Comments

102
Plus the title of the post is "Always Be Disclosing."
103
@ 100 That's funny, people usually hate my guts here.

Your second and third paragraphs are spot on.

As Dan more or less said in his comments about the Palestinian "rapist", it's not okay to lie, but people do lie. It's naive to think otherwise. And dangerous for your health, among other things.
104
Attitudes like Dan's are the reason
homosexual men
are 38X as likely to have AIDS
as average Americans.

38X.
105
100

want to 'know' Ritardo?

get in the line
106
@ 105

Oh, you're so witty.

It's Ricardo, not Ritardo (gee, it must have taken you a while to come up with that one... so clever).

I've also been called Bitchard, so watch what you say.
107
to all (boys and girls) that say that it is ok, let's fuck. i'm clean. trust me.
yeah, you wouldn't do it.

i've been voluntarily celibate for about 10 years now, which has allowed me to focus on friendships and durable relationships that are not based on sex. ouch, i'm living proof that HIV or AIDS status is irrelevant in terms of friendships. sex is fun, but overrated.
i've been out of it for so long that i don't even know the difference between barebacking and wetbacking. whole bunch of fuckin' pervs, y'all.
108
Hey, what is a little lie to get laid?

BTW, ladies, I work for an elite modeling agency, and I think you have just the look we want...
109
Look:
This isnt about the stigma associated with HIV. This is about the chance, albeit small, of giving someone a potential death sentence or altering their life drastically because you wanted to have sex.

If you disclose, you may not get to have sex. I understand that. Oh fucking well. That DOES NOT justify not informing someone that you could give them a deadly incurable disease.

I'm not stupid enough to assume that everyone will disclose just because its the right thing to do. But I'm also not stupid enough to excuse them for not doing the right thing when someone else's life could be on the line just because they want to get laid.
110
Sorry, but once you have contracted HIV, you've limited your sex partners to other HIV positive people, and really, really, wonderful HIV negative people. I'm HIV negative. I have a right to choose my sex partners based on a variety of criteria, one of them being my health. Would I ever consider dating someone who lied to me about their STD status? No way in hell. It communicates to that person that it's okay to lie. Would I consider dating someone who was HIV positive, and was upfront about it? I guess it depends on how wonderful they were.
111
I'm surprised no one mentioned this, but not only did this person lie and expose his partner to a life threatening disease sexually. There is also the relationship aspect - if I were about to start dating someone who had a potentially fatal illness - and thats what HIV is - even if, unlike HIV, it were noncommunicable, I'd want to know that before sleeping with them and crossing the line into relationship land. Its a huge responsibility to be with someone who you may end up being a caretaker for not in 60 years, but in 5 years.

And thats even if it weren't a disease that could easily be passed on.
112
DTMFA! No question. When she DTMF though she should be clear to him that this is not because he's HIV positive (even if it is because that's not something he can change) but tell him that it's because he lied about it (because that's something he can definitely change). She has a right to decide if she's willing to sleep with an HIV positive guy. He took that choice away from her. He has the right to tell her he's got an undetectable viral load and he's safe and she has the right to walk out. The hell with that motherfucker.
113
Dan, if this guy takes your advice, doesn't tell his female friend, and, tragically, she seroconverts as a result, I hope she sues the shit out of you.

Asshole.
114
Crap. I feel bad if I kiss someone when I have a the common cold. DTMFA
115
@ 84, is it that judgmental to suggest that someone who is poz be upfront about it with their partners? It seems responsible not condemning. In this instance she asked him and he lied. If the condom failed there's no take back on that one.
It sucks that the pool of partners for poz people will be reduced and that they'll have to search harder to find the right people, but openly disclosing one's hiv status can help reduce the spread.
But it sounds like you almost wish that the people who disagree with you become infected, I don’t get it. Hopefully I misinterpreted.
116
@98

Oh, sure I do. I've got tons of them -- the King James bible is hardly the definitive translation; the stone-casting metaphor has to be viewed in the context of the story it appears in; there are other parts of the Bible and even just the Gospel of John where judging of one sort or another is thoroughly approved of; and so on. If the parable is read only to mean that nobody who has ever committed any sin can judge the behavior of another, then it's a pointless statement -- clearly some judgment is a necessary component of a functioning society.

@100

First, nobody's talking about HIV+ people never having sex again; what's under discussion is disclosure. And disclosure doesn't mean never having sex again -- it means having sex with other HIV+ people, and with consenting HIV- people. Your attempt to reframe the discussion to something else just makes you out to be a cunt.
117
Compassion always works better than yelling, guys.
118
@ 116 "Judgement" as in "analysis" is necessary. "Judgement" as in "misinformed self-righteousness" isn't. The only arguments you have are the ones you get into because of the latter, me thinks.
119
@118

There are a lot of points on the continuum between "analysis" and "misinformed self-righteousness". And speaking of arguments, do you have any basis for the idea that those are the only arguments I have, other than the fact that you disagree with me?
120
This is a dying thread at this point, I realize, but Judah & Ricardo, I think I have a contribution to make here: It's the absolute nature of the act - stoning someone to death - that calls for absolute blamelessness (sinlessness) on the part of the stone-thrower. In other words, the more blameless you are with regards to something, the more harshly you can judge in those matters, and vice versa. And it applies to this discussion; anyone here who has been consistently honest with their partners in everything sex- and health-related can slam away and give all the DTMFA advice they want, because they serve as an example that the standards they advocate are possible to uphold. Others... well, let's just say that hypocrisy is pretty common, and there might be some right here on this 'ol thread.
121
Hiding it is worse than having it. The dude didn't disclose when asked and it made things worse, and he got his butt stigmatized some more. DTMFA. It's rough but honesty, especially when intimacy is at stake is always the best policy.

I don't like anyone making decisions about what's important to me in a mutual, adult, consenting encounter. If you think you can assess my risk (of whatever) for me without consulting me, then we have a problem right off the bat.
122
I wonder how many of these people who insist that not giving a detailed inventory of their STD status before sex is BIG HUGE OH-MY-GOD-WHAT-A-LIAR-YOU-CAN-NEVER-TRUST-THIS-PERSON-AGAIN deal get themselves tested at least twice a year for STDs.

Because last time I checked, the majority of people with STDs don't know that they have them. And, as I'm sure we all know, two of the most common STDS -- HPV and herpes -- are acquired via skin contact, so even the most scrupulous use of condoms is no protection. If you're fucking different people on a regular basis, and if you've had more partners in your lifetime than you can count on one hand, there's a very good chance that you have HPV and/or herpes.

So before you get all whigged out and judgmental and insistant that people who don't disclose are HORRIBLE HORRIBLE PEOPLE, it might behoove you to remember that if you haven't checked your own status recently, you may very well be spreading an STD yourself. So what does that make you?
123
The shit you make excuses for and try to be compassionate about...

You can be a fucking idiot, Dan.
124
I'm with the majority here, this is way unacceptable. Big difference between "not disclosing" and "directly lying when asked."
125
@Everyone, go get AIDS and find out the other perspective on this.

AIDS is just one of many terrible and inconvenient things that can happen to you. Now if you take away the irrational fear (See bedbugs), you can boil this down to: stupid and dangerous lie.

Should you dump a guy you like and have chemistry with because he has a stupid and dangerous lie that he then quickly broke and told the truth to you?

Just post your damn answer and leave the judgments out.
126
@122 i don't get tested twice a year because i'm in a monogamous relationship, but i'm tested as often as i need to be. i was tested before we ever slept together (which was six months into our relationship due to distance, and even longer after i'd stopped sleeping with anyone else), and i made sure he was too. hell, i made sure i read the paperwork myself. i nag all my friends to do the same, for the sake of their own health and for the health of their prospective partners. it isn't hard, and it's incredibly important.

don't judge us all as hypocrites. some of us, sounds like most of us, practise what we preach.

as for the actual letter, DTMFA. there's no excuse for what he did. period.
127
You are SO out of line with this advice, Dan, it's shocking. There is never any good reason to lie about HIV status, and there's no way to justify it. It's horrifying that you're more concerned about the poz community that the neg community. Yes, they do face discrimination when they disclose - but so do people with any other communicable disease. And the onus is on them to face that discrimination and stand up to it: by finding other poz partners, or by enrolling the partner they're disclosing to about the tiny risk at hand. Maybe having to disclose would add to the pressure to stay neg anyway.

This is beyond a DTMFA situation - this is a tell everyone you know about this and perhaps go to the authorities.

Is that unfair to the poz community? Sure. But it is just as unfair to commit a deception of this magnitude and not accept an equally enormous reaction.

Dan, I never though of you - ever - as an idiot, but this time that's exactly how you sound. It's one thing to be liberal - I consider myself mostly liberal as well - and it's another thing to abandon common sense wholesale.
128
If there is anything NOT to lie about, it's STDs... I've dated poz guys but I've dumped the ones that lied. There were more than one. It's the lying, not the HIV that is a deal breaker. To me, it's that simple.
129
@ 119 - Well, anyone who starts with the "hardly the definitive translation" line is obviously clutching at straws... All other translations I consulted (about a dozen) say basically the same, and I used that example because it's probably the most widely known version.

What matters now anyway is no longer what the bible meant (if anyone living today can be the judge of that), but rather how that saying has been integrated in our culture and what it means to people today.

But other than that, no, I have no basis whatsoever for what I said. I just wanted to piss you off because your bs conclusion that "A coward and a parasite in that position will fail to disclose. A moral human being with an appropriate regard for the lives and dignity of other human beings won't" only reveals your total lack of understanding of real human beings (get your nose out of your books for once, please!).

Adding "and I know this is true because I've seen it" only begs the question: How many times? And how many times have you seen people "not disclose"? I'm thoroughly convinced that the latter is the more typical human behavior. Are we all moral failures, then? Yes. That's part of being human. We learn, we grow, and we may stop making mistakes, but we all make a bunch of them before we get to that point. To err is human, remember? To condemn human beings for being human is hypocritical and despicable.

And if you're so intent in using the bible as a reference, why don't you explain Deuteronomy and how it applies to our lives? There's no better proof that the bible is a worthless document.
130
@ 120 - So what you're basically saying is that absolutely no one is allowed to give DTMFA advice?

I actually agree that the guy is not bf material - not because of his failure to disclose, but because he is trying to make excuses for himself (see post 76), which means that he will always lie and pretend there's nothing wrong with his shitty behaviour.

So DTMFA for being a POS, girl, but you should all be realistic about what it means to live with HIV and how an average human being is equiped to face prejudice of such magnitude as shown in this thread, i.e., not at all.
131
@129

To condemn human beings for being human is hypocritical and despicable.

Most cowards excuses their behavior as being a reflection of "human nature." Where I grew up, human nature was beating your wife, stealing from your friends, abusing your children, and taking money from your family to buy drugs. Nobody who lived in that place would refute that all of those behaviors were essential to human nature, and everyone there did those things. In spite of being assured often and loudly that I would someday do all of those things myself, I have not. And I am fairly comfortable condemning those behaviors and the moral cowardice of the people who engage in them. Likewise your bullshit about not disclosing HIV status, and for a similar set of reasons.

Keep telling yourself it's human nature, or that HIV+ people who fail to disclose have no choice. You can live in that world and be that kind of person. Personally, I wouldn't piss down your throat if your guts were on fire.
132
@ 131 - I wouldn't drink your piss anyway, I'm sure it's full of diseases already.

I never said that HIV+ people "have no choice" about disclosing. I said that I understand why they don't: it's because of self-righteous POS like you. You must be the least pleasant person to ever come from "where you grew up".

And if you like to read the bible so much, why did you skip the bits about compassion?

133
@132

Ha.
134
@116 "Your attempt to reframe the discussion to something else just makes you out to be a cunt."

Your charm is underwhelming. Thanks for illustrating my point on unreasonable responses to HIV/AIDS etc.

On to other things now....
135
@134

Ah yes, welcome to Slog. It's charm central.

Short of that, it's not clear how me being obnoxious constitutes a defense of sexual battery, but you're clearly reaching so I'll let you just do that.
136
It's assholes like this who make poz-phobia worse. It's one thing to not disclose because your viral load is undetectable and you're using a condom anyway, but it's completely unacceptable to lie about it when someone is trying to make their own decision.

The picture he's painting is that poz guys will lie about it even when asked directly, that they can't be trusted, and that they don't believe other people should be able to make their own decisions about risk. That, to them, getting off is more important than another person's right to make informed decisions about their own health.

None of which, of course, is true. Well, it is in this one case, at least, but it's not a fair picture. Which is why this guy is a total asshole and is contributing to poz-phobia in general. Get it?
137
Confluence #84: "Shut the fuck up already, all you stone throwers. You make me sick."

Confluence: Have you ever seen a stoning? It's really beyond sick. Getting mad at someone for exposing you to a life-threatening disease? That's just rational.

You run your mouth off all the time, your comments are a headache to read because they are so extreme. Find a video of a stoning and watch it, then try and say the same thing with a straight face.
138
Best Friend, I don't know if you're going to check this again, but I think you're right that he's thinking about himself and hardly at all about you. Also, if he lies about something as important as HIV status, what else will he lie to you about? I won't call him a MF, because I know you like him, but he doesn't deserve you. And it's not his HIV status, it's the lack of consideration he's been showing to you.
139
Can we please drop Dan's absurd "give the guy a break, he was doing the right thing by telling her" bullshit?

They had been friends for years. AFTER getting laid, and realizing there was a potential for a relationship, he told her... so how many girls has he just fucked and had no interest in something more with and never told? He "finally" confessed, and only after this "social stigma" bullshit for awhile? How the *fuck* did she let this guy BACK into her pants?!
140
Jesus Christ, people who watch General Hospital are better educated on HIV than this group of supposed educated liberal blog commenters. It'd be funny if it wasn't so scary.

I agree that he should have told her, but damn there's a lot of ignorance in this thread.
141
@140: Clear things up for us then. What do we have so badly wrong?
142
Whoa....
The issue here is the LIE, not the HIV. A lot of folks here are having total HIV freakouts and missing that point.

For what it's worth, I have HIV and I think it was lame to lie. But Dan is saying under *some* circumstances you might give a liar a second chance if no irreversible harm was done. What if he had lied about something else? A kid by a previous marriage? A drug problem long ago? In those cases there might be a sliver of a possibility of getting beyond the lie if the individuals are up to the task.
143
@141:

He didn't risk her health at all, and most people here don't seem to understand that.
144
Black Rose you don't know that or the frequency of his testing or how recently he was tested or how diligent he is in taking his meds or effective his meds are or even if has an undetectable load. All that is known is that he is a liar, that he abused and misused the trust of a long time friend/acquaintence to fuck (in more than one sense) that friend, that there was some form of unprotected oral sex (and I know the probability of being infected with HIV through oral sex is very/extremely low) and that he "told" her that he had an undetectable load. You are basically saying that he is justified in lying to get whatever he wants from whoever he wants. Just because he is HIV positive does not make him entitled to special treatment or a free pass in his treatment of others. If you say he does then do you also give a free pass to a rapist who was raped or abused as a child (I know this is an extreme example, but I'm merely using it to illustrate the basic problem of excusing/justifying someone's behavior based on special circumstances. Once you begin that, where do you draw the line)

This was not a one night stand with a total stranger, but a long term friend with a pre-existing level of trust which he used to get laid. "My good friend would never lie to me about something so important." If this is his modus operandi/vivendi then that is a damning indictment of his lack of integrity and she should make that known all of their friends lest he pull the same sort of shit (lying to get what he wants) on them.
145
People lie, condoms break (or so everyone keeps saying) -- I don't sleep with a new person till I've seen a copy of their recent STD tests and been informed about who they've slept with since then. (And if you're worried about the inconvenience, take a photo of the results and keep it in your phone -- you could work it into your pickup routine, "hey baby, I'm clean, see?".) Why are we so eager to stick our heads in the sand and give up responsibility for our health to someone else?
146
Condoms REDUCE the risk of infection enormously. They don't eliminate it. They break. They leak around the edges. Used carelessly (and 'knowing' he didn't have any stds, she might have CHOSEN to be careless), they're not that effective at all.

So yes, he definitely risked her health. She might have taken HUGE liberties with proper condom use because she thought there were no disease issues (just treated it as 'bonus' pregnancy protection above and beyond, say, the pill).

Even used 100% correctly, everything I've ever read says there's SOME chance of fluid exchange, however low. You may think that there's no difference between zero chance of infection (if he hadn't been poz) and one-in-a-billion (poz with a condom), but that's HER choice to make and not his. Choice aside, she needed to know not to go taking liberties with correct condom use.
147
@84 - I don't fuck anybody off of just a chat. Secondly, the guy I'm referring to is someone who disclosed upfront on an online profile. If I lived in his area, yes, I would date him and get to know him, and *GASP*, yes, if he was a good guy, potentially fuck him.

My whole response was aimed at getting to know a person for who they are PAST their issues.

AND FOR THE RECORD @84, my issue with Dan was that whole "I think HIV-positive people should disclose; I don't think they must disclose" bullshit. YOU MUST disclose something like that. Period.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.