Is HIV as widespread and easily transmitted as society makes

>>7539487

Depends what you mean by easily.
I will say that from what I've read, anal sex is very efficient at spreading it.
It is also possible to get infected during protected sex as well.
And lastly, the rate of infection has supposedly been rising among straight women.

Here's how you don't get HIV:
>have both of you use a condom
>only get into contact with someone elses blood or semen if you're positive they're not infected (i.e. by having them examined by a medical professional)

Works 100%

>>7539494

There are take home HIV tests that work pretty well. The chance of getting HIV as a receptive anal partner with a condom is about 0.5% per encounter. The take home HIV tests are 91+% accurate in telling you a person has no HIV. That alone drops you to almost 0.05% per encounter when used in tandem.

BUT being monogamous and having them tested by a professional lowers it to basically 0%

>>7539487
>Is HIV as widespread and easily transmitted as society makes us believe?
If you could catch hiv by sharing a toilet with an infected person, then by comparison diseases such as herpes could spread through eye contact.

>I've grown up with the perception that almost every sexually active gay person will get it and if you have sex with them once you will catch it
With that logic there should not be a single individual without an std or 5.

>>7539561
From anal sex your risk is at about 1% from someone who has it. Most people get HIV from their partners because they fell for the idea that monogamy made them safe, when really, people cheat.

>I've grown up with the perception that almost every sexually active gay person will get it and if you have sex with them once you will catch it

No this isn't true. The rates are low but at the same time, anal sex is very effective for transmission. Literally just wear a condom and avoid high risk behaviors and you probably won't ever get HIV.

Rates are low but if you fuck tens of guys bareback a year you're bound to get it sooner or later. Since many gays are promiscuous, many get it.

>>7539487
In the 80's-90's HIV was widespread and nobody got tested because it was effectively a death-sentence that would also double as social suicide. That's where the attitude of "if you have gay sex you will die of AIDS!!!" comes from. There was no cure so getting tested meant nothing other than looking forward to dying alone, ergo lots of transmissions because nobody ever got tested and HIV went wild.

Now in the late 2010's, HIV is essentially a chronic condition that is highly treatable (feasibly if you had unprotected sex with someone who is taking their meds correctly, you're still unlikely to contract it) to the point that people with HIV live normal life spans and don't infect others.

Thus, if you use protection (and if you go a step further and get a prescription for PEP and PrEP it's impossibel to catch it, they're meds you take before and after gay sex that, in the case of PrEP, will make it hard for HIV to be transmitted to you, and the PEP will work as a back up plan to kill off the HIV before it takes over) you are winning the bad luck lottery by ever catching HIV.


> Tl;dr - take your meds and wrap your hard cock up before it goes in the pooper and HIV isn't a problem

don't have unprotected bareback sex with strangers and your chances of getting it are almost nil

I advocate for never participating in bareback sex, even in long term relationships. You can never trust anyone that much and gay men are simply more likely to cheat so they are less trustworthy. Once you accept that then it's easier to protect yourself

>>7540297
>HIV is essentially a chronic condition that is highly treatable

Highly dependent on strains. New drug-resistant strains will become more and more of a problem.

>>7540311

How about unprotected oral sex?

File: joe.png (254KB, 540x700px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 540x700px

>>7539487

My boyfriend was HIV+ for 3 years and didn't tell me.
We had sex almost every day for those 3 years.
We did use condoms and I only fucked him (I'm only top)
I never got HIV and I'm still HIV- after 5 years after we broke up.
He got it from a bartender at a gay bar who fucked him without a rubber.

>>7540490
I sucked a guy's cock who was HIV+ (I did not know at the time) and he came in my mouth.
I had just had oral surgery 2 days before.
I was very worried and I got checked for HIV every month for the next 6 months.
I am still negative 3 years later but maybe I was lucky.
I have heard that you should never suck dick after having your teeth cleaned or if there are sores in your mouth.
Even brushing your teeth before oral sex can increase risk by creating microabrasions in the gums that can allow the virus in.

>>7539487

Are you trolling or did you genuinely believe that?

Anybody who is intelligent can avoid HIV easily even if they have sex with HIV+ people. A mixture of PrEP, condoms, choosing partners well and emergency PEP make it very unlikely that you will ever contract the disease. Even sleeping with someone who is HIV+ and unprotected, receptive your chances of contracting the disease are low and penetrative they are absolutely miniscule. If you're worried nonetheless, PEP can basically solve the problem.

There really is no reason to fear it as long as you take care of yourself. HIV need only concern reckless people.

File: shrug.jpg (7KB, 242x208px)

7KB, 242x208px

>>7540556
It IS possible you are still pozzed but are an "elite controller" which means your condition will never progress to AIDS, pham.

>>7540625
Wouldn't he be HIV+ still in that case, even if it won't progress to the AIDS?

>>7540674
Technically he'd be HIV+ but undetectable (most results would come back HIV neg).

A true elite controller would not even know xe is infected because xhe would display no symptoms at all tbqh.

File: gmqTmIB.jpg (30KB, 750x725px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 750x725px

>>7540625
>an "elite controller"

I have to admit I like the sound of that

File: ohlawd.jpg (295KB, 872x865px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 872x865px

>>7539487
The HIV rate has been steadily increasing ever since HAART became a common treatment for it. Without AIDS killing people off there's no real mechanism for decreasing HIV.
Technically speaking if we never worked to help all the sluts with HIV we'd most likely have eliminated HIV by now.

It is pretty prevalent though. Among gays and bi's the rate is around 20%
It's not easily transmitted but normies are huge sluts so that's why it spreads rapidly.

>>7541978

That seems to neglect the fact that infectious diseases spread through populations over time anyway... I don't think the link between HIV and HAART in particular is very obvious

File: Image-IV.-HIV-HAART[1].jpg (127KB, 800x718px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 800x718px

>>7542014
It's pretty common knowledge that HAART did in fact increase the HIV rate.
pic related is from a conference organized by pharmaceutical companies that are antiretroviral manufacturers, they take it as a fact that their drugs increase the HIV rate because they're relying on it to make money.

>>7542046

Okay, I seem to have been wrong. But isn't the difference just because more HIV+ men survive? Does it imply a significantly increased rate of people contracting the disease?

>>7542058
If we just let people die eventually you'd kill off the sluts and/or people would adjust their behaviour and actually use condoms and not sleep with every single person within a 100 mile radius.

There's no valid reason for curing or treating HIV, it's an entirely preventable disease. Condoms and behavioural modification are all that's needed.
Antiretrovirals are nice in the sense that if you invested $1000 in Gilead Sciences in the early 90's you'd have a few million dollars right now. The only real reason to do any HIV research is money. It's a gold mine that never ends, and the more you treat it the less people alter their behaviour so it actually increases in value.

>>7542091

There isn't inherent value to preserving the lives of infected gay men even if they have character flaws?

Besides, I don't see any particularly strong evidence that it is men being treated with HAART that are a significant source of new HIV infections. If it isn't, then whether they die or not the rate of infected people will increase at a similar rate. As far as I understand, most new infections come from those who do not test and are not aware that they have contracted the virus.

>>7540335
Not for a very long time, and on the bright side more and more different forms of anti-retroviral (the types of antivirals that help depress HIV) are found every year.

The fear of a drug resistant strain is a spook, I'd be more worried about the flu becoming drug resistant before HIV in comparison.

>>7542091
>we should let AIDS do it's thing meme
Oh lmao this kid again


Don't cut yourself on that edge pham.

There's an inherent moral value is curing a disease because for every slut in America who has HIV from stupid sex, a dozen children in shit countries were infected by their parents at birth.


Even then, what about the people who were still safe and just happened to catch it? Say a straight woman catching it from her cheating husband?


You're trying to be cool on the internet but in reality you're just an immature piece of shit.

File: 2000px-AIDS_index_case_graph.svg[1].png (410KB, 2000x1367px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 2000x1367px

>>7542105
HIV largely gets spread by the same people though because nobody is dying anymore. You need to actually kill off HIV+ people otherwise they'll keep spreading it.

They can actually group HIV+ people together by determining phenotype mutations in the virus you have and can determine who you slept with. It's not a linear spread like X amount of people have HIV so you'd expect X amount of growth. It's more like "This group has HIV so shit's gonna hit the fan" or "This group has HIV so things will be okay"

>>7542162
Wrong, Antiretrovirals make the infected load in your blood/semen mostly undetectable, meaning the people who are surviving because of them have a vastly reduced chance of transmitting


Too bad you gotta be cool on the /lgbt/ section of a 1930's taiwanese thumb wrestling forum

>>7542162

Okay, but that doesn't entail that HAART or AIDs patients are a problem. Large numbers of people who are HIV+ are unaware of it, are not treated and therefore do not benefit from HAART, and are therefore prone to spreading HIV. Your argument would make sense if there was evidence that people receiving HAART or HIV therapies were the only important group spreading HIV, but that doesn't seem to be true.

File: homosexmonogamy.jpg (141KB, 434x872px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 434x872px

>>7542177
Uh except only 1/4 of HIV+ people have an undetectable viral load

Only around 50% of HIV+ people are on antiretrovirals and of that only 50% have an undetectable load.

>>7542187
> doesn't seem to be true

Because it fucking isn't, his argument makes no sense when the same meds that limit HIV limit the spread of it.

That anon has no fucking clue what he's saying

>>7542195
>cite

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11782/

Claims that the rate is closer to %70-75 with an undetectable load

>>7539487
>Is HIV as widespread and easily transmitted as society makes us believe?
Uh in this country (UK) it's much MORE widespread among gays than society would like you believe (because libshits don't want anyone to hear anything that might be construed as negative about gays). Here in
L O N D O N
O
N
D
O
N
about 1/7 gay men are HIV+ and most of them don't give a fuck so transmission rates are rising.

Try frot. If you really want anal, use a condom AND stay monogamous. If you want to stop with the condoms, start with the regular HIV tests for the duration of the relationship (once every 3 months MINIMUM - $30-50ish in the US, free in the UK and (probably) Canada).

Other than frot or having a sexless relationship, elimination of risk is impossible, but that's the same for heteros too, so whatever. 10-15% of sexually active gays and bisexuals have HIV, but the vast majority of them are sluts or didn't take rational precautions.

>>7542220
Well only a quarter chance of getting an incurable disease, what great odds.
poz sluts and their enablers need to be purged off the planet.

>>7542267

No. If you have sex with a random HIV+ man reliably on medication and you are the receptive partner then your chance is about 1/1800. It's much lower if you're the penetrative partner

>>7542443

Sorry this calculation was wrong. If you have sex with one member of any population of HIV+ men taking their meds, the data above implies you will contract HIV every 1,400 times you have sex give or take

>>7542252

1 in 7? I don't understand how it can be this high - surely most guys have the other guy wear a condom when they're the receptive partner, no?

>>7539487
honestly, if I could have my way. I'd round up everyone who had HIV or some kind of STD and quarantine them for life. Better to cull the few to get rid of the issue completely. but then again there is the humanitarian aspect and etcetcetc. Plus it is pretty fucked up once we get into the details.

thanks for listening to my ramble

>>7549369
You said quarantine instead of culling like most people say which is really nice.

>>7539487
Well I interned for a clinic/org that worked with african american and Latino men who have sex with men.

One of the lead testers were getting extreme levels of HIV positive result that were beyond comprehension. So on the hunch from what he over heard between two patients who recently tested positive he sent about 100 Positive test kits to the lab to see if any had signs of HIV medications.

Every tests showed meds.

Basically people get cash incentives to do testing, so poor people pretend to be neg or unsure to get money. They get connected with case managers to help them with housing and work training and other things. So the rates they and (after talking to other orgs in the Tristate area) other orgs had been sending to the CDC were heavily conflated.

He talked to his bosses and they basically told him to STFU because they'd lose funding. When he said that they weren't being honest and were putting negative associations on blacks and brown people they threatened to fire him if he spoke out.

There is a lot of money in the HIV health services world and a lot of people don't want that to come to light. It's sad to me because it made me realize the executive directors just care about the cash cow poor people represent to them.

>>7539487
people are awful sometimes, just go on prep even if you have to be sneaky to afford it.
hiv rates in london dropped by 40% due to prep

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2117426-massive-drop-in-london-hiv-rates-may-be-due-to-internet-drugs/