I was super impressed when I went to see my PCP for my annual physical and when I mentioned I'm non monogamous (which apparently triggers a diagnostic code for "high risk sexual behavior") she said, "We can put you on PrEP if you want, just to be sure. Cheap insurance." Cheap insurance indeed.

It's really amazing how much that attitude has changed in a decade or so. I asked my PCP at the time (and this was the last time I saw this doctor, FWIW) about PrEP when it was relatively new, and basically got a "I don't want to encourage dangerous behavior" lecture.

> Every thread on HN about HIV/AIDS seems to attract at least one person who feels obliged to say something about how promiscuous gay people are. I don't think these comments often come from a good place.

Just the one? If only.

Every time there is a story on HN that is even tangentially related to either HIV or LGBTQ+ sexual health, it inevitably devolves into a morass of misinformation and thinly-veiled homophobia. There are different degrees of it - some is presented in a more "civil" veneer, which helps it stay upvoted, but at its core, it's all coming from the same place.

Public health professionals who specialize in HIV and LGBTQ+ sexual health are actually pretty unanimous in their position on this topic, but somehow that never sways these folks (which should be a pretty good sign that they're not arguing in good faith).

I was understating, for sure. Civility (or the veneer thereof) is HN’s major exploit vector.

I think my favorite part is how you don't actually specify what the position is, just that there is one and it's apparently enlightened.

Knowing what public health professionals think about this topic is pretty much table stakes for being able to make any sensible kind of contribution to the discussion. Otherwise it is like arguing the finer points of Rust lifetimes with people who couldn’t write ‘Hello World’ in Python.

In this case I think the relevant position is widely known. Supporting people to have safe sex works, whereas shaming them for having more than some vaguely specified maximum number of acceptable sexual partners does not work.

This is a defensive mechanism to try and prevent your position from being verifiable (or refuted).

HN isn’t the place to argue about public health policy in relation to HIV/AIDS unless you have something new or interesting to add to the topic. Literally every time this topic comes up on HN we have stacks of comments making the same repetitive talking points about gay male promiscuity. Quite apart from the rather odious and obvious agenda behind these comments (which surely don’t stem from any serious concern about gay men’s health), this is incredibly tedious. I might also add that your point, such as it is, has SFA to do with TFA - which is largely focused on Africa.

I've never seen someone use HN guidelines to argue they can't post a link clarifying their position.

The parent comment is poorly veiled moralizing and faux humility.

The reality is that they are generally more promiscuous and generally under worse circumstances.

This is a statement of fact, please stop mistaking it as a moral judgement that we need to fight against. You cannot help mitigate or solve a problem without accepting reality.