It still leaves a 10% chance of infection, according to the article. It doesn't reduce infection to other STDs either and I think that if people used it in order to justify going bareback then it would make things worse. For those people that already choose to give/receive BBFS it will at least provide a little protection. I hope it just doesn't make people feel that they are invincible.
If and/or when scientists develop a cure for HIV, what will you all do? There will still be still be STDs to worry about and the worry of the next super virus, but the fear of HIV would be over. Would you still cover up or unwrap like before the HIV era? My thought is that the scare of STDs and something else would keep most people wrapped up but that there would be more people venturing into the world of BBFS.The article's focus is on the gay community, but it could just as well apply to the hobby.
Will using the vaccine make things safer or less so?
I don't recall there was any such controversy when the birth control pill came into being, but then again the issues are a bit different there.
It still leaves a 10% chance of infection, according to the article. It doesn't reduce infection to other STDs either and I think that if people used it in order to justify going bareback then it would make things worse. For those people that already choose to give/receive BBFS it will at least provide a little protection. I hope it just doesn't make people feel that they are invincible.
If and/or when scientists develop a cure for HIV, what will you all do? There will still be still be STDs to worry about and the worry of the next super virus, but the fear of HIV would be over. Would you still cover up or unwrap like before the HIV era?
My thought is that the scare of STDs and something else would keep most people wrapped up but that there would be more people venturing into the world of BBFS.
Gilead's statistics show that 40% of prescriptions filled have gone to women of color in the south. This article focuses on gay men, but I'm sure those scripts are being given to women whose husbands cheat and refuse to use condoms, and also to sex workers,
Truvada is actually MORE effective than condoms, statistically. But it has harsh effects on the body as does any HIV treatment. It's not a vaccine by any means. It's an anti-retroviral cocktail that makes most people very sick until their body gets used to it, can decrease bone density, etc. it's not a good substitute for condoms for these reasons, but if you're going to bareback with strangers ANYWAY, it's a highly recommended harm reduction method.
I know gay men who are HIV- and are long-term partners with other gay men who are HIV+. I know multiple such pairings. In every case where the HIV- partner is on PrEP, even tho these guys do it raw dog all day and night, no one I know has sero-converted (contracted HIV from their partner or anyone else). They've been doing these studies in SF for many years. Even if you forget to take the pill for 1-2 days it still works. It's very effective.
A very similar drug cocktail is available in emergency rooms as a thirty day course if you ever thing you are accidentally exposed to HIV. It's used for hospital workers who get exposed accidentally like if they prick themselves with a needle that has been in a positive person's bloodstream or something. I definitely also know ladies who have taken that 30 day course after having a condom break with someone, just in case.
People in the gay community (and the provider community) have been very passionate about condom use as a form of harm reduction for a long time and are reluctant to compromise that dogma in light of this new development. There is a lot of slut-shaming involved. People say this will be used as an excuse for more people to BB. My opinion? People are gonna BB anyway, and they should know about this new harm reduction option. Wish it was getting more press outside the gay community than it is.
Personally, I'm going to stick with condoms, but I'm glad this option exists for people who desire to BB as a way of life. For me it's not worth the risk, but for many who already BB this option is a risk reduction, which is great! 
This reminds me of a debate I had in a Criminology course about whether or not we should legalize "victimless" crimes like prostitution or consuming certain controlled substances. On one side of the room we had people who would never accept a world in which these things were legal, and on the other end, people like me. One of the most frequent arguments I heard was something along the lines of, "if drugs or prostitution were legal, then everyone would have sex with hookers and no one would ever go to work because they'd be wasted all the time". Sadly enough, this was a 300-level course, and obviously there was a lack of critical thinking skills in the room. I, on the other hand, like to think that while the illegality of an act IS the sole reason why SOME of us don't engage in those acts, that for the most part we wouldn't see that huge of an increase, for a slew of reasons.
I have the same thinking here, that sure, while some people might be reckless enough not to use protection just because they may not contract HIV, most of us are aware enough to know that this drug ONLY protects against HIV, and not things like HPV, herpes, gonorrhea, etc. Bottom-line, it would be a rather uninformed decision that not a lot of us would be willing to make.