I actually find it very strange that we keep focusing on “our” system though – since HIV doesn’t abide by borders. I brought up Ukraine as an example upthread, because it is very much relevant, especially since we face a high degree of traffic: sex tourists from the West vs. slaves “imported” into the West, as well as international marriages – both arranged and the other kind, and so on.

Not only do people die from disclosing HIV status – there is an entire subcategory of people with HIV for whom infecting someone (or the suspicion of infecting someone) is a death sentence. If you’re a slave, your owner may very well shoot you in the head if he (it’s usually a he) finds out you may be infected – the “merchandise” is damaged, after all, not to mention the fact that you are now a liability to the “business.” This isn’t just limited to sexual slavery – and slavery as whole is at a new peak worldwide.

I’m sorry that I bristle when New York or another metropolitan center of relative wealth gets brought up – I just see that poorer places where there is less medical options and less education about the topic are either buried in these discussions, or else they are referred to from an outside point of view. When a poor rural or foreign woman, or poor man, has sex with someone from New York (I’m using it as an example since it has been brought up), under any circumstances – one member of that couple is going to have an easier time dealing with infection than another.

It’s inequality that’s not any specific individual’s fault – that’s just the international system we have in place today. But I think that it must not be forgotten – because some of us go back to NYC and fairly decent clinics, and others, as hexy mentioned, are first going to get run out of their hovel of a home if infection is even suspected, and then stand a good chance of dying.

To give a specific example – in a place like Dubai, people are simply deported if they have HIV or TB. A lot of these people are poorer, and might jump at the chance to get with a wealthier expat – whether for money or in the course of a relationship – and may end up losing their entire livelihood and worse if they are infected. Once again, this isn’t to minimize the stigma of HIV in the West. It’s just that the specific circumstances of infection are different for people worldwide. Nobody is watching out for poor people in these situations, so they have to watch out for themselves, if they are going to make it.

This isn’t an internal conversation that people in richer nations have, because it affects everyone.

Unfortunately it doesn’t look like anyone else is still reading!

http://www.soros.org/initiatives/health/focus/law/articles_publications/publications/10reasons_20080918/10reasons_20081201.pdf

Firstly, please, the “Us and Them” manner most of you are using to discuss people with HIV is really disconcerting. Most people with HIV were at one point people without HIV, you know. The othering is really unnecessary, unless your intention is to prevent any person with HIV reading or stumbling across this thread at a later date from feeling safe on this blog.

I can’t believe it hasn’t been noticed yet that in 169 comments not a single person has said “Hey, person with HIV here”. I might be thinking of some other feminist blog, but don’t we usually NOTICE if we’ve gotten through that many comments on a discussion about an oppressed minority without A: no word from anyone within that minority, or B: no one feeling safe to disclose their status as a member of that minority? I was under the impression I’d read a whole bunch of posts on that attitude here in the last few months?

Secondly, it’s really icking me out the number of people using the black-and-white, right-and-wrong language about “deserving” HIV and punishing the evil infectors. See point one, with a healthy dose of “WTF shouldn’t you guys know better, we talk about stigma all the time here.” Most of the time? HIV infection is one of those things that happens with no clear party to blame (or, ya know, persecute) and the question of whether someone “deserved” their infection is completely irrelevant. Doesn’t stop people being angry and scared, though, and angry and scared people can make some pretty nasty accusations. Some of you are supporting legislation that magnifies the teeny tiny percentage of willful, deliberate infections and makes it easier for people to use the courts to punish someone for unintentionally infecting them. If you don’t think that’s what you’re supporting, read the links provided by others or use the google to unearth other articles about what actually happens in real life cases where HIV transmission is punished by law. Are you expecting clear, shining proof in each case that the defendant ABSOLUTELY knew they were infected AND infectious (a distinction few here seem to be making) and deliberately passed on the virus to the newly infected person? Because that’s exactly what’s lacking when these laws are actually applied. Just in the cases that have happened recently in Australia, we’ve seen the defendants genuine belief that they were non-infectious thrown out, the defendant punished when no actual resulting infections could be found, and similar. In all of those cases, incidentally? The defendant’s identity, locale, HIV status and in one case sex work status were then published in media nationally.

And as for those who are belittling the passing on of other STIs on the basis that they don’t kill you like HIV does: Way to presume that your partner isn’t immuno-compromised. Has it occurred to you that sexual contact with a HIV positive person (even sexual contact that has no risk of HIV transmission) might put them at risk? Oh, but I guess in that case, it’s up to THEM to ask about health status, right? I’m getting the impression the onus is on them all the time.

B:

“if you consent to have sex with a healthy person, that also implies consent to sex with someone who has a fatal incurable disease.” Uh…if you can’t see the bright line between those two, you are being willfully ignorant.

I can’t help but notice you missed out “likely to be transmitted” from your description there. It comes across as incredibly ableist. No, you do not have a right to know the health history of your sex partners. You just don’t. Even if it’s fatal. Even if it’s incurable.

Finally, the OMGZ, what about their privacy argument is BULLSHIT. We’re not talking about job hiring here, we’re talking about sex. If you are willing to have sex with someone, you need to disclose any and all information about your health that can impact your partner. You do not have the right to hide information about deadly diseases that cane be transmitted sexually.

People die for disclosing HIV status. Frequently. Gay men are driven out of town, or beaten. Women are turfed out of their homes, blamed for infections they had no power to control. Isn’t it time we did a little more to reduce HIV stigma, rather than enshrining it in law?

Bagelsan:

I think it’s ridiculous to try and pretend that there’s something “bigoted” about basing who you choose to sleep with on what is best for your own health. I would hazard a guess that most people on this blog would agree that you can refuse to sleep with someone for ANY reason (even if it’s an assholish one) and I definitely would not want to have sex with someone that had a deadly disease (and yes, that includes ones like MDR-TB too — it’s not actually ’cause I hate HIV+ people, it’s ’cause I don’t want to catch an untreatable disease and die.)

I’ve inferred from a few comments that the unspoken bit of the hypothetical many have presented is the bit where the disclosure of positive HIV status leads to the (probably quite familiar to the person with HIV) line “Oh. HIV? Nope, get out of my bed.” But you’ve come right out and said it, so I don’t need to base my reply on an inferrance!

That right there? That IS stigma. Especially the way you state it, as though it’s sex with a HIV positive person itself that passes on the disease rather than a very specific group of activities under very specific circumstances. No, I’m not saying anyone is obliged to have sex with anyone… as you correctly state, even assholish reasons to not sleep with someone are valid. But validity doesn’t make them non-assholish. If you would NOT have protected sex with someone on the basis of HIV status alone, guess what? Your reason is based on ignorance and stigma, and you’re contributing to why people with HIV feel pressured not to disclose. Educate yourself on the actual risks and actual steps you can take to negate that risk.

And I know I shouldn’t bother on this one, but:

V:
yet think there should be no retribution for a woman wilfully infecting partners with HIV, something far worse than rape as it can result in death and is dishonest and manipulative.

This is the second thread I’ve come across in my perusing tonight where you’ve declared something to be worse than rape. Fucking stop that shit. You have no fucking idea what you’re talking about.

I’m not sure if it’s such a big deal with other STI’s — curable ones aren’t a huge deal, and herpes at least doesn’t kill you — but knowingly passing on HIV due to malice or just due to being to nervous to tell the person is murder and should be treated as such.

But whatever, honestly I don’t think you are worth engaging with at all or any more of my time. Go fuck yourself, seriously.

I also take issue with your notion that privileged Westerners are in no position to be afraid – if anything, the present healthcare system in the States is a cause for all of us to be afraid, regardless of our specific health problems or lack thereof. I’d actually missed the part where you talk about rape – and I apologize for not seeing it before.

I try to follow the German press pretty closely, and there are claims about Benaissa that are being made right now that paint her as a person who willingly endangered others. I don’t know if they’re going to hold up – but if she really did tell a man that it was OK to not use condoms as everything was perfectly OK health-wise, I think that falls under one German law or another. I think the crucial point here is that they were using condoms previously, and making the decision to stop using them was the point where some conversation should have occurred and did not. Since she knew her status, I don’t know what her excuse could possibly be.

I agree with you that people take use their supposed paranoia of infection to beat up on others – it’s selfish and ignorant. I don’t think our society should put up with that. I think that if we could only strike some sort of balance between understanding HIV and accepting the fact that it’s a virus which we can’t presently cure, international society would be much better off.