The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Undetectable Hiv positive question.

Saybrooke

Saybrooke

Marty
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Posts
2,222
Reaction score
4
Points
38
I was talking to this guy earlier who said he wanted me to breed him. I don't do that with guys I don't trust anyways so I obviously said no. But he mentioned that he was undetectable pozitive and that it was safe. Still a no, but I've realized I've heard that term a lot and I really don't know what it means.

Is having unprotected sex with someone who's undetectable really safe? Does it make a difference who's on top and who's bottom?
 
The early 2014 surveillance reports from the CDC are already showing significant increases in STDs and in particular, drug-resistant gonorrhea in men who have sex with men. Trust no one, always use a condom without exception for HIV is but one of the several sexually transmittable infections on the loose.

http://www.aidsmeds.com/articles/1667_28033.shtml
 
Oh totally. When I say I need to trust someone first, I mean I've been in a long term monogamous relationship with them. I'm just not totally sure what that means.
 
Saybrooke said:
I was talking to this guy earlier who said he wanted me to breed him. I don't do that with guys I don't trust anyways so I obviously said no. But he mentioned that he was undetectable pozitive and that it was safe. Still a no, but I've realized I've heard that term a lot and I really don't know what it means.

Is having unprotected sex with someone who's undetectable really safe? Does it make a difference who's on top and who's bottom?
Click to expand...

When anyone says that, RUN LIKE THE PLAGUE.

He's basically saying that supposedly there is a low amount of virus cells in his bloodstream but in reality, it's based off the last blood test he took. That number fluctuates so he doesn't know how much is in his bloodstream. The idea is that a low amount of virus in his system means that the chances of catching it arent high but you can still get it regardless.

The fact that he wanted to have unprotected sex with him knowing that he has the virus shows that he has a complete disregard for others. He probably wanted to get you infected.
 
Hiv positive is just that, positive.
It doesn't matter if it is undetectable but still positive.
 
What HIV undetectable means is that there aren't enough viral particles in the blood to be adequately quantified by the instrument used to measure le viral load. There still can be a minute amount of virus in the bloodstream or there might be no virus at all. If the individual has been undetectable for 6 months or more, the risk of transmission is almost nil. To my knowledge, there have been no reports of new infections in couples where one partner is HIV and has been undetectable for 6 months or more. The risk of HIV transmission on these cases is therefore extremely low.
That being said, the risk of getting other STIs (chlamydia, gonorrhoea, syphilis) without a condom is very high. And, if I’m not mistaken, STIs in homosexual men are on the rise.
 
Saybrooke said:
...But he mentioned that he was undetectable pozitive and that it was safe. Still a no, but I've realized I've heard that term a lot and I really don't know what it means.
hyperion said:
What HIV undetectable means is that there aren't enough viral particles in the blood to be adequately quantified by the instrument used to measure le viral load. There still can be a minute amount of virus in the bloodstream or there might be no virus at all.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I added the highlight to the above correct explanation to emphasize what the term "undectable" and "low viral load" actually represents.

In short, this guy has HIV. However he is probably on meds that suppress the virus from replicating. The tests for viral load (which is a measure of how many viral particles are found in the serum of a blood sample) was intended to measure how effective the drugs are. The test was never intended to say whether the person could infect someone else.

Saybrooke said:
...Is having unprotected sex with someone who's undetectable really safe? Does it make a difference who's on top and who's bottom?
Click to expand...
Having sex without a condom is never safe.

In terms of HIV infection, it's about body fluids. If you're not being exposed to body fluids (especially semen), you're at lower risk than the person who is being exposed. Getting cum pumped into your ass is about as risky as it gets. For the person providing the cum, the risk is lower.

In terms of other sexually-transmitted infections, both known and unknown including hepatitis and the antibiotic-resistant STIs that are increasing in men who have sex with men, it's still about the condom. Both the top and the bottom are at risk of contracting STIs when a condom isn't used.

Being pragmatic... the question of HIV and low viral load is a red herring. This guy is making a request of you that you are uncomfortable about. That discomfort is that little voice in your head that is saying, "Uh, this is probably a bad idea". Listen to the voice.

If you want to fuck him, fuck him with a condom. You're responsible for your own health.
 
There are quite a few studies that have shown that undetectable men don't transmit the virus. That said... Do you trust that he IS undetectable? You willing to risk that?
 
Soilwork said:
There are quite a few studies that have shown that undetectable men don't transmit the virus.
Click to expand...

Apologies for a sidebar/semi-hijack.

What seldom gets mentioned is that the original studies that were done looked at heterosexual couples where one person was HIV+ and the other person was HIV- (discordance). These couples have a dilemma when they want to have children because there's no means to remove HIV from semen and logically, semen is needed to conceive a child. What the studies have found is that it is possible for an HIV+ man with a low viral load to have unprotected sex with his female partner without transmitting HIV to the woman or the fetus.

The press covered a lot of original studies without mentioning that the couples that were studied were male-female couples. They also didn't mention that the studies were observational studies of people in SubSaharan Africa. Studies that didn't show positive results (like FEM-PrEP) didn't get as much coverage.

Recently, there have been studies that have focused more on men who have sex with men (MSM). Those studies have been promising but that are still largely observational studies.

The studies, for those who are interested in such stuff are:
Partners PrEP - heterosexuals in Kenya and Uganda
TDF2 - heterosexuals in Botswana
Fem-PrEP - heterosexuals in SubSaharan Africa
VOICE - heterosexuals in SubSaharan Africa
Bangkok Tenofovir Study - IV drug users in Thailand
iPrEx study - MSM in Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, South Africa, Thailand and the United States
PROUD - MSM in the UK
IPERGAY - MSM in France and Canada

There are some more recent studies that are smaller. Many of these can be found on the HTPN, BetaBlog or AIDSMap sites.
 
Yes, that's the other thing... at the moment, "studies show" that. Studies have shown many things that eventually turn out to be incorrect.

There's this study...http://www.aidsmap.com/The-PARTNER-study/page/2407924/

"The main news is that in PARTNER so far there have been no transmissions within couples from a partner with an undetectable viral load, in what was estimated as 16,400 occasions of sex in the gay men and 28,000 in the heterosexuals."

Again... don't believe that "I'm undetectable and therefore you can let me cum in your butt and you can't catch anything" is a "factual" statement.
 
On a related note, this week there was a presentation at an HIV conference (CROI) this week on a confirmed case where a patient has contracted drug-resistant HIV while on PrEP:

Researchers have for the first time documented a case of an individual contracting HIV, a multi-drug resistant strain, while apparently adhering well to the daily regimen of Truvada (tenofovir/emtricitabine) as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). The scientists concluded that it is indeed possible for individuals who are adherent to PrEP to contract HIV when they are exposed to a virus that is resistant to both drugs included in Truvada.
Click to expand...
- source
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top