It's Shallow to Always Decline any Sexual Contact with Someone Who is HIV+?

[Mal_the_Wolf]

Well,.... As to the ORIGINAL question.... Is it SHALLOW to ALWAYS decline sexual contact with someone who has HIV. Is it shallow for a boob guy to only approach top heavy women? Or better yet, a woman who is a size queen to make an effort to only be with well endowed me? I think its just a shallow as a homosexual person only approaching people of the same gender. Because just like the boob guy and size queen, a gay man or woman have just as much say so in what attracts them sexually.

If it offends people with HIV when they are turned down because they are +...... tough. If thats too stern I'm sorry but it's not really fair to hold someone in ill will because of how they feel/something they can't help...... esp when people don't bat an eyelash now-a-days when you rule out someone as a partner for smoking or living too far outside the city.

As for me PERSONALLY..... Ive never run into the issue, if I were put in the position I would flat out refuse. I know 2 people who have it, their married and manage it pretty well. But a friend you hug goodbye and eat dinner with. A partner..... I would be too scared of contracting it, and to make a long story short and nip a debate in the bud. To transmit HIV to a person unaware is called criminal transmission and is a murder charge.

 

[43698]

Well,.... As to the ORIGINAL question.... Is it SHALLOW to ALWAYS decline sexual contact with someone who has HIV. Is it shallow for a boob guy to only approach top heavy women? Or better yet, a woman who is a size queen to make an effort to only be with well endowed me? I think its just a shallow as a homosexual person only approaching people of the same gender. Because just like the boob guy and size queen, a gay man or woman have just as much say so in what attracts them sexually.

If it offends people with HIV when they are turned down because they are +...... tough. If thats too stern I'm sorry but it's not really fair to hold someone in ill will because of how they feel/something they can't help...... esp when people don't bat an eyelash now-a-days when you rule out someone as a partner for smoking or living too far outside the city.

As for me PERSONALLY..... Ive never run into the issue, if I were put in the position I would flat out refuse. I know 2 people who have it, their married and manage it pretty well. But a friend you hug goodbye and eat dinner with. A partner..... I would be too scared of contracting it, and to make a long story short and nip a debate in the bud. To transmit HIV to a person unaware is called criminal transmission and is a murder charge.

Yes this exactly. Being the race that you are or body type that you are is not your choice nor is it potentially deadly. Turning someone down for sec for any reason cannot be anymore shallow or short sighted than casual sex is to begin with. This issue is not about hate it is about doing something that may kill you and most likely would scare you. Having an STD or other contagious disease sucks and is nothing less than a curse. I don't wish it on anyone nor do I harbor any hate for those that have to live with this stuff. Sex is only ok when two people are totally ok with it. As a footnote let me say I admire the courage it takes for those of you with HIV to admit it. I pray a cure is given to the public soon.

 

[brockli]

Hell no.

 

[belowaverage1]

The generality of having sex is that you do not want to contract a disease. It unfortunately happens though.

Discrimination is "unjust." It's not wronging a person to not want to contract an std. There are plenty of people out their to have sex with. You can find someone else, and so can they if either of you does not wish to sleep with the other.

"No means no."

 

[Pandora77]

I am closing this thread for 24 hours while the moderators have a chance to discuss the issues at hand and give everyone here a chance to gather their thoughts in a more respectful manner.

Pandora77
On behalf of the Moderating Team

 

[sizehungry]

While i do not discriminate against hiv+ people socially , there is no way that i will have sex with anyone who has a sexual ,or any other kind of communicable disease . So far , it has been my good fortune to be disease free for all of my sexual life , and i'm not about to throw that away for anyone , male or female . As far as i know , some of these illnesses are a lingering death sentence for SOME sufferers , and nobody has the right to demand that one takes the risk , besides which , we ALL have the right to decide who we do ,or do not , have sexual relations with , according to our preferences . No sexual dictatorships for me .

 

[bar4doug]

While i do not discriminate against hiv+ people socially , there is no way that i will have sex with anyone who has a sexual ,or any other kind of communicable disease. So far, it has been my good fortune to be disease free for all of my sexual life, and i'm not about to throw that away for anyone , male or female . As far as i know, some of these illnesses are a lingering death sentence for SOME sufferers, and nobody has the right to demand that one takes the risk , besides which, we ALL have the right to decide who we do ,or do not, have sexual relations with, according to our preferences. No sexual dictatorships for me.

Well, if you are only having sex with disease-free people, then why wear any protection at all? Reality is, you don't really know what disease, if any, your sexual partner has.

When a potential partner reveals that they are HIV+, have herpes, or anything else, they essentially open the box containing Schrodinger's cat. Now you know if the cat is either alive or dead.

If you were planning on taking precautions before, what really changed? The only thing that changed was the person told you they have a disease. Condoms are designed to prevent transmission whether the threat is there or not.

 

[AlteredEgo]

Condoms are designed to be an extra layer of protection because one cannot always know with 100% certainty that oneself or one's partner is bug-free. They are not meant to replace the application common sense in cases where one knows with 100% certainty that oneself or one's partner is carrying something contagious.

 

[Mr23]

No, not at all! You're only looking out for yourself and health ....

 

[43698]

Well, if you are only having sex with disease-free people, then why wear any protection at all? Reality is, you don't really know what disease, if any, your sexual partner has.

When a potential partner reveals that they are HIV+, have herpes, or anything else, they essentially open the box containing Schrodinger's cat. Now you know if the cat is either alive or dead.

If you were planning on taking precautions before, what really changed? The only thing that changed was the person told you they have a disease. Condoms are designed to prevent transmission whether the threat is there or not.

That would be like telling a soldier that he does not need to wear a bullet proof vest or helmet because he thinks he won't get shot because he does not think he has even been shot at yet. You should always take precautions when doing any risky activity. You should also avoid immenently hazardous situations when possible. Your body is your personal space and property. It is the most basic of human rights to decide who may or may not have sex with you for what ever reason you see fit. Flat out demanding people fuck you even if they are not comfortable with it is pretty shitty. I know misery loves company but really this is much.

 

[eschnarf]

Everyone is in control of their own bodies. You can decide to not put people in your body for any reason that you choose regardless of whether that reason is insensitive etc. It's YOUR body.

 

[matticus201]

First of all, I don't think these quotes are going to come out right, but I wanted to respond to your questions.

Not one person has said they were hoping to avoid 100% of risk. I think every respondent knows that's impossible. I think they want to mitigate risk. At least that's what I want. Why is that wrong? How is that judging? Is it judging when I reject sex with dudes who have a cough?

In my mind it's wrong. I've already said it's certainly up to each individual who they choose to have sexual contact with. And everyone is right, we choose those based on a number of physical and emotional factors. I don't think it's judging to reject someone based on a cough because there aren't decades of stigmatization associated with the common cold.

Who is dismissing those people? Or are you saying that anyone who would dare ask his or her potential playmate's status and bow out if there is infection is automatically otherwise irresponsible? If that is, in fact what you are saying (and I do not assume it is, I'm asking) that would be hypocritically judgmental, would it not?

I think "would dare" is a bit strong. I think the positive person who tells you they are positive is more responsible and a safer bet than the person that does not, simple as that.

This is an illogical argument. However diminished the odds of contraction are, they are necessarily greater than those from sex with a person of recently determined negative status, with the benefit of a prophylactic barrier. To suggest otherwise is patently ridiculous, isn't it?

Not necessarily. The statement is very relevant to this discussion because studies show that in sero-discordant relationships, PrEP is as effective at preventing infection as is condom use. See the studies on the CDC website. So, going back to the original post, in this instance, if you were on PrEP, the HIV status of your partner wouldn't matter to your chance of infection. Using a condom the chance would be statistically zero.

I require recent results from STD screening. I do mine every three months and require my regular partners to do the same. I would treat chlamydia the same way as HIV. And if I wanted to be monogamous with the person with chlamydia it might be up for discussion when he was no longer contagious, but since I am promiscuous, I cannot knowingly have someone in my circle who has recently been having unprotected sex with someone else who has been having unprotected sex, which the presence of chlamydia suggests.

Every three months is a pretty amazing feat. But I still maintain that this isn't a good criteria for selecting sexual partners. The window is too great, and if, as you say in the final part of your statement, someone in your circle did slip and had unprotected sex, three months is ample time to acquire an infection. If they lie to you about their slip, you'd never know unless you also got the infection. If you are using condoms every time (as I assume you are from your responses) then that's really you're #1 line of defense, and not sero-sorting, is it not?

Also Altered, I apologize if I offended in any of my responses. I get passionate about this subject, and certainly do not mean to offend. I honestly only respond to promote discussion.

 

[AlteredEgo]

Thank you for your responses, Matticus. To fix your quotes in the future, your ending tag should be "[/quote]".

PrEp seems fine for a long-term relationship, but for a more casual relationship, or a poly-type of situation, or just rampant promiscuity like I engage in from time to time, taking a pill (poison!) every day seems silly. I don't even take my diabetes pills because I'm extremely averse to living with the side effects, and I'm against ingesting any crazy chemicals unless it is absolutely necessary. To avoid taking these pills, I have to eat under 30 grams of carbs daily most days of the week, and I have to work out every single day. If I don't do this, I can go blind, lose limbs, and die young of heart disease or shock. I live with deprivation and relentless exercise regimens instead of simply swallowing a pill. (To be fair, the side effects are completely untenable, and while for most people they subside within a month, I had them for six months before I gave mine to a diabetic who could not afford the medicine.) I do not use hormonal birth control for the same reason. I just can't fathom, outside of a long-term relationship, taking a pill every day to prevent catching a virus to which I could simply choose to limit my exposure through questioning, testing, and the barrier method.

You wrote that it is wrong to use HIV status as a filter for sexual partners, but not wrong to use the common cold as a filter simply because of long-standing stigma and prejudice. Really? I found that surprising. Most of what you say really sounds reasoned out, even when I do not agree with your line of reasoning. This sounds purely emotional and knee-jerk. It's like encountering a family with small children who is offered the chance to adopt either a pit bull or a poodle, but opts to adopt neither, deciding that the risk associated with either is unacceptable, and then saying, "It isn't bad that you won't adopt a poodle, but it is wrong not to adopt a pit bull because of the stigma and ignorance that is destroying a smart, loyal breed." It doesn't make sense. It's like saying it's shallow for me to choose not to have sex with a person who happened to have been bullied when younger, because they endured years of social stigma and prejudice, despite the fact that I have really nothing in common with him or her, and simply prefer to engage someone else.

Yes, quarterly testing is an amazing feat. Not everyone has insurance that will cover testing that often (mine does) or lives in a municipality which will provide free/sliding scale testing as often as you need (I used to). I have had to lend friends with benefits money for testing. I have had to get my phone to remind me who needs to update his testing, and I have had to argue with doctors who do not want to prescribe the lab work. Yes, three months is a broad window, but also serves as a quarterly reminder to be conscientious and make responsible choices. It also minimizes false negatives. It also is better than relying on the honor system and condoms alone. No one aspect of my chosen methods of risk management is good enough on its own. They work together though as a nice little phalanx. Most people as sexually active as I have been pick up something from someone at some point. Not I. Yes, partners have lied to me about things, which means they may have also lied about sexual contact with others. Well, that's why I make them show me proof of recent clear tests, and insist on condoms. Yes, a condom cannot provide 100% protection, and might fail. That's why I ask questions, and require proof of recent testing. And even with these layers, I do not think life offers me any guarantees. I simply think this is an acceptable level of risk.

I don't fuck natural blondes, and the only reason I can provide is I don't like the looks of any I've met. That's shallow. Very shallow. I don't fuck anyone I know for sure has tested positive for HIV or any other STD, nor who has symptoms of any contagious illness, including a cold. The reasons for this are all health-related, ranging from things I just do not want happening to me, to the fact that a 93 year-old is living under my care. To me, those are not shallow, meaningless reasons. I'm trying to understand why they are meaningless to you, but so far I just cannot.

 

[matticus201]

Fair enough on the question of PrEP. There are many who think it's crazy for those at risk for HIV to not automatically go on PrEP, but it is a treatment that has a high incidence of side effects. Doesn't sound like to me from your responses that you are, but I wanted to bring up the point as I did feel it was relevant to the discussion in the context of sexual contact and HIV.

As for my comments regarding stigmatization, they absolutely are knee-jerk and emotional. I can't really view it subjectively because it is the focus of pretty much all of my volunteer work. My world view consists of watching some really good friends who are HIV positive get continually emotionally abused for simply wanting human interaction. They are denied that based on a preponderance of poor education. You do not seem uneducated. Very much to the contrary, in fact. I absolutely respect your undeniable right to do with your body as you please. But I can't help but hear the voices of my friends tell me about their rejections as I read through the thread. I can't project that on you, granted. That's not right. But it doesn't change my opinion.

Suffice to say, I would not make a good barrister. =)

I'd also like to add that I make shallow decisions every single day. I'm human, we all do it.

 

[matticus201]

Ok, so I think I've arrived at an example that will express my opinion that may make sense.

Say, for argument's sake, I'm not into short guys. If I'm out looking for a sex partner, I'm naturally not going to go up to short guys. If a short guy says hello to me, I'll be nice, but I'll make it clear I'm not interested. I don't find this shallow, because, hey, I'm not into short guys. I've been nice to the short guy that's approached me, but I've let them down easy because I'm not attracted to them. Short is a quality that I can see. It's right in front of my face. It's not like I'm going to go up to a short guy, proposition him, then reject him because he's short.

No, say my dream man, Bradley Cooper, walks into the bar. My physical ideal. If he walked into my office right now, I'd be on him like white on rice and I wouldn't care if my boss wanted to film it, I'd be fucking him raw. Say he talks to me. He likes me, I like him. As we're getting ready to leave the bar, he stops me and says, "Hey, before we do anything, I just want you to know that I'm HIV positive. I'm healthy and I'm on good medication that works for me, but I just wanted you to know before anything got too heated." I feel at this point, it would be shallow to reject him. I've already established that I like him, he likes me, and there's MAD sexual chemistry (which of course would happen if I met BC in real life... ). He's shared with me a piece of information that allows me to protect myself.

You can't "see" HIV. It's not stamped on the forehead of the person who carries it. That's why the stigma is so hurtful and why I think it is shallow.

Does that make sense?

 

[arabking]

This is what's scary. I know it's not that related to this thread, but it's something everyone who's sexually active must deal with whether we want to or not.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-unprotected-sex-30-PEOPLE-met-online.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-unprotected-sex-30-PEOPLE-met-online.html

 

[AlteredEgo]

matticus201, I want to thank you so much for your responses here. Thank you for indulging my questions, for staying on message, for not becoming hysterical, and for being open and informative. Thank you very much. While I definitely have not been swayed from my opinions, it was a pleasure discussing yours with you, and I am grateful for the time you took to contribute them here.

 

[TameYoung]

Ok, so I think I've arrived at an example that will express my opinion that may make sense.

Say, for argument's sake, I'm not into short guys. If I'm out looking for a sex partner, I'm naturally not going to go up to short guys. If a short guy says hello to me, I'll be nice, but I'll make it clear I'm not interested. I don't find this shallow, because, hey, I'm not into short guys. I've been nice to the short guy that's approached me, but I've let them down easy because I'm not attracted to them. Short is a quality that I can see. It's right in front of my face. It's not like I'm going to go up to a short guy, proposition him, then reject him because he's short.

No, say my dream man, Bradley Cooper, walks into the bar. My physical ideal. If he walked into my office right now, I'd be on him like white on rice and I wouldn't care if my boss wanted to film it, I'd be fucking him raw. Say he talks to me. He likes me, I like him. As we're getting ready to leave the bar, he stops me and says, "Hey, before we do anything, I just want you to know that I'm HIV positive. I'm healthy and I'm on good medication that works for me, but I just wanted you to know before anything got too heated." I feel at this point, it would be shallow to reject him. I've already established that I like him, he likes me, and there's MAD sexual chemistry (which of course would happen if I met BC in real life... ). He's shared with me a piece of information that allows me to protect myself.

You can't "see" HIV. It's not stamped on the forehead of the person who carries it. That's why the stigma is so hurtful and why I think it is shallow.

Does that make sense?

I definitely see your point here.

I also think discrimination and rejection of any kind is hurtful to the person on the receiving end. Regardless of the criterion used for rejection, discrimination, denial...etc.

You can switch out "short" with a number of other physical characteristics, and it would not make the "not being ____" unworthy of a second thought, inquiring about the reasons why...etc.

No one 'really' wants to be rejected, whether the root cause is physical and seen, or unseen. I think that part of the argument might be a slippery slope that isn't easy to go down.

I think we should all be conscious of varying types of social stigma, discrimination, prejudice, and ultimately seek to understand why we feel that way.

When we learn someone may reject us because of a certain characteristic, disposition, physicality...etc, as we experience that pain, empathy allows us to imagine to some extent how others feel when we reject them because of hair color, skin color, status...etc, and we [re]act accordingly externally and internally.

There is always going to be 'something.'

 

[belowaverage1]

This is what's scary. I know it's not that related to this thread, but it's something everyone who's sexually active must deal with whether we want to or not.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-unprotected-sex-30-PEOPLE-met-online.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-unprotected-sex-30-PEOPLE-met-online.html

I've had guys here that are positive not mention it at all when trying to have sex with me. It's...unnerving.

 

[elklindoxxx]

I don't mind being friends with someone who is HIV+.

But sex is completely out of the question!