Support NeoGAF

[Ri'Orius]

I missed this earlier, but:



That one poster has more posts in this thread than anyone - accounting for over 10% of the posts in this thread. It's difficult to post in a thread when one person is pushing the direction of the conversation so much - and doing so in terrible ways. Hence why there has been so much pushback against that poster.

If we could clear that particular hurdle, perhaps a better discussion could be had in here. But as is, they keep throwing in their same comments again and again, leading the thread right back into a circle.

Are you seriously saying it's one person's fault discussion keeps going in circles? Because it takes two to tango. Plagiarize (and I, when I'm around) wouldn't have to keep pointing out that "effectively zero" is scientist speak for "zero" if y'all didn't keep chiming in with "it's not really zero!"

But you're apparently unwilling to cede the point, and yet expect us to? Come on, dude.

 

[royalan]

No, but he did say:

And? He's not technically wrong about that.

If you are undetectable (which means you are taking your medications properly, this is important because people keep trying to backslide from this distinction), there are very few (if any) things that you can't do as a HIV+ person that you could do as a HIV- person. It is very possible to live a relatively normal and long life.

Pointing that out is not implying that HIV isn't serious.

 

[skullmuffins]

I can't catch gender dysphoria. How is this a worthwhile analogy?

even if the chance of transmission is actually nil

you couldn't catch HIV either in the proposed scenario.

"trump supporter" is really the odd one out there as that represents a serious moral failing

 

[Tapioca]

It should be a felony to expose anyone to any STD knowingly. Don't fuck up peoples well being because you want to get laid.

 

[Earthbound64]

Are you seriously saying it's one person's fault discussion keeps going in circles?

No, it's multiple factors.
But, that poster is a significant factor, having been highlighted by a few different people recently.

 

[Syriel]

In all the studies done, there has never been a recorded instance of HIV transmission from someone with undetectable viral load. Scientists say "effectively zero" because they're being responsible, but it may very well be zero. Why are you so adamant that there is still a chance?

In all the studies done, there has never been a recorded instance of HIV transmission from someone with undetectable viral load.

But you keep insisting that you know, for a fact, that there is still a risk of transmission despite it never having been documented to happen.

At most, there might be a very minuscule chance of it happening and we just haven't seen it yet. Or it could be impossible. There is not, for sure, "still a chance".

How are you failing to understand this? When they say "no HIV transmissions were observed," that means that the number of people who got infected across those three studies and thousands of acts was... zero. 0. Goose-egg, nada, none.

Zero. That's the magic word, right?

That's only true if you ignore a documented case of it happening.

No, it hasn't happened in every study, because the chance is extremely low, and sample sizes are not that large.

But to keep insisting it has NEVER happened is flat out wrong.

 

[Persona7]

You have to be a real piece of shit to not disclose your infected status to a partner even if you have a near-zero chance of spreading it.

 

[Yeoman]

You have to be a real piece of shit to not disclose your infected status to a partner even if you have a near-zero chance of spreading it.

Like I said on the last page, this whole thing stems from a simple feeling of lack of responsibility.
I think it's generally comparable to the "fuck you got mine" that is often observed in conservative groups.

When it comes down to it, they want to have sex and don't want to be rejected for having a horrifyingly dangerous disease that requires a lifetime of care.
Most people are not going to want to touch them.
Tough shit - that doesn't mean they get to be deceitful.

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

Like I said on the last page, this whole thing stems from a simple feeling of lack of responsibility.
I think it's generally comparable to the "fuck you got mine" that is often observed in conservative groups.

When it comes down to it, they want to have sex and don't want to be rejected for having a horrifyingly dangerous disease that requires a lifetime of care.
Most people are not going to want to touch them.
Tough shit - that doesn't mean they get to be deceitful.

Uhhh... what? Conservatives? Why are you talking shit about Conservatives when,

[1] California is a liberal state, and this bill was driven by Democrats.
[2] Conservatives more likely identify with the term "personal responsibility" while liberals more likely identify with some sort of "group" equivalent (e.g., HIV felony disproportionally affects LGBT group).

It's exactly bills like this, and responses like yours, that make liberalism repulsive.

It's okay to be a liberal but don't say weird things.

 

[Yeoman]

Uhhh... what? Conservatives? Why are you talking shit about Conservatives when,

[1] California is a liberal state, and this bill was driven by Democrats.
[2] Conservatives more likely identify with the term "personal responsibility" while liberals more likely identify with some sort of "group" equivalent (e.g., HIV felony disproportionally affects LGBT group).

It's exactly bills like this, and responses like yours, that make liberalism repulsive.

It's okay to be a liberal but don't say weird things.

No, what I'm saying is that the mentalities displayed in this thread are sort of like the liberal versions of the conservative "fuck you got mine" mindset.
Both mentalities are linked to a selfish disregard for others.

 

[Laughing Banana]

I think people are talking about two different things right now in this thread, and the blurring between the two is the major cause of the back and forth.

1. That exposing others to HIV to others is "okay" and
2. That exposing others to HIV is no longer a felony.

Even if someone agrees with no. 2, they are not necessarily agreeing with no. 1, unless I'm missing something.

I would never agree with no. 1, no matter what the disease; as a responsible person you should divulge that kind of information to your partner before you engage in any activities that may transmit that disease to him/her, no matter how small the chance is.

 

[Frodo]

People saying they wouldn't have sex with anyone unless they know the chance of them getting a STI is an absolute zero might as well stop having sex all together.

Otherwise the math does not add up. And, if I'm being honest, it either shows hypocrisy or ignorance. Perhaps both.


There is always a change that person doesn't know (most STIs are transmitted by people that didn't know they are infected). There's a chance their test results were wrong. There's a chance they didn't get tested in the right window. There are loads of chances of something going wrong somewhere. The chance is never zero.

 

[Double Donut]

And people struggle to understand why someone might be hesitant to reveal if they're HIV+, even if they are in fact trying to do the right thing. Heh, I wonder. Threads and discussions like this are why. They're exactly why.

What the hell? It sounds like this is saying "HIV+ shouldn't have to reveal the info because then people won't have sex with them and that's not fair".

If people don't want to consent to sex with HIV+ persons then that's totally in their right.

 

[Ishan]

Well it's dick move to not let another know you have hiv but I guess it's the responsibility to ask . If they do and you lie fuck you over completely criminally and lawsuits . If not we'll they weren't careful enough on some level . But this is still iffy especially I assume Given the life treating consequences but it's more complex given recent medical advances now .

 

[royalan]

Like I said on the last page, this whole thing stems from a simple feeling of lack of responsibility.
I think it's generally comparable to the "fuck you got mine" that is often observed in conservative groups.

When it comes down to it, they want to have sex and don't want to be rejected for having a horrifyingly dangerous disease that requires a lifetime of care.
Most people are not going to want to touch them.
Tough shit - that doesn't mean they get to be deceitful.

What?

What's the point of even participating in this thread if you clearly don't want to quiet your fingers and read what people are actually explaining to you?

Nobody in this thread is saying anything like this. People keep telling you that nobody is saying anything like this. And yet you keep parroting that this is all anybody is saying.

You seem to want nothing more than to frame this discussion around "selfish" HIV+ people who only want to have unprotected sex without revealing their status, when that is not what anybody is talking about and really not the focus of the challenge to these laws. And people KEEP explaining this to you, but you seem to really like type out the phrase "tough shit."

Well, it's disgusting. It's disgusting and incredibly transparent.

 

[Yeoman]

What?

What's the point of even participating in this thread if you clearly don't want to quiet your fingers and read what people are actually explaining to you?

Nobody in this thread is saying anything like this. People keep telling you that nobody is saying anything like this. And yet you keep parroting that this is all anybody is saying.

You seem to want nothing more than to frame this discussion around "selfish" HIV+ people who only want to have unprotected sex without revealing their status, when that is not what anybody is talking about and really not the focus of the challenge to these laws. And people KEEP explaining this to you, but you seem to really like type out the phrase "tough shit."

Well, it's disgusting. It's disgusting and incredibly transparent.

I have read it. I've seen the people claiming that this will others more likely to actually get tested. That really says a lot about the morality of many of the people afflciated by this doesn't it?

What I find disgusting is the persistent and continuous effort being made in this thread to try normalise and frame HIV as something trivial and easily treated.
Before you say otherwise - there absolutely are people in this thread doing so.
Someone compared it to fucking asthma earlier.

I'll be frank about this: the mentality displayed in this thread with regards to HIV is something I've never seen before in my life. It seems totally unique to this forum and I'm left wondering why that's the case?

Someone (jokingly?) mentioned earlier in this thread that it was because of "reactionary woke-ism".
I think that's exactly what it is.
HIV is an extremely serious condition and those infected with it should not be treated like "normal people" - that's a recipe for disaster.

We should be doing everything in our power to isolate the disease from our species and make the average person almost hysterical about its dangers. It should not be accepted as a normal everyday common cold style infection just because GAF is hellbent on fighting oppression and discrimination.

Public health comes lightyears ahead of the fact that someone with HIV is upset because nobody wants to have sex with them.

 

[Frodo]

I have read it. I've seen the people claiming that this will others more likely to actually get tested. That really says a lot about the morality of many of the people afflciated by this doesn't it?

What I find disgusting is the persistent and continuous effort being made in this thread to try normalise and frame HIV as something trivial and easily treated.
Before you say otherwise - there absolutely are people in this thread doing so.
Someone compared it to fucking asthma earlier.

I'll be frank about this: the mentality displayed in this thread with regards to HIV is something I've never seen before in my life. It seems totally unique to this forum and I'm left wondering why that's the case?

Someone (jokingly?) mentioned earlier in this thread that it was because of "reactionary woke-ism".
I think that's exactly what it is.
HIV is an extremely serious condition and those infected with it should not be treated like "normal people" - that's a recipe for disaster.

We should be doing everything in our power to isolate the disease from our species and make the average person almost hysterical about its dangers. It should not be accepted as a normal everyday common cold style infection just because GAF is hellbent on fighting oppression and discrimination.

Public health comes lightyears ahead of the fact that someone with HIV is upset because nobody wants to have sex with them.

 

[Ishan]

I have read it. I've seen the people claiming that this will others more likely to actually get tested. That really says a lot about the morality of many of the people afflciated by this doesn't it?

What I find disgusting is the persistent and continuous effort being made in this thread to try normalise and frame HIV as something trivial and easily treated.
Before you say otherwise - there absolutely are people in this thread doing so.
Someone compared it to fucking asthma earlier.

I'll be frank about this: the mentality displayed in this thread with regards to HIV is something I've never seen before in my life. It seems totally unique to this forum and I'm left wondering why that's the case?

Someone (jokingly?) mentioned earlier in this thread that it was because of "reactionary woke-ism".
I think that's exactly what it is.
HIV is an extremely serious condition and those infected with it should not be treated like "normal people" - that's a recipe for disaster.

We should be doing everything in our power to isolate the disease from our species and make the average person almost hysterical about its dangers. It should not be accepted as a normal everyday common cold style infection just because GAF is hellbent on fighting oppression and discrimination.

Public health comes lightyears ahead of the fact that someone with HIV is upset because nobody wants to have sex with them.

You make some valid points on the potency of hiv . It is a lethal disease and one we should be very very careful about . Where you go off the deep end is almost characterizing a person with hiv as some thing to be eliminated from the human condition . Hiv has had vast improvements in treatments over the years . I get the point you're trying to make you're just astoundingly bad at making it. And I mean astoundingly bad . All you have done with that language is not push this debate constructively but rather act as a lightning rod for fights ....


Hiv cancer and other lethal diseases should be avoided like the plague . You know the difference this time ? We're no longer in the medieval ages we can read learn be smarter avoid etc etc

 

[royalan]

I have read it. I've seen the people claiming that this will others more likely to actually get tested. That really says a lot about the morality of many of the people afflciated by this doesn't it?

What I find disgusting is the persistent and continuous effort being made in this thread to try normalise and frame HIV as something trivial and easily treated.
Before you say otherwise - there absolutely are people in this thread doing so.
Someone compared it to fucking asthma earlier.

I'll be frank about this: the mentality displayed in this thread with regards to HIV is something I've never seen before in my life. It seems totally unique to this forum and I'm left wondering why that's the case?

Someone (jokingly?) mentioned earlier in this thread that it was because of "reactionary woke-ism".
I think that's exactly what it is.
HIV is an extremely serious condition and those infected with it should not be treated like "normal people" - that's a recipe for disaster.

We should be doing everything in our power to isolate the disease from our species and make the average person almost hysterical about its dangers. It should not be accepted as a normal everyday common cold style infection just because GAF is hellbent on fighting oppression and discrimination.

Public health comes lightyears ahead of the fact that someone with HIV is upset because nobody wants to have sex with them.

You're not reading posts or responding to anybody in this thread. You're just parroting yourself at this point.

You don't seem to know what you're talking about other than pushing hateful and dangerous rhetoric on the internet.

It is opinions like yours that make people choose to stay in the shadows regarding their status.

 

[Yeoman]

You make some valid points on the potency of hiv . It is a lethal disease and one we should be very very careful about . Where you go off the deep end is almost characterizing a person with hiv as some thing to be eliminated from the human condition . Hiv has had vast improvements in treatments over the years . I get the point you're trying to make you're just astoundingly bad at making it. And I mean astoundingly bad . All you have done with that language is not push this debate constructively but rather act as a lightning rod for fights ....

I'm not saying they need to be eliminated.
I'm saying that health services across the planet should be regularly testing adults for these sorts of infections.
It's totally viable in the first world.
If someone has HIV they should be legally bound to inform any partner that are with that they are HIV positive.

That is the only fair way of dealing with this. That way the other person can make a decision on whether or not to sleep with you.

We all know that 90% of people wouldn't take the chance - and that's the real reason some people in this thread are skirting about this whole thing. They want the option to be deceitful for their own selfish and incredibly fucked up interests.
That's the only reason you see people trying to clutch at straws about how minor and easily treated the disease is.

 

[Frodo]

I'm not saying they need to be eliminated.
I'm saying that health services across the planet should be regularly testing adults for these sorts of infections.
It's totally viable in the first world.
If someone has HIV they should be legally bound to inform any partner that are with that they are HIV positive.

That is the only fair way of dealing with this. That way the other person can make a decision on whether or not to sleep with you.

We all know that 90% of people wouldn't take the chance - and that's the real reason some people in this thread are skirting about this whole thing. They want the option to be deceitful for their own selfish and incredibly fucked up interests.
That's the only reason you see people trying to clutch at straws about how minor and easily treated the disease is.

Criminalizing it and making people legally bound to disclosure is literally NOT the only fair way to deal with it, hence this thread.

You say 90% of people wouldn't take the choice of sleeping with someone HIV+, but people sleep with other people that don't know their status in a regular basis and that is a much riskier behaviour than sleeping with someone who has a undetectable viral load. But this is always ignored, because of some reason.

You are also assuming people support this change because, your own words, "They want the option to be deceitful for their own selfish and incredibly fucked up interests.". I support the change in legislation and I'm HIV-. I said a thousand times before, and I'll repeat it again just to be safe, I believe disclosure is the best option. However, legally forcing people to disclosure their status and criminalizing it will not help stop the virus, as already explained in this thread a thousand times. Nor will making the stigma around HIV worse than it already is and trying to create hysteria around the disease help. In fact, and this thread seems to be a good example of it, it can have the opposite effect.

 

[royalan]

I'm not saying they need to be eliminated.
I'm saying that health services across the planet should be regularly testing adults for these sorts of infections.
It's totally viable in the first world.
If someone has HIV they should be legally bound to inform any partner that are with that they are HIV positive.

Well you're in luck, the same activists and medical professionals who support lowering the criminality of HIV are ALSO in support of everything you say here!

And why? Because we have an actual, vested interest in informing people and curtailing the spread of the disease.

 

[Isotropy]

The real risk regarding HIV is people who don't know their status. Anything that will make people less afraid to get tested and confirm their status is surely a good thing.

 

[manakel]

You're not reading posts or responding to anybody in this thread. You're just parroting yourself at this point.

You don't seem to know what you're talking about other than pushing hateful and dangerous rhetoric on the internet.

It is opinions like yours that make people choose to stay in the shadows regarding their status.

I’m genuinely trying to understand your logic. I don’t think Yeoman worded things as he should have and it comes across as pretty offensive, but his point still stands. The reason people are bringing up deception in this thread is because the new law makes it no longer a felony to “knowingly” and “intentionally” expose someone to HIV - correct? So in other words, someone can deliberately not tell someone they’re sleeping with and not be held as accountable. I don’t care if the chance of becoming infected is “essentially zero”, it’s still in that person’s right to know. All of this talk of “well it’s your own fault if you don’t ask..” is essentially victim blaming in my eyes. Don’t get me wrong, everyone SHOULD ask beforehand and care about their sexual health, but it should also be the responsibly of someone with an STD to disclose that information. If someone doesn’t want to sleep with someone because they have HIV, that is completely in their right to do so. Trying to take away someone’s sexual agency because “no one would sleep with people with HIV then!” is so gross. And false. Because there are plenty of couples out there where one partner has HIV and the other does not.

 

[royalan]

I’m genuinely trying to understand your logic. I don’t think Yeoman worded things as he should have and it comes across as pretty offensive, but his point still stands. The reason people are bringing up deception in this thread is because the new law makes it no longer a felony to “knowingly” and “intentionally” expose someone to HIV - correct? So in other words, someone can deliberately not tell someone they’re sleeping with and not be held as accountable. I don’t care if the chance of becoming infected is “essentially zero”, it’s still in that person’s right to know. All of this talk of “well it’s your own fault if you don’t ask..” is essentially victim blaming in my eyes. Don’t get me wrong, everyone SHOULD ask beforehand and care about their sexual health, but it should also be the responsibly of someone with an STD to disclose that information. If someone doesn’t want to sleep with someone because they have HIV, that is completely in their right to do so. Trying to take away someone’s sexual agency because “no one would sleep with people with HIV then!” is so gross. And false. Because there are plenty of couples out there where one partner has HIV and the other does not.

It is still illegal.

If classifying the spread of HIV as a felony class offense did anything to curtail the spread of the disease, you'd see a stronger defense for it. Alas, it does not and so you do not.

Keep in mind that you're not just disagreeing with my logic, you disagreeing with the overwhelming consensus of the medical and activist community regarding HIV.

 

[plagiarize]

Just wanted to shine some light on the 'confirmed case' that Syriel mentioned. The NEMF report he quoted, is referencing the paper this abstract is from:

http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/18771057

Here we report HIV-1 transmission in a serodiscordant couple despite successful antiretroviral therapy of the HIV-infected partner. The newly infected partner had a negative HIV-1 screening ELISA when his HIV-1-positive partner was already on antiretroviral treatment with undetectable pVL, which remained undetectable beyond the time of seroconversion in the initially negative partner. Frozen blood samples were analyzed phylogenetically from the HIV-1-positive patient and the newly infected partner before treatment and shortly after seroconversion, respectively; they showed a true relationship. On the basis of these data, the present report suggests that transmission of HIV-1 can occur despite undetectable pVL.

This was 2008, so why are many scientists nearly a decade later saying 'no observed cases of transmission'?

Well, in the same medical journal (PubMed) that this case was highlighted, another scientist pointed out a number of flaws in the claim.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23237172_HIV_transmission_hunting--the_chase_for_low_risk_events

To document the unlikely event of a sexual transmission under ART, two main conditions must be met. The first is the documentation of stable (>6 months) and fully suppressive (<50 copies/ml) ART during sexual exposure of the partner. The second is the documentation of molecular linkage of the viruses from both partners. The latter is usually performed by comparing the donor's and recipient's virus [5]. Phylogenetic analysis is a mandatory requirement for such a case report. Stürmer et al. [3] showed in their case report that the viral pair segregated together in phylogenetic trees and exhibited common amino acid signatures. This finding proves that the two viral strains are closely related and supports direct transmission from the index to the patient; however, an infection by another epidemiologically linked third individual is only ruled out by sexual history, which is notoriously unreliable (for an instructive &#8211; and amusing &#8211; discussion of the pitfalls of sexual history taking, see Lewontin [6]).

However, the major weakness of their line of evidence is the lack of documentation of the negative test in the partner. The result is based on the patient's recollection of an anonymous HIV test obtained 5 years earlier. As the partner already had sexual relations with the index case during the first weeks of ART, it is possible that the couple had unprotected exposure before the viral load was suppressed.

So there you go. While it *could* indeed be a case where someone with a suppressed viral load transmitted the disease, to call the claim anything other than debatable is pretty misleading.

I'm going to give Syriel the benefit of the doubt on this, as it wasn't easy digging up the paper referenced by NEMF, nor was finding the criticism of it published in the same journal.

But it certainly goes a good way to explain why the CDC and others would say no known cases.

Certainly, if I thought there was less than negligible chance of HIV being transmitted in the cases of people with undetectable viral load, I wouldn't be saying what I am saying about no need to disclose (because that is entirely based on the 2017 understanding of the treatment, rather than the 2008 understanding), so I made sure to track down the actual science here.

And one final note, a number of people in this thread have taken direct issue with me holding this scientifically backed position. I have been insulted. I have been called a liar. I have been told to stop pointing to the facts. I have had people go through all my posts and count up the number of times I've used certain phrases.

If you don't want me to post in this thread, you'd do well not to keep talking about me when I haven't posted in it for hours. And I assure you, that I've only clicked on this thread to comment when it's been on the front page. So if my opinions offend you that much, maybe don't challenge me, insult me, or throw completely false accusations at me.

 

[Majora]

I have read it. I've seen the people claiming that this will others more likely to actually get tested. That really says a lot about the morality of many of the people afflciated by this doesn't it?

What I find disgusting is the persistent and continuous effort being made in this thread to try normalise and frame HIV as something trivial and easily treated.
Before you say otherwise - there absolutely are people in this thread doing so.
Someone compared it to fucking asthma earlier.

I'll be frank about this: the mentality displayed in this thread with regards to HIV is something I've never seen before in my life. It seems totally unique to this forum and I'm left wondering why that's the case?

Someone (jokingly?) mentioned earlier in this thread that it was because of "reactionary woke-ism".
I think that's exactly what it is.
HIV is an extremely serious condition and those infected with it should not be treated like "normal people" - that's a recipe for disaster.

We should be doing everything in our power to isolate the disease from our species and make the average person almost hysterical about its dangers. It should not be accepted as a normal everyday common cold style infection just because GAF is hellbent on fighting oppression and discrimination.

Public health comes lightyears ahead of the fact that someone with HIV is upset because nobody wants to have sex with them.

You're a disgusting, ignorant person and I get to say that from a perspective of living with HIV for 13 years, being on treatment for 10 years, and living in London and knowing many people currently living with HIV.

It may deeply upset you to hear that my life is extremely mundane and that, yes, I consider myself a normal person. How shocking. I'm 32, my health is excellent, I take one tablet a day with no side effects. I work a normal full-time job, I work out 5 times a week, frankly I'm fitter and have a better body than 95% of 'normal people' as you would like to call them.

I've dated other HIV people around my age all with similar experiences. One is undetectable and doing a PhD, one is undetectable and currently works an extremely demanding job for one of the largest media companies in the world. Normal people living normal lives. Does it upset your prejudices to hear that?

You say we should be making people hysterical about the dangers of HIV - do you have any idea how idiotic and counter-productive that is? What about the lives I've described above makes you think we should be making people hysterical about the disease? Why should we be stigmatising the people who have it, are effectively not infectious, and are living healthy, normal happy lives?

Do not mistake my comments on the reality of living with HIV for saying it's totally fine to get it. Of course anyone who is negative should be taking every step to ensure they don't get it, as you would any other chronic disease. I'm lucky enough to live in the UK and don't need to worry about health insurance but if course that burden weighs greater on someone from the US. But it is not a bad thing to say HIV people now live very normal lives. For one it's the truth and secondly it will actually reduce stigma and fear.

As for disclosing, I don't even hook up with people in clubs or bars. If I hook up or date it's online where I'm totally upfront about my status. And to be honest I've long since chosen to only date other people who are HIV positive (extremely easy in a city like London, probably a pain in the ass if you live somewhere more remote). It's just easier and means I don't need to risk meeting abhorrent, fear-mongering individuals like yourself.

So that's my experience based on living nearly half my life with the disease, being extremely educated about the condition I have, speaking to doctors at a world class HIV hospital and knowing many people with the virus.

Meanwhile your vile and hate-filled rhetoric has been informed how? Or did you pull it from your ass?

 

[Frodo]

[snip]

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Yeoman]

As for disclosing, I don't even hook up with people in clubs or bars. If I hook up or date it's online where I'm totally upfront about my status. And to be honest I've long since chosen to only date other people who are HIV positive. It's just easier and means I don't need to risk meeting abhorrent, fear-mongering individuals like yourself.

Then we're done. I don't have a problem with you.
Enjoy your life, not everyone with HIV has it as easy as you.
I have no issues with you as a person whatsoever if you are upfront about your status.

 

[Omegasquash]

Sounds like we can move on from viewing HIV as a 100% death sentence to a manageable, treatable condition.

Good.

This is just my opinion (and probably the fact that I didn't go through any page but the first and last since I don't want to sift through some pretty mean, ugly, nasty stuff), but it seems like intent is what really matters.

Disclosure is what I would do prior to getting it on, but that doesn't mean that someone with HIV should go around with a scarlet letter on their Tinder profile. I've held the opinion that disclosure should be an obligation before, but I've come around on it. I think that if your prospective sexual partner asks, it's important to be honest. Otherwise it's intentionally misleading, but let's not make that into a monumental crime. Our collective gargantuan GAFfian penises would qualify as intentionally misleading too. Someone with zero chance of spreading the virus isn't going to do any harm.

Let's stop treating folks with the virus, or the demographic that it largely affected (much of which was the result of the former), like they're carrying leprosy in the 1700's or something.

 

[Earthbound64]

And back in a circle we go.


I got my HIV test result today, and it was negative.
I'm just going to make sure to stay far away from some of the people in this thread.

 

[royalan]

And back in a circle we go.


I got my HIV test result today, and it was negative.
I'm just going to make sure to stay far away from some of the people in this thread.

Hopefully you use condoms.

 

[Yeoman]

And back in a circle we go.


I got my HIV test result today, and it was negative.
I'm just going to make sure to stay far away from some of the people in this thread.

If it is any reassurance I have never seen this attitude anywhere else in my entire life other than NeoGAF so I assume you are unlikely to come across people that share these...views in everyday life.

But yeah this was a bit of an eye opener for me not really sure what to say - it's good to be progressive and fight discrimination but it's possible to go too far in a certain direction.

Motherfuckers up in here claiming asthma is harder to manage. Smdh...

 

[royalan]

If it is any reassurance I have never seen this attitude anywhere else in my entire life other than NeoGAF so I assume you are unlikely to come across people that share these...views in everyday life.

You sound ignorant. Please stop while you're several miles behind.

You don't sound at all intelligent or informed when you say things like this in a discussion with people who are educated on HIV either through activism, a medical career, or living with it. You just betray the fact that HIV isn't something you've ever considered or really informed yourself about. Just admit that you don't know. Just admit that you're afraid. That would be understandable. Stop peddling bullshit.


Edit: I also want to point out how absolutely contemptible your post is considering it came after a Gaffer who has lived with HIV for over a decade going out of his way to respond to you.

 

[Ryzaki009]

The fact that people raw strange is baffling to me. But then again my mother died from AIDS so yeah I'm not screwing anyone without condoms unless I see paperwork I guess that traumatic childhood experience was good for something.

 

[Temeculan3000]

So this guy's dad should have just gotten a slap on the wrist 1??11??!! https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/magazine-37696071





























/s

 

[manakel]

You sound ignorant. Please stop while you're several miles behind.

You don't sound at all intelligent or informed when you say things like this in a discussion with people who are educated on HIV either through activism, a medical career, or living with it. You just betray the fact that HIV isn't something you've ever considered or really informed yourself about. Just admit that you don't know. Just admit that you're afraid. That would be understandable. Stop peddling bullshit.


Edit: I also want to point out how absolutely contemptible your post is considering it came after a Gaffer who has lived with HIV for over a decade going out of his way to respond to you.

Just because HIV has become extremely manageable and people are able to lead very normal lives compared to just a decade ago, that doesn’t mean it should be brushed away like it’s still no big deal. It shouldn’t be such a foreign concept that people still actively try to avoid getting it, whether that means not sleeping with people who have HIV, or doing everything in their power to protect themselves against it to have a better peace of mind (even if the likelihood is “essentially” zero). To do that, people need to be informed with the status of those they’re sleeping with. That doesn’t necessarily mean that person isn’t going to sleep with them - but someone may want to get on PrEP, wear a condom when they may otherwise not have, etc. Trying to act so nonchalant about HIV and comparing it to asthma does absolutely nothing to help your cause. Asthma isn’t something that can be actively avoided by taking precautions, and something you can get through sexual intercourse.

 

[royalan]

Just because HIV has become extremely manageable and people are able to lead very normal lives compared to just a decade ago, that doesn’t mean it should be brushed away like it’s still no big deal. It shouldn’t be such a foreign concept that people still actively try to avoid getting it, whether that means not sleeping with people who have HIV, or doing everything in their power to protect themselves against it to have a better peace of mind (even if the likelihood is “essentially” zero). To do that, people need to be informed with the status of those they’re sleeping with. That doesn’t necessarily mean that person isn’t going to sleep with them - but someone may want to get on PrEP, wear a condom when they may otherwise not have, etc. Trying to act so nonchalant about HIV and comparing it to asthma does absolutely nothing to help your cause. Asthma isn’t something that can be actively avoided by taking precautions, and something you can get through sexual intercourse.

Who are you responding to? Certainly nobody on this page, because nobody is insisting that HIV isn't serious. We insist that people be informed.

 

[Spaced Harrier]

You have no idea what your viral load is on a day to day basis, your potential partner doesn't know if you are responsible with your medications.

Viewing HIV as a terminal illness is no longer correct.
Viewing it as a boogeyman that can be picked up with the slightest contact is not correct.

Viewing HIV as a minor illness, that's not a big deal anymore is not correct.

Having sex with someone without giving them informed consent of HIV or any other STD, is not acceptable and is borderline rape.

That statement is true regardless of the fact that people have sex when they have STDs they don't know about.

If you know, you tell. It's simple human respect.

I don't understand what is wrong with some of the posters here, who want to turn some very simple concepts into fighting points.


HIV is no longer an death sentence, it is a currently incurable lifelong, yet manageable disease, with high medical and financial impact, but can still allow people who carry it to live normal lives.

 

[bossmonkey]

Who are you responding to? Certainly nobody on this page, because nobody is insisting that HIV isn't serious. We insist that people be informed.

Look at the many comments made by the user plagiarize early in the thread. He's basically saying that because HIV is treatable you have nothing to worry about. Someone else on the front page compared it syphilis, HEP C, and a couple of other communicable diseases. Those are severe but treatable and ultimately curable diseases to the best of my knowledge. HIV can be contained and treated sure but there is no actual cure and I think that is a lot of the problem here. I'd be pretty irate if someone knowingly exposed me to HIV without first communicating that it was a possibility. That doesn't mean that you have to, as someone else put it, put a scarlet letter on their tender profile. It does however mean that before you get to that point of intimacy as an HIV positive person you need to calmly and gently let your partner know your status. This is true no matter how low your viral count is. I'd say the same is true for any communicable disease such as herpes, which might not be life threatening, but has no known cure.

 

[royalan]

Look at the many comments made by the user plagiarize early in the thread. He's basically saying that because HIV is treatable you have nothing to worry about. Someone else on the front page compared it syphilis, HEP C, and a couple of other communicable diseases. Those are severe but treatable and ultimately curable diseases to the best of my knowledge. HIV can be contained and treated sure but there is no actual cure and I think that is a lot of the problem here. I'd be pretty irate if someone knowingly exposed me to HIV without first communicating that it was a possibility. That doesn't mean that you have to, as someone else put it, put a scarlet letter on their tender profile. It does however mean that before you get to that point of intimacy as an HIV positive person you need to calmly and gently let your partner know your status. This is true no matter how low your viral count is. I'd say the same is true for any communicable disease such as herpes, which might not be life threatening, but has no known cure.

Then direct your ire at plagiarize, who is more than capable of defending his position and has.

But don't pluralize your response and treat every poster who disagrees with you as though they are arguing his position. Most of us aren't.

And the fact that this keeps happening after most of us have thoroughly explained our positions several times is quite telling.

 

[bossmonkey]

Then direct your ire at plagiarize, who is more than capable of defending his position and has.

But don't pluralize your response and treat ever poster who disagrees with you as though they are arguing his position. Most of us aren't.

And the fact that this keeps happening after most of us have thoroughly explained out positions several times is quite telling.

If you'll look you'll notice that this is the first post I've made on the topic. Pretty simply you're jumping down everyone's throat for disagreeing with you and making person attacks on their intelligence and competence. Frankly being some dude on the internet does not allow you to make those calls and it's debasing yourself and your argument.

I mentioned plagiarize because you said, "Nobody in this thread is saying anything like this. People keep telling you that nobody is saying anything like this. And yet you keep parroting that this is all anybody is saying.". Instead of just saying, oh I wasn't aware of this you go off on a tirade about going after the guy that said it.

I only made the point that yes it has been said that HIV is no big deal and yes you need to say something if you're positive. No more no less. If you disagree with those points please feel free to tell me why, if you agree same applies. Otherwise let it lie.

 

[royalan]

If you'll look you'll notice that this is the first post I've made on the topic. Pretty simply you're jumping down everyone's throat for disagreeing with you and making person attacks on their intelligence and competence. Frankly being some dude on the internet does not allow you to make those calls and it's debasing yourself and your argument.

I mentioned plagiarize because you said, "Nobody in this thread is saying anything like this. People keep telling you that nobody is saying anything like this. And yet you keep parroting that this is all anybody is saying.". Instead of just saying, oh I wasn't aware of this you go off on a tirade about going after the guy that said it.

I only made the point that yes it has been said that HIV is no big deal and yes you need to say something if you're positive. No more no less. If you disagree with those points please feel free to tell me why, if you agree same applies. Otherwise let it lie.

The only person who's throat I'm jumping down is the person who keeps insisting that the views some of us have only exist on GAF, and so to completely disregard them. Thats a dangerous statement to make, because it comes from the very same ignorance that discourages people from being responsible with their sexual health, knowing their status, and educating themselves. Those views need to be combatted.

If I'm coming off overly passionate, I apologize. But HIV is fucking serious, and nobody knows that better than the people who have actually spent years working in STD prevention, or are living with or had their lives affected by the virus. If you're going to engage those people, you should come with something more substantive than your feelings. Or, at the very least, not accuse them of not taking HIV seriously.

 

[Basketball]

It should be a felony to expose anyone to any STD knowingly. Don't fuck up peoples well being because you want to get laid.

.

 

[Raptomex]

I don't support this for any disease that is not curable.

If you're aware you have an infectious disease, you should absolutely tell the other person. That's just common sense and not being an asshole.

We've made big strides in terms of HIV and AIDS and that's awesome but if the disease cannot be cured, and you knowingly infect someone without being upfront with the information beforehand, I feel it should be treated with serious punishment. Your body is basically a weapon.

Even if it is treatable and not life threatening, it will still affect your life in one way or another. You shouldn't have to live the rest of your life being treated for a disease because someone you were in a relationship or intimate with was fully aware they had the disease and didn't disclose the appropriate information. That's bullshit.

 

[Kebiinu]

...
HIV is an extremely serious condition and those infected with it should not be treated like "normal people" - that's a recipe for disaster.

We should be doing everything in our power to isolate the disease from our species and make the average person almost hysterical about its dangers. It should not be accepted as a normal everyday common cold style infection just because GAF is hellbent on fighting oppression and discrimination...

You sound literally insane. We should be doing everything in our power to isolate your disease of a mindset from our species, and make the average person more informed and almost hysterical about the necessities of safe sex and sex education.

You haven't seen this mentality outside GAF because you refuse to, and you're ignorant of the progress this bill will make, and what we've already achieved in regards to HIV testing and medication.

Give me a break.

 

[Narpas Sword0]

Pretty sure intentionally sneezing on someone is assault in most states

 

[bossmonkey]

The only person who's throat Im jumping down is the person who keeps insisting that the views someone of us have only exist on GAF, and so to completely disregard them. Thats a dangerous statement to make, because it comes from the very same ignorance that discourages people from being responsible with their sexual health, knowing their status, and educating themselves. Those views need to be combatted.

If I'm coming off overly passionate, I apologize. But HIV is fucking serious, and nobody knows that better than the people who have actually spent years working in STD prevention, or are living with or had their lives affected by the virus. If you're going to engage those people, you should come with something more substantive than your feelings. Or, at the very least, not accuse them of not taking HIV seriously.

1) I did come with something more substantive than my feelings in that I said that you need to disclose your status before you go about commencing with intimacy. That's not just a feeling, that's simple fact, to the best of my knowledge still law, and follows one of the cardinal rules in life, don't be a dick.

2) I wanted to try to diffuse some of your vitriol because it was vastly undercutting your argument.

3) I wanted it known that the guy wasn't pulling the people saying that HIV wasn't any worse than syphilis (I believe he used Asthma) out of his ass. There were very real comments made on this earlier in the day and they are disgusting. To say that they don't exist is wrong and further undercuts your point.

4) I NEVER EVER IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM (I use caps not to yell but to emphasize my point) said or alluded to the idea that you aren't taking HIV seriously. You are obviously very passionate about this topic and through that I can tell you take it seriously.

 

[royalan]

1) I did come with something more substantive than my feelings in that I said that you need to disclose your status before you go about commencing with intimacy. That's not just a feeling, that's simple fact, to the best of my knowledge still law, and follows one of the cardinal rules in life, don't be a dick.

2) I wanted to try to diffuse some of your vitriol because it was vastly undercutting your argument.

3) I wanted it known that the guy wasn't pulling the people saying that HIV wasn't any worse than syphilis (I believe he used Asthma) out of his ass. There were very real comments made on this earlier in the day and they are disgusting. To say that they don't exist is wrong and further undercuts your point.

4) I NEVER EVER IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM (I use caps not to yell but to emphasize my point) said or alluded to the idea that you aren't taking HIV seriously. You are obviously very passionate about this topic and through that I can tell you take it seriously.

Then quite plainly I'm not responding to you. You aren't even the post I quoted. In fact the poster I quoted was approaching everyone as though we we're making plagiarize's argument. If that's not you, great. But I wasn't talking to you; you just made your first post in the thread. You seem to think the grand total of my arguments are addressing you. I'm not. (Edit: to make this clear, because I'm on mobile, I'm referring to Yeoman)

I called the poster's views ignorant not to be vitriolic, but because their views are quite literally that, as well as harmful. And I'm not the only person to point that out. Someone else did right over you. When you are working to get sexually active people to get tested for the first time, and you come across the ones who admit to being afraid, oftentimes it is those opinions, and the people who make them, that quite literally terrify them. It's just not helpful at all.


This meta discussion is pointless if we're not actually addressing each other.

 

[Majora]

Then we're done. I don't have a problem with you.
Enjoy your life, not everyone with HIV has it as easy as you.
I have no issues with you as a person whatsoever if you are upfront about your status.

No, you don't get to play the 'I'm cool with it' card when you say shit like this

HIV is an extremely serious condition and those infected with it should not be treated like "normal people" - that's a recipe for disaster.

That betrays your true feelings on things, believe me.