Is Prep the solution to Bareback porn?

[amiriot]

I still don't know much about Prep/Truvada hopefully someone can explain it to me.

Does it 100% prevent HIV?

Do you still need a condom while on it?

If it prevents HIV infection, why hasn't the bareback porn industry picked it up?

 

[ihno]

Yeah, a great medicine - works in 75% and only if you take it correctly and without any pause and constantly. Everybody should take this wonderdrug. And almost no side effects - except for headaches and nausea. Oh and it would be cool if you don't need your liver and kidneys for no more than 20 years. Than I can only suggest it. And good luck with syphillis etc. pp.

 

[Shelter]

Yeah, a great medicine - works in 75% and only if you take it correctly and without any pause and constantly. Everybody should take this wonderdrug. And almost no side effects - except for headaches and nausea. Oh and it would be cool if you don't need your liver and kidneys for no more than 20 years. Than I can only suggest it. And good luck with syphillis etc. pp.

Very good answer! At first view I was :thinking: - but at the second I have to :rofl: ---- So - great answer! :thumbs up:

 

[jw4833]

I can honestly say that I too is pretty confused about bareback porn due to the fact that its been said for years that performing bareback is a considerable cause to obtaining the HIV disease as well as other sexual diseases as well. However, it appears that within the gay porn industry, many performers are jumping on the "bareback porn wagon" even those whom at one time advocate against it are now doing it as well. So..this Prep/Truvada drug is something that I was not aware of and yet...it does explain why so many gay performers are having bareback sex in their videos because there were times that I just assumed that the models who did this were all HIV positive because I could not wrap my head around the reason why someone who was not HIV were so willing to perform such a sexual act without considering the risk of contracting this disease.

 

[ihno]

They will not get jobs if they don't do it bareback.

wh was a site that didn't do bare for a very long time. There is an interview with wh about the topic and he said it's a monetary matter. I think I saw that on youtube, maybe you find it there.

 

[MaximumT]

They will not get jobs if they don't do it bareback.

wh was a site that didn't do bare for a very long time. There is an interview with wh about the topic and he said it's a monetary matter. I think I saw that on youtube, maybe you find it there.

It's sad that it has come to that, but on the other hand, it's consumers that have led to this. If there wasn't a demand for it, it wouldn't have existed.

 

[Spartacus_x]

Bareback porn is clearly all the rage nowadays and I for one am pretty much confused about it. I rarely even notice if there's a condom there or not so I really don't get what the big deal is. But that's probably just me.

 

[gb2000ie]

Bareback porn is clearly all the rage nowadays and I for one am pretty much confused about it. I rarely even notice if there's a condom there or not so I really don't get what the big deal is. But that's probably just me.

It's defintiely not just you, because I agree

What I find annoying is 'magic' condoms that just appear. But I love it when we see the condom being used as a normal part of the process - the bottom puts it on for the top, then they go at it. Condoms are a part of most real-life sexual encounters, why not include them in porn!

Leaving asside how I wish the industry was, the way the industry is is that it relies on testing to keep models safe. That's a LOT better than doing nothing. But a lot more dangerous than using condoms.

As has already been implied here, relying on drugs to keep models safe would be a terrible idea. The drugs don't work well, and they come with dangerous side effects.

Just wear a condom - soooooo much easier, and soooo much safer!

B.

 

[tonka]

Prep is here to stay. and not just in porn.
Online hookup culture relies on prep more and more. It's becoming the new normal.

Accepting it blindly is foolish, but so is condemning it reflexively. Let's see how it unfolds.

 

[gb2000ie]

Prep is here to stay. and not just in porn.
Online hookup culture relies on prep more and more. It's becoming the new normal.

Accepting it blindly is foolish, but so is condemning it reflexively. Let's see how it unfolds.

If people want to risk their lives for a quick thrill - have at it!

Idiots on motor bikes put their lives in as much danger every day after all.

I just think it's idiotic and stupid and will say that when ever anyone asks my opinion.

I'm not condemning it reflexively, I'm advising against it scientifically. It is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be known to be safe at this early stage. Everyone who is taking it now is playing the roll of quinea pig. If they do that knowingly, then good on them. I just hope no one is being pressured into it, because that would be immoral and really quite horrid.

B.

 

[ralph145b]

Prep is here to stay. and not just in porn.
Online hookup culture relies on prep more and more. It's becoming the new normal.

Accepting it blindly is foolish, but so is condemning it reflexively. Let's see how it unfolds.

Exactly, PREP is like condoms; merely another tool in the HIV Prevention toolbox. And it's about time.

Because, for all the shaming, talk of "Just Say No" and "just use condoms", over 50,000 people a year in the U.S. alone after still get infected. Why not have another tool?

And, PREP is effective if used as prescribed by a medical provider and people should seek them and scientific research, the opinions and misinformation of the some of the comments, notwithstanding.

 

[gb2000ie]

It has been a while since I spent much time reading about the details of PrEP, so I figured now would be as good a time as any to re-visit the current state of the research.

As it stands today, it seems that there are no life-threatending side-effects from PrEP. BUT, no one has yet used it for decades on-end, so it is impossible to know whether or not long-term use is safe. We don't have time machines, so the only way to know is to wait.

THe effectiveness of PrEP also seems to be going up - the US CDC is saying the research is showing an "over 90%" reduction on infection rates between people using the drug properly, and people not using it. A 90% reduction is obviously good - but it's nowhere near good enough to throw away your condoms and rely on PrEP INSTEAD of condoms!

Don't take my word for that BTW - that's what the US CDC say:

Q: If I take PrEP, can I stop using condoms when I have sex?
A: No, you should not stop using condoms because you are taking PrEP

http://anon.projectarchive.net/?http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/prep.html

So - taking PrEP sounds like a sensible thing for those who's line of work puts them at risk to take, but using PrEP instead of condoms in the hookup scene is still wildly dangerous and stupid behaviour!

Also - presuring models to use PrEP instead of condoms in porn is still morally reprehensible IMO.

B.

 

[ralph145b]

It has been a while since I spent much time reading about the details of PrEP, so I figured now would be as good a time as any to re-visit the current state of the research.

As it stands today, it seems that there are no life-threatending side-effects from PrEP. BUT, no one has yet used it for decades on-end, so it is impossible to know whether or not long-term use is safe. We don't have time machines, so the only way to know is to wait.

THe effectiveness of PrEP also seems to be going up - the US CDC is saying the research is showing an "over 90%" reduction on infection rates between people using the drug properly, and people not using it. A 90% reduction is obviously good - but it's nowhere near good enough to throw away your condoms and rely on PrEP INSTEAD of condoms!

Don't take my word for that BTW - that's what the US CDC say:


http://anon.projectarchive.net/?http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/prep.html

So - taking PrEP sounds like a sensible thing for those who's line of work puts them at risk to take, but using PrEP instead of condoms in the hookup scene is still wildly dangerous and stupid behaviour!

Also - presuring models to use PrEP instead of condoms in porn is still morally reprehensible IMO.

B.

So, your advice is to use PREP and condoms?

BTW, follow CDC advice at your peril. At one point the CDC also advised against the effectiveness of condoms, promoted abstinence, and withheld/leveraged HIV funding unless "anti-abortion" measures were also included, etc...

 

[ihno]

PREP only works in 50 to 75% and has side effects. And it costs 13.000 Dollar a year.

 

[gb2000ie]

So, your advice is to use PREP and condoms?

If you are behaving in a risky way, then that seems the best solution yes.

BTW, follow CDC advice at your peril. At one point the CDC also advised against the effectiveness of condoms, promoted abstinence, and withheld/leveraged HIV funding unless "anti-abortion" measures were also included, etc...

I think you mis-understand science rather fundamentally. The CDC's job is to advice based on what is currently known. Science is for ever uncovering more of reality, so, the best advice based on everything we current know changes as we learn more. The fact that advice from the CDC changes over time is not a reason to be suspicious, but reassuring - the only advice that does not change is advice based on belief instead of knowledge!

Look at this this way - what is better - acting based on a guess, or a whim, or an old-wives tale, or, based on as much information as is currently available? Neither will be 100% right, but which is the most correct?

B.

 

[gb2000ie]

PREP only works in 50 to 75% and has side effects. And it costs 13.000 Dollar a year.

Do you have a source for that very low effectiveness figure? That is much less than the latest scientific studies find for people who use the drug as directed. Perhaps your number includes the fact that many people don't follow the instructions or something? Or perhaps your numbers are out of date?

Do you have links to the studies that found side effects? And, how prevelant are they? What are they? and how dangerous are they? Everything 'has side effects', but the current research seems to show that nausea is as bad is it generally gets, and that that passes after a few weeks.

As for the price - that is indeed quite the barrier!

B.

 

[absalom]

In a very recent study (just published in the Oxford Journal Infectious Diseases) it was concluded that in the short and medium term the use of PREP was no more harmful to the human body than aspirine. More studies are needed to say anything about long term PREP use.

For the study see:

Anon URL



Truvada is the drug that is most often prescriped as PREP. It is a very expensive drug: $ 1300 per month. One year of Truvada use amounts to about $ 15.000!!! In the USA many health insurances cover these cost. If you do not have health insurance then you can apply for some special programs that cover the cost of Truvada (few places available because of the fact that Truvada is so expensive).

Apart from the appalling price of Truvada there are other things to take into account. First you have to take Truvada religiously each day. You just can't forget it or its effectiveness cannot be garanteed. Secondly Truvada does not protect you against other Sexually Transmitted Infections than HIV. These days there are forms of syphilis and gonorrhea around that are difficult to treat with the available medicines. These forms can be crippling for your health. I believe the official stand of the CDC is that PREP should be used TOGETHER with a condom.

Its much to early to praise PREP as a wonder drug. We do not know what the long term effects of PREP use are, it does not protect against other Sexually Transmitted Diseases than HIV, and the price of PREP is embarrassingly high.

 

[ihno]

Do you have a source for that very low effectiveness figure? That is much less than the latest scientific studies find for people who use the drug as directed. Perhaps your number includes the fact that many people don't follow the instructions or something? Or perhaps your numbers are out of date?

Do you have links to the studies that found side effects? And, how prevelant are they? What are they? and how dangerous are they? Everything 'has side effects', but the current research seems to show that nausea is as bad is it generally gets, and that that passes after a few weeks.

As for the price - that is indeed quite the barrier!

B.

No, I don't have a scientific source, sorry.

But you have to have your kidneys checked once a year if you take it. And this cannot be a good sign (source: site of the german AIDS Health service).

edit: The Health Service also writes that you have to testing all three months. If you take PREP when you're HIV positive new resistant virus-family could come up and PREP becomes useless.
You have to be under constant medical supervision because it's risky they also say.

 

[ralph145b]

If you are behaving in a risky way, then that seems the best solution yes.



I think you mis-understand science rather fundamentally. The CDC's job is to advice based on what is currently known. Science is for ever uncovering more of reality, so, the best advice based on everything we current know changes as we learn more. The fact that advice from the CDC changes over time is not a reason to be suspicious, but reassuring - the only advice that does not change is advice based on belief instead of knowledge!

Look at this this way - what is better - acting based on a guess, or a whim, or an old-wives tale, or, based on as much information as is currently available? Neither will be 100% right, but which is the most correct?

B.

Well, having just completed a five year CDC contract prior to years spent working in AIDS Epidemiology, I may "mis-understand science rather fundamentally." However, I do know the CDC.

Good on you if you think the CDC really made those recommendations because they thought they were scientifically/factually sound "at the time"; instead of for religious and political reasons.

If you find it reassuring the CDC recommended against the efficacy of condoms, promoted abstinence instead, and held up HIV funding for anti-abortion pledges, Because, "science", well no amount of facts is going to change your mind.

Have a great one...

 

[absalom]

As to the effectiveness of PREP (Truvada): In a recent study (2015) 657 sexually active people were followed over 32 months, 99 percent of whom being men who have sex with men (most of whom likely identify as gay), with the average length of Truvada use seven and a half months. The average age of participants: 37. After a year, 50 percent of the participants reported getting at least one sexually transmitted disease, but not HIV.

Source: Anon URL

The results of this study were published in the Oxford journal Clinical Infectious Diseases Anon URL

You have to remember that this is just one study and more research on the effectiveness of PREP is needed, especially about the HIV virus' reaction to the long term use of PREP.