Best Posts in Thread: Is rejecting hiv positive men the best safer sex strategy?

Yeah I hear you...I'm just reading between the lines of what they were stating in the article, assuming that just because the status is unknown, they are likely to be HIV positive. This is not the case. True, the sexual interaction is more of a gamble...but the odds of infection itself doesn't change since the person a paranoid person would eventually have sex with would have likely been asked about status, etc. Possibly even with verification.

My only point was if you were a person so afraid of HIV that you purposely avoided having sex with men who were positive, you are likely NOT a person who has sex with someone whose status is unknown. It just doesn't add up that you'd be a person who vehemently rejects HIV+ men for safety and ALSO be someone who doesn't even try to find out if the men you're dating are HIV+ in the first place.

 

You're creating a narrative to fit your scenario, which has nothing to do with the scenario presented. Someone being treated for HIV will most likely remain HIV positive with undetectable viral loads and not develop AIDS. Undetectable viral loads means the person is not likely to pass on the virus to others. This is not the same for a person not being treated. Not only is there a greater chance for them to pass along the HIV virus, they also most likely will develop AIDS because of the lack of treatment.

These two things are not the same and you have a better chance of contracting the virus from one more so than the other while wearing a condom.