Short Form

Writing these few posts has helped me to think through some things about poz/neg sex and UB2 attitudes.   

The short form is this:  HIV is with us, and infection rates are climbing in the gay community.  Any realistic effort to stay negative is a very good thing.

If you're negative, having multiple partners, meeting men on line, and less than 100% safe, you are already taking bigger risks than safer sex with a known positive guy who's on medications.  Keep that in perspective.  After all, when we talk about relative risks of a sex act, 1:200, 1:20,000, or whatever, it isn't just the act, but the frequency of the action that are in play.  

If you're meeting lots of men on the net  (And "lots" does not mean "a couple of times a week, but less than my REALLY pig friend does."), you are at risk.  In short, if the  main focus of your self-protection plan is "UB2," you'll be changing teams, in the near future.  In the October issue of Journal of AIDS, there is a new article clearly showing this.  Men who stick with UB2s, but who have unprotected sex, are serocoverting rapidly.

I understand anxieties about sex with poz guys, and I respect it.  I'd be less than honest if I didn't say I was more comfortable with pozzers than negs.     Just be clear, and respectful, and please stay safe.

Read the rest of my posts, if you like, and leave me a note-

Oh, and please, don't refer to your negative status as "clean."  I may have some antibodies, but I bathe, regularly.  Kind of disgusting to refer to us as somehow, "dirty."

JB

Logic and Fear

If you've ever watched a cat try to cross a street, you're seeing a monumental failure of evolutionary adaptation and real world risks.  Cats come to the edge of the street, crouch low, and scurry across, avoiding large pouncing predators and diving hawks.   Of course, in a world where slow moving Toyotas is the biggest "predator" to avoid, looking both ways and carefully crossing would be more adaptive.   Maybe in a few million years.

On the same theme, every Spring and Fall, the Discovery Channel regales us with "Shark Week."  People all over the world are terrified of sharks, and watch in awe of monsters, including people living in Kansas, Manitoba, Paraguay, and probably Mongolia, where shark attack is about as realistic a fear as being burned by a fire-breathing dragon.

Still, like our feline friends, we are programmed to be afraid of predators, snakes, and disease.  It is adaptive behavior to be afraid of illness, some types are contagious, and best avoided.

So, when someone is afraid of the spectre of HIV, it is instinctive, and can be part of an effective program of avoiding infection.   Avoiding infection is a very good thing, and I'm all in favor.

Now, that question of relative risk.   While you may slightly reduce risk by avoiding even safer sex with an HIV infected partner who is undetectable with HAART, you may be taking far bigger risks, if you are having unsafe sex with men who claim to be negative.    Unsafe sex between "negatives" is a very dangerous act, as the recently infected are the most dangerous, and the least likely to be aware.   If meth is involved, well, no need to say more.

I'm not urging anyone to have sex in any situation that makes them uncomfortable.  I am suggesting that you do really effective things to reduce the risk of infection.  Reduce your number of sexual partners, avoid intoxication with sex, and use a condom, every time.

Otherwise, your UB2 thing is not effective protection.  And it will come back to bite you.

An important article about HIV tranmission

Hey guys,

Please take a moment to read, "Driving Forces of Increasing HIV Transmission in German MSN" on the NATAP web site, by Marcus, U, Schmidt AJ, Hamouda O.  

It clearly states how "serosorting," the practice of UB2 negs only seeking each other, is contributing to the rise of new HIV infections.

If you're negative, safer sex, every time, no matter what you think the other guy's status is!