Apologies for the intrusion onto your peaceful board, but i have

>>6745738
The threat is still just as real, we're just more aware of it now and [the not retarded ones] can take precautions.
HIV got so big because no one really knew where it was coming from, so everyone barebaked and shit and no one was tested.

>>6745738
its a big deal.
>an agency used grindr to distribute home HIV tests to gay men on LA. Of the 67 people that reported their results 2 learned that they had hiv.
So its still very common statistically.

precautions are much better. condoms obviously. always use condoms. Getting tested is FREE! its free to get tested. go get tested for free. go get tested with your boyfriend both for free! people also can use prep if they really want to have unsafe sex.

it seems like the youth takes it more seriouly than older gay community. GL getting a twink to bareback, not happening with them. but i was in san fran for folsom and at bay of pigs people were barebacking rando's in the club it was scandalous.

>>6745816
PrEP is actually safer than condoms, if you use it right.
The issue comes when idiots decide that they can skip a day taking the pill.

>>6745738
It's a big problem, but easily avoided nowadays by
>Avoiding hookups
>Using condoms if you're unsure
>Getting tested regularly with any and all sex partners
>>Paying for RNA tests if you really are hellbent on staying negative (like myself)
>Taking PrEP daily

File: oh, tom....jpg (37KB, 386x550px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 386x550px

>>6745816
>it seems like the youth takes it more seriouly than older gay community

I get the opposite impression. I've had young guys actually laugh when I take out a condom, as though I was afraid of getting them pregnant.

The older generation grew up during the AIDS scare and witnessed the carnage firsthand, whereas the youth today have been able to grow up sheltered with a rose-tinted view of being gay. I think our community would do well to listen to its elders.

File: image.png (661KB, 667x611px) Image search: [Google]

661KB, 667x611px

>>6745890
I'm really scared to know my result and am scared of getting tested because of it. Why should I get tested if it will ruin my life when my parents (conservative as hell) pull funding for my apartment and college out from under me.

I'm not getting tested until I'm fully financially independent and my medical records will be secret to me.

>>6745938
Because HIV meds add up to a hefty sum. I've researched it extensively on paranoia binges

>>6745947
>>6745938
And honestly I'd love someone to give me advice here because I'm scared

>>6745938
unless you are 18 your parents have no access to your medical records. your hiv tests will be between you and your doctor.
OR if you dont want a doctor involved
GO TO ONE OF THE MANY PLACES THAT DOES ON SITE FREE TESTING
>you get results in 20 minutes. its free and the results dont go to anyone. its just for you.

>I was pretty scared when i got tested kuz ive had a lot of hookups, horay for neg

>>6745738
Yeah, totally.

My local clinic showed me statistics that one in five gay men in London have it.

But like everyone else has said, it's easily avoidable, and is no longer a death sentence thanks to modern medicine.

>>6745949
every gay bath house does free on site testing.
>almost any lgbt organization does free on site testing. and if they dont they can get you to a place that does, seriously test centers are everywhere and free

>>6745938
Don't be scared. Just go in and get tested. Whether you know it or not, your status is what it is, and if you have an infection, it's best to control it sooner (since you'll need fewer drugs, thus costing you less, and there will be less of a permanent health impact).
If you are negative, take the opportunity to give up casual sex and get yourself on a strict PrEP regimen. If you're infected... Uhh... sorry, I guess...

>Is the HIV/AIDS virus in the LGBT community still a serious threat?

Because there are so few of us, we have a limited pool of partners to choose from. If even one of us becomes infected with something, it would be quite easy for that to become an epidemic, or at least create a cluster of infection in whatever region that person may be in.

It's important to understand that HIV infection is just that - a cluster. It incidentally hit the U.S., and incidentally gay and bisexual men. HIV is not nearly as widespread among gay and bisexual men in some other first-world countries. So there's nothing intrinsic to "gay behavior" that results in infection. It needs to be emphasized that HIV in the U.S. is purely incidental to whatever series of events brought the virus here from Africa.

>Or have advances in modern medicine toned it down.

HIV can be treated, but not yet cured. An infected individual can live out a normal lifespan with the aid of antiretrovirals, but those drugs are both expensive and have rough side-effects.

If drug companies weren't so deadset on exploiting the costs of HIV meds, keeping the virus under control wouldn't be such a big deal.

>>6745981
>HIV can be treated, but not yet cured.
We're making some great strides with CRISPR/Cas9 at the moment, so don't give up hope yet.

>inb4 big pharma bans it and destroys all research to continue production of ARVs

>>6745981
Hello, friend! Did you know you're retarded?
I mean, no, gay sex in a vacuum doesn't cause AIDS, however, I think it's really disingenuous to imply that there aren't common gay male behaviors that allow it to spread like wildfire.
Honestly, it's not even gay male specific, it's just a male behavior that doesn't have a woman as gatekeeper.
Straight men hate wearing condoms as much as gay men, but with no pregnancy risk, gay men are gonna fuck barebaked more often and with more partners. (And this might be a stretch, but gay men are more into fluids than straight women. Gay dudes love playing with cum. That's dangerous with AIDS.)

>>6745974
>If you're infected... Uhh... sorry, I guess...
this attitude is probably why he is scared of getting tested, u make it sound so final like sorry your going to die :(
>if you are positive drugs today are really good
you can get to a point where their is no detectable viral load in your blood, so basically its like you dont even have the virus.
Please understand the idea of the social stigma is a lot worse than actually dealing with the social stigma. the fear is so much worse than the reality. Dont let yourself suffer with this fear any longer.

Honest to god they already have HIV vaccines testing and will have a more practical cure in the next 8-12 years

>>6745981
its what this guys said
>also consider that if you are NOT an IV drug user you have a greatly reduced chance of getting HIV
>its not a gay plague its a shitty virus, straight people get it too.

>>6746100
True, but they're not hit as hard in the US because there's a difference in behavior. I'm not saying it's good or bad, but in order to keep yourself safe, ya can't act like it happens for no reason.

>>6746091
But why rush it when I can not worry for 2 years until I'm mostly financially independent?

File: seriously.jpg (5KB, 198x186px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 198x186px

>>6745738
>HIV/AIDS virus
>Human Immunodeficiency Virus virus

>>6747742
I bet you say atm machine

>>6747733
2 years of untreated HIV could literally destroy your immune system.
>if you detect the virus earlier its much much easier to fight with medications.

I just googled it and it says you can start having symptoms of weakened immune system in a matter of weeks. If you wait 2 years you could already have a tanked immune system.

>>6745738
>the boogeyman
Pretty much. Just use condoms and avoid cokeheads, amyl nitrate huffers, dirty sluts, etc

>>6745738
Well condom usage is pretty low, prep works alright but there is no definitive proof for it being 99% effective, most studies say it's around 30-50% effective.
I want to say "most" gays are knowledgeable about hiv and take preventative measures but studies suggest otherwise. Only about 40-50% of gays take preventative action and use condoms, change sexual behaviour, etc.

There's a lot of hiv stigma but at the same time the very people that stigmatize people participate in unsafe sex themselves. Also obviously you're not obligated to sleep with hiv+ guys, but all these people arguing with them on dating/hookup sites is pretty scummy, just block them or stop replying rather than riling shit up. Shouldn't judge other people's behaviour, just lookout for yourself.

>>6752088
>Shouldn't judge other people's behaviour, just lookout for yourself.
No, you should absolutely judge people knowingly spreading a deadly disease to others. What is wrong with you?

>>6752124
You should go into every sexual encounter under the pretense that you could get a disease. You can't just assume everyone is telling the truth about being clean and they may have contracted it within the test window period as well.
If you are having sex and assuming the other person is clean you are just as irresponsible as the ones having sex without informing of their status. Both are fairly unhealthy and unsafe behaviours.

>>6752088
>Well condom usage is pretty low, prep works alright but there is no definitive proof for it being 99% effective, most studies say it's around 30-50% effective.
Which studies are these? From what I've seen condoms a shit with their 70% in real-life circumstances and PrEP is highly effective.

>>6752155
Check the Wikipedia page for it, it has a table with all the studies.
The 99% efficacy was from the IrPrEX study and it was an estimate, not actually proven and it had a huge margin of error of something like 30-40% if I recall.

>>6752174
Hm... Not as great as it seemed... Better than condoms, but still.
Avoiding any and all casual sex (and making sure your partner also does by any means legally possible) is definitely the best way to go, then.

File: stock-photo-15036275-sad-young-man-with-hands-on-head-isolated-over-white.jpg (33KB, 253x380px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 253x380px

>Human Immunodeficiency Virus virus

>>6753388
Actually a lot of the statistics for condom "failure" isn't really failure.
I'll try to find the study but I don't know if I can get it anymore since I don't have full access to the research articles anymore. But I remember reading a study that broke down the statistics taken on condom failure and found the vast majority of failures were purposefully caused. Basically when people take a condom off halfway due to uncomfortableness or whatever they count that as a condom failure since technically they did "use a condom" in a sense. Similarly people putting condoms on without leaving a gap at the front, too big of a gap, not rolling it on all the way, etc. were counted as failures as well. Actual failures, like breakage, we're exceedingly rare apparently.

>>6753854
Still, given that putting them on wrong, using the wrong size, taking them off part way through, etc. all occur irl in the heat of the moment, they can be considered failures all the same.
Failure is failure - even if it isn't just breakage when everything was done perfectly and checked.
>Also trusting 98% efficacy for breakage alone, without taking into account slight mistakes
I'll just stick with frot and monogamy...