Filed under: 
I thoroughly enjoy the V8 commercials where an individual ignores their vegetables, or doesn’t order any and then they get hit up-side the head. Basically, the commercial says how stupid you are to not eat your vegetables, although at the same time, it’s suggesting to just drink them in a sodium overloaded drink instead of eating the real thing. I feel the same way about people who have unprotected sex, I want to hit them up-side the head and ask them how stupid they are.
I do not feel this way about people who are in committed, monogamous relationships, who trust their partners and have been together for a long enough period of time. It is when people just don’t think, or don’t know the facts. There are many scenarios here, but I just want to point out some things that I feel should be obvious and should be taken into consideration. I want to be clear that I’m only really going to talk about penetration here as sex, because engaging in most types of sex run the risk of the contraction of HIV, but none as high as intercourse (for the top and the bottom, yes there’s a higher risk for the bottom, but it’s still pretty high for the top).
When you start a new relationship with someone, you don’t know their sexual history. People obviously have different levels of honesty, but when you’re starting a new relationship, you may be too embarrassed, or not want to admit that you were sleeping with someone else up till now. So if you trust the person and have stated that you are going to be monogamous, wait 3-6 months and get tested together. Different tests can reveal if you are HIV+ at earlier times. Last time I read about it, 3 months was the fastest way to be fairly certain with a particular test that you are negative. Getting tested together isn’t necessary, but I have heard horror stories of people finding ways to cheat the system and give false results to their partner. Obviously trust is huge when it comes to this subject, as any cheating can change everything about your status.
If you are hooking up with someone randomly, unprotected sex should not be an option. You have no idea if the person has any STI’s and have no basis to trust their word. It should just plain not be an option. I have never been so drunk that protection doesn’t cross my mind and trust me, I have gotten real drunk on many occasions.
If you sleep with someone on and off, who knows what they are doing when you are not with them. Just be safe. If you exit a long term relationship with someone where you were having unprotected sex, I wouldn’t suggest having unprotected sex afterward. Both of you are trying to move on, and many seem to go through slutty phases at this time, so I hear, you just don’t know who your ex is sleeping with now. Be safe.
I am shocked to see how much bareback porn is out there these days. I wonder if most the people are doing this porn are positive, or just don’t know the facts. Even if these people are being tested and show results that say they are negative, who knows if they contracted something the day before the shoot and it wont show up on a test yet. Not everything is known about HIV, maybe you can pass it to another person before you show as positive.
Let me be clear, I don’t want to put down anyone. I just want people to be informed and to be safe. You don’t want to be sick. There are some out there that do, but that’s another topic of discussion and generally I feel those people aren’t educated with the facts. If you are positive, I’m sure you wouldn’t wish it upon anyone else.
So think before you act, please.
-
Related Stories:
- Are You Open or Closed?”
- SEX!! Okay, Now That I Have Your Attention…”
- Domestic Violence in Gay Relationships
- Tags: bareback, condom, hiv, homo dave, relationships, st monogamous, sti
Loading ...
hot open couple in weho
June 27th, 2009 at 3:35 am
would love to bareback now.
anonymous
June 29th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Typical ignorant fear-mongering .
Many are barebacking, and not getting HIV or instantly falling over dead. Technically, your parents barebacked in order to make you. Doesn’t mean they still didn’t have an STI at the time from previous escapades…
Although I agree with your comments regarding common-sense sexual safety, and I understand you mean well, I still think you’re spreading ignorance and HIV-phobia with this article.
For one, HIV is a challenge and unwanted; but with current medications, quite liveable. Many with HIV, on treatment, are actually living longer and healthier lives than others without HIV. Better for everyone to not get it, of course! But not such a terrible curse as it used to be….and possible cures are on the horizon so there’s hope (http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/features/viewpoints/story.html?id=8e49e702-0ede-433d-a22f-f900719024a6).
Studies show that those HIV-positive people who maintain undetectable levels of virus in their bloodstream with medications are essentially non-infectious (http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/4E9D555B-18FB-4D56-B912-2C28AFCCD36B.asp). So really, it’s probably safer to have a well-medicated HIV-positive guy bareback you than your untested “negative” boyfriend if you’re going to bareback. As a positive guy who’s been in long-term sexually-active relationships with negative guys who’ve remained negative, I can tell you that the fear-mongering is unnecessary. And yes, there was some (relatively rare) consensual barebacking involved…
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems as if new infections are occurring from: continuing transmission among the IDU crowd, and/or unprotected sex among those ignorant of their serostatus who refuse to get tested regularly or treated, and/or among those engaging in orgiastic rougher-sex escapades usually concurrent with immune-damaging meth use. I don’t think HIV transmission is very likely otherwise.
You said, “engaging in most types of sex run the risk of the contraction of HIV, but none as high as intercourse”. The risk may be there; but the risk of getting struck by lightning may be much higher – people need to learn more about “risk”, I think. That last Starbucks frapp you had may have shortened your life much, much more than your last blowjob.
Besides possible HIV infection, remember that problems with bareback sex might also include transmission of: herpes, hepatitis viruses (especially B&C), syphilis, gonorrhea, HPV (warts)… Unfortunately (and unnecessarily), these STI’s are still very common. These can also be problematic and even more debilitating in some cases; but there are treatments.
Look, every sexually active person should make regular visits to their doctor or a clinic to get tested, and treated if necessary – no ifs, ands, or buts! And no shame. Infections in the community can be more easily controlled and the risks minimized if everyone’s up front about it. Much of the problems we have are due to unnecessary ignorance, fear and shame regarding sex, STI’s, and homosexuality. So a regular trip to the clinic should be as casual and necessary as brushing your teeth. “Epidemiological studies suggest that individuals with undiagnosed HIV infection are a major driver of the continued spread of the infection” (http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/14A26A82-681B-4752-AC8E-C16B8D1D836A.asp).
People bareback because it’s taboo and risky, and risk is always interesting to a certain portion of society. Sometimes the risk-takers get hurt: skydiving, wheeling and dealing on Wall St before a mortgage crisis, frat-boy drinking games, flying to the moon, etc. It’s human nature, and what’s kept the human race going, the liberals mixed with the conservatives. You can try to “hit them up-side the head”; but don’t expect much from “Type A” personalities – their genes aren’t coding common-sense. Better to understand that barebacking will occur, and to minimize the risks to society as best as possible.
Jared
June 29th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Anonymous, I don’t think you’re getting the point. Taking control of your sexual and overall health is where Dave is getting at. It has nothing to do with fearmongering whatsoever. If you can take a preventative step to ensure your safety then why not do it? Why not spare yourself the pain and worry of any STI? Why would you want to subject yourself to medication and worry about your health if you contract HIV, even if there are treatments that help you live longer? The article is talking about prevention. If everyone thought before they acted sexually, we could all contribute to a lower rate of STI and HIV contractions, plain and simple.
You talk about people taking risks such as sky diving. Last I checked, you skydive WITH a parachute to prevent falling to your death. Flying to the moon takes millions of dollars in development and equipment to keep a person as safe as possible. Also, having been conceived does NOT mean your parents barebacked… Have you ever heard of condoms BREAKING?
Your comments only seem to condone the transmission of STI’s just because there happen to be treatments out there to cure them, or just because other people are doing it. Dave’s post isn’t saying “abolish barebacking.” It’s telling people to be careful and to take responsibility for their own health.
anonymous
June 30th, 2009 at 10:33 am
No, if you’d read what I said, Jared, you’d see that I agree with Dave’s preventative approach – I don’t condone the transmission of STI’s. What I take issue with is Dave’s youthful naivety – i.e. that we humans don’t take unwise risks sometimes – and with his statements on how easy it is to contract HIV.
For one thing, the “always wear a condom” campaign has been proven now not to work. STI’s have increased, which means that there are many reasons, some very irrational, why people don’t wear condoms. There are many reasons why people don’t “take control of their sexual and overall health”, so banging them upside the head is a waste of time. A different approach than platitudes is what’s needed, with a more thorough understanding of why people act the way they do. STI transmission issues are related to low self-esteem issues, negotiation of power in relationships (fleeting or long-term), communication difficulties, and other reasons including a natural biological drive in some people to take risks. People should “take responsibility” for many things – but they often don’t.
We also have to acknowledge that the innate promiscuity of the gay community (and increasingly, everyone else) naturally increases the probability of STI transmission, even by accident. Calling people “stupid” is a sure way to turn off your intended audience. A more comprehensive approach to community treatment of STI’s is now found to be necessary, including encouraging people to make better use of available STI treatment and prevention resources, like clinics.
And like I noted extensively, Dave’s “facts” regarding HIV transmission are ill-informed and promote unnecessary HIV-phobia, a continuing social problem in the gay community. There are now campaigns out there intended to combat just this stigma. Yes, there’s much unknown about HIV; there’s also much that IS known now. Dave makes it sound like HIV is so easy to catch, which is contrary to the evidence, and the numerous sero-discordant partners freely engaging in sex.
BTW, I think most would agree with me that skydiving is a risk-taking activity, a pursuit many would never do even with the included parachute. As is a journey to the moon. People who engage in these activities acknowledge the risks (e.g. your shuttle exploding at launch), yet do them anyway, and either sign waivers or are paid quite well to offset the risk somewhat. My comment regarding heterosexual intercourse is that STI’s are often spread in that more socially acceptable “bareback” act, even during conception.
We don’t disagree on it being a good thing for people to protect themselves from STI’s. I’m saying to acknowledge that STI transmission is inevitable one way or another in the community, and to take more comprehensive steps to minimize their impact…and to not use fear or guilt or scorn as motivators as Dave’s innocently doing. And, as STI’s are so common, if you do happen to get an STI, acknowledge it for what it is, get tested and treated, advocate for more treatments or cures, protect others – it shouldn’t be labeled an additional source of shame in the gay community.
Dave
July 6th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
My article was about bareback sex and not about life risks. What in my article was actually spreading ignorance or HIV-phobia? I think it’s fair to say that having unprotected sex with someone of an unknown status is risky. Last time I checked, unprotected sex causes the highest rate of HIV transmission.
I don’t feel that what I have said is naive at all. The possible cures that are on the horizon are years away from production. Even if one is discovered it takes years for medical trials to be complete. I think we’ve been hearing about cures for cancer for a long time and we still don’t have one. It doesn’t mean it wont happen, but if you can prevent yourself from needing a cure, then that’s the logical approach to take.
I also don’t state that it is easy to contract HIV, but you cannot deny that an easy way to prevent it is by using protection.
I don’t understand what “facts” I have been ill-informed of. The only fact I talk about is that having protected sex is the best way to avoid STI’s and that bareback sex is the opposite of this. The point of this article was to use protection to avoid that risk as it is one that is possible.