BB now ok on forum

[+ José Soplanucas]

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

 

I dont think so. What he is saying is that electroshock and torture can also change people behavior, however I hope you do not recommend them. Same with shame.

[+ Tarte Gogo]

I dont think so. What he is saying is that electroshock and torture can also change people behavior, however I hope you do not recommend them. Same with shame.

Fair enough, see my comments above, then, where I claim shame saved some lives, but I acknowledge that maybe death by HIV was preferable to being manipulated.

[Rudynate]

Fair enough, see my comments above, then, where I claim shame saved some lives, but I acknowledge that maybe death by HIV was preferable to being manipulated.

 

 

I don't think so. Early in the epidemic, the safer sex guidelines were draconian. In sex clubs, guys would stand several feet apart and beat off without touching or kissing. It wasn't shame that caused them to do that. It was abject fear. Part of the reason for the extreme guidelines was that the health care establishment didn't know what they were dealing with. There was also a feeling, though, that another agenda was also driving the guidelines, getting gay men to stop doing all those things that straight folks found so distasteful. Early on, much of AIDS policy was driven by these mixed agendas. Eventually, they realized that saving lives was the priority rather than getting gay men to stop having fun.

[TruthBTold]

Fair enough, see my comments above, then, where I claim shame saved some lives, but I acknowledge that maybe death by HIV was preferable to being manipulated.

 

No but I do not think that is what I (or others perhaps) am saying. I think that while shaming may stop some people from doing a particular behavior it will not do so for very long or ironically may have them participate in even more dangerous behavior. Moreover, if guys get the shaming message, they will also receive a societal message that participating in anal intercourse without a condom puts you at a certain scientific (approx. 6% or below) risk of being exposed to the HIV virus. If you do anything with partners that you do not know do not have STDs put you at some risk of acquiring an STD. I want them to make the choice based on the societal scientific message not the message that you are "shameful" if you decide to take the risk based on science.

Edited May 10, 2018 by TruthBTold

[+ Eric Hassan]

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

 

Not exactly. To say that shame changes behaviour is incomplete and simplistic; a more accurate response would have been "not really, and you're missing the point."

 

Shame never comes by itself - it's accompanied by guilt and fear - and thus, the change that ostensibly occurs because of shame is guaranteed to be accompanied by something just as ugly. That's the point I referred to above: shame does not really change behaviour, and if the point is to change behaviour towards something more healthy, and you end up dosing your victim with a shitload of fear and guilt, haven't you just solved one problem and created another?

 

Your assertion is incomplete and simplistic because it ignores other factors. For example, someone might choose to use condoms more often because they've heard the statements shaming barebackers AND they don't have insurance anymore to cover the cost of PrEP AND they've got a new partner that insists on condoms. Shame never works alone because it involves at least 2 people. That means someone has to do the shaming and someone else has to acknowledge it and choose how they will respond. When you are shamed, you compare the information with what you think about yourself, how credible the person shaming is to you, previous experiences, something your mother once said, etc. Just like shame comes with a whole host of ugly friends, the experience of shaming (for BOTH parties) is rich with "other stuff."

 

Also, the whole trope of someone being told not to do something and then doing it anyway exists for a reason. That's the kind of personality I have - shame me about something, and I want to do it more. In your face, if I can. Shame doesn't work on people like me.

 

Here's what we can agree on: shame works, and for some, it can create (some) healthy change. I don't mean to invalidate your point or your experience. I think there are more kind and loving approaches for evoking change. I also think, at the end of the day, we need to let people make their own choices, even when we don't like them.

 

I hope this helps clarify my answer.

[Vistas]

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.

 

Nah, it doesn't. The rise in STI rates happened before PrEP. And there aren't enough people on PrEP in North America or Europe to further drive them. And while there data on an increase in risk compensation, the data also shows that the more people on PrEP and tested and treated for STIs, the greater the reduction in overall STI rates will be, PrEP population or not, risk compensation or not.

 

PrEP and TasP have been instrumental in reducing new HIV infections. We've seen drops in the past two years. That hasn't happened in decades.

 

After 30 years of fear mongering and shaming, I'd like to think people would realize that moralizing over people having sex without condoms doesn't do much to prevent HIV infections or to reduce STI rates -- testing and treatment do. This is a medical issue, not a moral one.

[muscmtl]

Shame only works if the shamer has worth to you. Anyone who tries shaming me immediately turns into an underevolved insect, that I won't even step on because "ewww..."

 

Best life lesson: those who care, I don't care; those who don't care, I care. I have "anything goes" on default when on RM because since they don't care, I care (telling that you're on prep is a big turn off.)

 

The world didn't end with the disappearance of CL or Backpage, but long before, when bbrt took down it's escort section.

 

Steve

[+ José Soplanucas]

After 30 years of fear mongering and shaming, I'd like to think people would realize that moralizing over people having sex without condoms doesn't do much to prevent HIV infections or to reduce STI rates -- testing and treatment do. This is a medical issue, not a moral one.

 

Bravo. The only purpose of shaming and fear mongering is making the preacher feel good by putting others down.

[pubic_assistance]

I love how the PreP fans consistently ignore data and focus solely on HIV infection rates. Bottom line....traditional STI infection rate increase parallels the, growth in use of PreP at similar rates and similar dates... An elementary school education allows you to see the correlation. So those who deny it have their head DEEP in the sands of barebacking addiction.

[+ José Soplanucas]

I love how the PreP fans consistently ignore data and focus solely on HIV infection rates. Bottom line....traditional STI infection rate increase parallels the, growth in use of PreP at similar rates and similar dates... An elementary school education allows you to see the correlation. So those who deny it have their head DEEP in the sands of barebacking addiction.

 

Ha! I am not a bb fundamentalist although I do it everytime I can. I do not see such a correlation for the reasons at least two posters here in this thread already shared.

You seem to be deep in denial but unlike you I will not attempt the futil excercise of interpreting your obvious needs.

[pubic_assistance]

Seems that some bareback fans can't READ: "Gay and bisexual men taking PrEP are 72% more likely to acquire a sexually transmitted infection (STI) than they were before starting PrEP according to study data released last month in the journal AIDS."

[Rudynate]

 

(telling that you're on prep is a big turn off.)

 

[/QUOTe]

 

 

You're more interested in bug chasers?

[+ Eric Hassan]

Seems that some bareback fans can't READ: "Gay and bisexual men taking PrEP are 72% more likely to acquire a sexually transmitted infection (STI) than they were before starting PrEP according to study data released last month in the journal AIDS."

 

Even the researchers acknowledge this might be a multi-factorial issue and not solely related to PrEP. Remember that correlation does not necessarily indicate causation.

[MikeBiDude]

Seems that some bareback fans can't READ: "Gay and bisexual men taking PrEP are 72% more likely to acquire a sexually transmitted infection (STI) than they were before starting PrEP according to study data released last month in the journal AIDS."

I think we can all “READ” but I also think there are a lot of us who don’t immediately decide everything presented to us is fact. Data should be reviewed, discussed, questioned. It’s easy to grab a quote from an article that supports out position...harder to really form a real empirical opinion ourselves.

 

And FYI my comments are not directed only to this topic/issue.

Edited May 10, 2018 by MikeBiDude

[+ sniper]

The effect of PreP isn't just limited to the people who use it, because they aren't only barebacking with each other. If HIV is one's only concern, even if they themselves aren't on PreP, they would likely be willing to bareback with a person they knew was on it.

[MisterMike]

Does anyone ask to see the bottle when relying on the other person taking PREP? I mean...

 

[Rudynate]

Does anyone ask to see the bottle when relying on the other person taking PREP? I mean...

 

[/QUOte]

 

Why is that necessary? If one person in a pair is on PreP, he know he's on PreP. He doesnt need to trust that the other guy who says he's on PrEP is telling the truth. It only becomes an issue if somebody is negative not on PrEP and wants to bareback with a guy who says he's on PreP.

[+ José Soplanucas]

Why is that necessary? If one person in a pair is on PreP, he know he's on PreP. He doesnt need to trust that the other guy who says he's on PrEP is telling the truth. It only becomes an issue if somebody is negative not on PrEP and wants to bareback with a guy who says he's on PreP.

 

Was he serious? I thought he was making an ad absurdum joke.

[Vistas]

I love how the PreP fans consistently ignore data and focus solely on HIV infection rates. Bottom line....traditional STI infection rate increase parallels the, growth in use of PreP at similar rates and similar dates... An elementary school education allows you to see the correlation. So those who deny it have their head DEEP in the sands of barebacking addiction.

 

Again, you are wrong. STI rates rose before PrEP was introduced. It doesn't track with the introduction of PrEP. There are not enough PrEP users here or abroad to push the rates statistically higher.

 

Note, one study did show an increase over baseline. Others showed no change, mixed, rises, and reduction. Off the top of my head, there's five studies that have looked at this. All have returned different results.

 

Still, as PrEP users are tested more often than most MSM, regardless of increase or decrease in infections in that particular population over baseline, treatment removes forward infection vectors. Jenness's paper noted that even with RC, this treatment will lower overall STI rates -- provided enough people are on PrEP. Enough people aren't on PrEP.

 

So you don't know what you are talking about. You are just looking to shame. On a board about escorting, as either a companion or consumer, you have no grounds to pass yourself off as "superior."

Edited May 10, 2018 by Vistas

[Rudynate]

Was he serious? I thought he was making an ad absurdum joke.[/QUOTe]

 

Maybe. I thought he was serious.

[+ José Soplanucas]

Again, you are wrong. STI rates rose before PrEP was introduced. It doesn't track with the introduction of PrEP. There are not enough PrEP users here or abroad to push the rates statistically higher.

 

Note, one study did show an increase over baseline. Others showed no change, mixed, rises, and reduction. Off the top of my head, there's five studies that have looked at this. All have returned different results.

 

Still, as PrEP users are tested more often than most MSM, regardless of increase or decrease in infections in that particular population over baseline, treatment removes forward infection vectors. Jenness's paper noted that even with RC, this treatment will lower overall STI rates -- provided enough people are on PrEP. Enough people aren't on PrEP.

 

So you don't know what you are talking about. You are just looking to shame. On a board about escorting, as either a companion or consumer, you have no grounds to pass yourself off as "superior."

 

Shhhh, he can only READ what matches his long lasting prejudices.

[Vistas]

Shhhh, he can only READ what matches his long lasting prejudices.

 

It's people with attitudes like his that keep HIV stigma and infection rates high and STI testing and treatment rates low.

[+ José Soplanucas]

It's people with attitudes like his that keep HIV stigma and infection rates high and STI testing and treatment rates low.

 

Agreed. But let's make clear that is mostly not mean intentioned people, their attitude does not come out out of hatred but out of fear. The epidemic was terrifying and has left us deeply branded.

[+ GregM]

Show me the data and I will decide from there. Once someone starts to shame me for doing something between consenting adults they will be shown the door and it might not be in a nice way. Shaming shows ones lack of manners and tact. If you have to shame someone, buh bye.

 

Hugs,

Greg

[Vistas]

Agreed. But let's make clear that is mostly not mean intentioned people, their attitude does not come out out of hatred but out of fear. The epidemic was terrifying and has left us deeply branded.

 

I somewhat agree with that. There is a great deal of fear around STIs and that's mostly do to equating every STI with the deadliness of HIV. Still, there's another level of moral hypocrisy at work. I've only met a very few people screaming about STIs who use condoms for oral, gloves for hand jobs, and dental-dams for kissing or licking ass. It just strikes me it's about feeling superior, not actively promoting risk reduction.