If I go on PrEP can I have bareback sex?

>>6832535

PrEP reduces your chances of catching HIV to close to zero.
But there are tons of other nasty STD's for which PrEP is useless.

>>6832799
This. Enjoy your antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea, OP.

>>6832535
That picture made me kek.

>>6832535
Not really
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-exposure_prophylaxis#Research

The only study that suggested it was 99% effective was an estimate. In their case none of the participants managed to adhere to the regime and a few were infected with Truvada resistant strains. So if you want to put your life on the line for a simple estimate go for it.

Also Truvada resistance is on the rise since PrEP's introduction, and by using PrEP you would be willingly contributing to it.
http://www.aidsmap.com/Almost-certain-case-of-PrEP-failure-due-to-drug-resistance-reported-at-CROI-2016/page/3039748/

>>6832535
that is the stated purpose

>>6832535
just get the bug and fuck around all you want...

>>6835262
No it was approved for use in conjunction with condoms
Doctors are not supposed to prescribe it to people intentionally using it to avoid condoms

>>6835266
You should kill yourself.

>>6835655
No, you, bigot.

>>6835240
But if I use it with condoms it will be helpful right?

>>6835284
Except they do all the time. That is literally why people get the drug.
>What next no one uses poppers because it says nail polish "do not inhale" on the bottle.
You are a dumb person.

>>6836824
>tfw we will never benefit from PrEP because we can't use it responsibly

>>6836835
boo fucking hoo

>>6836798
Yes, if you continue to use condoms, and also use PrEP you will have almost no chance of getting HIV, moreover, you will not be contributing to the rise of resistant strains.

>>6836824
That anon said it was not the stated purpose and it's not. You're not supposed to use it to avoid condoms. Of course you still can, but that anon isn't dumb for advising someone against it. Nobody's saying people don't do retarded things, you are still posting after all.

>>6832535
Pleaso do. PREP allows you to go wild inside gay slaughterhouses and not fear AIDS.

It will also allow you claim special snowflake victim status on social media once you get fucked with Hep C.

>>6833576
We have fags to thank for that, don't we?

>>6835655
That post is clearly a troll.

>>6835266
>>6835712
obvious b8, back to >>>/pol/

>>6835284
That's the main use of the drug, going on bareback spree without feeling remorse. You know gay men, don't fool yourself.

>>6838095
You don't think there are loony gay men out there who fuck all the more guiltless because they have AIDS? You don't conceive a gay dude giving that as a piece of advice? I envy you :)

You could just try a 100% monogamous relationship with someone else who also wants just this.
No condoms. No PrEP. Virtually 0% chance of getting an STD.

>inb4 cheating
Condoms can be purposefully broken.
Also, what is talking to each other?

>>6836824
If your doctor believes you will have bareback sex regardless of PrEP then it is approved for that use as well.
So if you convince your doctor you are a legitimately irresponsible and despicable human being then yes, he/she will prescribe it to you.
If you're on the fence about it and your doctor notices you're responsible and will have safe sex without PrEP then they may not prescribe it to you since it's not technically approved for responsible people, it's only approved for use in at-risk groups.

>>6838150
>At risk group
So if I say I'm a rent boy I'll get approved even if I say I will use condoms?

>>6838095
yea I'm obviously trolling because I recognize that AIDS is not a big deal anymore and it's easier just to get it and do what you want....

>>6838339
Most likely, yes. You're supposed to use condoms on PrEP.
Studies show the only way PrEP will actually decrease HIV rates is in conjunction with condoms, otherwise viral resistance inevitably leads to an increase in hiv rates.

>>6835655
He already is lad, we win .

>>6838558
That doesn't actually make any logical sense and is probably just spouted by the same condom shills that tried to cover up the studies proving that condoms are reduce MSM HIV transmission by 70% in real-world contexts...

But OK then.

>>6838567
How does it not make sense? It's a fact that PrEP leads to viral resistance and if there's less medication available to treat HIV then rates marginally increase.
As of right now rates are actually increasing anyway, the whole idea behind PrEP+condoms was to stop that. But then human stupidity intervened and people came up with the brilliant idea to forgo condoms which completely ruins the whole point of PrEP in the first place. Basically all it's doing now is just delaying the inevitable.

>>6838582
>PrEP without condoms always increases viral resistance to antivirals
>Condoms provide some protection, but not a whole lot
>PrEP with condoms makes you virtually immune to HIV infection
Logically, PrEP must contribute a lot to protection, and PrEP + condoms must also increase viral resistance (albeit at a moderately slower rate).
Both PrEP and PrEP + condoms must therefore be delaying the inevitable.

I mean, if nobody had casual sex ever...

>>6838604
No, condoms don't contribute to drug resistance.
PrEP creates drug resistance because most people using it do not use it properly, and we've also seen that even in those using it properly they still can get HIV due to resistance. During the ever so famous IPrEx study that every slut seems to cite for the "99% effectiveness" they actually did not even prove that. They had something like 15,000 participants and not a single one managed to use PrEP properly and the 99% number came from an estimate, it was never proven.

Condoms+PrEP is the only way to make up for improper usage of PrEP in the general populace. It's the only way you would ever reach the stage of herd immunity.

>>6838662
Surely, given that PrEP is involved and condoms aren't that great, condoms + PrEP would also contribute somewhat to viral resistance, albeit somewhat less than PrEP alone.

>>6838673
Condoms are basically a freebie though. They either work or they don't. They don't negatively impact the hiv rate like PrEP does. PrEP physically alters HIV making it harder to treat and potentially easier to spread.

Think of it this way, if you had a large group of people on PrEP not using condoms and they're all having sex for many years and everything is going great, the drug is working fantastic, they're safe, etc. But then all of a sudden drug resistance mutates and that same group of people continues their same behaviour but all of a sudden that drug resistant strain is hopping between them.
But if you took that same group of people and instead used condoms+PrEP there is not nearly much of a risk. If a drug resistant strain pops up, oh well, they're using condoms. If a condom breaks, oh well, they're on PrEP, and thanks to condoms the likelihood of drug resistant strains is pretty minimal so the PrEP is thus effective.

>>6838693
Also we also know that PrEP users are actually causing condom usage to go down, which is pretty dangerous.

Overall PrEP is causing the HIV rate to increase due to the psychological reasons behind the usage of it.

>>6838710
Well that just put me off sex even more...
I think I'll just stick to not trusting people and failing at my attempts to find a monogamous relationship.

>tfw you will never have bareback sex thanks to AIDS
Fuck this gay earth

>>6844261
see
>>6835266

>>6844261
or just get u and ur partner tested then do all the bareback you want

>>6845114
>monogamous gay relationships exist
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>6847462
If you don't like the fact that they don't yet exist, why don't you just make them exist?
It's not that hard. You just need to get into a relationship with someone who has the same mindset as you.