HIV rethink...

Agree 100%

 

Although a noble stance to have, I think its very hard to ask that of people. The truth of the matter is that HIV is still incurable and can still be terminal and can still be transmitted, no matter how careful you are if partaking in penetrative sex.

You can say it takes the worry out of things, but that's not true as your comparison is with meeting random guys and trust issues therein.

However that is not the only comparison one can make. One could equally meet a single HIV negative guy and build a monogamous relationship with them; which for many people is the ideal and contains no concept of worry. (unless your partner is less than faithful, but that's the chance everyone takes in every relationship)

I'm not saying that people should discriminate against people with HIV, as they shouldn't. If I was single and met a charming older gent, who made me laugh, who happened to be HIV positive, I wouldn't dismiss them but I would ask some very pertinent questions.

However HIV status is still a totally valid reason to determine ones dating preferences.

 

The following quote is from an article on HIV transmission among primary partners in (presumably monogamous) relationships:

The part I bolded above is one of the reasons that being in a monogamous relationship is a risk factor for acquiring HIV. Yes, a risk factor.

The article goes on to say that couples in such relationships get tested less frequently and are likely to perceive their risk as lower than it is. They are also known to use condoms less. It is far more likely to get infected with repeated exposure from an infected partner, so that, in a sense, being with the same person without using condoms increases the risk tremendously.

I learned a couple of years ago, when I got tested for the first time, that the highest rate of new HIV infections is among supposedly monogamous couples. Skiff's point is highly valid, it is better to know as the partner is likely to be taking drugs to maintain undetectable levels of the virus and the seronegative partner is more likely to use Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as an additional layer of protection with condoms.

When the stakes are so high, living with the expectation that a seronegative primary partner could be less than faithful, requires equally high-stakes protection, it makes sense to use every precaution available.

 

The moment you walk out the door to your house, you are setting yourself up for risk. Get in a car, you risk being killed immediately in a car accident by the drunk speeding at 100 miles an hour. Do you still drive? Get on an airplane and fly somewhere. You have no idea whom the pilot is, what his experience is, what his mental state is, yet you still get on the plane and fly to wherever it is your going.

Can you choose to stay at home, sure. Can you choose not to get into a car, sure. Can you choose not to get on the plane, sure. But most likely, you do anyway.

HIV is treatable, but with risks, and not all the time. Cancer is treatable, but with some risks, and not all the time. Heart disease is treatable, but with some risks, not all the time.

The stigma from HIV is from 30 years ago. Everyday we ask the world to progress their views on LGBT. To allow for equal marriage, for equal rights. Its time to put the stigma of HIV in the same place, behind us.

 

@ greatwhale, I don't refute your statistics, but then one can't argue with the simple fact that if both partners are initially STD free and remain monogamous, they will remain STD free. That's not moral judgement and nor is it a commentary on peoples relationships. (as I personally believe people should construct relationships in a way that's healthy for them all) If you are in a relationship with more than one sex partner though, then one should be making informed sex choices. For example you gave me valuable advice in my thread, but my married partner keeps pushing for BB sex. I continue to refuse as despite being aware of my own sexual conduct (STD free and monogamous), I'm not aware of his or his wife's and refuse to be put at risk.

I'm not arguing with your point, but nor do I think you can really argue that knowing your partner is positive is a more liberating experience than knowing your partner is negative, on the off-chance said negative partner may have more than one sexual partner themselves and then become positive.

The statistics support that sexual transmission of HIV is in the main passed through those who are unaware of their HIV status who are not receiving treatment, however people under HIV treatment, even with undetectable levels can still pass on HIV. (although this is massively hard to do so and highly improbably with proper precautions taken)

I'm not suggesting HIV positive people be shunned or ignored but I am stating that if you sleep with someone who KNOWS they are HIV negative you have 0 chance of acquiring HIV. (removing ones self from the consideration of if the person accurately knows ones own status) Peoples bias in this area, reflects that simple fact, regardless of what statistics support to the contrary.


@ onthehighway, as I said before; I'm personally not perturbed by a partners HIV status as I take precautions, practice safer sex and get tested regularly; so it wouldn't be a road block for me if I liked the gent. I'm also not terrified of HIV, although I would greatly prefer not to ever contract it. (especially considering the field I work within requires contact with blood products) However your analogies are not parallels; last I checked nothing you mentioned in your list of parallels is actually transmittable to another person through standard sexual contact, other than HIV.

If HIV did not pose a personal contagion risk, then people wouldn't alot the stigma too it, that it has. It is not true that the stigma attached to HIV is purely homophobia and it is unfair to say so. It also stems from peoples fear of personal infection. (mostly due to ignorance of its actual infection rates and how it operates, but still the fear is very real for many people)

 

The analogies are not transmittable as you say, but like contracting HIV, they reflect the risk taken from the action of others; which was what I was trying to convey (although maybe not effectively).

 

I understood what you meant, I just think if given the choice between 2 equal cars, but one had a slight chance of giving you an incurable illness; many people would choose the other car.


(it's a poor analogy and maybe offensive, but the point im trying to make is that people are terrified of HIV and you are right that most of this is due to sexual identity stigma.)


I've always felt peoples attitudes to STD's was idiotic as it incorporates too much of the Victorian attitude to sex being dirty and thus those who have these illnesses being "unclean" or "dirty" themselves. Yet if someone gives me a cold, I don't hold them accountable, so why hold someone accountable for STD's.

The same way if I went to Africa and came into contact with someone with Ebola, I wouldn't blame that person for any resultant infection; but instead people seem to want to proportion blame when sex is involved.

The only thing I can even think of that comes near this level of sheer offensiveness is lung cancer, where people will say "oh he has lung cancer, but he didn't smoke"; as if those who smoke in some way deserve their illness and those who don't are deserving of sympathy.


Society needs to stop proportioning blame for STD's in general. They are illnesses contracted through doing one of the most fundamental human interactions that we are in large part basically programmed to seek out and enjoy. It is bad luck and people who suffer from them deserve understanding and any support they may feel they need; not to be outcast or treated like lepers.

 

Well said.

 

Expanding awareness - always a good thing. AND information can be quite overwhelming for some; many prefer denial in their day-to-day. "Never underestimate the power of denial," < a favorite reminding quote. As for HIV+ friends [or other STDs], we all have them, we just don't know it necessarily - many with HIV don't know it [see above: denial]. This being the "LGBT Later in Life" thread - pertinent to later in life - I believe I've read that one of the fastest growing populations w HIV are older people, many who's attention was elsewhere during their younger years and missed the rough early days of AIDS. Ultimately, there's nothing that guarantees 100% risk-free living, whether that be STDs or getting in a car, or receiving some other life-threatening situation. Same thing with having folks in our lives - friends or lovers. The only way to protect oneself is to become a hermit. Otherwise, every single person we care about is potential heartbreak and difficulty for us. But that hasn't stopped us in thousands of generations from seeking each other out. It's how we're wired. People with HIV, whether they know their status or not, are responsible with their status or not, are just people. In working with the general population - anybody coming in close contact with potential risk, is trained in Universal Precautions - treating everyone the same as if they might be HIV+. As for relations with that person - it's a very personal decision - no right, no wrong, just preference. But don't expect it to be anything less than a transformative experience that forces a look deep down inside as to biases, prejudices, preferences. People with HIV need allies. Looking from their end of the equation - people who won't flee in the opposite direction are golden. Same could be said for people with cancer or any of the other hundreds of diseases that can take hold in a human body. It takes a tough and resilient person to remain in the heat of their kitchen - even as a friend. Ask anyone who faces declining health how many friends they have. Sure, everyone rallies to be there at first -- but down the road is a different story. People have short attention spans and get frustrated with not being able to fix and make better -- so they fade into the horizon of their own denial. Even friendship is a commitment that in this context can be life-affirming - or a kick in the balls for either party. Obviously, health status factors in big in a sexual relationship, but it factors in in the simplest of friendships. I say all this in honor of a close friend who died 20 yrs ago from AIDS. His wide social circle had shrunk to zero - other than an ex-partner who showed up just in time to collect on his life insurance [fucking predator!]. My friend and I were very close, but never physical. He was my brother in need and I was there to the end with him. A very sad ending to a rich life. So, if you're going in consciously into a relationship with any other human being, but especially one with HIV, it's worth asking yourself how far would you go to be there unselfishly for that person. If you can't take the heat - stay out of the kitchen. But know if you choose to remain you'll find out more about yourself than you ever bargained.

 

No one KNOWS they are HIV negative unless they have not had sex since testing, nor in the "window period" previous to testing (up to 3 months beforehand in the case of the finger-prick test).

 

I'm well aware of how HIV testing works. The problem with arguments of your nature is that their is still a massive difference psychologically between knowing at your last recent test you were HIV negative, rather than HIV positive.

You can argue the semantics of it all you wish, but the human response to "last week I was tested and I was HIV negative", is naturally very different to "Last week I was tested and I was HIV positive".

People aren't logical beings, they are emotional with primal reasoning's. The simple truth is that even using basic but flawed balances of probabilities, people think "okay last week you were HIV negative, so theirs a good chance you still are", but if you're positive then the thought process is simply "your HIV positive".

Basically to a lot of men who are uninformed about HIV transmission, this is the difference between playing Russian roulette with 1 loaded chamber, where you might get shot, and Russian roulette where every chamber is loaded and you definitely will get shot. (yes I'm aware its incorrect, but it still doesn't change the fact that many people see it this way)

 

I am guessing I am one of the guys who is referenced in this comment.

I suppose I cannot say that HIV+ is guaranteed 100% no way reaction to a relationship. One never knows whom one might meet, and what happens if a guy who is HIV+ but otherwise hundreds of miles past perfect comes along?

But...it is something I'd have trouble with. Yes, intellectually, I realize that with great care there is a good chance I'd never contract HIV. Yes, intellectually, I realize that treatment options are better than 1980. But...the AIDS crisis of the 1980s left its mark on a deep level, and that level still has trouble accepting what I can accept intellectually.

 

Perhaps. I'll ponder this as I get up and go and change the record that's playing...

 

I was a teenager in the 80's, watched the AIDS epidemic unfold in front of my eyes on TV every night. As a teenager, I was rushed to the emergency room at around 3 am in the morning after my parents found out I hooked up with a guy and were frantic that I might have been infected; so they wanted me tested immediately (although back then testing was in its infancy), they called the police, etc etc etc (I was of legal age of consent and I was the one that instigated the situation, which made them even more anxious). The negative stigma back then, given the diseases was out of control with no proper medication, was massive. The shame I felt from this event was one of three driving forces that put me in the closet.

Furthermore, I had an intense relationship back in High School with my then best friend (this was after the episode I referenced above). He was there for me when I was dealing with the fall out from hooking up with the guy and the shame I felt; and that evolved into something more substantial between us. As I have mentioned in prior posts, the relationship became acidic and we parted ways, not to speak again for over 20 years. He and I had similar paths in life after we split apart. We each got married, each had children, good careers - and we each left our wives around the same time a few years back.

While I explored my physical sexuality while on my journey and played it safe; he also explored his physical sexuality, but in his case, he was not careful. He contracted HIV.

Even with all the advances and ability to lead life with HIV, he still maintained the negative stigma of HIV from our youths. He could not bare the personal shame. And with the stress building from all the other changes in his life, along with the "final straw" of contracted HIV, he ended his life.

In 2015, no one should be taking their own life due to contracting HIV. The stigma, the shame, is not necessary at this point. Advancements are such that protection exists to minimize the risk massively of contracting HIV (if used consistently); and the ability to lead a normal life through advancements in medication have been made as well.

As a whole, we all need to work together to evolve the negative views that still exist. I, for one, do not believe they are warranted anymore.

 

As I commented before, there is an intellectual acceptance that things are different. But there is also that deeper level, and that level doesn't seem to be too terribly responsive to logic...

For example, I must have had something go wrong around water at some point, although there was no known near drowning. I had a strong fear of water up through my mid-20s. At that point, I learned to swim, which helped immeasurably. But I think there still is a deeper memory still there on some deep level that can flare up. For example, going under the surface of water is sometimes not easy for me, especially in deep water. Intellectually, I know what to do. But on some deeper level, there is still something left that does not like being under water.