BB now ok on forum

[coriolis888]

Interesting that the OP lists his occupation as epidemiologist

 

 

Epidemiologist -

 

His behavior could have been motivated by the test I mentioned earlier in this thread. If he is of Scandinavian descent and tested negative for the genes that allow his body to contract HIV, I can understand why he is still alive after thirty years of seemingly reckless behavior.

 

Like I also said earlier, the negative gene would protect him from HIV but not from other STDs.

 

Naughty boy!

[+ Gar1eth]

I don't believe at any time in history there should have been shaming of those that chose to go natural when it came to anal sex.

 

 

 

 

That’s a nice sentiment, Lance. But I’ll have to respectfully disagree. It was totally irresponsible to indiscriminately bareback once the cause of HIV and the mode of transmission was discovered. These people put themselves and all of us at risk. It’s much like the story of Typhoid Mary. She wouldn’t stop cooking even after being told she shouldn’t. She also wouldn’t wash her hands.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Mallon was the first asymptomatic typhoid carrier to be identified by medical science, and there was no policy providing guidelines for handling the situation. Some difficulties surrounding her case stemmed from Mallon's vehement denial of her possible role, as she refused to acknowledge any connection between her working as a cook and the typhoid cases. Mallon maintained that she was perfectly healthy, had never had typhoid fever, and could not be the source. Public-health authorities determined that permanent quarantine was the only way to prevent Mallon from causing significant future typhoid outbreaks.

Even now while PrEP may prevent most HIV infections, there’s increasingly drug resistant gonorrhea. There’s also the risk of syphilis and other STD’s. While I’m not saying the good of society should always (if you’ll pardon the expression) trump the will of the individual. On the other hand when public health/safety is at stake, there has to be more to life than our own individual desires.

 

Gman

Edited April 14, 2018 by Gar1eth

[muscmtl]

actual scientific information s/QUOTE]

 

Ok, here is some

Epidemiologist and god at data mining here, so this is easy for me

 

I checked the ratio of safe to "ask me/anything goes" on rentmen back in 2012 (should have checked it before, rentmen is over 10 years old) and back then 92% of all escorts said "safe only"

 

Now

April 2018

 

Rentmen: to the safe sex tag: out of 7074 escorts (only escorts, don't care about masseuse) only 56% said safe sex only

35% said "ask me"

11% said "anything goes"

 

Planetromeo: to the safe sex tag, out of 15,000 escorts, 89% said safe sex only

7% said "sometimes"

4 % said "never"

[+ Lance_Navarro]

That’s a nice sentiment, Lance. But I’ll have to respectfully disagree. It was totally irresponsible to indiscriminately bareback once the cause of HIV and the mode of transmission was discovered. These people put themselves and all of us at risk. It’s much like the story of Typhoid Mary. She wouldn’t stop cooking even after being told she shouldn’t. She also wouldn’t wash her hands.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Mallon was the first asymptomatic typhoid carrier to be identified by medical science, and there was no policy providing guidelines for handling the situation. Some difficulties surrounding her case stemmed from Mallon's vehement denial of her possible role, as she refused to acknowledge any connection between her working as a cook and the typhoid cases. Mallon maintained that she was perfectly healthy, had never had typhoid fever, and could not be the source. Public-health authorities determined that permanent quarantine was the only way to prevent Mallon from causing significant future typhoid outbreaks.

Even now while PrEP may prevent most HIV infections, there’s increasingly drug resistant gonorrhea. There’s also the risk of syphilis and other STD’s. While I’m not saying the good of society should always (if you’ll pardon the expression) trump the will of the individual. On the other hand when public health/safety is at stake, there has to be more to life than our own individual desires.

 

Gman

 

I understand your point, but I still don't see any effectiveness in shaming. And if 2 men mutually choose to not use condoms, they are putting themselves at risk and no one else. As far as syphilis, one only needs to make skin contact to contract it, so condoms don't really factor in there, and as I said before, other STI's are just as transmitable through oral sex as anal. So unless you plan to wrap it up when you're getting or giving head, than you're taking a risk. I can say with fair amount of certainty, that the few times I've had chlamydia, I got it from oral sex, but that's not gonna make me start wearing a condom or stop having my dick sucked.

 

All we can do is manage and mitigate our risk in proportion to our preference for pleasure, and through PrEP, regular testing and communication, I am doing just that.

[+ Tarte Gogo]

Hey Lance, I like your thinking, I just have one thing to say on this point:

I understand your point, but I still don't see any effectiveness in shaming.

Not today, there are more effective ways today, but shaming has been used somewhat effectively for Barebackers and I completely understand why.

 

Shame is a powerful tool to change behavior, it works in many aspects of life.

 

If someone is known as a "shameful bareback Joe" in a community and as a result gets a lot less sex opportunities, he may try to avoid that shame and simply go with the (condom) flow, just so he can continue to be an active member of that community and not be shunned. It works on those who think the cost of using a condom is not too high, but not on everyone. But even if a few don't buy it, you still save the lives of those who feel the shame.

 

It is manipulative, and not nice, but if it saved even a few hundred lives, I am going to shamelessly say it was worth using shaming as a tool.

 

Of course the world has changed and people can make different choices today. In 50 years time, maybe people will think of HIV like we think of smallpox.

[marylander1940]

That’s a nice sentiment, Lance. But I’ll have to respectfully disagree. It was totally irresponsible to indiscriminately bareback once the cause of HIV and the mode of transmission was discovered. These people put themselves and all of us at risk. It’s much like the story of Typhoid Mary. She wouldn’t stop cooking even after being told she shouldn’t. She also wouldn’t wash her hands.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Mallon was the first asymptomatic typhoid carrier to be identified by medical science, and there was no policy providing guidelines for handling the situation. Some difficulties surrounding her case stemmed from Mallon's vehement denial of her possible role, as she refused to acknowledge any connection between her working as a cook and the typhoid cases. Mallon maintained that she was perfectly healthy, had never had typhoid fever, and could not be the source. Public-health authorities determined that permanent quarantine was the only way to prevent Mallon from causing significant future typhoid outbreaks.

Even now while PrEP may prevent most HIV infections, there’s increasingly drug resistant gonorrhea. There’s also the risk of syphilis and other STD’s. While I’m not saying the good of society should always (if you’ll pardon the expression) trump the will of the individual. On the other hand when public health/safety is at stake, there has to be more to life than our own individual desires.

 

Gman

 

Exactly!

 

@Lance_Navarro I'm aware that PrEP has changed the situation, yet for many years we had condoms and if we had kept using them instead of skipping them with lovers and hookups HIV would be part of history now.

 

Bareback sex makes you a pioneer? Forgive me , I am so naïve-I thought the fight against slavery or the right of women to vote or to end segregation or to allow gays to marry was ppioneering work. OH well-silly me!

 

To the point!

 

[pubic_assistance]

Beyond "shaming" anyone for how they personally manage their sex life and their health. I would like to point out that Truvada use has lowered the risk of HIV transmission while simultaneously INCREASING the risk of syphilis to the point where it's considered an epidemic in the NYC gay community. Unchecked syphilis can live in your blood system for years with no obvious symptoms while doing a tremendous amount of damage to your internal organs. So.....just take that into consideration when you are about to have some "natural sex" with a complete stranger.

[pubic_assistance]

According to the folks over at PrEP Facts, it's simply no.

 

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/PrEPFactsFAQ/posts/917554775028384

 

Within the PrEP Facts group, some doctors have suggested that the alarming increase in STI infections may be a result from people getting tested more often

 

Yes of course the drug manufacturer and their associated doctors would never lie to us would they ? Denial is a great drug !

[escortrod]

I understand your point, but I still don't see any effectiveness in shaming. And if 2 men mutually choose to not use condoms, they are putting themselves at risk and no one else. As far as syphilis, one only needs to make skin contact to contract it, so condoms don't really factor in there, and as I said before, other STI's are just as transmitable through oral sex as anal. So unless you plan to wrap it up when you're getting or giving head, than you're taking a risk. I can say with fair amount of certainty, that the few times I've had chlamydia, I got it from oral sex, but that's not gonna make me start wearing a condom or stop having my dick sucked.

 

All we can do is manage and mitigate our risk in proportion to our preference for pleasure, and through PrEP, regular testing and communication, I am doing just that.

Some STIs are just as transmitable through oral, but not all. Unprotected anal intercourse is still riskier that unprotected oral, even if you’re on PrEP. That’s fine if you want to do it, but putting out a false equivalence isn’t all that responsible.

[+ Gar1eth]

I'm not saying Gilead would ever lie but do you honestly think Truvada as PrEP in combination with decreased condom usage is the sole explanation for an increase in STIs? If you do, then I have a retirement plan to sell to you. Only 5 easy payments of $49.95 plus shipping, handling and processing.

 

Actually yes. I’m not saying PrEP isn’t a good thing. But nothing is fully good. The idea of PrEP leads to barebackimg being more accepted in all quarters whether you are on PrEP or not.

 

Gman

[mike carey]

PrEP and condoms both provide a degree of protection against HIV, and condoms provide a level of protection against other STIs. None of them is absolute. From my perspective, people need to recognise the various levels of protection that are provided, and not condemn people for making a judgment as to what level of protection they are comfortable with.

[Rudynate]

I'm not saying Gilead would ever lie but do you honestly think Truvada as PrEP in combination with decreased condom usage is the sole explanation for an increase in STIs? If you do, then I have a retirement plan to sell to you. Only 5 easy payments of $49.95 plus shipping, handling and processing.

[TruthBTold]

Hey Lance, I like your thinking, I just have one thing to say on this point:

Not today, there are more effective ways today, but shaming has been used somewhat effectively for Barebackers and I completely understand why.

Shame is a powerful tool to change behavior, it works in many aspects of life.

If someone is known as a "shameful bareback Joe" in a community and as a result gets a lot less sex opportunities, he may try to avoid that shame and simply go with the (condom) flow, just so he can continue to be an active member of that community and not be shunned. It works on those who think the cost of using a condom is not too high, but not on everyone. But even if a few don't buy it, you still save the lives of those who feel the shame.

It is manipulative, and not nice, but if it saved even a few hundred lives, I am going to shamelessly say it was worth using shaming as a tool.

Of course the world has changed and people can make different choices today. In 50 years time, maybe people will think of HIV like we think of smallpox.

 

I guess I am one of those people that believes that relying on shame for any reason is not the way to make people adopt healthier habits. If scientific information does not help people to understand why avoiding some things or not avoiding those things then they should choose whichever they are most comfortable with. PrEP has lowered the possibility of infection and much of whether you might get an STD depends on just balancing what you know about the person you are going to make your partner. I really do not like to use shame as a psychological technique as it has been used to stop any kind of homosexual behavior much less barebacking.

[+ Lance_Navarro]

I guess I am one of those people that believes that relying on shame for any reason is not the way to make people adopt healthier habits. If scientific information does not help people to understand why avoiding some things or not avoiding those things then they should choose whichever they are most comfortable with. PrEP has lowered the possibility of infection and much of whether you might get an STD depends on just balancing what you know about the person you are going to make your partner. I really do not like to use shame as a psychological technique as it has been used to stop any kind of homosexual behavior much less barebacking.

 

How I feel exactly! Harm reduction is far more effective than preaching right and wrong and shaming people. Unfortunately, our country takes more the punishment and shaming approach, therefore it's natural that many think that's the best way.

[+ Tarte Gogo]

If scientific information does not help people to understand why avoiding some things or not avoiding those things then they should choose whichever they are most comfortable with.

Sound a lot like “let the scientifically illiterates harm themselves, it is more honest than to manipulate them”.

 

I can understand where you come from.

 

I don’t feel good at all for being in favour of shaming them into their own best-interest behaviour. But I also wouldn’t have felt good watching them die of HIV.

 

Until we only have rational thinking humans being born, we will never have a good solution to this kind of problem.

[pubic_assistance]

Bottom line: It's well documented that the increase of traditional Sexually Transmitted diseases runs directly parallel to the introduction of PreP in the gay community.

Only people who deny this are: The Drug company who MAKES Truvada, and people who really really want to defend their right to bareback with a lot of strangers.

[+ Lance_Navarro]

Bottom line: It's well documented that the increase of traditional Sexually Transmitted diseases runs directly parallel to the introduction of PreP in the gay community.

Only people who deny this are: The Drug company who MAKES Truvada, and people who really really want to defend their right to bareback with a lot of strangers.

Its worth noting that we can't state unequivocally that STI's are more common since PrEP use became more popular, all we can say is that there are more reported cases, but that's probably in large part due to the fact that people are getting tested every 3 months in order to stay on PrEP, and many of them were likely not getting tested as often prior to Truvada. I volunteer at a clinic primarily for gay men, and have seen in the last 3 years a dramatic increase in demand for our services. In other words people are getting tested more. More testing will always equate to more positive test results. No one is talking percentages here, just raw (pardon the pun) numbers.

 

Prior to HIV, there existed all of the STI's that exist today, yet few used condoms. Why could that be??? Hmmmm, let's see, CAUSE IT FEELS SO MUCH BETTER. HIV is what changed things. So, if one doesn't need to worry about HIV, it's not surprising that they would want to go natural with some or all of their sexual partners. Your statement about barebacking "with a lot of strangers" seems judgemental and presumptuous, and also, guess what, they (we) DO have the right to bareback.

[+ GregM]

Neither side is wrong and neither side is right. Do what is best for you. Do you. I give no fucks if someone dislikes what or how I do something if it doesn't affect them directly. Don't like if I wrap? No fucks. Don't like that I go raw? No fucks. Duces!

 

Hugs,

Greg

[+ sniper]

Bottom line: It's well documented that the increase of traditional Sexually Transmitted diseases runs directly parallel to the introduction of PreP in the gay community.

Only people who deny this are: The Drug company who MAKES Truvada, and people who really really want to defend their right to bareback with a lot of strangers.

 

I think they'd been increasing in general as the treatability of HIV itself in fact reduced people's fear of that. The surge in 15-24 year-olds getting stuff is just as much due to the social acceptability of men having sex with men.

I agree that PreP is a contributor, but there are several confounding variables.

1)HIV itself, the fear of which drove people to use condoms who otherwise would not have, is not longer a death sentence. One can make a case that is portrayed as easier to deal with than it actually is, further contributing to this effect.

2)Homosexuality itself and even "dabbling" when not gay is MUCH more socially acceptable, leading to many more men starting gay sex in "the stupid years" when people are on average much less likely to be prudent.

3)Hookup culture in general - many more people have multiple partners. This is a mean versus median thing. Previously of people who had multiple partners serial monogamy was the most common way in which that happened. But now lots of people have multiple "friends with benefits" they go back and forth with which is, from a population standpoint, FAR riskier. You have a group of ten people who all hook up only with each other, that's a closed circle and if nobody has anything at the start, nobody is going to get anything. You have five people who hook up with only each other, but each also hooks up with five people outside that circle behaving similarly, that's a lot more likely to result in an outbreak of STIs.

[+ sniper]

The above said, the fact something is one of several contributing factors doesn't mean it's inappropriate to ever criticize it. I see more people bitching about stigma at the slightest suggestion there is anything we could be doing differently than I see doing actual stigmatizing.

[caliguy]

Bottom line: It's well documented that the increase of traditional Sexually Transmitted diseases runs directly parallel to the introduction of PreP in the gay community.

Only people who deny this are: The Drug company who MAKES Truvada, and people who really really want to defend their right to bareback with a lot of strangers.

I may very well agree with you but I've never seen where it's been documented. Care to share any links?

[pubic_assistance]

I may very well agree with you but I've never seen where it's been documented. Care to share any links?

 

http://www.hivequal.org/homepage/study-finds-increase-in-stis-after-starting-prep

[TruthBTold]

Actually while the article seems to agree that there is some evidence that STI transmission has increased after the introduction of PrEP there may also be other factors at play. Particularly because there seem to have been an increase before the introduction.

 

"Other factors could possibly account for the increase in STI rates in this study population. For example, before PrEP became widely available, yearly surveys by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that rates of condomless anal intercourse had increased steadily among gay and bisexual men from 39% in 2001 to 60% in 2014. Given the rise in condomless anal sex before the introduction of PrEP, it is therefore likely that STI risk has been increasing in this population for over a decade.

Study authors hypothesized that the higher rate of STIs after starting PrEP may be due to “risk compensation,” in which individuals engage in higher risk sex due to the perceived protection due to PrEP. Because PrEP may be lowering men’s sexual inhibitions and leading to higher rates of STIs, this study underscores the importance of STI testing and counseling for PrEP patients every three months."

[+ Eric Hassan]

 

Shame is a powerful tool to change behavior, it works in many aspects of life.

 

 

Um, no.

[+ Tarte Gogo]

Um, no.

Sorry are you saying that shame does NOT change people’s behaviour?