I don't want to discuss prevention because it's a futile effort. Teaching the causes, effects, transmission and prevention to people have been largely ineffective. Most recent cases, according to the CDC, are those who were infected by people who didn't know their status. This is why STD testing is so crucial, especially for ANY MSM with a higher emphasis on those who black or white.
What I want to talk about is the counter-movement of groups like the Sero Project who are a "network of people with HIV and allies fighting for freedom from stigma and injustice, particularly focused on ending inappropriate criminal prosecutions of people with HIV for non-disclosure of their status, potential or perceived HIV exposure or transmission". Laws were put in place to protect people who were initially uninfected that transmitted a disease by someone that is. The fact that there are more and more people (in the SF Bay Area there's an increasing general aura of acceptance for those who are positive) who want to decriminalize failure of non-disclosure is a terrifying fucking thought.
I understand the case that some people simply didn't know to begin with, but that doesn't and should not excuse you from the law. If anything that's more ammo to advocate why MSM should be getting fucking tested anyway.
Keep in mind Nick Rhoades, the founder of Sero Project and is HIV+, had a protected sexual encounter with another man but DID NOT disclose his status. More and more cases like these have popped up in the media in which these predators are given sympathy instead of being properly convicted for their crimes.
Do movements like these have any weight to begin with? Do you think the government should change their laws?
I find it hardly believe you faggots have no opinion on this, considering you guys were grilling the OP of another thread for fucking someone with possible HIV.
Well if the hiv rate keeps going up it will inevitably be quite profitable to make a cure.
Plus it might make people realize that that there is a serious issue of excessive casual sex among gays/bi's.
>>5604749
The thing is that there isn't much to say about this.
If someone who knows he's hiv+ lies about his status when having sex, then yeah, they should face the law.
The thing is, a lot of people don't know their status, and that's why encouraging them to get tested is the best thing to do.
I'm all for stopping discrimination against hiv+ people. Yeah, many of them got it because they were irresponsible, but there's also a fair amount of people who did everything right and still got infected. So, being hiv+ shouldn't make someone a lesser human being.
But from an ethical and legal point of view, they all should be honest about their status.
I think a reason why you shouldn't be legally required to tell someone is because a person should simply assume everyone is HIV+ no matter what they say. If you take a risk and have sex, raw, it takes two to tango!
Fact of the matter is, if someone 'has a feeling,' they are poz, once they find out, some will treat them like lepers. If that same person never gets tested for the fear of stigma and law, they will continue to spread the disease, LEGALLY. It is not illegal to lie about the last time you were tested.
>>5605021
Did you even bother with reading the OP? Of course not, because the Sero Project was founded by a guy who was positive, knew it and didn't tell his hook up. The fact that there is a group advocating to dismantle laws in place to protect those who aren't isn't problem.
>>5606160
I never said I supported that group. What that guy did was terrible.
>>5606439
>What that guy did was terrible.
Why though? He used protection. Is terrible really the right adjective here?
>>5606498
There's no method that's 100 per cent effective.
Knowingly putting another person's health at risk is a pretty shitty thing to do.
Idk the details, but if the other guy asked him if he was hiv+, then terrible is a pretty spot on adjective
>>5606532
>There's no method that's 100 per cent effective.
Then don't have sex? Condoms are very effective and in conjunction with anti virals are much safer than you're giving it credit for.
>>5606578
>Then don't have sex
Completely not the point. Don't you think people have the right to know what they are possibly getting into? Someone hiding their positive status is making their choice for them without them even knowing
>>5606605
Yeah they have a right to know. Hopefully you're fucking consenting adults who realize that sex is inherently risky. The person Nick Rhoades had sex with was a stranger. You'd have to be a moron to think sex is risk free. It takes two to tango. Sex with a positive guy who is on treatment is much safer than someone who "thinks they are negative." Sex with someone on treatment and wears condoms is as safe.
>>5606688
No it's fucking not, and are you seriously blaming a rape victim for not magically divining that someone had the plague?
>>5606769
>No it's fucking not,
What's not?
>>5606688
Everybody knows sex is not risk free
That's why you use condoms and tell people you're carrying a dangerous illness that they could catch from having sex with you, so everybody knows what they are getting into.
>>5606498
>>5606578
>>5606688
Yes, are serious? Are you telling me that just because you used protection and had an undetectable viral load you're somehow exempt from telling your partner that you're positive? Guess what, no you're not. LAWS WERE PUT IN PLACE FOR THIS EXACT REASON. To protect others from people like yourself and Rhoades.
You're right in one aspect, and that's that sex comes with risk. And with that risk, you are legally entitled (or obligated) to know the penultimate risk which is contracting HIV or another STD. Again, the problem here is that Rhoades lied in the first place about his status.
>>5607647
This.
Where i live im not obligated by the law to tell anyone.
2 year long study in straight couples showed that there was no transmission of HIV from the "undetectable virus" HIV+ partner.
http://www.healthline.com/health-news/hiv-no-virus-transmission-in-mixed-hiv-status-couples-031014
During the study, an undisclosed number of HIV-negative partners became positive. But genetic testing revealed that all of those infections came from someone other than their partner. The total number of infections will be disclosed at the end of the study in 2017, Rodger said.
>>5609184
This is about Sheen being patient zero for 99% of hollywood, pornstars, and escorts right?
>>5606862
Sex with someone with HIV is more risky than sex with someone without HIV, in the factor of if you're going to get HIV or not. You're just overtly lying because you're a butthurt plague carrier. Kill yourself, but do everyone a favor and do it in a way that doesn't let your tainted blood out.
>>5607647
You shouldn't blindly believe people when they say they're hiv-
Most guys don't really have good std knowledge so most aren't even aware of things like the window period.
Requiring disclosure is nice but it's pretty pointless. There are far too many other things that can go wrong.
>>5609239
So because some people is not aware of their status, no one should bother telling people telling they're hiv+? Because that was the point of my post.
>>5609260
It shouldn't be necessary. So many people just lie anyway. Either that or people forget to ask and if you don't ask then they don't have to disclose since it's implied consent.
What difference would it make to you what they say? No matter what you have no idea what their true status is.
>>5609286
>It shouldn't be necessary. So many people just lie anyway
That's is against the law in many places.
>>5609302
Speeding can kill someone much faster than HIV would. Do you speed, ever? Do you ever go 20mph(30km) above the speed limit?
>>5609316
No, not really. I've never been good at driving, so I don't do it. It's safer for me and everyone else if I just take the public transport.
>>5609337
That's a lie you're using to make a point. Don't drive if you dont want the risk of dying. Don't sex with strangers if you don't want the risk of contracting HIV.
HIV+ people, properly treated, are not contagious, so far as studies have shown.
>>5609365
>Don't drive if you dont want the risk of dying. Don't sex with strangers if you don't want the risk of contracting HIV
I knew you were going to say this. This analogy is simply wrong.
Your were talking about speeding, not driving.
Yes, driving, just like sex, has it risks.
You can, however, lower the odds of something bad happening to you by being a responsible driver -and following with the analogy, by having safe sex.
Speeding, on the other hand, makes the odds of something bad happening to you to increase. In this case, it would be like fucking bareback with strangers who lie about their status. You are making it more riskier than it has to be.
>HIV+ people, properly treated, are not contagious, so far as studies have shown
Cool. Still not an excuse to hide your status, though. What if, for some reason, they fail to keep up with their treatment?
HIV- people still have the right to know what they are gettting into.
Yes, people will often lie about that. That's why there should be stronger law inforcement, to discourage people from doing so (and also, it'd benefit HIV+ since no one could falsely accuse them of lying about their status if they have to state it clearly that they are positive)
>>5604581
>>5609302
It really doesn't matter since very few people can accurately prove it.
It takes quite a few people getting infected to gather enough evidence to ever start a court case against them.
>>5604581
Let's talk about the AID CONSPIRACY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqjI-YiNliQ
>>5604581
the stigma against HIV+ people is totally justified. Denying HIV medication to homosexuals would effectively weed out the ultra-degenerate scum that are a scourge to the community.
