Unprotected sex

spam17

**Did you ever wonder why people have unprotected sex, risking everything for brief sexual encounter (an orgasm, "little death" as the French say)?

:afr:**

koeyjai

Some people just don't care for anything, it seems.
When I chat on gayromeo, many guys want "bareback"
most of them are HIV + I think
but some claim, they have no feeling with a condom (especially CUT guys)
one went as far as saying he is positive but takes meds for years so the virus load is low.
Maybe, but prevention is better than cure. (he, no cure available for AIDS)
And I want to have a good sleep, not waiting for a test result with fear !

cannonmc

I think koeyjai puts it well

addic2porn

Not caring about using condom is risking peoples lives
but may be guys like to feel the flesh which may give them more pleasure
or may be they come in so much emotion that they just stick their dick inside

Flinxxx

I have just started reading Without Condoms: Unprotected Sex, Gay Men and Barebacking by Michael Shernoff. It is from about 10 years ago and has an academic focus, but so far it is a easy read. I am only on pg34, but he says the reasons are multiple, complex, and different for different people.

CloudStrife

@spam17:

**Did you ever wonder why people have unprotected sex, risking everything for brief sexual encounter (an orgasm, "little death" as the French say)?

:afr:**

Probably a case of impulsivity in many settings. Which may have contribution from things like drug and alcohol, during encounters. Other times, I'd say it's a case of lack of education or awareness. I knew of a 23 year old guy who was having unprotected intercourse all the time and didn't even know that he was at risk of STD's… and wasn't even clear on mode of transmission, when I asked him. This would then be followed by the occasional person who doesn't care. Alarming, the number of people I know who aren't savvy about this kind of thing.

MrMazda

From the perspective of a barebacker myself, I can say that there is more to take into account than just the risk of HIV. For example, if a person maintains an undetectable viral load, it is statistically safer to bareback with someone who is undetectable than it is to engage in sex with a condom with a partner with a high viral load. On the most part (at least for me) the sensation and the thrill that you get out of barebacking is unmatched to that of sex with a condom. While I am fully aware that there is a risk of other STI infection, the reality is that some people get a thrill out of the feeling of a hard cock dumping a load deep inside.

All that being said, it's not necessarily about risking one's life if you're educated about how you do it. Sure, I cannot deny that there is always the risk of contracting another STI, but when compared to HIV, most other STI's that you can get are quite mild by comparison. Also, having maintained an undetectable viral load for many years now, I can say with pride that I have NEVER been responsible for infecting someone else. So in short, there's more to consider than just whether the person is HIV+, as this alone is not a cut and dry factor.

cannonmc

Just curious. But if you are having sex with new partners do you tell them your status so they have an option?

MeatHook

@MrMazda:

From the perspective of a barebacker myself, I can say that there is more to take into account than just the risk of HIV. For example, if a person maintains an undetectable viral load, it is statistically safer to bareback with someone who is undetectable than it is to engage in sex with a condom with a partner with a high viral load. On the most part (at least for me) the sensation and the thrill that you get out of barebacking is unmatched to that of sex with a condom. While I am fully aware that there is a risk of other STI infection, the reality is that some people get a thrill out of the feeling of a hard cock dumping a load deep inside.

All that being said, it's not necessarily about risking one's life if you're educated about how you do it. Sure, I cannot deny that there is always the risk of contracting another STI, but when compared to HIV, most other STI's that you can get are quite mild by comparison. Also, having maintained an undetectable viral load for many years now, I can say with pride that I have NEVER been responsible for infecting someone else. So in short, there's more to consider than just whether the person is HIV+, as this alone is not a cut and dry factor.

When you say that you've never been responsible for infecting someone with HIV (I'm assuming that means you've never infected anyone with HIV), have you followed up and verified the HIV status of all partners you've had? If not, while it's true that unprotected sex with someone with an undetectable viral load is less likely to result in the transmission of the virus, it isn't a zero risk.

An undetectable load doesn't mean that the viral load is zero, and doesn't mean that virions aren't transferred to a partner.

I support your right and that of your partners to choice but broad statements such as yours that I mentioned, could easily lead people to a false sense of risks and potential consequences.

MrMazda

@cannonmc: Yes… I absolutely tell all of my sexual partners prior to sex as I am a large believer in both a person's right to choose what is right for them, as well as their right to make such a decision fully informed with all the relevant facts. This is largely because this right was taken from me when I was infected, and I was not given the chance to choose for myself what was right for me.

@MeatHook: You are correct. I have followed up with each and every last person that I have been with, and I'm quite pleased to say that not one person that I have ever been with has tested HIV+. You are also correct with respect to the risk. While it is statistically safer to bareback with a person with an undetectable viral load than it is to have sex with a condom with a partner with a high viral load, this certainly does NOT mean that it's completely impossible to contract HIV, even from a partner with an undetectable viral load. That being said however, there is not currently any scientific finding that proves that it is possible to contract HIV from an undetectable partner either, as there has not been so much as one case where infection has occurred from a partner who is undetectable. So again I will reinforce that while it is not impossible to contract it from an undetectable partner, if you were to contract it from an undetectable partner, you would be the first case where transmission has occurred, including through several more recent studies that have been conducted, trying to determine an exact risk factor of transmission with bareback sex...... So.... All that being said, make of it what you will, but in all honesty, if the person you're having unprotected sex with has an undetectable viral load, I really wouldn't be worried. If anything, I'd be more concerned with another STI such as syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, crabs, etc than I would about the risk of getting HIV from unprotected sex.

MeatHook

@MrMazda:

So again I will reinforce that while it is not impossible to contract it from an undetectable partner, if you were to contract it from an undetectable partner, you would be the first case where transmission has occurred, including through several more recent studies that have been conducted, trying to determine an exact risk factor of transmission with bareback sex…... So.... All that being said, make of it what you will, but in all honesty, if the person you're having unprotected sex with has an undetectable viral load, I really wouldn't be worried. If anything, I'd be more concerned with another STI such as syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, crabs, etc than I would about the risk of getting HIV from unprotected sex.

I agree with most of what you've said, including the statement that STDs other than HIV are likely to be more of a concern.

You're falling into a common pitfall when interpreting the results of studies however. The simple scientific axiom 'Absence of proof is no proof of absence", applies here. Your statement that if you were to contract HIV from someone with an undetectable viral load, it would be the first case where this had occurred, is not supported by the evidence. You may well be the first recorded case; you may well be the first case where such a lil was proven, but the evidence from any non-exhaustive study can only ever push the estimate of probability downwards: That estimate can never reach zero.

It may sound like I'm nitpicking and there's a good case for saying that's true, but the perfectly understandable misinterpretation of research results does lead people to unsupported conclusions and that's potentially a slippery slope.

Bottom line on this. Unprotected sex with someone with an undetectable viral load is unlikely to result in the transmission of HIV. The true probability is not and can never be known no matter how many studies are carried out. All that can happen is our confidence in a low probability, which potentially can be moved closer to zero with further studies, can be increased.

Anyone saying the probability is zero, or that transmission has never occurred in this way, may be correct, but it's a guess that isn't backed up by the facts.

MeatHook

Correction. In the last paragraph of my last post, the word 'facts' should be replaced by the word 'evidence'.

MrMazda

I'm not sure that I entirely follow your point there. What I was getting at is that there is no scientific evidence that concretely proves whether or not it is actually possible to contract HIV from a partner who has an undetectable viral load. This isn't to say that it's not possible to contract it, however it certainly does suggest that it's not very likely. Could you clarify a little more what exactly you're getting at?

MeatHook

Yup, it's quite simple. Your statement…

there is not currently any scientific finding that proves that it is possible to contract HIV from an undetectable partner

is what relates to the axion that absence of proof is not proof of absence. While perhaps true, it does not support the statement that

if you were to contract it from an undetectable partner, you would be the first case where transmission has occurred

It may be supportable to say that it has never been demonstrated to have occurred, but it doesn't support a conclusion that it has never occurred.

At this point, we've lost any possibility of ever determining that transmission has never occurred - we will never be able to make that determination. All we can do, and what may well have been done, is to calculate an estimate of the probability of transmission, from a statistically significant sample of study subjects, which approaches zero. It'll always be an estimate and can never be demonstrated as being zero.

All the studies that could ever be carried out can only ever increase the confidence of that estimate. They can never determine the probability absolutely.

What does this mean in real terms? It's a matter of accuracy of statement. You're clearly responsible in your approach to your HIV and your communication with your partners. What I seek to do is to clarify what statements can be supported by data derived from studies. It's incredibly easy to misinterpret scientific results; I seek only to make sure that the statements are supported by the evidence.

MrMazda

Now I see more clearly what you're getting at… Perhaps I should have been more clear about what I was getting at.

I will concede that out in public to the masses, it is not always possible to determine the source target of infection. In the majority of cases, when a new infection occurs, it is usually either known or reasonably suspected where the source infection originated (on the most part, but not in all cases). As for the studies themselves, when a new infection occurred, in every case a genotype test was run to determine whether or not the infection was passed on from the partner with an undetectable viral load. In each of these cases, it cold be scientifically concluded that the source of the infection most definitely was NOT the partner with an undetectable viral load.

In the masses on the other hand, it is not always possible to do this type of testing and match the samples back to the originating source. So yes... You are correct in that while there is no documentation that transmission has occurred from a partner who is undetectable, this does not necessarily mean that it has not. Based on the findings of these studies however, it is highly unlikely that (although not impossible) that transmission has occrred from a partner who is undetectable. This of course brings me back to the original point that there is no documented evidence that says that it isn't possible to contract HIV from a partner with an undetectable viral load. By the same token, there is no evidence that suggests that it is possible either, as there has never been a documented case where infection has occurred, and thus proving conclusively that it is possible either.

I guess what it boils down to here is that while there is no conclusive evidence either way, from the evidence that has been presented from the studies, it certainly would suggest that it's realistically possible that if you have an undetectable viral load, you cannot pass the virus onto another individual through sexual activity. Again, the key word that I'm stressing here is possible as there is no scientific documentation that concretely proves that it is impossible to contract HIV from an undetectable partner. Attempts at acquiring evidence that it is possible to contract HIV from an undetectable partner however have all turned up empty handed, as each attempt has failed to provide a causal link that traces back to the undetectable partner. Based on the evidence that does exist however, statistically speaking, it's actually safer to bareback with someone who maintains a undetectable viral load than it is to have sex with a condom with a partner with a high viral load. While on that topic, let's not mislead that statistic either… When used properly, condoms are an effective method in which to prevent the transmission of HIV, even with a high viral load. Speaking solely on the statistics from the scientific documentation that does exist, it's safe to say that at the very least, it's more unlikely to contract HIV from a partner with an undetectable viral load than to contract HIV from a partner with a high viral load when a condom is properly used. By the same token, it's also not very likely to contract HIV from a partner with a high viral load when a condom is used properly as well.

@MeatHook: I actually want to thank you for bringing up that point of technicality. It's always nice to see when someone can debate with facts, as to provoke an intellectually stimulating conversation.