Disclosure 2
Nov. 5th, 2003 03:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lovingbothCoo 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)
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)
Re: See response to earlier
Date: 2003-11-05 07:38 am (UTC)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
Date: 2003-11-05 07:41 am (UTC)Re: See response to earlier
Date: 2003-11-05 07:42 am (UTC)Certainly wrt HIV, that is.
Re: See response to earlier
Date: 2003-11-05 08:14 am (UTC)Re: See response to earlier
Date: 2003-11-05 08:43 am (UTC)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
Date: 2003-11-05 09:15 am (UTC)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.