Pleasure, Passion and "Truvada Whores": Where Do You Stand?

The passions on both sides of the "Truvada whore" debate -- in short, whether PrEP therapy (daily Truvada therapy for HIV negative individuals) is good or bad, right or wrong when it comes to HIV prevention -- continue to simmer.

The New York Times recently chimed in on the debate, and high profile gay scribes like Andrew Sullivan and Larry Kramer have butted heads over the issue. But a story posted on impulsegrp.org  raises an interesting and perhaps significant question: should the issue of sexual pleasure and desire be taken more seriously when it comes to adopting HIV prevention strategies? The story makes this point:

"...it must be recognized that gay men have consistently been told their sexuality is wrong—so they are accustomed to finding ways to ignore messages that simply do not take into account their desires, attractions, and pleasures. Thus, a movement or message that promotes abstinence or limiting sexual pleasure will always be seen as suspect; a way to control a type of sexuality that makes society uncomfortable or afraid."

Throw another log on the fire, because this debate's going to stay red hot for some time.

Which side are you on in the ever-growing "Truvada whore" debate? Is PrEP an important new option in HIV prevention, or a dangerous alternative which will only lead to higher incidence of all STDs, including HIV? Should sexual pleasure be a consideration when it comes to HIV prevention? Sound off in the comments.

Comments

[Stephan]

this has to be considered incredible progress, no matter what the debate...

[Tom]

will prep encourage promiscuity, barebacking and increase STDs? or is saving lives more important? or is just good sex more important? is there a 'right' answer here?