"All gay men should take HIV medication"

[somechick 1]

Right?

 

Taking it every day is one thing, but wait till years stack on.. There might be side effects that they could not have predicted

Yes, and that's worrying. But then i guess this is the case with alot of d--gs, because until you've had people take them for long periods of time, you're not gonna know exactly how it effects them. I mean you can test on animals (not that I condone it, but I guess they gotta test on something) but that's not gonna give you all the answers with what will happen to humans with prolonged use.

[Didymus 34,380]

Right?

 

Taking it every day is one thing, but wait till years stack on.. There might be side effects that they could not have predicted

 

You could say the exact same thing about everything you are eating and drinking right now, the air you're breathing, the medication you might be taking on occasions,... You say it's "offensive" to advise homos-xuals to take HIV prevention medication, I say it's offensive that people in this thread ignore the fact that gay men are still at high risk of getting infected and that the number of infected men is rising every year worldwide. As a health organisation, against those numbers, why wouldn't you advise the same thing?  

 

Sure, not everyone should take it, it's only an advice after all. But I'm sure there are a lot of people who would feel a lot safer if they took medication that diminishes the chance of getting infected with 90% on top of condom use. As a matter of fact, this medicine also prevents HIV infection from oral s-x. I genuinely don't see why people think that a health organisation trying to prevent HIV infections is scandalous in any way.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

You could say the exact same thing about everything you are eating and drinking right now, the air you're breathing, the medication you might be taking on occasions,... You say it's "offensive" to advise homos-xuals to take HIV prevention medication, I say it's offensive that people in this thread ignore the fact that gay men are still at high risk of getting infected and that the number of infected men is rising every year worldwide. As a health organisation, against those numbers, why wouldn't you advise the same thing?

 

Sure, not everyone should take it, it's only an advice after all. But I'm sure there are a lot of people who would feel a lot safer if they took medication that diminishes the chance of getting infected with 90% on top of condom use. As a matter of fact, this medicine also prevents HIV infection from oral s-x. I genuinely don't see why people think that a health organisation trying to prevent HIV infections is scandalous in any way.

I was so confused... you quoted the post that said nothing about offensiveness  I had to think for a while why you were even quoting me and I re-read my older messages.

 

Its not offensive that they advised homos-xuals to take HIV preventive medication, its the fact that they singled gay men out when they aren't the only people that get HIV. Personally "people who practice casual s-x, especially a--l" -- would be more appropriate IMO.  I completely understand why they did it this way. Gay men ARE at a higher risk and the statistics don't lie. I disagree with anyone who thinks political correctness is more important than safety ---

(But then again you do have to consider or at least recognize that like <10% of the World's Population will have higher %'ages because the population size is smaller, so in some scenarios the statistics can and have in the past been skewed to scare gay people)

---but it still kinda rubs me the wrong way. Some people may think it furthers the stereotype that Gay men are all promiscuous and all get HIV at some point (which some people genuinely believe, even gay people :smh;)

 

Their intentions were most likely pure anyway, im not "that" upset. I feel like there are other people, perhaps even in this thread, that have reacted with much more vitriol than I did

 

I have more problems with the risks of the d--g and that kind of heavy medication,(by that I just mean a Daily dosage) specifically because we don't know the long-long term effects. I'm personally a pretty cautious person. Not even s-xually active at all yet, but regardless I am careful in what d--gs I consider taking as a form of medication always. (as in, taking them is an ongoing process, esp. one with no end in sight) So thats how I see it. I'm not sure if the fact that its for HIV prevention makes the odds of the long-term side effects any more dangerous, so I just have this attitude to many forms of general medication like this

 

The Oral s-x thing is nice, but unless someone is a casual or frequent practitioner of exclusively oral s-x (which does describe some people actually) I think most people would see it as a bonus, as the odds of getting HIV from Oral Sex are MUCH smaller than they are from a--l s-x. Most people (quote me if im wrong, everywhere i've searched/asked around heavily implies this to be true) don't use condoms during Oral s-x and people don't get HIV from it often enough that people worry about it when having Oral s-x, where as many people are afraid/cautious about a--l s-x because of the stigma. (Which is rightfully there, though to be fair both kinds of s-x have some sort of risk, HIV or another STD/I)

 

So yeah...

I think your reply is a little misdirected, or maybe I didnt explain myself well enough, but its no big deal.

 

[Kermit the frog 1,936]

Those are definitely NOT gay men with those wrinkled t-shirts

[5 Threat 5]

Guys they are just trying to protect u from HIV

[Valextra 58]

I was not trying to be witty. I was making the point that obviously if your partner is cheating on you it's not a monogamous relationship. Thanks for your pointless reply and non contribution to continuing the discussion. :toofloppy:

 

Pointless was your reply at first with all your obvious points from elementary school.

2 healthy people that have s-x only between them and they stay safe? What a scientific intuition!     

Condoms could broke? What a discovered! I think that they were made in steel 

Planes could crash, the sky is blue and the pen is on the table.  

 

And for the record, 'cheat' is not a small variable in a relationship (scientific facts), especially when we talk about this disease, you could NEVER know if you partner is cheating on you or NOT.

Do you know how many people think to be safe in a monogamous relationship while they don't know that their partner is around to **** others people? And how many people got infected in this way? Or do you think that all the Hiv infected are promiscuous people?

THIS is real life, a thing that happen every day A LOT, and people need to stay always careful also from that point of view. 

 

If 2 people are healthy and loyal to each other is OBVIOUS that they won't get the infection, it's the most obvious thing, and we don't need that a healthy organization or you make a point on that, we are in 2014.

So my pointless reply was for a pointless, basic and elementary argument.

 

But thanks for your contribution again. 

Regards. 

[cometoogg 0]

mess

[bionic 50,111]

Why not straight people too?

[MJHolland 12,725]

Just for your own safety, in the context of the number HIV infected gay men rising every year

 

Nothing to feel insulted for.

I can actually see how it could be very insulting and presumptuous. It should say "if you're s-xually active, take this d--g"

 

Saying all gay men need to take this to prevent HIV is in fact offensive. 

[MJHolland 12,725]

You could say the exact same thing about everything you are eating and drinking right now, the air you're breathing, the medication you might be taking on occasions,... You say it's "offensive" to advise homos-xuals to take HIV prevention medication, I say it's offensive that people in this thread ignore the fact that gay men are still at high risk of getting infected and that the number of infected men is rising every year worldwide. As a health organisation, against those numbers, why wouldn't you advise the same thing?

 

Sure, not everyone should take it, it's only an advice after all. But I'm sure there are a lot of people who would feel a lot safer if they took medication that diminishes the chance of getting infected with 90% on top of condom use. As a matter of fact, this medicine also prevents HIV infection from oral s-x. I genuinely don't see why people think that a health organisation trying to prevent HIV infections is scandalous in any way.

As a GAY MAN who is not s-xually active and does not partake in any intravenous d--g use, I have a 0% chance of contracting HIV. Should I also be taking this medication? This largely UNTESTED medication? 

[Giorno Giovanna 3,178]

No

 

This is offensive.  Just tell all humans to take the medication, then.

:applause:

[Toph 375]

No

 

This is offensive.  Just tell all humans to take the medication, then.

 

This.

 

MSM are not the only s-xual groups that have high rates of HIV infection. Look at Heteros-xual couples and singles. 

[Seeka 12,372]

Since I don't plan on being slut, this information is useless to me.

[Toph 375]

This report was made as a response to the conclusion that HIV prevention campaigns across the globe still didn't help to diminish HIV infections of gay men, since the number of infections rises everywhere each year. I'm sure that the organisation has a lot more to say about s-xual health on all levels, but you can't deny that gay men have a huge chance of getting infected with HIV compared to straight people.

 

Do you understand what the difference is? Why that is a truth?

 

If you don't, let me drop some knowledge. The only MEDICALLY SOUND reason why gay men have a higher chance of contracting HIV via unprotected (and protected-if the condom fails) s-xual encounters is because of the difference in mucosal linings. 

Rectal musocal lining is one cell layer thick. Simple columnar epithelium if memory serves. The muscosal linings in the oral cavity are multi cell layers thick. Vaginal mucosal linings provide the most protection with even thicker mucosal linings. Thus, when the HIV is released, it perforates the rectal mucosa very easily, and it gains access to the Helper T cells, Killer T cells, etc. 

 

It is NOT because gay men are purportedly more promiscuous or high-risk, if you believe that's the reason. That's bull ****. Dudes and Dudettes are just as frisky as gay men (pregnancy rates in teens say hi). There is so much education out there now and increased access to healthcare information and prevention of STI and HIV spread, at least in the states. Community health centers are huge for this. I should know; I work at one. Google Fenway Community Health Center.

[Didymus 34,380]

Do you understand what the difference is? Why that is a truth?

 

If you don't, let me drop some knowledge. The only MEDICALLY SOUND reason why gay men have a higher chance of contracting HIV via unprotected (and protected-if the condom fails) s-xual encounters is because of the difference in mucosal linings. 

Rectal musocal lining is one cell layer thick. Simple columnar epithelium if memory serves. The muscosal linings in the oral cavity are multi cell layers thick. Vaginal mucosal linings provide the most protection with even thicker mucosal linings. Thus, when the HIV is released, it perforates the rectal mucosa very easily, and it gains access to the Helper T cells, Killer T cells, etc. 

 

It is NOT because gay men are purportedly more promiscuous or high-risk, if you believe that's the reason. That's bull ****. Dudes and Dudettes are just as frisky as gay men (pregnancy rates in teens say hi). There is so much education out there now and increased access to healthcare information and prevention of STI and HIV spread, at least in the states. Community health centers are huge for this. I should know; I work at one. Google Fenway Community Health Center.

 

I know that I made this thread, obviously I'm not ignorant of HIV matters.

 

I still don't understand what that even matters. Male gays are most likely to get infected for the reason you just mentioned.. So.. ? Maybe not enough people know about that, but how is that relevant to this discussion?