POZ party players

December 19, 2005 9:57 AM

Who goes to POZ Parties? Researchers profile HIV-1 positive men who have sex with men (MSM) at so-called "POZ parties": "Predominantly white and over the age of 30, subjects in the sample include a broad range of years living with HIV infection. Motivations for using a POZ Party venue for sexual partnering include relief from burdens for serostatus disclosure, an interest in not infecting others, and opportunities for unprotected sexual exchange. High rates of unprotected sex with multiple partners are prevalent in the venue. Although the sample evidences high rates of lifetime exposure to illicit drugs, relatively little drug use was reported in these sexual environments."
posted by docgonzo (42 comments total)

Hasn't there been something similar to this in the herpes positive community for quite a while?
posted by Pollomacho at 10:05 AM on December 19, 2005

Irony - go to a poz party, get herpes.

Seriously tho - lots of good reasons to at least have protection anyway. Hepatitis for one. Herpes of course. What the hell are (some) people thinking?

Superinfection? um....
posted by Smedleyman at 10:08 AM on December 19, 2005

I know having HIV/Aids sucks and you can't have unprotected sex safely with non-HIV infected people, and this is a terrible infringement on your right to fuck*, but:
Isn't this a great way to interbreed HIV strains, making new ones that are potentially resistant to more anti-retrovirals?

Like having a 'flu' party, where people with various strains all get together and cough, cos I just can't do my sputum thing in public?


note: I object to this behavior whether the participants are gay or straight - maybe they should sign a release saying I'll never have any kind of sex with a non-POZ person again?
posted by lalochezia at 10:09 AM on December 19, 2005

Pollo: herpes isn't going to mutate into antiviral-immune versions and start killing people.

Giving the AIDS virus the ability to move from host to host quickly allows it to evolve into more virulent forms.

Remember when AIDS was new and people who got it would die in a month or so? And now it takes Years and years?
posted by delmoi at 10:09 AM on December 19, 2005

if this is reresentative of more than a few people, it makes me sad that the average person lacks even the most basic education in biology... if you don't have a virulent, treatment-resistant strain of HIV yet, and you do these things, you will.
posted by rxrfrx at 10:11 AM on December 19, 2005

I was going to say what if person A has a virus that's slightly immune to antiviral A and person B has a virus that's slightly immune to antiviral B? But then I remembered that viruses don't actually have sex with each other :P

Still, having two different strains both of which are immune to different antiviral sounds like a recipe for disaster.
posted by delmoi at 10:13 AM on December 19, 2005

I was going to say what if person A has a virus that's slightly immune to antiviral A and person B has a virus that's slightly immune to antiviral B? But then I remembered that viruses don't actually have sex with each other

But HIV-1 viruses can recombine -- swap bits of genetic material when they both infect the same cell.
posted by docgonzo at 10:15 AM on December 19, 2005

But HIV-1 viruses can recombine -- swap bits of genetic material when they both infect the same cell.

I figured that might happen every once in a while, I didn't relize it was common (I know viruses swap bits of DNA with their host).

Also, is there an HIV-2 now?
posted by delmoi at 10:18 AM on December 19, 2005

herpes isn't going to mutate into antiviral-immune versions and start killing people.

Why not? No really, I don't know, why not? Herpes Simplex is a pretty widespread set of viruses that can cause some nasty fevers, so why couldn't it mutate into a more deadly strain of chicken pox or such? I don't know, so I'm really asking.
posted by Pollomacho at 10:19 AM on December 19, 2005

HIV-2 is primarily in Africa.
posted by thefreek at 10:22 AM on December 19, 2005

Aside from the joys of HIV reinfection, unprotected sex poses a host of problems for immunocomprimized people.
After all,, HIV is not the only life threatening STI.

It would be great if the POZ parties used a non-judgmental setting to promote safer-sex and the idea that even if you have HIV you owe it to yourself to promote your own, as well as public health.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 10:23 AM on December 19, 2005

Yes.

The tremendous genetic variation of HIV has created a number of species, types and subtypes.

There are two species of HIV; both are thought to be descendants of simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIVs) that jumped the species barrier from primates. HIV-1 is from chimpanzees, HIV-2 from sooty mangabeys. HIV-2 in humans is basically restricted to West Africa and is much less virulent and much less easily transmitted than HIV-1.

There are also three major types of HIV-1 -- M, N, and O -- but M is the bulk of the global pandemic. M is further divided into a number of subtypes and circulating recombinant forms (CRFs) which are the result of two viruses infecting one host and swapping genetic material through recombination.

Most North American and European infections are subtype B, so the vast majority of clinical and experimental work has been done on subtype B viruses. Almost all African and Asian infections are non-B subtypes -- and there is no guarantee that scientific conclusions about B viruses will hold with non-B viruses. Yet another tragic part of the global pandemic.
posted by docgonzo at 10:25 AM on December 19, 2005

a terrible infringement on your right to fuck

there's a right to fuck? citations please!
posted by quonsar at 10:29 AM on December 19, 2005

Herpes Simplex is a pretty widespread set of viruses that can cause some nasty fevers, so why couldn't it mutate into a more deadly strain of chicken pox or such? I don't know, so I'm really asking.

This is (one of) the $56,000 questions of research into emerging infectious diseases.

The primary tool a virus uses to evade the host's immune system is genetic variation and reproduction speed/scope. When you make 10 million copies of yourself with a lot of small genetic changes, odds are one (or more) will be able to slip past the host's defenses. That is why emerging infectious diseases are so unpredictable.

However, viruses do not copy themselves very well and that limits the size of their genomes, scientists think. Because of this, they can only encode a small number of genes. And because of that, their molecular function is constrained.

Is there any guarantee that Herpes will not mutate into a more virulent form, especially given novel evolutionary pressures? No. But it is very limited as to what it can do genetically. Thank God.
posted by docgonzo at 10:30 AM on December 19, 2005

Some people just can't get it through their heads that it isn't a good idea to do whatever they want, even when they're prepared to take some precautions.
posted by orange swan at 10:30 AM on December 19, 2005

Why not? No really, I don't know, why not? Herpes Simplex is a pretty widespread set of viruses that can cause some nasty fevers, so why couldn't it mutate into a more deadly strain of chicken pox or such? I don't know, so I'm really asking.

I suppose in theory it could, if everyone started going crazy with fucking while on herpes, but it's not AIDS, which a right nasty disease.

there's a right to fuck? citations please!

Lawrence v. Texas, maybe?
posted by delmoi at 10:31 AM on December 19, 2005

nobody in texas has any business fucking.
posted by quonsar at 10:33 AM on December 19, 2005

Herpes Simplex is a pretty widespread set of viruses that can cause some nasty fevers, so why couldn't it mutate into a more deadly strain of chicken pox or such? I don't know, so I'm really asking.

Simple, useful answer:

HSV is a DNA virus that has been observed to have a mutation rate equivalent to that of other similarly characterized organisms (e.g. E. coli).

HIV is a retrovirus whose life cycle includes an error-prone reverse transcriptase.
posted by rxrfrx at 10:37 AM on December 19, 2005

nobody in texas has any business fucking.

It's a Business doing pleasure with you Charlie.
posted by Pollomacho at 10:38 AM on December 19, 2005

quonsar: nobody in texas has any business fucking.

You don't think it might do them some good?
posted by lodurr at 10:44 AM on December 19, 2005

I dunno how much AIDS scare y'all, but I got a theory - the day they come out with a cure for AIDS. Guaranteed, one-shot cure. On that day, there's gonna be fucking in the streets, man. It's over! Who're you? C'mere! What's your name, baby? No, it's over, yeah, woo-hoo! Man, if you can't get laid on that day, cut it off.

-- Bill Hicks
posted by matteo at 10:50 AM on December 19, 2005

It makes me sad that fucking can be so dangerous.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:51 AM on December 19, 2005

Somewhere, sometime I read about frequently HIV-infected prostitutes getting somehow immunized against HIV.

So, is it going to be this, or a more resistant strain of HIV?

Just curious. See if the poz-party people live longer than the infected loners...
posted by Laotic at 11:02 AM on December 19, 2005

Laotic, if they're infected, they can't have been immunized. I believe the example you're thinking of is a number of people who, although they're infected, have not developed AIDS. That's something about their bodies, not the strain(s) they carry.
posted by rxrfrx at 11:09 AM on December 19, 2005

Imagine that! A bunch of gay men going to parties to have sex with each other. Unbelievable.
posted by gagglezoomer at 11:10 AM on December 19, 2005

I am not advocating or defending this practice by any means, but, similar to this phenomenon, it is also about a sense of community, not just sex.
posted by rainbaby at 11:17 AM on December 19, 2005

This is totally silly, but at gay sex parties -- if anyone has the *ahem* balls to answer -- how Caligula-like is it? As a neurotic straight guy I'd worry I'd have to have sex with the unattractive chick, do ugly people get ass at these parties? Are they even divided? Inquiring minds want to know.
posted by geoff. at 11:40 AM on December 19, 2005

Somewhere, sometime I read about frequently HIV-infected prostitutes getting somehow immunized against HIV.

I think you mean frequently HIV-exposed....I've read something to this effect, too (African sex workers who are routinely exposed to HIV yet remain negative), I'll try to find the reference.
posted by tristeza at 11:56 AM on December 19, 2005

Imagine that! A bunch of gay men going to parties to have sex with each other. Unbelievable.
posted by gagglezoomer at 11:10 AM PST on December 19

Yeah, heterosexuals are orgy-free.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:00 PM on December 19, 2005

“there's a right to fuck? citations please!” - posted by quonsar

Pursuit of Happiness maybe?

“Imagine that! A bunch of gay men going to parties to have sex with each other. Unbelievable.” - posted by gagglezoomer

Yeah, I guess they don’t play golf like all white people do.
HIV pos folks seem to be the modern equivalent of lepers. I see no reason why they wouldn’t get together. No excuse for not wrapping the rascal of course, but I get the behavior. Pretty randy myself (no golf for me, thanks) and given the circumstances I empathize. Of course I’m not gay myself (not that there’s anything wrong with that), and I’m so monogamous now anglerfish think my wife and I are too hung up on each other, but sometimes your hand gets numb.
Perhaps you mean though, they go to parties to have sex like everyone else goes to parties to have sex? There’s no inflection in this medium unfortunately or perhaps my sarcasm meter is off.
*tap tap*
posted by Smedleyman at 12:05 PM on December 19, 2005

delmoi writes "Remember when AIDS was new and people who got it would die in a month or so? And now it takes Years and years?"

I'm not sure I understand the tone of your post, in other words, if you're being sarcastic or not, but this is such a common misconception about HIV that I'm going to address it anyway. Those people were diagnosed with HIV and died within months, they had almost certainly had it for years and years. They simply were never tested because either there was not a test or they didn't get tested until symptoms of AIDS appeared. People did not die more quickly from untreated HIV before than they do now.

The real concern, as others have pointed out, is the transmission of resistant viruses. HIV mutates quite readily, and in the presence of ineffective antiretrovirals can become resistant very quickly. In the nature of things it's reasonably unlikely that one will be infected with resistant HIV from someone not on antiretrovirals because the wild type virus is significantly more fit than all of the resistant variants currently catalogued. What this means is that in the body of an untreated person the vast majority of the virus will be wild type, all of it essentially. On the other hand, HAART does a great job of killing wildtype virus, and so if there is viremia present in a person taking HAART the virus is likely to be resistant to medications.
posted by OmieWise at 12:15 PM on December 19, 2005

Pollo: herpes isn't going to mutate into antiviral-immune versions and start killing people.


Bullshit. Disseminated HSV is lethal and can happen in an immunocompetent host, much less an HIV patient. HSV is also able to easily become resistant to antivirals, esp. if cases escalate and thus the drugs are used more and more for patient's stupidity.
posted by docpops at 12:19 PM on December 19, 2005

Here are a couple of PubMed abstracts on the phenomena of immunity as it relates to HIV exposure, but I admit I can't really find much of more substance (I don't have full access to their site)
posted by tristeza at 1:10 PM on December 19, 2005

Here is a link to a 2000 Village Voice article (a Pulitzer winner) that talks about "resistant" Kenyan prostitutes.
posted by OmieWise at 1:22 PM on December 19, 2005

Thanks Omiewise, and hey, cool - I know Joshua Kimani vaguely through my job...I didn't know he was researching this topic.
posted by tristeza at 2:18 PM on December 19, 2005

it is also about a sense of community, not just sex.

Great. You can wear condoms and still make friends. You can tell yourself you nned the risk for a thrill, but you really don't.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 2:29 PM on December 19, 2005

Welcome to the world of bug parties, where 'chasers' and 'gift givers' come together.
posted by londonmark at 3:38 PM on December 19, 2005

This is not bug parties--this is strictly HIV+ people getting together so that they don't have to worry about infecting us HIV- people. It is not at all realistic to expect any human to live without sex.
posted by amberglow at 3:45 PM on December 19, 2005

> the day they come out with a cure for AIDS. Guaranteed, one-shot cure.

Is there a prediction market for this one? I'd like to put down twenty on mother nature.
posted by jfuller at 5:32 PM on December 19, 2005

This is (one of) the $56,000 questions of research into emerging infectious diseases.

$64,000 questions.


Er.

Carry on.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 5:43 PM on December 19, 2005

Some HIV-negative men are using tenofovir instead of condoms, hoping it provides protection. Physicians say the practice could lead to more infections.
posted by robbyrobs at 6:24 PM on December 19, 2005

This is not bug parties--this is strictly HIV+ people getting together so that they don't have to worry about infecting us HIV- people. It is not at all realistic to expect any human to live without sex.

I'd say that's a naive view of what's really happening here, bug chasers or not. Who said anything about living without sex? Can you say condom? Reinfection not only creates a hypothetical risk of one virus developing resistance, it makes that person's treatment much harder. And if you think it doesn't matter because they already have one incurable disease, then maybe you've given up on them already, and maybe they have too. The motivations are a lot more complex than you think. And I don't buy the idea that this is some sort of noble, voluntary quarantine. that's just romanticised waffle, like arguing it's okay because bareback feels better.
posted by londonmark at 12:54 AM on December 20, 2005