One of the reasons the ad was deleted was because the advertiser had two ads in two different categories. One mentioned HIV, the other one didn't.
Make of that what you will !!
:? :? :? Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
HIV post
In reply to rachel lane.....Unfortunatley there are plenty of HIV+ve people out there who have the attidude of "I'm already infected so fuck everyone else" and I know this as a fact from my line of work (I test for HIV/Hepititis etc and have access to lifestyle studies conducted with people living with the disease. At the end of the day once you are infected that is it, there is no cure. Yes drug therapy has came on in leaps and bounds over the last few years but it is not an easy regime to stick to. A very large percentage of the patiants follow the regime until there viral load is low then stop taking the treatment - and there viral load shoots up once more and it is then very difficult to control. If a person contracts AIDS and is then generally pissed off with the world why are they going to look out for every one else (they have to live with the life sentance so why shouldn't you attitude).
The amount of positive samples i test really frightens me.....approximatley one percent of the GUM clinic samples I recieve are positive.....it certianly makes me think!
I would never consider not using a condom. With long term partners i insist on us both going to the local GUM clinic and getting an MOT before dispensing with the condoms.
I do applaud the woman for being honest......like i say i KNOW there are plenty of HIV+ve people out there who shag around knowing they are infecting people left right and centre.
To everyone else reading this post I would just say play safe and use condoms, yes there is still a risk...splittimg etc but you have to take every precaution possible.
Have fun, but safe fun, don't put yourself or others at risk unneccessarily.
L x
The amount of positive samples i test really frightens me.....approximatley one percent of the GUM clinic samples I recieve are positive.....it certianly makes me think!
I would never consider not using a condom. With long term partners i insist on us both going to the local GUM clinic and getting an MOT before dispensing with the condoms.
I do applaud the woman for being honest......like i say i KNOW there are plenty of HIV+ve people out there who shag around knowing they are infecting people left right and centre.
To everyone else reading this post I would just say play safe and use condoms, yes there is still a risk...splittimg etc but you have to take every precaution possible.
Have fun, but safe fun, don't put yourself or others at risk unneccessarily.
L x
Orgasminator
Quote by Sgt Bilko
Just for the record:
One of the reasons the ad was deleted was because the advertiser had two ads in two different categories. One mentioned HIV, the other one didn't.
Make of that what you will !!
OK, so had the add(s) both been as up front... my personal take on it would have been...
Honesty is the best policy... true something such as being HIV+ or in the AIDS stage (still not 100% determined to be the same thing) is more than likely to reduce anyones chances of swining... but at the very least it gives any concerned party the opertunity to say... "ok, condoms... known risk..." or were it not mentioned then it would be up to someone/couple/whatever to guess at the risk factor even if condoms were required as a matter of course.
It may seem wrong, but while I (not stating for mel here, and as we are only playing as a couple) could play protected with an un-known quantity... I would be wary playing with someone who was openly HIV+
My reasons are this....
Asuming the person/couple had no idea of their STD status then I/We would have a statistical chance during any condom break, transmission of bodily fluids, etc. of catching somehting (any form of STI(D)) Having unprotected sex with someone(s) who knew they were "clean" up to a given date would be a different statistical chance of I/us catching something, and playing with a known STD positive would have yet another statistical chance of catching something....
Some of us when offered sex on a plate will jump at the chance, some of us will use protection and demand a potential un-protected partner has a STI check, some will decide that sex with a single fem is less risky than a single guy, some will ask for a life history before even taking their coats off, and a cehck up at the clinic, and want to know the bio heritage, lord and gentry, of any couplings, lol.
Perhaps for me personally thats a bit "out of sight out of mind," but at least the choice is made baised on the stauts and known facts!
I have seen adds on gaydar that state HIV+ and only loking for other HIV+ people, and i've also seen adds looking "generally" and I have to commend these people for ebing up front and honest about their status and giving people an informed choice... one of the reasons i've in the past said i've had gonerrehor (spelling) be it bad luck, the act of gods, or just simple stupidity in not using condoms 100% of the time.... some things happen, its a statistical chance!
One couple could play with 1000 others and never have so much as a pain, another couple play the first time an both have a drip.... We talk of HIV as if its the end of life... but how many have been affected by Clamida that while not personaly life destroying has fecked up any chance of creating new life!
Also HIV is no more "problimatic" than syphilus or herpies (causes HIPV cancer in women) and the multitude of other STD's it it seen as a "death warrent" yet there are a lot of what used to be called "the clap" that are as equally destructive either personally or passed on.
HIV was only really reconised due to is apparent selectiveness, and the fact that ihe infection was personally destructive in a potentiaally short space of time!
With hind sight.... HIV is currently a bigger problem globally for "hetrosexual" people than "gays" as was first presented, world wide the infection rates for "hetro;s" far exceeds that of the suposedly gay comunity!
I would immagine there are more people wit HIV who dont even know it, that is why its such a minefield. I do however think this persons ad was prolly ingenuine, and designed to cause trouble. Yet again the moddies were right, thank god its gone.
The word scaremongering springs to mind.
If this person was for real, she may well have not yet come to terms with her condition. If it was a guy with HIV pretending to be a woman, then he could be one evil bastard.
Best I can do here I'm afraid.
The word scaremongering springs to mind.
If this person was for real, she may well have not yet come to terms with her condition. If it was a guy with HIV pretending to be a woman, then he could be one evil bastard.
Best I can do here I'm afraid.
Quote by Sgt Bilko
Just for the record:
One of the reasons the ad was deleted was because the advertiser had two ads in two different categories. One mentioned HIV, the other one didn't.
Make of that what you will !!
Hmmmmm before everyone castigates the poster of this thread anymore, I think the above makes the most significant statement. If you are HIV FFS make your mind up !!
The poster merely made the point that there are other people advertising for bareback and we should be conscious of the general risks.
Yes, it's obvious to the initiated but IMHO all he has done is raise awareness through discussion and if that educates or reinforces the point to anyone then it's been worth it.
Master of Sex
Quote by Katien_n_John
OK so am I gonna be the first to admit that I fell for a Tango Romeo Oscar Lima Lima ???
didnt i get there first???
no matter im not gonna argue it! lol
oke: 
:sparring: :hunk: :kick: 
you fighting with me huh huh huh???
:giveup: 
:rose: :cheers: 
:cheers: :thumbup:I don't understand what you are saying Judy.
You seem to be arguing that those who are HIV+ are unable to speak English and mostly immigrants from other countries. You can't surely mean that for goodness sake. Maybe you need to rephrase your comments otherwise people WILL be offended or explain better. Oh, and BTW the infection was brought into this country by people who had unsafe sex with others - mainly USA in the first instance.
I may be picking you up wrong but your post has tinges of racism around the edges.
You seem to be arguing that those who are HIV+ are unable to speak English and mostly immigrants from other countries. You can't surely mean that for goodness sake. Maybe you need to rephrase your comments otherwise people WILL be offended or explain better. Oh, and BTW the infection was brought into this country by people who had unsafe sex with others - mainly USA in the first instance.
I may be picking you up wrong but your post has tinges of racism around the edges.
Now you are taking the piss Judy!!! FFS - there are hundreds and thousands of people in this country who have no contact with immigrants at all and yet have died and are dying.
You will need to stop this racist stuff cos it's not acceptable on this site. If you can't write without being offensive then please stop posting on this topic. Any more in this ilk will be deleted.
There is NEVER a need to offend people. Your views can be more diplomatically phrased and without putting all the blame for a deadly infection on the Developing World people as a whole.
:x :x :x
You will need to stop this racist stuff cos it's not acceptable on this site. If you can't write without being offensive then please stop posting on this topic. Any more in this ilk will be deleted.
There is NEVER a need to offend people. Your views can be more diplomatically phrased and without putting all the blame for a deadly infection on the Developing World people as a whole.
:x :x :x So, it's OK for YOU to post to offend people but when others get into the debate YOU'RE offended??? Just because you warned that people may get offended then that's OK??
:lol:
Why should I 'want to have a go' FFS. I was responding to what I saw as overtly racially tinged comments which labelled all those who can't speak English ( :twisted: ) as unable to take sensible sexual precautions. What makes English speakers so clever then? I have known many many many people who have died from Aids or Aids related conditions and NONE of them have slept with 'immigrants', non-English speakers or people from what you call 'Third World'.
Be disgusted - you can't possibly be more disgusted than I am. For someone who preaches liberalism and freedom you've shown some deeply worrying thoughts here today.
BTW - MOST of my comments are personal opinion, it's only when warning you not to post any more potentially offensive remarks that my Mods hat was on. Probably hard to tell but that's the way it is. I AM allowed my own comments too.
:roll:
:lol: Why should I 'want to have a go' FFS. I was responding to what I saw as overtly racially tinged comments which labelled all those who can't speak English ( :twisted: ) as unable to take sensible sexual precautions. What makes English speakers so clever then? I have known many many many people who have died from Aids or Aids related conditions and NONE of them have slept with 'immigrants', non-English speakers or people from what you call 'Third World'.
Be disgusted - you can't possibly be more disgusted than I am. For someone who preaches liberalism and freedom you've shown some deeply worrying thoughts here today.
BTW - MOST of my comments are personal opinion, it's only when warning you not to post any more potentially offensive remarks that my Mods hat was on. Probably hard to tell but that's the way it is. I AM allowed my own comments too.
:roll: To Jags and Judy TV - TIME OUT! I understand that you both have strong feeling over this issue - and in any discussion area it is a serious situation, that can cause strong feelings, but I feel that the place to continue your own discussion is not on the forum. For me personally I find it sad and a little upsetting that two people I respect are disagreeing in such a public matter
Is it not possible that you could continue this in PMs or better still agree to disagree, at least until such time that you can discuss it face to face. If I offend either or both of you with this post, I don't care, because both of you appear to have your feelings running high and need to step back from this for a while and review it more objectively.
Is it not possible that you could continue this in PMs or better still agree to disagree, at least until such time that you can discuss it face to face. If I offend either or both of you with this post, I don't care, because both of you appear to have your feelings running high and need to step back from this for a while and review it more objectively.
I can only respond when a potential problem arises and will continue to do so.
Actually I have been advised and give this as an alternative view:
It's just semantics but it sounds good!! And it's still bigoted.
:shock: :shock:
Actually I have been advised and give this as an alternative view:
"Racisim is not the right word - ethno centricty is better. "Our culture is better than your culture so you are not coming in!
It's just semantics but it sounds good!! And it's still bigoted.
:shock: :shock:
Sex God
Quote by smokerjim
For me personally I find it sad and a little upsetting that two people I respect are disagreeing in such a public matter
And why is that? Surely you don't expect everyone to share the same views and opinions as everyone else on here?
They are both entitled to their individual views and it makes a change quite frankly to see something like this. All too often we see the *I agree with so and so* lovey dovey stuff on here as if we all have to agree for fear of being outcast
I don't see this thread as offensive in any manner. Everyone on it has posted *their* opinion of HIV. Some do not match with mine, but that doesn't make it wrong for them to have them
Tracy-Jayne
Sex God
We read JudyTVs posts and could find nothing in them which was the least bit racist, appeared to us to be a point about limiting or reducing one documented group of POTENTIAL HIV carriers.
To start screaming RACIST just because that group orginates outside of these shores does not help a rational discussion.
John & Shel
To start screaming RACIST just because that group orginates outside of these shores does not help a rational discussion.
John & Shel
Quote by Geordiecpl2001
To start screaming RACIST just because that group orginates outside of these shores does not help a rational discussion.
John & Shel
That's EXACTLY was racist means. And it was him who started the debate - others were talking about the ad that was posted and was going swimmingly.
Debate, opinions and discussions ARE allowed. Roll them on.
:P
Sex God
We think JudyTV was talking about the increase in HIV infection in this Country, which followed on logically from the start of the thread.
Maybe our idea of racist differs to your JAGs. We think racist in this context could be;
Test all black people coming into this Country for HIV, don't test all others. THAT is racist!
But surely it is NOT racist to say; test ALL people for HIV if they come from an area which has high incidence of HIV infection. Now that could be anywhere, from San Franciso to parts of China.
What will be interesting is if the Bird Flu develops into a Pandemic, flights from Countries where it first takes hold will certainly be restricted if not cancelled. Will that be termed racist?
John & Shel
Maybe our idea of racist differs to your JAGs. We think racist in this context could be;
Test all black people coming into this Country for HIV, don't test all others. THAT is racist!
But surely it is NOT racist to say; test ALL people for HIV if they come from an area which has high incidence of HIV infection. Now that could be anywhere, from San Franciso to parts of China.
What will be interesting is if the Bird Flu develops into a Pandemic, flights from Countries where it first takes hold will certainly be restricted if not cancelled. Will that be termed racist?
John & Shel
So, it's just when it comes to Aids related matters that you think that racial or ethnic origin matters??? That seems a tad odd.
Aids was first identifed in the late 1970s in USA and then later identifed in Europe, Australia and Africa. We don't test visitors for TB or Hep C or any other infectious disease - why choose to do it for Aids? In fact HIV can only be transmitted by intimate contact whilst TB can be caught by passing someone in the street who coughs towards you. Now, responsible behavour would dictate that people take responsiblity for themselves with education at the heart of it.
If I make a choice to have unsafe sex with a stranger then on my head be it. If I happen to walk past someone who sneezes or coughs at that particular moment then it's outwith my own control.
Education is available in many languages. And, it's not the people of the Developing World who bear any brunt of the blame - it's the government of those countries who don't believe the research and ban the use of medical intervention to ease the pain and suffering of their people. Oh, and the Catholic Church which continues to forbid the use of condoms in sexual relationships.
Blaming an entire swathe of people who can't speak English or come from 'Third World' countries is amazing.
Nothing personal in my comments at all Judy - I was merely responding to what I saw as a potential area of concern. And, as I said earlier, if you are not racist then you need to stop posting in such a manner. Tying your flags to the mast makes a pretty sight though.
Aids was first identifed in the late 1970s in USA and then later identifed in Europe, Australia and Africa. We don't test visitors for TB or Hep C or any other infectious disease - why choose to do it for Aids? In fact HIV can only be transmitted by intimate contact whilst TB can be caught by passing someone in the street who coughs towards you. Now, responsible behavour would dictate that people take responsiblity for themselves with education at the heart of it.
If I make a choice to have unsafe sex with a stranger then on my head be it. If I happen to walk past someone who sneezes or coughs at that particular moment then it's outwith my own control.
Education is available in many languages. And, it's not the people of the Developing World who bear any brunt of the blame - it's the government of those countries who don't believe the research and ban the use of medical intervention to ease the pain and suffering of their people. Oh, and the Catholic Church which continues to forbid the use of condoms in sexual relationships.
Blaming an entire swathe of people who can't speak English or come from 'Third World' countries is amazing.
Nothing personal in my comments at all Judy - I was merely responding to what I saw as a potential area of concern. And, as I said earlier, if you are not racist then you need to stop posting in such a manner. Tying your flags to the mast makes a pretty sight though.
I can see YOUR point John and Shel - however the word 'immigrant' was used. Now that CAN be used to cover a wide range of people, however the vast majority of people emigrating to UK are of ethnic origin, from blue black to slightly pink. We can't just interfere with people's 'Human Rights' cos others can't control their sexual urges long enough to put a condom on! It's just nonsense, and when this sort of 'ism' gets wrapped up in flags of liberalism and used to infringe the rights of others it gets right up my nose.
This thread was a wonderful discussion before the post from Judy caught my attention and stabbed my sensiblities. It's not often I respond so vehemently on issues so I beg to be allowed to express my opionion. Unlike Judy I DO care if offend people and never knowingly do so.
No matter how you wrap it up this is ethnic-centricity. Just because it comes from another marginlized group doesn't make it any better.
Here endeth the thoughts.
:P
This thread was a wonderful discussion before the post from Judy caught my attention and stabbed my sensiblities. It's not often I respond so vehemently on issues so I beg to be allowed to express my opionion. Unlike Judy I DO care if offend people and never knowingly do so.
No matter how you wrap it up this is ethnic-centricity. Just because it comes from another marginlized group doesn't make it any better.
Here endeth the thoughts.
:P
Quote by JudyTV
30 years ago we didn't have an AIDS problem in the UK, in fact we didn't have AIDS or HIV at all, it was as rare as rocking horse poo. It was brought into this country from the third world and those third world people are still bringing it in.
Judy............... .............Always supporting the fight against unsafe sex and a lack of education
Going through Judy's first post .....this bit did stand out as racist and misleading.
Quote by JudyTV
The answer is the continual programs of education in safe and safer sex, the control of the disease on entry to the UK and further monitoring of the people bringing it in and those already infected and then the development of research for medical solutions.
30 years ago we didn't have an AIDS problem in the UK, in fact we didn't have AIDS or HIV at all, it was as rare as rocking horse poo. It was brought into this country from the third world and those third world people are still bringing it in.
I will probably sound stupid but I am unsure what you are saying Judy
We need to check everyone we let into the country for aids?
OR
Are you blaming immigrants for fetching aids into the country?
I am learning loads here :dunno:
If you will excuse me here, but I would like to explain my previous post. It appeared to me that Jags and Judy TV were gearing up for the forum equivalent of a toe-to-toe arguement.
I make no apology for suggesting that they should calm it down, and perhaps do it over the PM system or even arrange to meet over a bottle of wine where tone of voice and gestures conveys a lot more than the mere written word can.
I accept the issues raised need to be discussed and not swept under the carpet, and more to the point the healthiest place to do it is in an open, public debate - but I also feel that bandying allegations and defences is not a debate and consequently the thread had gone off topic.
I make no aplogies for these comments either - these issues need to be discussed, but with an air of calm and rationality - not the vibe of near hysteria I ( perhaps mistakenly ) picked up. No offence is intended, and I still have respect for Judy and Jags - but I would have enjoyed it more if I didn't get a perception of anger in what was written.
I shall now step down, and expect the congratulation or castigation as others see fit to direct towards me.
I make no apology for suggesting that they should calm it down, and perhaps do it over the PM system or even arrange to meet over a bottle of wine where tone of voice and gestures conveys a lot more than the mere written word can.
I accept the issues raised need to be discussed and not swept under the carpet, and more to the point the healthiest place to do it is in an open, public debate - but I also feel that bandying allegations and defences is not a debate and consequently the thread had gone off topic.
I make no aplogies for these comments either - these issues need to be discussed, but with an air of calm and rationality - not the vibe of near hysteria I ( perhaps mistakenly ) picked up. No offence is intended, and I still have respect for Judy and Jags - but I would have enjoyed it more if I didn't get a perception of anger in what was written.
I shall now step down, and expect the congratulation or castigation as others see fit to direct towards me.
Oh I was angry alright Jim. :twisted: But a little passion is not a bad thing. Just don't look back in anger I say. Or did someone say that before me??
I've had a cup of tea and dunked two biscuits now so all is calm. Well, until the next wave wells up somewhere.
:P
PS in edit:
"Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is on TV right now if people want to see active racism in action. Passive stuff is all around us.
I've had a cup of tea and dunked two biscuits now so all is calm. Well, until the next wave wells up somewhere.
:P
PS in edit:
"Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is on TV right now if people want to see active racism in action. Passive stuff is all around us.
Quote by Jags
Oh I was angry alright Jim. :twisted: But a little passion is not a bad thing. Just don't look back in anger I say. Or did someone say that before me??
I've had a cup of tea and dunked two biscuits now so all is calm. Well, until the next wave wells up somewhere.
:P
PS in edit:
"Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is on TV right now if people want to see active racism in action. Passive stuff is all around us.
Fair do's - passion is good if it's something you belive in :thumbup: it was just getting a bit much for my taste - but I try ( and fail ) not to get passionate when calm can be more effective. (Let me know if you want another brew - especially if you want something medicinal inside it
) As for the quote, I'm sure it was John Osbourne. :jagsatwork: ..him or Noel Gallagher :doh: I very rarely engage in such discussion, but when I do it's serious and I won't go away. Too many people come preaching and no matter the 'cause' the message is always the same, hate (perhaps too strong a word) for people other than like them. Drives me potty.
Anyway, the offer of a medicinal beverage is very acceptable - thank you. Maybe we should adjourn to the GFZ or we may be (rightly) accused of being off topic. Don't need to add fat to the flame!!
:lol:
Anyway, the offer of a medicinal beverage is very acceptable - thank you. Maybe we should adjourn to the GFZ or we may be (rightly) accused of being off topic. Don't need to add fat to the flame!!
:lol: 
Sex God
All interesting replies here and I have this urge to add my own.
Whether the ad was a fictitious one or not, its not in our place to discriminate. Its our place to chose.
With resources like the internet, medical references, our friends and social circles, our families we can better ourselves by increasing our knowledge on sexually transmitted illnesses and to protect ourselves.
Im being a bit of a hypocrite here because I don't think the ad should actually be discussed directly but in the same breathe its good to see people discussing the content (although I feel it should be in a general context and not as a direct reference to one ad.)
In saing that,ifthe ad was legitimate, perhaps it was changed because of some peoples ignorance and overwhelming urge to prosecute and ridicule?
Silk
Whether the ad was a fictitious one or not, its not in our place to discriminate. Its our place to chose.
With resources like the internet, medical references, our friends and social circles, our families we can better ourselves by increasing our knowledge on sexually transmitted illnesses and to protect ourselves.
Im being a bit of a hypocrite here because I don't think the ad should actually be discussed directly but in the same breathe its good to see people discussing the content (although I feel it should be in a general context and not as a direct reference to one ad.)
In saing that,ifthe ad was legitimate, perhaps it was changed because of some peoples ignorance and overwhelming urge to prosecute and ridicule?
Silk
Quote by Fred aka Medic 1
As for the quote, I'm sure it was John Osbourne.
It was = " Look Back in Anger" circa about 1958. a quote from it = "Those bells, those bells, those bloody bells" . The were the opening words if I remeber
You're correct - John Osbourne wrote 'Look back in Anger' and Oasis wrote 'Don't Look back in Anger'.
Look Back in Anger came to exemplify a reaction to the affected drawing-room comedies of Noel Coward, Terrence Rattigan and others, which dominated the West End stage in the early 1950s. Coward et al wrote about an affluent bourgeoisie at play in the drawing rooms of their country homes, or sections of the upper middle class comfortable in suburbia. Osborne and the writers who followed him were looking at the working class or the lower middle class, struggling with their existence in bedsits or terraces.
The "kitchen sink" dramatists—as their style of domestic realism became to be known—sought to convey the language of everyday speech, and to shock with its bluntness. Eric Keown, reviewing Look Back in Anger in Punch magazine at the time, wrote that Osborne “draws liberally on the vocabulary of the intestines and laces his tirades with the steamier epithets of the tripe butcherâ€.
Now.. do I look back in anger or do I not look back in anger. Or, third way, do I not look back at all!!
:shock:
