LogFAQs > #963603311

joe40001 posted...

"One of the safest sex partners you could have" is not the same as "about zero risk of HIV transmission"

Anybody without HIV would have literally 0 risk of HIV transmission, and thus by definition they would all be safer partners unless they had another STD they could transmit.

This isn't to say HIV positive people can't be very safe all or whatever, I'm just saying the "one of the safest" is a false statement.

Put simply, even insanely well managed, a STD positive person is going to be a less safe sex partner than a person with 0 STDs. Doesn't make anybody bad, it's just a matter of fact.

A person who guaranteed has no STDs/STIs is of course the safety sex partner of all, but that doesnt change my statement that an HIV-positive person on successful treatment is one of the safest sex partners. Because if we look at this from a real world perspective, which is what safe sex needs to be based on, the risk is higher if you have sex with a person who regularly OR just sometimes have new sexual partners and think they are negative because a test they took last week said so but they took the test less than 3 months after their last sexual encounter. Because it could be a false negative since enough time hasnt gone by for the test to detect HIV, but the person could be infectious by the time you sleep with them. A person could have only had sex once some time ago, and gotten infected without knowing and they took a test too soon or not at all, and then they infect their second partner since both think all is well and there is no need for a condom.