“I Don’t Believe In Safe Sex”

Posted February 18, 2015 by with 117 comments

scene21601 Gay porn star Deviant Otter has just released a new bareback scene in which he fucks HIV-positive performer “abeardedboy” raw, and along with it comes one of the most absurd and irresponsible scene descriptions/press releases I’ve ever read in over six years of gay porn blogging.

Deviant Otter’s latest scene description:

It’s no secret that me and abeardedboy have shared a special bond and insane chemistry since the day we met just over two years ago. As of late I’ve been going up to Toronto, abeardedboy’s home base, to help cohost a raging sex party that we started called NoRecip. Every time I’ve gone up there to help with the party we’ve wanted to make a vid for you guys, but unfortunately we’ve been too trashed or too exhausted to film our sexcapades. This time however, I decided its about time the world got to see our smutty sex again, so an hour before going to the airport I powered up my camera and woke his hungry ass up in the nicest way possible for an appropriate farewell. Up until this fuck we’ve always used condoms because he’s positive/undetectable and I’m negative. However, thanks to the advancements in medical science, I have been on PrEP for almost a year now so I was finally able to fuck his ass deep and raw.

GIFI’m sure I will get some flack for this, but I don’t believe in safe sex, even condoms are not 100% effective against STDS, I believe in smart sex. PrEP allows me to experience sex with undetectable guys that I would never have been able to before with an incredibly low risk. I understand there are still studies being done on side effects and I realize there are a bunch of people against PrEP, but I want great sex and condoms ruin the gruff and grit of sex for me personally. So enough of the PSA. Wicked hot video, he has the best bottom faces ever. Hope you guys enjoy watching us fuck and me breeding his meat pocket for the very first time!

Wouldn’t it almost be better if he had just said, “I don’t really care if I become HIV-positive, tbh”?

If Deviant Otter didn’t want to receive any flack, he could’ve just released the scene without telling us he doesn’t believe in safe sex (pretty sure most of you already knew that), without trying to explain how an antiretroviral drug works, and without talking about HIV-statuses in promo copy. But since he did do all of that, I’m happy to give him some flack, since that’s obviously what he wants.

Like Rocco Steele and Eli Lewis, Deviant Otter and abeardedboy are consenting adults free to do whatever they want. The difference here is that Deviant Otter is writing about how condoms “ruin” sex for him in marketing copy for content he’s selling. And his not “believing” in safe sex flies in the face of every scientific study on condom efficacy from the past 30+ years. For me, personally, that’s wicked retarded.

It’s not as bad as “condoms are for pussies,” but throwing shade on an STD prevention method that’s been highly effective for decades just to justify your PrEP use is unnecessary and desperate. Just pop the pill and breed the hole! No one needs to read a Truvada® advertisement in a gay porn scene description, unless Gilead has a sponsorship deal with DeviantOtter.com?

Being beholden to a pharmaceutical company in order to have “great” and “smart” sex must be really liberating.

[DeviantOtter.com: Deviant Otter Fucks HIV-Positive abeardedboy Bareback]

 

  • Todd

    This will only end in tears ……..

  • NG212

    Sorry, but no — I’m not going to care more about Deviant Otter’s status than he does.

    +1 to everything Zach said.

  • Sashenka Sasha

    “I don’t believe in safe sex” I don’t even going to try to understand these people. If you don’t care for your own health well…good luck.

  • Alan

    It’s hard for me to believe that there’s intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, when there’s so little evidence of it here on the planet Earth…

  • Guest

    He’s an adult and it’s his life. He can believe whatever he wants and I can believe whatever I want. I stopped looking for (and living for the approval of) role models a long time ago.

  • dave1984

    “I don’t believe in safe sex” Safe sex isn’t a Leprechaun.

    “even condoms are not 100% effective against STDS, I believe in smart sex” A case of bad math since 98% (at least) > 90% (at most). Also, if this is smart sex , what is condom sex? Too smart for you?

    • qnetter

      In real-world analysis (including a patient analysis by Kaiser), PrEP with high adherence is running well over 99% effective.

      (What’s condom sex? Numb, erection-stifling, orgasm-inhibiting.)

  • Pearl Clutcher

    But using PrEP w/an undetectable poz guy IS safer sex.

    • Thank You!

      • Pearl Clutcher

        Note – I don’t use PrEP myself and I use condoms. I understand ppl who don’t want to use condoms. I feel if they’re not going to then AT LEAST they should use PrEP. B/c using PrEP correctly w/o condoms is still at least 92 percent effective against the spread of HIV according to the SF AIDS Foundation – http://men.prepfacts.org/the-questions/.

    • A.C.

      It is safer but still reckless. The pill is not a stand alone option, as written above. It is meant to be an adjunct to other prevention methods that, when combined together, provide the most formidable defense against the transmission of HIV/STI/STD. It pains me to continue to see individuals like himself willfully disregard even the urging of the medical community and well developed and accurate information on safer sex methods in favor of “what feels good”.

      • Pearl Clutcher

        Oh, so then if one isn’t going to use condoms then there’s no point in using PrEP at all? So if one wants to bareback b/c one has chosen not to use condoms despite the hand-wringing and lecturing and fearmongering and reasonable safer sex education, one shouldn’t use PrEP and should just go raw? Okay.

        • moondoggy

          “So if one wants to bareback b/c one has chosen not to use condoms despite the hand-wringing and lecturing and fearmongering and reasonable safer sex education, one shouldn’t use PrEP and should just go raw?”

          That sounds good — where can we sign up for that group?

        • A.C.

          I am not sure of the direction of your logic, but what I do know is that when the medical community makes it clear and unequivocal that the medication is not a stand alone prophylactic, but is to be used in conjunction with other safer sex methods, the disregard of that warning is reckless. Personal preference, good intentions, and being well informed of the consequences do not change that. PrEP is not a substitute or stand in for the use of condoms and that has been repeated and affirmed by every member of the medical community and associated organizations.

          Your response presents a false choice that misses the entirety of what I shared. If a person claims to be well informed, and therefore uses PrEP as prescribed, then they will take it AND wear a condom because there is no credible alternative to that presented. The statistics are fine to note, but I choose to follow the admonishments of learned individuals who understand that despite the alleged effectiveness of the drug, it is still important to wear a condom and to have a safer sex regiment that provides the utmost protection from the greatest ravaging disease of present. I would also suggest that while there are some who have engaged in hand-wringing, lecturing (which is a virtue in a situation where people are both un- and il – informed) and scaremongering, that reality is balanced by the countless individuals who have displayed a near hapless insouciance in the face of reason which suggests that when confronting a disease of this magnitude it is inappropriate to do so without using all of the prevention methods available. I support an all of the above approach to safer sex because the consequence of not doing so is too great otherwise.

          • dave1984

            I understand your point.

            This isn’t directly applied to Deviant Otter but just FYI PrEP w/o condom IS recommended & considered “safer sex” practice for HIV sero-discordiant couples.

          • A.C.

            I read the post that you provided above, but I did not read any where in that post or the literature I have received, where the CDC recommends that sero-discordant couples not use condoms when using PrEP. Could you please provide me with a link to that literature or highlight that for me? I want to be as informed as possible so that when I am speaking to my clients about this matter I am presenting them with the most up to date data. To date though, I have come to understand that doctors believe that undetectable viral loads combined with the drug (if taken as directed – regularly and consistently) coupled with the fact that the partners are exclusive and monogamous, means that the chance of infection is greatly reduced, but I have not read any literature where they advocate and or recommend that sero-discordant couples not use condoms.

          • dave1984

            *Note : I didnt’ say ditch the condoms entirely, nor CDC (don’t think they’ll ever have official doc stating so).
            *sero-discordant couple : as in earlier post, it should be prescribed & recommended by HIV specialist. Personally , I wouldn’t go to a GP or social worker for this sort of thing, no offense to them.

            This is DIRECTLY from the link I gave
            PrEP is not for everyone. Doctors prescribe PrEP for some patients who have a very high risk of coming in contact with HIV by not using a condom when they have sex with a person who has HIV infection. You should consider PrEP if you are a man or woman who sometimes has sex without using a condom, especially if you have a sex partner who you know has HIV infection.

            http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/prep/

          • A.C.

            Oh, I see and I completely understand your post now. Thank you for the reply and for being so polite in responding.

          • Pearl Clutcher

            But the medical community DOESN’T make it clear or unequivocal that PrEP cannot be used effectively w/o condoms.

          • A.C.

            There is not a single medical professional or medical writing that says that PrEP may serve as a substitute or stand alone for the use of condoms. I understand the claim that it can be used “effectively” without condoms, but I do not see any literature that bears that conclusion. All of it says that PrEP is an adjunct safer sex tool to be used in conjunction with condoms and other safer sex methods. Simply because PrEP is alleged to have a high rate of success in preventing the transmission and or receipt of HIV does not mean that one can disregard the express admonishments of the medical and scientific communities which, again, all say that PrEP and condoms are the “safest” safer sex practice. If that is not the case then please direct me accordingly, I would be more than happy to read the literature that says otherwise. I always want my information to be both current and accurate.

          • Pearl Clutcher

            There is ongoing debate about PrEP and condom use. My point is the matter hasn’t been decided. CDC and some docs on the side of PrEP and condoms, other docs and orgs on the other side.

            http://www.avac.org/blog/what-does-prep-mean-condom-use

            However, who should be taking PrEP?

            The main target group are people who do not or do not always use condoms during sex. It is for those who find that condoms are not an appropriate way to protect against HIV for them. With PrEP, they could still make the decision to protect themselves from HIV. There just are many who do not get along with condoms. Be it because they lose their erection when putting on the condom or they want to be close to their partner without a latex barrier. And we know that many of the new infections occur in supposedly monogamous relationships. Or, for example for women, if it is not possible for them to get their partners to use condoms, PrEP could provide suitable protective ability. Ultimately, I do not care why people don‘t use condoms, I do not want to judge their behaviour morally. Some just don‘t, period.

            But haven‘t we got used to condoms more or less? Why change our strategy now?

            No one is to change their strategy. If condoms work for you, absolutely continue to use them! But consider this: When HIV and AIDS emerged, condoms were the only way to have safer sex. As a result, we got drummed for 30 years that only gays who have sex with condoms are good gays. And sex without a condom is evil, evil, evil. Imagine we already had a PrEP drug when HIV and AIDS emerged. Would people have chosen to use condoms or take a pill once a day? I think people who do not or do not always use condoms are not “hedonistic bareback sluts”. Condoms are simply not the appropriate means to protect themselves from HIV. PrEP could be an alternative for them.

          • A.C.

            I have not read a single piece of literature from a single advocacy group or doctor that says that it is proper to use PrEP without condoms. This blurb does not say that either. The literature that you have highlighted merely suggests that if you do not use a condom you can still be safe, but that is not an endorsement of not using condoms in conjunction with PrEP. I too understand, as the writer in the blurb you provided has stated, that there are individuals, for various reasons, that will not wear a condom. They are merely trying to make sure that whatever options people resort to, that they are safe. That does not mean that they should not follow those directives. I also understand that this blurb is dealing with HIV exclusively and this particular statement does not address the other particularly pernicious consequences of failing to wear a condom, such as contracting STD/STI. As the CDC, FDA, and the manufactures of the drug conclude that this is the proper and exclusive way that Truvada should be used (PrEP + condom) the debate over whether you can use one or the other exclusively may rage, but there is no debate that if you do not follow the directive given by the CDC, FDA, or the manufacture you are 1. not providing yourself with the greatest degree of protection possible, and 2. you are not using the drug as directed. That is simply my point.

          • Pearl Clutcher

            Cool.

          • A.C.

            I am not sure of the last sentence of what you wrote, but everything else I follow and agree with completely.

          • dave1984

            “As the CDC, FDA, and the manufactures of the drug conclude that this is the proper and exclusive way that Truvada should be used (PrEP + condom)”
            Actually, (PrEP+condom) isn’t the “exclusive way” to use Truvada for PrEP purpose. If you read the CDC guideline for PrEP it does say PrEP is for “high risk” people who skip condoms.
            Truvada official drug label doesnt mention condom as a MANDATORY part for PrEP. It’s more along the line of “counsel” for “consistent and correct use of condoms.”
            http://www.gilead.com/~/media/Files/pdfs/medicines/hiv/truvada/truvada_pi.PDF

            I think that FDA press release doesnt say anything “exclusive” either. It was for PR to minimize backlash from the anti-bareback or anti-condom group.

            *** I’m not advocating for bareback sex nor the pills. You seem like a nice intelligent young man, so I just wanna bring you the FACTS. I think this is my last post on this thread as it’s getting too long :) Glad you chose to stay safe & maximize your protection but getting the facts from a direct reliable source (FDA, CDC) can really help to either solidify your point or gain an alternative view.
            Have a good weekend dude.

          • A.C.

            I am not referring to what is on the label, but I am sure that you would agree that all of the medical literature from the CDC, FDA, and the Manufacturers says that Truvada should be used in conjunction with a condom. They provide no other statement to that end, that is the FACT. If you would like to provide any instances where they say otherwise I would be glad to read it, but all of the literature says PrEP and condoms. They do not advocate the solitary use of either. Furthermore, they recommend its use for anyone that has HIV and or is partnering with someone who has HIV, who risk of infection of transmission then would be higher. I am not sure that we can divine the motivation for their admonishment, at least not completely, but I would hazard to guess that they are scientist that know in the absence of a cure you should advocate the utmost prudence. I am sure that they were not particularly concerned about the anti-bareback set. I could be wrong though.

            I thank you for the compliment, and I will continue to draw my facts from those sources though. It has been a nice back and forth as for my opinion, I like to play it as safe as possible. I suspect that even if there were a cure for HIV sometime in the future, if and when I do decide to have sex, I will still use condoms and PrEP. An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.

    • shidinja .

      Safer when combined with condoms. Or is there a new PrEP version that also protects against the parade of other STDs?

      • Pearl Clutcher

        Knowing about the other STDs…if one has decided to go bareback after having heard all of the info out there about other STDs and what kind of protection PrEP w/o condoms does and doesn’t offer, should one not use PrEP b/c it’s not the most 100 percent effective method to prevent the transmission of HIV? Is safer sex an all or nothing proposition? Is there no room for harm reduction w/in safer sex?

        • A.C.

          Safer sex means following all of the prescribed guidelines for what that particular practice entails. That means, that a person looking to have the “safest” safer sex possible should and must wear a condom with PrEP. It fails to register to me why someone would choose an option that is less safe than the best plan provided – PrEP, condoms, regular testing, consistent and constant dialogue with sexual partners including the honest disclosure of ones HIV/STD/STI status, and sober discernment.

          • Pearl Clutcher

            B/c they’re not you. And they’re fine w/using PrEP which when used correctly is 99% effective against the spread of HIV. They weighed the risk of contracting other STI’s and decided they can live w/that risk when it comes to using PrEP w/o condoms.

            All of us decide how much risk we can deal with. Of course, the SAFEST possible sex is no sex. Some ppl forgo sex entirely b/c they don’t want any risk of contracting HIV or any STI. The rest of us decide we can live w/some risk. It’s a personal decision. So not everyone is you.

          • A.C.

            Again, the claim that it is 99% effective is not true. It is an estimate and not the result of any study that has ever been conducted on the effectiveness of PrEP. That is the incomplete information that queer men continue to share that has dangerous consequence. Moreover, that 99% estimate only holds when a number of “if” scenarios prove true, and in most cases they all do not.

            I understand that the decisions they make are not the decisions I would make, clearly, but weighing the risk is not equal to making a sound decision. Taking any unnecessary risks is what fails to register to me, not that anyone could weigh them and come to the conclusion that the gentlemen in this video has. Sex is a necessary activity for the bonding of the species and its furtherance, so I certainly would never advocates universal abstinence, which is the only truly “safe sex”. We are dealing in safer sex methods as this discussion is about individuals who are having sex. Of course it is everyone’s obligation to weigh the risk, but the decision to forage ahead with a lesser safer sex regiment is what many of us are taking issue with in this forum.

          • La Bambi

            It’s either 92 to 99% effective, the problem being that some subjects in the test group didn’t take the medication, though everyone who took it remained negative.

            Unfortunately studies on HIV and condom use is rare. Among straight people consistent condom use is 90 to 95% effective. Again, quite good but it doesn’t eliminate the risk of HIV. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9141163) However in anal sex among gays, 100% condom use is estimated at being 76-86% effective. While intermittent use of condoms only reduced risk by 4%, consistency really is everything though only 1/6 gay men always use condoms. (http://www.aidsmap.com/Consistent-condom-use-in-anal-sex-stops-70-of-HIV-infections-study-finds/page/2586976/)

            Consistent users of Truvada have a 4 in 10,000 chance of contracting HIV in a year, which is the same rate of dying in an accident. Anytime you have sex there will be a risk. We have tool to reduce the risk, and at some point you either decide the risk is reduced enough or you decide to not have sex. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/upshot/is-truvada-the-pill-to-prevent-hiv-99-percent-effective-dont-be-so-sure.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

          • A.C.

            I am not arguing against the effectiveness of Truvada. All of what you have stated is well taken, that said, the medical community still advocates the use of condoms and Truvada as it is the most effective barrier to the transmission of HIV/STD/STI. My position from the beginning has been failing to adhere to those admonishments is not advised nor is it wise. The choice is not between taking the risk and not having sex therefore not taking a risk at all. The choice is between maximum protection which has the greatest chance of staving off infection and less protection. I happen to believe that the former choice is the best one.

          • Pearl Clutcher

            Awesome.

          • Todd B

            Show me one study that has shown someone becoming infected with HIV when taking PrEP daily as prescribed. I have yet to see one.

          • A.C.

            I do not need to show you a study of that type, even if it existed, because that is not the basis for my claim. My position has been from the very beginning that the the medical and scientific community has concluded that the use of PrEP and condom usage is the “safest” safer sex regimen. PrEP is a stop gap measure, not a cure. It is not even full proof, which is the reason why, I suspect, they are advocating the use of PrEP and condoms. Further, it would be rather morbid and somewhat sadistic to want that end just to prove a point. I do not want anyone to contract the disease.

      • Stiffo

        The times I got chlamydia and gonorrhea were during periods when I maintained perfect condom use. Condoms are effective really only against HIV and pregnancy, which I guess you think Truvada should also prevent.

  • Tellingthetruth

    well he is obvi a total pig and he’s making ignorant uninformed comments about safe sex. If he or anyone else thinks Prep is going to save them then they are crazy!

  • Bull

    He conveniently ignores the other STDs besides HIV that you can get raw. Like the new antibiotic resistant strains going around now.

  • pennessee
    • sxg

      And this is what’s the problem with the US in general. We take every pill we can known to man to try and cure us of our “ailments” when we don’t even do anything to properly prevent them, and PREP in my opinion IS NOT a means of HIV prevention that we should be considering.

  • AJ

    This otter has been nasty and basic-looking since day 1. Not sure what the appeal here is. The socks and cap he always wears when he fucks? Over it.

  • NickDC

    If only people would actually understand the facts, they would understand that Truvada PReP should be used in conjunction with condoms & other safe sex practices to be effective:

    From the FDA Press Release Announcing the Drug’s Approval:
    “Truvada should NOT be used alone for preventing infections,” cautioned Dr. Debra Birnkrant, director of the Division of Antiviral Products at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “However, when used in combination with other prevention methods, such as safer sex practices, counseling, and regular testing to determine infection status, Truvada is effective in reducing the risk of transmission.”

    From Dr Fauci, one of the leading experts on HIV/AIDS:
    “The approval of Truvada to prevent HIV infection in uninfected individuals who are at high risk of sexually acquired HIV infection is a significant development, providing an important addition to our toolkit of HIV prevention interventions,” said Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Health’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. “However, it is critical to stress that Truvada as ‘pre-exposure prophylaxis’ should not be considered a stand-alone method, but should be used in conjunction with other proven HIV prevention strategies.”

    • Drew Barrymore

      This Truvada is not a real progress. See how much gay people are becoming so unconscious now.

      Guys, Truvada is not a totem you can hold in front of STDs.

    • Pearl Clutcher

      But see what the SF AIDS Foundation says about PrEP and condoms. http://men.prepfacts.org/the-questions/

      • NickDC

        So as long as one says he is “undetectable” we should simply believe them?

        While the significant advancements in HIV treatment have made an undetectable viral load a reality for so many, according to the latest information from the Centers for Disease Control ONLY 30% of people with HIV in the United States have an Undetectable Viral Load:
        http://www.hivandhepatitis.com/hiv-aids/hiv-aids-topics/hiv-treatment/621-cascade-of-care-cascade-of-care/4958-only-30-of-people-with-hiv-in-us-have-undetectable-viral-load

        Yes, that’s right ONLY 30 PERCENT of folks with HIV in the US are Undetectable.

        Since NO porn studio requires HIV+ performers to undergo order viral load tests and CD4 counts, they are literally just taking the performer’s word that he is undetectable.

        So in 2015 it is apparently safe to bareback with someone as long as he says he’s undetectable just like I’m sure in 1987 it was safe to bareback with someone as long as he says he’s negative; right?

        CDC says only 30% are undetectable but hookup sites seem to indicate 95% are undetectable… who to believe?

        • dave1984

          This isn’t directly applied to Deviant Otter (it’s dumb however you wanna slice it) but CDC DOES establish PrEP protocol with “occasional use of condoms” for committed sex partners. A lot of sero-discordant couples are currently prescribed medication by HIV specialists to skip regular condom use. The press release post FDA approval for the drug has a different target audience.

          http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/prep/

          • NickDC

            Actually the CDC’s PrEP HIV Basics Site http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/prep.html states:

            Question:
            If I take PrEP, can I stop using condoms when I have sex?

            Answer:
            No, you should not stop using condoms because you are taking PrEP. If PrEP is taken daily, it offers a lot of protection against HIV infection, but not 100%. Condoms also offer a lot of protection against HIV infection if they are used correctly every time you have sex, but not 100%. PrEP medicines don’t give you any protection from other infections you can get during sex (like gonorrhea, chlamydia, and hepatitis), but condoms do.

            So you will get the most protection from HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases if you
            consistently take PrEP medicine and consistently use condoms during sex.

          • dave1984

            That’s the Q&A. I didnt say PrEP replaces condoms nor people should stop using condoms.

            The CDC guideline for PrEP is
            “…includes anyone who 1) is not in a mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who recently tested HIV-negative, and 2) is a

            gay or bisexual man who has had anal sex without a condom or been diagnosed with an STD in the past 6 months; or

            heterosexual manor woman who does not regularly use condoms during sex with partners of unknown HIV status who are at substantial risk of HIV infection (e.g., people who inject drugs or have bisexual male partners).”

            http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/prep/

            The official clinical guideline goes in-depth on condom use on PrEP
            http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/PrEPguidelines2014.pdf

          • NickDC

            Thanks for sharing that additional data; hopefully people will take the time to read it and gain a better understanding of the facts that Gilead’s marketing people don’t make a priority to publicize.

          • dave1984

            BTW, just notice the langue in that Q&A. How they repeated the same EXACT phrases for both condoms & PrEP “offers a lot of protection against HIV infection” “but not 100%”
            If condoms is superior or even significantly better protection against HIV, don’t you think they’d make it explicitly so? (just guessing though)
            They also said the reason for having condom sex on PrEP is to prevent other infections but NEVER said you should combine condoms & PrEP for HIV protection.

            The last point is good on paper but I have yet to see a person who uses condoms consistently & on PrEP at the same time. I doubt there are that many people who wear condoms 100% of the time but pop the pills for extra protection anyway.

        • Pearl Clutcher

          So? That’s on Deviant Otter. And anyone else who chooses to use PrEP w/o condoms.

          • NickDC

            I agree that individual responsibility should supersede everything.

            But if individual responsibility is key then:

            Why should someone be able to file a lawsuit or criminal charges against a random hookup they barebacked with who they think infected them with HIV but made the decision to bareback with the virtual stranger because they either said they were negative or the topic never was discussed?

            Why if the data proves that only 30% of Americans with HIV are Undetectable is it acceptable for over 75% of people with HIV on hookup sites to say they are Undetectable?

            Why don’t porn studios that use HIV+ performers paired with HIV- performers require the HIV+ performer to present very recent viral load and CD4 data?

            Why are so many people clueless about the HIV Testing Window Period and what that means? (Spoiler alert: If you were tested that day, it doesn’t necessarily mean you’re still negative if you’ve participated in risky behavior very recently) http://www.sfaf.org/hiv-info/testing/hiv-test-window-periods.html

          • Pearl Clutcher

            Ppl SHOULDN’T be able to sue or file criminal charges over HIV transmission. I think that’s abhorrent.

    • GayPupCub24

      I agree that with Truvada and PReP that should be used in conjunction with condoms & other safe sex practices to be effective. Truvada and PReP prevent only HIV and AIDS people can still get other STDS.

  • OneOfTheManyChris

    He does care if he seroconverts, and when it happens he’s going to be feel like crap and be prescribed all sorts of pills which he will not enjoy. He’s just lying to himself and pretending he’s too special to actually get sick.

    • How do you know this have you spoken with him? Doubt it your just making that up. So it is bullshit really.

      • OneOfTheManyChris

        So you’ve spoken with him and in your opinion he doesn’t think all the pills and symptoms are a big deal?

    • Zoompietro

      Hopefully he moves to Canada where he contracted it and mooches off of their healthcare system instead of becoming a burden of the US tax payers.

      • Joe

        Wow… That is the most judgemental hypocritical comment I think I’ve ever read on a blog

        • Zoompietro

          Then you need to read more. If he wants to go to Canada and willingly have unprotected sex with an HIV+ individual, he needs to go to Canada and be a burden of their healthcare system if he contracts it. Really, he shouldn’t be entitled to any government based healthcare in any country if I’m being perfectly honest, since he knowingly jeopardized his health for “the gruff and grit of sex”. It always amazes me how people support blatant stupidity such as this and then feel as if someone is entitled to medication when they contract a disease.

          Also, I’d like for you to explain to me exactly what part of my statement is hypocritical?

          • Seahawksfan

            You are absolutely correct, Zoompietro. The issue of who’s going to pay for all this is real. Healthcare dollars are not an infinite resource and what we should pay for is an open question. Irresponsible behavior is still irresponsible behavior even when couched in the language of “freedom of choice”.

          • BLACKjackHAMMER

            Zoompietro I initially thought ur comment was a bit harsh but the more I think about it the more I realize that if Otter can be so damn stupid to go across the border to have unprotected sex with a HIV infected man than whatever happens HAPPENS , If Otter wants 2 play russian roulette with his own life thats his business but why should the U.S taxpayer have to fit the bill for his IGNORANCE ?

  • Zealot

    D.O. is free to do with his body as he pleases. I just wish he’d shut the fuck up about it. The only reason to speak out as he has done is to promote a personal agenda regarding PrEp and condoms, which is the last thing our community needs. He can risk his life any way he sees fit, but it angers me that by speaking out in this way he may be taking others with him. Not cool.

  • He’s entitled to be able to state his views and if people do not agree then they do not have to buy his porn.

    • theo775

      And no one said he shouldn’t be able to state his moronic, ill-considered and fucking stupid views. Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

      • Haters always hating….

    • shidinja .

      Not when he’s spreading misinformation that idiots lap up and mimic in their own lives to predictably bad results.

      • Pearl Clutcher

        I think the ppl claiming use of PrEP w/o condoms is ‘irresponsible’ or ‘reckless’ are the ones spreading misinformation.

        • A.C.

          You would have to prove how disregarding the unanimous, unequivocal, and unbiased directive of the entire medical community would ever count as being wise or anything less than reckless. I am not spreading misinformation at all. Everything that I have said is concretely affirmed and supported by the medical and scientific community. The conclusion that failing to follow those communities’ admonishments is reckless, is grounded in unassailable rationale.

          • Pearl Clutcher

            http://men.prepfacts.org/the-questions/

            I like what the San Francisco AIDS Foundation says about PrEP and condoms in its literature:

            If I use PrEP, do I have to use condoms?

            We’re not here to be the condom police and dictate your sex life. To answer this question, it really depends on what you and your partner want
            and need that will determine whether you “have” to use condoms. There
            are many options available now to prevent HIV. Who doesn’t love options?
            Of course, just like condoms, PrEP only works if you use it.

            If you use PrEP consistently and correctly, it is 92%–99% effective
            in reducing your HIV risk, whether you use a condom or not. PrEP does
            not protect against STIs, like gonorrhea, Chlamydia, or syphilis, and does not prevent pregnancy. (Condoms do protect against HIV, STIs, and pregnancy.)

            Condoms have been and continue to be an effective tool in reducing
            HIV risk, but we know that many people are already not using condoms
            each and every time they have sex. PrEP is an additional tool to
            consider for HIV prevention.

          • A.C.

            I am sure that you know that the SF AIDS Foundation has a very noble agenda afoot and that is to stem the tide of new HIV transmissions. They are realists, as am I actually, and they know that there are individuals that will not use condoms despite their effectiveness and the medical communities conclusion that they should be worn in conjunction with using PrEP. At this point it is about encouraging whatever safer sex method will aid in insuring that another person does not transmit the disease not about adhering to the standard condom plus PrEP position I am taking. Notice however, that at no time do they advocate the use of PrEP in lieu of condom usage. They simply say that if you do not use a condom but use PrEP alone you have a strong measure of protection at work. That said, I am advocating the strongest safer sex measure while acknowledging that there will be those who disregard it. For those that do, it is, as you have said, their choice.

          • Pearl Clutcher

            Great.

          • Pearl Clutcher

            Also, I think it’s pointless and harmful to attempt to shame ppl into using condoms. It’s better to meet them where they are. If they don’t wanna use condoms then I think it’s wise to encourage them to use PrEP – correctly. And to choose other safer sex methods like frequent testing and careful selection of partners and activities. But trying to shame them into using condoms by calling them irresponsible or reckless only makes them tune out the message. Even I tune out that talk and I use condoms. I don’t use them b/c I want to feel responsible I use them b/c I don’t wan to take PrEP. Yet. But in the future I’m pretty sure I will get on PrEP and ditch condoms. Or maybe the vaccine will show up and then I can ditch condoms.

          • A.C.

            This is not about shaming anyone, it is about pointing out what the medical literature has to say about the appropriate use of PrEP. If an individual makes that choice then certainly they are free to do so, I cannot nor will I stop them, however, I also will not refrain from making the point that choosing to take PrEP without wearing a condom is inconsistent with what the medical literature instructs. We are arguing two different things and it appears that we agree on the point that you are arguing – that it is their choice. The fact that is a choice however, does not mean that it is not reckless by virtue of the fact that it disregards the direction given by the medical community. If individuals turn away they could be doing so because of some misplaced understanding of what I or others in this forum are saying, but it could also be that they know what we are saying is correct but choose to do as they wish. Either way, they are free to make choices from themselves, but we are also free to disagree with that and share the medical literature that encourages a different course of action. If you do use PrEP I hope that you use it in conjunction with a condom for all of the reasons discussed on this board and in the literature that you have no doubt read. If you do not then that is your choice and I have to accept that as I do with everyone else who makes the same choice.

          • Pearl Clutcher

            It is COMPLETELY about shaming ppl. LOL.

          • A.C.

            I would have to understand your definition of shaming. It cannot be wrong or “shaming” to criticism behavior (not the person) when that very behavior is the subject of disagreement. If everyone is saying that you are free to make your decision but that we disagree with that decision, that is a debate and not shaming. In that regard, if someone feels ashamed then their feelings might be valid, but not justified.

          • Pearl Clutcher

            k.

  • FrenchBug

    I hate to be preachy in the comments of a porn blog but it is important to remind people that you do not have to be a promiscuous cum-guzzling slut or an irresponsible asshole – see above – to take it. It can be a good fit for the sane normally sexually active gay men who so choose. I KNOW Gilead could not possibly be sponsoring this appalling offensive stupidity because it serves only to turn people off from what has the potential to be a powerful and useful tool in a whole box of tools to fight the spread of HIV. It is not right for everybody (neither should it be) but it can save some lives. It is not a celebration of risk-taking, let alone a weapon to throw away thirty years of education and prevention against HIV. It is a new COMPLEMENTARY way to be even safer from a terribly disease. Please let’s not let this vile human being deter some normal people from inquiring whether this is right for them.

    • Pearl Clutcher

      Right. Why listen to a porn star or a porn blogger or random commenters? Listen to experts like the folks at the SF AIDS Foundation. http://men.prepfacts.org/the-questions/

      They say PrEP w/o condoms can be 92 percent effective against the transmission of HIV.

      • moondoggy

        The 92 percent figure takes into account the risks involved with a missed dose. Note the actual language on the site: “When used correctly, Truvada for PrEP provides 92%–99% reduction in HIV risk for HIV-negative individuals who take the pills every day as directed.”

        From the New York Times: “Those four subjects who took Truvada and became infected had its active ingredients in their blood only at levels consistent with taking the drug twice a week. That is, in the study, there were zeroapparent cases of subjects taking their pills daily and contracting H.I.V. … Bear in mind, PrEP is about reducing the probability of an already low-probability event. If the participants in iPrEx not taking medication had a 3-4 percent chance of contracting H.I.V. in a given year, 99-percent effective daily use of PrEP would reduce their annual risk of infection to 0.04 percent, or 4 in 10,000. That happens to be equal to the risk of accidental death for the average American in a given year. If you don’t walk around preoccupied with the idea that you might be hit by a bus, it’s hard to blame a PrEP user expecting 99-percent effectiveness for effectively discounting the idea he might become infected with H.I.V.”

  • moondoggy

    “It’s not as bad as ‘condoms are for pussies,’ but throwing shade on an STD prevention method that’s been highly effective for decades just to justify your PrEP use is unnecessary. … No one needs to reads a Truvada® advertisement in a gay porn scene description…”

    But how is his Truvada ad different from your condom ad? You’re expressing your preference, and he’s expressing his. “I don’t care if I get HIV” is a distortion of what he said.

    • A.C.

      He is advocating the improper use of the drug, that is the critical and principle difference. If Truvada was prescribed and marketed as an alternative to condoms then your response would be correct, but as it is not, his preference for Truvada in lieu of a condom regiment and Truvada is flatly wrong. His preference is unnecessarily reckless, unwise, and most importantly, unsupported by the entirety of the medical community.

      • moondoggy

        “Improper use of the drug” is also a distortion. The flouting of condoms is improper use of Truvada like revving an engine is improper use of the steering wheel. The drug reduces HIV risk to nearly zero whether you wear condoms or not.

        • A.C.

          “Improper use of the drug” is not a distortion when every member of the medical community, despite having read and understood the results of the clinical trials that produced the figure you site, concludes that you should still wear a condom in addition to adhering to the prescribed PrEP regiment. Your car analogue in this context is not particularly astute, with all due respect. Condoms and PrEP have been medically linked to one another and they are prescribed as inextricably linked tools in HIV/STI/STD prevention without exception. Your example uses two features of a car that do not comprises the same systems. While I understand your conclusion, I object to the aptness of the analogy. I too however would like to use the car to illustrate my point. I would never tell a car manufacture not to outfit my car with a seat belt simply because I had anti-lock breaks, a horn, and have several years of driving experience under my belt. I realize that even with all of those features and myriad more, that it is possible to still be seriously or fatally injured in a car accident. Those injuries could be lessened by the use an all of the above approach to driver safety, which includes the use of a seat belt. In other words, nearly zero is not zero and the chances of contracting a deadly disease like HIV is too great a chance to take, particularly when the combined use of PrEP and a condom provides a greater degree of protection than just using PrEP alone. I prefer, support, and encourage an all of the above approach to safer sex because, again, the consequence of failing to employ this measure (which represents the “safest” safer sex regiment) is too great.

          • dave1984

            “nearly zero is not zero ” condoms dont have zero rate either though.

          • A.C.

            You are correct, neither condoms nor PrEP alone have can insure a zero rate of infection, but the two combined provide greater protection than the use of either alone. That is the point that I am trying to stress as well as the fact that that accounts for the reason why the medical and scientific community press for the use of both instead of one or the other alone.

          • moondoggy

            Please see my comment to pearlclutcher above because I did not make up the 99 percent figure. I would like to see you cite any studies involving even one transmission of HIV to a person who was on a daily regimen of Truvada and did not miss dosages.

            That is my only point, and that was DeviantOtter’s point, even though he used deliberately inflammatory language to make it. The people here are demonizing those who are willing to incur a one-percent risk or less of transmission as if they were psychopathic, but “every member of the medical community” advocates daily exercise, while people with sedentary lifestyles are not demonized as having a death wish.

          • A.C.

            You are correct, you did not make up the 99% figure, you simply followed the statistical estimate provided by Mr. Tim Murphy in an article written for New York Magazine. That particular claim was dissected quite deftly by Josh Barro in the New York times. Mr. Barro concludes:

            “It’s not hard to see why: Mr. Murphy writes, “When taken every day, it’s
            been shown in a major study to be up to 99 percent effective.” This is a
            claim I hear thrown around a lot among gay men in New York. And it’s
            wrong. The 99 percent figure isn’t a study finding; it’s a statistical
            estimate, based on a number of assumptions that are reasonable, but
            debatable.”

            I too was intrigued by Mr. Murphy’s claim because it was rather bold and because it conflicted with the findings from the studies that even the manufacturer Gilead conducted. In the end I came to understand that what he was arguing was, as stated above, a statistical estimate, but not actual study results. To me there is a worthwhile distinction. As for citing any studies where HIV transmission occurred under the circumstances you state, no, I cannot point to any, but that does not mean that these instances did not occur or will not occur in the future. We should not presume that the absence of such a report means that it has not happened as yet nor will it. I understand your concern about demonization but the comparison between contracting HIV and leading a sedentary lifestyle is simply not comparable. Sure, both conditions are unhealthy, but surely you would agree that not working out daily is by no means comparable to living with HIV. I am merely pointing out that undertaking needlessly reckless behavior is both unwise and unsupported. I have not attacked you, the gentlemen in this scene who made the comment, or anyone else who participates in this behavior, but I have strongly condemned (and will continue to do so) behavior which puts a person’s health at risk even under the allegedly remote of chances.

          • La Bambi

            But condoms alone only have a 75-85% effectiveness rate in even the most favorable studies. Would you accuse someone of using condoms alone as being reckless? Because they have a greater chance of contracting HIV than someone using PREP alone.

            http://www.aidsmap.com/Consistent-condom-use-in-anal-sex-stops-70-of-HIV-infections-study-finds/page/2586976/

          • A.C.

            No, I would not say that using a condom alone is reckless for a few reasons, not the least of which is the fact that there is no more effective way of protecting against HIV/STI/STD then the use of condoms. To date, it is the only prophylactic available that is most able to effectively prevent the transmission and receipt of STI/STD/HIV. The lack of an alternative means that it cannot be reckless when it is both the single and best tool possible in this regard. The manufactures of PrEP cannot and do not make that claim. They maintain that PrEP is a unitasker in terms of its effectiveness. It is designed to combat HIV, however, they realize that there is a tried and proven alternative in the condom that a person could also use. For that reason they urge that these two prevention methods be used together. When another prophylactic is introduced that can do what the condom does, more effectively, then I will treat the failure to use that prophylactic the same as I have the failure to use PrEP as recommended by the medical community. The point to emphasize is that the medical community directs that PrEP be used in conjunction with condoms, disregarding that admonishment, and thereby undertaking needless risk, is what I define as reckless. I will say though that I support an all of the above approach and therefore encourage staunch condom users to use PrEP as it provides an additional layer of protection.

          • moondoggy

            The problem with your car analogy is that “exposure” to a car accident without a seatbelt is not 99 percent effective in preventing death or injury with those other features in place, nor is riding without a seatbelt a drastic improvement in the pleasure of driving a car.

            We’re never going to agree on this, but I respect your opinion. However, the notion that PrEP can’t work in HIV prevention without condoms is more about emotion than science.

          • A.C.

            As a point of order, no where in the literature is PrEP said to be 99% effective in staving off potential HIV infections and it is zero percent effective in preventing STI/STD infections. I never advocated the use of a seatbelt alone, surely it is a combination of those other features that I mentioned that make the driving experience the safest possible. None of them alone assuredly, nor together, can provide absolute safety, however, the failure to readily use all of them conjunctively only exposes the driver to unnecessary injury, that is why I say it is needlessly reckless. I am convinced, because I see no studies to the contrary (though I remain vocally skeptical of such wonder drugs) that a person using PrEP may not be able to transmit HIV if they are positive or be infected by HIV if they are negative. My post only seeks to show what the medical and scientific community all agree on: that an all of the above approach is the “safest” safer sex a person can enjoy. I am not driven by emotion as much as I am concern for the consequences, but at no time has that overridden my sense of objectivity in concluding that using PrEP without a condom is neither recommended nor wise. I understand that we may not agree, but I believe that the disagreement is not about whether to use PrEP or not, the disagreement is over whether it is prudent or wise not to undertake a course of prophylaxis inconsistent with recommended and urged guidelines. The percentage number of effectiveness, on balance, is not compelling. Sex, I understand is risky, I would like to see everyone as safe as possible when having it.

  • Drew Barrymore

    “HIV ? Who cares ? I’m on prep, let’s spread the bug woohoo!”

    • Todd B

      He’s on PrEP so that he DOESN’T contract HIV and therefore DOESN’T “spread the bug” you ignorant fuck.

  • Hunter of Porn

    How does he know that abeardedboy is undetectable? Was he there when he got tested or know when the last test was done? Call me neurotic/controlling but I would have to be there when my fuck buddy gets tested and watch him like a hawk before I would ever consider having unprotected sex.

    Also since they just had a sex party how long could it take between a two people who had unprotected sex for someone’s viral levels to increase?

  • Nickolas

    Deviant Otter looks like he has the WORST breath, and abeardedboy… you could park a Fiat in that loose asshole. #nothanks

    http://i.imgur.com/KVgdpz2.gif

  • shidinja .

    Thank God he’s gay because a gene pool that stupid shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce.

    • dave1984

      hello, surogate

  • Anon Hater

    Bennett Anthony took it raw from Rocco at HB, he’s another cumdump on the DL. Hope that bitch got a rich sugar daddy to pay those doctor bills.

  • Luca

    He’s very welcome to get all the STDs he wants, but giving a statement that basically says there’s not much difference between them and the common cold is not just irresponsible, it’s criminal.

  • Luca

    Anyway I must say, this is just the natural evolution of the path where the industry put itself into since some time. We were meant to arrive at this point, and nothing suggest this is going to stop.

  • Ed Woody

    This right here is exactly why I can’t stand to be a part of the porn industry anymore. Sure, I will always love to look at naked men, but the industry? The whole thing makes my skin crawl and ashamed to be gay. I’ve never felt ashamed to be gay for any other reason, but this does it.

    Like it or not, people get their sex education from porn. You can say “Why look to porn for role models?”, and you’d be right. But when there are no other sources of sex education for gay kids – because the schools sure as hell aren’t gonna teach them, and the safe sex message that was so strong in the 90s has obviously just given up – well, this is all that’s available.

    And some kid is going to watch this, hear this hateful irresponsible misanthrope say “I don’t believe in safe sex”, and he’s not going to care about whatever justifications or supposedly informed decisions. He’s going to go out and fuck bare, and then he’s going to catch a disease. And then he’s going to have to live with it for the rest of his life, or else die in agony.

    And does Deviant Otter give a shit about that kid? No he does not. He got his, fuck the rest of them.

    What the hell happened to gaykind that we went from fighting for our very right to exist, to this shit?

    • Zealot

      So true Ed! I agree, except I’d ask that you re-consider allowing anyone to make you feel ashamed of who you are. Let’s instead direct our anger at the ignorance and selfishness displayed by people who don’t see the value in protecting their health and that of others for the sake of a few moments of pleasure. It’s a human trait, not necessarily a gay one. Deviant Otter’s thoughts are mirrored and practiced by millions of straight men and women the world over. We need to get back to speaking about HIV and STI prevention in a real and meaningful way so that messages like this are drowned out by voices of reason, based on fact and not wishful thinking.

  • BLACKjackHAMMER

    I think Deviant Otter is full of SHIT this is proably nothing more than a marketing campaign to get people talking ( as we R doing ) and hoping that they will check out his NASTY F***ING site !!!

  • Rico Ruiz

    I wonder if his position on “smart sex” would be the same if he were being fucked bareback with an undetectable HIV-positive top. I have a feeling that it wouldn’t be. I think so many gay men are misguided by the advantages of PrEP. Truvada is not a replacement for condoms.

  • Cosmic

    In the case of this genius the phrase “Too Stupid To Live” might actually become literal.

  • GayPupCub24

    As a fan of Deviant Otter after reading this I have lost a ton of respect for him and will no longer support his site or work. Just cause people are on Prep doesn’t mean they should bareback. When I do start taking Prep I will still be using condoms. I believe in safe sex and my theory is no glove no love. Hate how gay guys and gay porn stars think barebacking is ok. It’s not you can get AIDS and STDS. I’ll stick to safe sex thank you very much! I don’t support anything involving bareback sex.

  • Todd B

    Jesus Christ! We’ve waited since the 80’s for a cure and now that we have a preventative pill, we are so brainwashed that now we can’t even go back to trying to enjoy “natural” sex. Why are we still slut shaming? Why are you all acting like fucking bible-beating republicans?!

    • GayPupCub24

      It’s not slut shaming ! I’m gay and going to be starting Prep and guess what I’ll still be using condoms! Being on a pill doesn’t give a person the right to have unprotected sex Prep only prevents HIV and aids which means he can still get crabs and other stds because prep doesn’t prevent all stds but HIV and ads.

      • Todd B

        What the hell are you talking about “the right to have unprotected sex”??? We all have the right to do that already. Being on prep is being pro-active in mine and my sex partners health. Before prep I was still having unsafe sex at time, just like many gay men, not getting checked often and really not caring about myself. Being on prep has given me back control of my body, my sex, my happiness. Sure, caring about other stds is important, but they aren’t killers. If someone wants to have condom free sex on prep good for them, because part of that regimen is getting tested constantly. And to be honest, the feeling is a thousand times better and the risk of another std is worth it to me.

  • Tall Rugby Guy

    Seaguy as always doesn’t understand that Freedom of Speech is freedom of speech free of governmental interference. This is a privately-owned website, so they can accept or deny whatever they wish, and they accept the majority calling barebacking, irresponsible folk like Deviant Otter–and you, based on your past posts–moronic. Consenting adults of the age of consent are free to do whatever stupid shit to themselves they wish. One could make a libertarian argument as to reckless gay men and a healthcare burden paid for by everyone, as well as potential exposure of HIV and STI to the general populace as infringing on other people’s maximal liberty, but it’s pointless. Stupidity carries on nonetheless, and you always seem to be in favor of it.

  • RSB

    I’ve been following blogs and news about this (PreP) since I learned friends of mine, obviously negative, started on PreP because they wanted “the full benefit of uninhibited sex” aka barebacking. I am HIV positive, have been for fifteen years. I’ve had my share of problems with different meds, but have always been undetectable. That being said, it is NOT without it’s side effects. Meds such as Truvada (yes I’ve been on that one) have caused me all sorts of problems with my kidneys and urinary tract. The latest, neuropathy. You wouldn’t know it to look at me, but I deal with an assortment of these things on a daily basis. When I learned my friends were taking the plunge for the reasons they were, I was very concerned. They live in an environment where anything but monogamy is the “thing”. I have no issues with anyone’s choice of lifestyle or how they want to practice it as long as they aren’t hurting someone else. But I was very concerned about this, and said so. The first obvious thing that I mentioned was that just because they take something to help them dodge the AIDS virus, it won’t help them dodge other STDS. Not only that, while Truvada works in most cases, why tempt fate with that small percent chance of something going wrong? Lo and behold, sadly, one friend came down with a severe STD that landed him out of commission for two weeks, and one tested positive for HIV (and yes, it could be due to that he missed a dose). PreP is meant to further protect against HIV along with safe sex practices, not to be used as bra-burning liberation. I know this likely throws water on the fires of someone’s passion, but how much is feeling “natural” worth it. Especially is you are practicing unsafe sex in an environment that has a high rate of HIV? I’m pretty sure I contracted the virus when I was young, careless and didn’t have a clue about what could happen. Today’s environment couldn’t be more saturated with information, so I’d like to think that my friends are smarter than this, but I’m more sad to learn they weren’t. Deviant Otter is irresponsible on more levels than I have room to write, he’s taken it upon himself to instruct a whole generation of gay men that it’s ok to practice unsafe sex as long you take the precautions the miracles of modern medicine have afforded them. Clearly he doesn’t have the education himself to understand , or even know firsthand, what the implications are, on himself as those he influences.

  • Dirk

    Wake up. People bareback and he’s just being honest.

  • Robert Bourquet

    I don’t know how else to say this but is Deviant a COMPLETE AND TOTAL AND IRRESPONSIBLE MORON????? If he had seen the devastation that AIDS caused taking thousands of lives and still taking thousands of lives, he would not speak so brainlessly. It is a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE way to die. I hope he recants his mindless statements and rubbers up and as a member of the porn community urges everyone to rubber up and BE SAFE….

  • KalterStahl

    So much pearl clutching.

    Look. People are going to fuck. Condoms suck. Condoms plus PReP is better than PReP alone, but PReP is better than nothing. And if I am going to insist on condom use then why take a toxic drug with often-awful side effects? The only reason to take PReP is so you don’t have to wrap it up. Otherwise you’re poisoning yourself for the incredibly small chance of getting HIV despite consistent condom usage. Unless you’re getting gang banged by strangers on the daily then condoms and PReP together is ridiculous.

    If you’re going to be so puritanical about sex then why fuck at all?

  • robert

    Even if Truvada is a magic pill against hiv (when taken as suggested and with a healthy immune system)… there are still other stds. Lets not forget people were spreading hiv 15 years before we even knew there was a disease. And then once it was discovered it took 20 years and tens of millions of lives (dying very painful deaths) before we able to develop an effective enough treatment for people to live normal lives with the disease (only in wealthy nations and with hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient of medicine). So what now.. because the storm has calmed a little bit we act like idiots? What could have been a chance for loving couples to continue to have intimate sex without fear is a party drug? Right now i guarantee you there is another disease that is spreading among barebackers that has not yet been discovered… lets just hope it is not as bad as hiv was in the 80s and 90s.