Disclosure 2

[lovingboth]

Coo that was quick - a browser crash and when I come back, seven people had already done it.

It was prompted by the case of a man who's just been convicted in England of 'biological' Grevious Bodily Harm, after apparently infecting two women and the contrast between attitudes to this case and the situation for the UK's gay and bisexual men who are far more likely to come across (sorry!) someone who's HIV+.

The article that prompted the poll was published two years ago, and was in the newsletter of a London gay men's health project after a similar case in Scotland.

It followed a question that was asked in an annual survey of gay and bisexual men. It talked about men disclosing rather than 'people', sigh, but other than that it's the one in the previous post. Around 70% of respondents agreed... but what does it mean and how realistic are any of the expectations?

In short, I'd agree that those people who think it's the duty of people with HIV to disclose their status are those least likely to be disclosed to...


Individual messages, to be updated as needed:

(none at the mo)

Comments

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

The case in question is an interesting one. My take on it is that, regardless of what the man said or didn't say, the women had a duty of care to themselves to protect themselves from HIV/AIDS. He is culpable, since he knew that he was HIV positive and actively concealed the fact; also that he knew he was fertile and actively deceived, telling one of the women he'd had a vasectomy. But they were foolish to have unprotected sex with someone they were not in a committed relationship with (and who they new at the time to be in a supposedly mongamous marriage to someone else, with kids by his wife).

[adjectivemarcus.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, but if I'm foolish enough to leave my window open and someone steals my stereo then it's still theft. Foolishness isn't a crime.

Of course, I won't get any money from the insurance company, but someone's still a thief, regardless of my being foolish or indeed forgetful.

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

True.
Though since having unprotected sex with someone whose HIV/STD status and fertility you do not know is a bit more like driving at night with no headlights, then complaining when you get hit. You're recklessly endangering yourself and others.

[zotz]

In one case he persuaded the woman to have unprotected sex when she had reservations. This Is Not Negligence.

I wouldn't say that it was like driving without lights. I would say it was like lending a friend a ladder and watching them use it without telling them that you knew it was broken. If you borrowed a ladder from someone you trusted, would you specifically ask if it was broken or not?

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

Oh, I freely admit the guy's a bastard who's obviously been very very persuasive.

[lovingboth]

I think it's interesting there's such a fuss.

'At least some people lie to get the sex they want' isn't news to anyone, is it? And I'm not at all surprised that there are people prepared to lie about not having HIV...

See response to earlier

[adjectivemarcus.livejournal.com]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/lovingboth/125882.html?thread=379578#t379578

Re: See response to earlier

[lovingboth]

Yep, thanks, I hadn't seen it then. (Edit edit)

You'd agree with 'I think unprotected oral sex is a very very low risk I'm prepared to take', wouldn't you?

Re: See response to earlier

[heteronormative.livejournal.com]

But I don't know if people would feel different if they knew they were taking any risk of exposure. Knowing that the risk is there makes a hell of a difference to knowing it could be there.

Re: See response to earlier

[adjectivemarcus.livejournal.com]

Oh dear gods, yes. Strongly.

Certainly wrt HIV, that is.

Re: See response to earlier

[a-musing-amazon.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. Thats what the guy, who I mentioned in the other thread, and who is now HIV+, thought.

Re: See response to earlier

[lovingboth]

Hmmm - I'm somewhat cynical about people who claim unprotected oral sex was their only risk behaviour, especially when they say no-one came in their mouth, because when questioned closely later, lots of them go 'oh, yes, ah, well, I did also fuck without condoms / share IV equipment / whatever too.'

It can happen, and it doubtless has happened, but not many times.

Someone recently did some maths and reckoned that between 1 and 3% of HIV+ gay men in the UK got infected via oral sex. I think they're out by at least one and possibly two orders of magnitude - they picked the higher end of the range of probabilities of transmission from a US study I have severe doubts about. If they'd picked the low end of the (very wide) confidence interval, it'd be about 0.05%

Some years ago, I did a leaflet that had the line 'anyone unlucky enough to [catch HIV through oral sex] has probably already had an asteroid fall on their head'. I still think that's about right.

Oh, and I am particularly amused when people who smoke make a fuss about the risks...

Re: See response to earlier

[a-musing-amazon.livejournal.com]

FWIW he /didn't/ say that they never came.

Of course, unless thats the only form of sex someone has then its always possible that their other 'safe' sex wasn't as safe as they thought. Barrier methods are not infallible either.

[heteronormative.livejournal.com]

Started to answer this then stopped. Probably something better debated in other forums, I think, from my point of view anyway.

[uran.livejournal.com]

I've never had anyone disclose to me any infection or illness at work.
While this does seem bothersome in retrospect, I suppose it's to be expected. If the guy was uncomfortable telling me he'd broken a rib two weeks prior to the booking, and only said something when I managed to hurt him inadverntantly through massage, I doubt I'll hear about HIV at all.
I expect I've had sex with several people with the virus by now but my scans always come back clear. Safer sex is the way to go, I've never had unprotected sex in my life and really don't intend to unless I'm solidly married for some time.
This debate is hard for me to wrap my head around, as sex without condoms 100% of the time is an odd thought to me. The idea of nondisclosure doesn't bother me so much as the thought of broken condoms does and that only ever happened to me once, with a long term boyfriend many years ago.
Perhaps I'm naive, but i believe a lot of scare tactics have been used to attempt to slow the spread of HIV/AIDS (and possibly STDs in general) and if you take that into account, plus practicing safer sex religiously, things are fairly stres-free.
Yes?

[lovingboth]

Well, I was a month short of my 36th birthday before I first 'did it' without a condom.

Since then, I've seen things slightly differently, but I still entirely respect the view that using condoms every time means you don't have to worry about pregnancy / STIs and go 'yay' for people who stick with that strategy.

Unfortunately, they don't always go 'yay' back at the people who chose to do 'talk, test, trust' with someone.

[uran.livejournal.com]

Sometimes we don't go yay back because we can't see how it makes sense for us in our positions. As much as I'd love to be in that position, I really can't see it happening for a long, long time.