emphasis mine:
"Undetectable" refers to the patient being under a condition known as Sustained Viral Response, or SVR. What this means is that the viral load within the carrier fluid is undetectable by current diagnostics. The response portion refers to the continuing action of the drug regimen as well as the level of efficacious clearing viral particles by the immune system. This, in turn, reduces rate of viral propagation and amplification within the body, which means that less viral particles will reach the secreted fluids.
Because the amount of viral particles within semen is proportional to the amount within the extracellular fluid of the body, the rate of viral transmission in this state is minisculee if it is maintained, especially when a condom is worn.
Given the stigma against HIV positive people, a disclosure of HIV positive status is often times difficult. Under situations of near negligible infectivity, requiring disclosure might amount to a violation of a person's privacy given the lack of substantial risk to their partner. This, however, is dependent on current medical technology and is the central focal point of a canadian law case who's name sadly escapes me.
If you want to do more research and verify the above for yourself, google sustained viral response with HIV. Many of the scholarly articles will deal with HIV/HepC co-infection, but that's mostly because the combination is comparably lethal to HIV before HAART and is still single target transmissible.
Some concerns exist over the status of consent if the condom breaks, or what the required frequency of testing to maintain a reasonable amount of protection for partners entails, but again those factors will vary depending on the technologies of the day.
I agree that the stigma toeards hiv positive people is horrid. I agree that we shouldn't instate laws that would turn into witchhunts. I disagree that we shouldn't prosecute those who knowingly would attempt to put someone at risk, without the other party's knowledge.
I highlighted the portion I did becuase though safer sex combined with an undetectable load (if he WAS on his meds which he could have been lying about, and remember his results are only as good as the last test itself due to various factors such as adherance to med schedule if on them or if not you could have that lovely oh everything is fine then a week later BLAM viral load goes through the roof but you haven't been tested again so you don't know yet, and your doc hasn't begun meds yet) is a pretty good way to avoid contracting HIV. I always assume that any partner is HIV pos (or is possibly) until a year after joint check ups with results read in front of both parties.
However the guy the OP was seeing KNEW he was HIV pos, and HE was the one who was pushing for the bareback sex without disclosing status. His "right to privacy" just went out the window. Just glad the OP was smart enough to require that condom be put on.
Yes we should approch with compassion. But compassion does not grant a person carte blanche to jeopordize others without some reprecussions, whether legal or social. None of the HIV pos people I know would dream of doing something like this. And they have expressed the fear of rejection (which is sadly grounded in reality). But they also wouldn't want another person going through what they are going through.
Of course people who take no care of thier own personal well being on the other side of this equation, say a person who barebacks and doesn't worry about a partners HIV status, well if they contracted it and whined to me, they would find a very unsympathetic person. Takes to to tango.
To everyone: educate yourselves, take precuations to be as safe as possible, and have fun. And don't stigmatize those who have the virus. There but for the grace of (insert diety or concept here) go I, right?
Final note: There are also a lot of partners who lovingly manage a fuflling life while being sero opposite. They wouldn't have found their soulmates if they had been narrow minded and bigoted :smile:
edit:I realised how harsh i sounded in saying I would have no sympathy for someone who barebacked and contracted the virus. I should specify that i am not talking about thoe who were duped into it, thought they were safe with a single partner, or had that partner cheat on them. Nor those who have depressive or self esteem issues that may have contrbuted to risky behaviour. But I know a dude, well adjusted and educated, who has been ridiculously unsafe and has had a few bad scares and I just couldn't muster the sympaty for him. By his own admittance in the long as confessionals I sat through, he was just of the"condoms don't feel good" or "it's hotter without them" mentallity. So people of his bent were more the ones I had in mind.
