<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Fighting HIV Without Condoms,&nbsp;Ctd]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>A reader writes:</p>
<blockquote><p>I&#8217;m a PhD student in virology at the University of Pennsylvania, and while I certainly don&#8217;t intend to (or need to) lecture you about HIV, <a href="http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/12/06/fighting-aids-with-barebacking/">your post</a> contained a subtle inaccuracy of great importance. You wrote that &#8220;middle-class gay men can suppress the virus indefinitely with the cocktail.&#8221; It&#8217;s true of course that viral load can be suppressed and that life expectancies of HIV+ individuals on strict HAART regimens are close to, if not completely, normal, but that&#8217;s not the same as saying that anti-viral therapy will keep you healthy. HIV-associated neurological disorders (HANDs) are a significant problem among HIV+ individuals (up to 50% of cases in the US) and are <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3597400/">only partially</a> preventable and treatable by HAART. I&#8217;m sure you know people who suffer or have suffered from HAND, and I don&#8217;t want your blog to become a place where people go to learn that just because anti-retroviral therapy is highly effective, that there are no consequences of HIV infection as long as you have money and/or insurance. (I&#8217;m including links to some more papers on this topic: <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24129908">here</a>, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23953699">here</a>, and <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23860944">here</a>.)</p></blockquote>
<p>Another asks:</p>
<blockquote><p>Isn&#8217;t there a possibility that a HIV positive man might be reinfected with a new strain of virus and cause his current HIV drug regimen to fail? I thought there was always that risk.</p></blockquote>
<p>Nope. Another quotes me:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Bareback sex feels better for both partners.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p><!--tpmore --></p>
<blockquote><p>You&#8217;ve made similar statements before, in even less compromising terms. (&#8220;Infinitely better&#8221; I think?) And, well, you&#8217;re wrong. Maybe for some people, maybe even for most, but not all. I honestly have no preference either way, not even in terms of convenience. A condom adds a bit of hassle up front, but it saves my partner a whole lot of cleanup, so it seems like a draw there. Certainly no difference in sensation. I understand why barebacking would be fetishized &#8211; the subject is so wrapped in danger and mystery and taboo thoughts that of course some people will turn it into a kink. Humans are really good at turning things into kinks! But that doesn&#8217;t mean they can&#8217;t be used very happily by lots of people.</p></blockquote>
<p>Another reader:</p>
<blockquote><p>In addressing whether condom use should continue to be encouraged, you wrote, &#8220;The more important goal is for HIV-positive men to have sex mainly with other HIV-positive men, restricting the virus to a pool of the already infected.&#8221; When I met my husband in 2005 years ago, he had already been HIV positive for many years. I was (and still am) HIV negative. Sero-sorting is all very well and good in theory, and I&#8217;m sure that many people &#8211; like yourself &#8211; have successfully worked out their lives that way. In my case, I wasn&#8217;t going to let a virus cheat me out of an intelligent, funny, caring man.</p></blockquote>
]]></html></oembed>