’re celibate?

 

[SuperJunior]

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.

 

There’s nothing ignoble, either.

[LoveNDino]

You’re celibate?

 

How did you know?

[SuperJunior]

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/dcl/dcl/092717.html

[rvwnsd]

OMG. Do we seriously have to politicize the statistics?...

In what way was my question politicizing anything. No mention of politics.

 

...Yes, it said M4M WHICH IS THE SAME THING....

Millions of bisexual men would disagree with the statement about being homosexual. Bisexuals have sex with both men and with women. "MSM" (not M4M, that's an escort website) is an abbreviation for "men who have sex withmen," which includes both bisexuals and homosexuals.

 

...Its 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. ...

Apparently, you missed the second half of my post. According to a study reported by HIV Plus magazine, , the top 10 cities for HIV infection rates are all small cities. Men who live in rural states primarily in the South have a greater chance of acquiring HIV than do men who live in more urban states, primarily in the Northeast, Midwest, and West.

[rvwnsd]

If I'm sexually active, I get tested annualy at my annual physical unless I feel the need to get tested earlier.

 

The protocol is 30 days, 3 months, 6 months, and annually per risky event, according to my HIV-specialist.

Your HIV specialist has some reading up to do or you need to listen more carefully. According to the CDC, MSMs should be screened for all STIs (not just HIV) at least annual and those who have more than one partner should get tested for a full panel of STIs (HIV, gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia) every three to six months. As I am on PrEP, I get an HIV test every three months and given I engage in unprotected oral sex my doctor also orders the other tests.

 

I'd be interested in knowing what you consider to be a "risky event." All sexual activity has risk associated with it. As stated above, my doctor wants me to get a full STI screen every three months because I give oral sex without a condom. What is your HIV specialist's opinion on that topic?

 

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

Any physician who, in 2017, has posters referring to "homosexuals" in their office is woefully behind the times and uninformed.

 

...A lot of us, including myself, could have easily been HIV-positive if we weren't so "lucky". ...

Most informed people would argue that luck has little to do with avoiding STI infections of any type. I suppose if you don't use any form of protection and manage to avoid becoming HIV+ and avoid contracting other STIs you could be considered "lucky," but for me my status is the result of carefully considering the risks associated with various behaviors, determining what types of precautions to take, and taking them every time. Granted, prior to the star of the HIV epidemic in the 1980's there was apparently no need for MSMs to use condoms but in the last 30-some years luck has had very little to do with it.

 

...My whole point is I think 20-25% is way too high for the community, and people need to be much more informed how prevalent and risky it is. Am I wrong?

I think you are wrong to fixate on the rate of infection. By that logic, one who lives in Chicago, where the infection rate is lower than San Francisco, could reasonably take fewer precautions than he would in San Francisco, where the infection rate is higher. Likewise, that same person should be twice as careful when visiting and having sex in Georgia, where the probability of acquiring the virus is 1 in 51, as opposed to 1 in 101 back home in Illinois.

 

The thing is it does not work like that. You either take precautions or you don't take precautions. Would you advocate reducing the use of condoms and/or PrEP if only 5% of the MSM population who reported their status was HIV+? Maybe use condoms/take your PrEP only half the time if it fell to 2%? My guess is you wouldn't. Then why the focus on infection rate?

[twinkboylover28]

There’s nothing ignoble, either.

 

As I said, like walking on egg shells....

[twinkboylover28]

In what way was my question politicizing anything. No mention of politics.

 

 

Millions of bisexual men would disagree with the statement about being homosexual. Bisexuals have sex with both men and with women. "MSM" (not M4M, that's an escort website) is an abbreviation for "men who have sex withmen," which includes both bisexuals and homosexuals.

 

It's interesting (political) how some people are far more interested in semantics rather than the fact that 20% of the community is HIV-positive. It's really sad actually.

 

 

Apparently, you missed the second half of my post. According to a study reported by HIV Plus magazine, , the top 10 cities for HIV infection rates are all small cities. Men who live in rural states primarily in the South have a greater chance of acquiring HIV than do men who live in more urban states, primarily in the Northeast, Midwest, and West.

 

With all due respect, "the top 10 cities for HIV infection rate" is rather broad and undefined. The article published by TIME Magazine referring to the CDC indicates otherwise.

A guy living in Connersville, Indiana has far less of a chance acquiring HIV than a guy in San Fran or Los Angeles or NYC.

 

This still doesn't take away from the fact that 20% of the community is HIV-positive.

Edited November 7, 2017 by twinkboylover28

[twinkboylover28]

Your HIV specialist has some reading up to do or you need to listen more carefully. According to the CDC, MSMs should be screened for all STIs (not just HIV) at least annual and those who have more than one partner should get tested for a full panel of STIs (HIV, gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia) every three to six months. As I am on PrEP, I get an HIV test every three months and given I engage in unprotected oral sex my doctor also orders the other tests.

 

Apparently you missed more Reading classes than I originally thought, as the question asked to me was "How often do I get tested for HIV?"

 

I also didn't mention I get a colonoscopy every year and my chest waxed bi-monthly, because it wasn't asked! It still doesn't change the fact that 20% of the community is HIV-positive.Wise up!

 

 

 

 

I'd be interested in knowing what you consider to be a "risky event." All sexual activity has risk associated with it. As stated above, my doctor wants me to get a full STI screen every three months because I give oral sex without a condom. What is your HIV specialist's opinion on that topic?

 

I don't know, would you like his phone number? I do know that he will also tell you, like myself, that the HIV-positive rate in the community is 20% (and much higher in larger cities like San Fran). I can mail you a flyer to educate you if you like?

 

 

Any physician who, in 2017, has posters referring to "homosexuals" in their office is woefully behind the times and uninformed.

 

Again, you obviously missed more Reading classes than I had originally thought as I clearly revised to indicate my HIV-specialist used the term MSM which is basically the same thing. I think it's sad you're more interested in playing political games of semantics, rather than joining the team like myself to make our community AWARE of the skyrocketing rate of HIV-positive men in the community. Will you join me in spreading awareness that 1 in 5 gay men are HIV-positive ,and even higher rates in large cities? Why do you appear to be so blatantly hostile to the facts? You know, there is a reason my doctor ,an award winning HIV-specialist, hands out these informational flyers in the first place. To make people AWARE!

 

Most informed people would argue that luck has little to do with avoiding STI infections of any type. I suppose if you don't use any form of protection and manage to avoid becoming HIV+ and avoid contracting other STIs you could be considered "lucky," but for me my status is the result of carefully considering the risks associated with various behaviors, determining what types of precautions to take, and taking them every time. Granted, prior to the star of the HIV epidemic in the 1980's there was apparently no need for MSMs to use condoms but in the last 30-some years luck has had very little to do with it.

 

You know, I sense a ton of anger in you. I don't know what it is that I said or did to make you so incredibly angry, when my intention was just to make people aware of the 20% rate of HIV-positive men in our community. You come off as a know-it-all smartass and anyone who disagrees be damned.

 

If the rate of infection is 1 out of 5000 for every act of unprotected receptive anal sex with a known HIV-positive man, then obviously that 1 guy who got HIV out of the 5000 is UNLUCKY !! But please, go ahead and play your political games of semantics and arrogance. It's becoming exhausting.

 

I think you are wrong to fixate on the rate of infection. By that logic, one who lives in Chicago, where the infection rate is lower than San Francisco, could reasonably take fewer precautions than he would in San Francisco, where the infection rate is higher. Likewise, that same person should be twice as careful when visiting and having sex in Georgia, where the probability of acquiring the virus is 1 in 51, as opposed to 1 in 101 back home in Illinois.

 

The thing is it does not work like that. You either take precautions or you don't take precautions. Would you advocate reducing the use of condoms and/or PrEP if only 5% of the MSM population who reported their status was HIV+? Maybe use condoms/take your PrEP only half the time if it fell to 2%? My guess is you wouldn't. Then why the focus on infection rate?

 

 

Okay hun, I will be sure to tell my HIV-specialist that he is wrong, and some guy on the message forum is correct. Perhaps they should pull his medical license?

With all due respect, your rants sound incoherent and full of anger and self righteousness. I wish you well, and I hope you join us in our effort of spreading awareness to the community. Best wishes.

Edited November 7, 2017 by twinkboylover28

[+ glutes]

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?

 

[+ sniper]

The absolute number of new infections is going down. The number of MSM is going up, as homosexuality and bisexuality are far less stigmatized than in the past. When the numerator is going down, and the denominator is going up, the rate of infection, by definition, is not "skyrocketing." It's just a lot higher than you were aware of because you weren't paying attention.

[+ sniper]

I do agree that overall people are a lot less careful than they should be, given the prevalence of STIs. But even if new transmissions went to zero today, you have to realize it would take DECADES for the rate of HIV to get down to half of what it is today, because people in treatment have normal lifespans.

[+ oldNbusted]

As I am on PrEP, I get an HIV test every three months

 

On my first followup, my Doc said the system is now saying since PrEP is proving to be so effective, frequent testing is no longer necessary, they are now recommneding only testing once a year. I asked her to go ahead, since it was my first followup after starting, but after that, we would go to once a year. Of course, this doesn't change screening for other things, but this could matter in certain scenarios, like monogamous serodiscordant couples.

[rvwnsd]

On my first followup, my Doc said the system is now saying since PrEP is proving to be so effective, frequent testing is no longer necessary, they are now recommneding only testing once a year. I asked her to go ahead, since it was my first followup after starting, but after that, we would go to once a year. Of course, this doesn't change screening for other things, but this could matter in certain scenarios, like monogamous serodiscordant couples.

Interesting - I had not heard that.

 

I think my physician is more conservative in that regard. Additionally, my insurance company requires the HIV test as a condition of the med being covered. Of course, when they realize they can save a few bucks they will likely forbid the doc from ordering more than an annual screening.

[twinkboylover28]

The absolute number of new infections is going down. The number of MSM is going up, as homosexuality and bisexuality are far less stigmatized than in the past. When the numerator is going down, and the denominator is going up, the rate of infection, by definition, is not "skyrocketing." It's just a lot higher than you were aware of because you weren't paying attention.

 

You need to wise up. As I mentioned earlier, regardless that "new" infections may have gone down, or that MSM may have increased, the bottom line FACT is that the GRAND TOTAL number of MSM people who are HIV-positive in the aggregate unfortunately still reflects and remains at a whopping 20% of the MSM community.

 

There's a good reason my HIV-specialist doctor hands out high-quality flyers in his office relaying this important and vital information to the MSM community he primarily treats. . You can try and sugarcoat, politicize, deflect the issue to abortion, universal healthcare, or whatever apples-and-oranges cause you like, it doesn't change the overall FACT that 20% of the MSM population is HIV-positive TODAY which is startling. Believe it or not, MSM members who are pro-life and/or don't favor universal healthcare still would like to see the overall number of HIV-positive members reduced.

 

People in the community need to be AWARE of these astronomicaly high numbers, whether-or-not they are as hip as you claim to be, so they can protect their health. At the end of the day we are all on the same team. I'm glad you agree with me and with my original intent that the community needs to be AWARE that 20% of us remain HIV-positive and need to take the appropriate precautions. I'm glad you will join with me and spread the word in a good faith effort to reduce these numbers.

[+ oldNbusted]

You need to wise up. As I mentioned earlier, regardless that "new" infections may have gone down, or that MSM may have increased, the bottom line FACT is that the GRAND TOTAL number of MSM people who are HIV-positive in the aggregate unfortunately still reflects and remains at a whopping 20% of the MSM community.

 

There's a good reason my HIV-specialist doctor hands out high-quality flyers in his office relaying this important and vital information to the MSM community he primarily treats. . You can try and sugarcoat, politicize, deflect the issue to abortion, universal healthcare, or whatever apples-and-oranges cause you like, it doesn't change the overall FACT that 20% of the MSM population is HIV-positive TODAY which is startling. Believe it or not, MSM members who are pro-life and/or don't favor universal healthcare still would like to see the overall number of HIV-positive members reduced.

 

People in the community need to be AWARE of these astronomicaly high numbers, whether-or-not they are as hip as you claim to be, so they can protect their health. At the end of the day we are all on the same team. I'm glad you agree with me and with my original intent that the community needs to be AWARE that 20% of us remain HIV-positive and need to take the appropriate precautions. I'm glad you will join with me and spread the word in a good faith effort to reduce these numbers.

 

Free floating factoids about infection rates without concrete next steps come off as homophobic fearmongering, of which there is a long, sad history in regard to HIV, so it's understandable that people will push back. So, I'm curious, aside from announcing this to a fairly well informed forum, what other actions are you taking?

 

I should also point out that I believe you may have backed into a gambler's fallacy.

 

wikipedia.org: Gambler's fallacy

 

Which is to say one's chance of infection in a single encounter is dictated by the activities that take place within that encounter. This is a message of self empowerment, that each person has control over what they choose to do and not do.