What do [+] and [=] mean in someone’s profile?

I admit, the first time I say a profile with [+] attached to the name, I was confused.  Coming from the tech world, a box with a + in it means “closed tree control, click to expand and see content”.

Turns out, though, that this is a handy bit of flagging.

“Flagging” is any sort of non-verbal method for indicating preferences, status, or identity.  It is best known in the gay community via a colored bandana stuck in the back pocket to indicate kink activities, but it goes way deeper.  Hanging your keys from a belt loop indicates top or bottom.  The type of flowers held in a bouquet indicates feeling and availability, as does the specific color of roses.  The online bear community has a coded string of letters and numbers to indicate a large about of sexual and physical details.  Even Queen Elizabeth “flags” with her purse, they say.

One newer revision of the classic hanky code includes a flag for being trans — not for what you are into, but what you are.  This would be an identity flag, one used for disclosing information which might otherwise be difficult to verbally express — for various reasons, including personal security.   (Thanks to Shilo for showing me this one.)

[+] and [=] are also identity flags.  [+] is used to indicate HIV-positive status.  This sometimes also shows up as [+u] for “poz undetectable”, meaning HIV+ and on meds with an “undetectable” viral load, which recent studies have shown to be heavily unlikely to be at risk of transmitting the virus.

[=] is used to indicate “on PrEP” (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis), meaning someone who is HIV- and on a daily regimen of Truvada as protection against HIV infection.  While intended especially to be used in conjunction with condoms, studies have shown PrEP alone to be highly effective in preventing seroconversion.  (And thus combined with known [+u] partners, even more effective.)

As with any discussion of these subjects, a few things should be remembered:

• HIV meds and PrEP may massively reduce the risk of infection, but risk does still exist.  (Condoms also massively reduce the risk but do not remove it completely — they break, etc.)
• “HIV-” and “undetectable” are only as good as the last test.  Status can change between tests.
• Those terms are also only good if someone is honest.  Just as there are poz guys who simply don’t know it or who will lie and say they are negative if it means you will have sex with them, there are unquestionably also guys who aren’t stable on their meds or are lying about being on them at all.
• [+u] and [=] reduce the risk of transmission of HIV and only HIV.  Not HPV, HEP, gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia, etc.  (However, people who are on the meds and getting tested regularly will tend to have infections discovered and treated sooner, which may reduce both spread and intensity.)

I have even recently seen [=] guys saying that they prefer to only play with poz guys.  Not too many years ago, this would have indicated a “bug chaser”, but today, it is a new version of “serosorting” — reducing your risk by playing with the guys most likely to actually know their status and be in treatment.  Quite the change on that front, eh?

Return of “Craigslist bots”

Posting on the Craigslist personals sections is kind of like sticking your hand into your refrigerator vegetable drawer, blindfolded.  You might pull out something wonderful, or you might grab the cucumber you left in there two months ago and forgot about.  Eewww.  (And I’m just talking posting and the replies you get, not what actually shows up at your door!)

The most notorious are the Craigslist bots, automated replies that get past the CAPTCHA mechanism to send you curiously phrased replies which are just tantalizing enough to maybe be real.  I’ve posted about this before once, and again.

Here is the latest variation I’ve received, within 15 minutes of each other (I’ve zapped the address domain names so spiders hopefully won’t pick them up):

From: Vance Hale

Well let's get this show going! I reckon I should give you my stats, I'm 6'1in, 180; brown/green. I'm looking for normal to small dicks. Later, man

And then this one:

From: Cory Ford

God, some of the posts are hilarious. Yours was great, tho. So I suppose I should give my stats, like 6'1", 177 brown/blue. Any age difference is no object for me. Meshing well is about all that does. Chk U L8r.

How to spot a bot?  Well, a couple of the old methods aren’t present here: a woman’s name attached to a post going to a guy, or directing you to a site to verify that you are real.

The telltale here, of course, was the similar structure: greeting, I should give my stats, stats for someone desirably tall and desirably slender, note about what I want, closing.  In particular, though, no reference to what my post was about, no racial information, and nothing that my post requested is present (like a pic).

You’ll note that the “Cory Ford” email address carries a woman’s name, though, and the “Vance Hale” one may as well (“willa”), but the email address is going to be hidden in favor of just the reply name in most modern programs.  I can’t for the life of my figure out who would program bots to be smart enough to attach a male name on an m4m post but still use a female email address.  (But that’s how spammers and virus writers get caught: they do something stupid, leave some clue.)

Online Ass d'Jour: Rubbers? What rubbers?

Date: August 13, 2011 / Place: Las Vegas / Service: Scruff

Me: What kind of of hot man sex?
Him: Hot pig sex.  More top but love to fuck raw
Me: Got to use a rubber for fucking
Him: Y a rubber for fucking?  Don’t u like to feel a raw cock in ur ass
Me: I’m done here
Him: Done with what?

(Come on, guy.  When someone says they don’t bareback, you don’t push them to.  Period.)

(I refrained from blocking him so I could get a reply. Got one that was semi-apologetic — “OK I will respect that” — but I’m still not going to have sex with him.  No least because I wouldn’t expect him to “respect that”.)