It's Shallow to Always Decline any Sexual Contact with Someone Who is HIV+?

[Lord_of_Goon]

^^you live in western NC and don't do drugs?!?! That's a minority.

 

[Penis Aficionado]

Auspos, I get why you take this personally, but when people decide whether to fuck someone or not, they don't sit down and perform an emotionless cost/benefit analysis. What if my dick just won't get hard to fuck an HIV+ person? Is that my fault? Does that make me a bad person?

And to all of you saying you wouldn't have sex with a positive person because of the risk: Isn't someone who reveals his HIV+ status up front just about the safest partner of all?

I can't think of a single gay man or straight woman whom I know well (well enough that we talk to each other about sex) who hasn't at least once in their life let a man cum inside them without knowing for sure that man's status. That sexual encounter was probably riskier than an ecounter with someone they knew to be HIV+ (in which case they would have practiced safe sex).

So I do think there's something silly about universally refusing sex with HIV+ people -- unless you are that rare unicorn who has literally never let a man cum inside you without first handing you lab papers dated the same day.

But, like I said, sexual decisions aren't usually rational ones. They're based on desire and fear.

 

[conor]

Ok, non-caring, self absorbed twat. Good luck

You have a massive chip on your shoulder- chill out. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you, they don't want to have sex with you. Accept it. Reverse the situation - if YOU rejected someone else's advances, does that make YOU shallow, or prejudiced? No, it does not - it boils down to personal choice and taste. Stop playing the victim-card, and get on with your life - I am sure there is a lot more to you, than just your HIV-status. Don't let it overshadow who and what you are, and what you have to offer.

 

[Tight_N_Juicy]

You think all poz guys went "oh I wanna get poz. He says he's neg. so it's fine"? Um. No.

Personally I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITHOUT a CONDOM EVER. Mmm. So paint me a dirty leper, fucktards.

Seriously, quit comparing yourself to a leper. Do we have colonies to segregate people with HIV from the rest of society?? NO. Enough with the leper shit already.

I won't shy away from people with a + status.. I won't treat them ANY differently other than the fact that I wouldn't engage in sexual contact.. and that's for MY OWN HEALTH.

Yes, having HIV is difficult. I understand that. I've had my own scare, and I've even had chlamydia before, got treated... but while I was contagious, I DIDN'T HAVE SEX AT ALL.

If I had HIV, I'd feel sad to be rejected by people for sex, but I would NOT hold it against them either.

Edit: It's a fuckin no brainer that you can still get HIV or other STD/I's even if using a condom.. but it's just nonsense to me to knowingly have sex with someone you know FOR A FACT has it.

I compare sex to doing drugs or taking other risks. If I'm smoking weed, I'm aware there's a risk (not much of one these days now with medical grade Ganja :biggrin: but for the examples sake let's go with it) that it could be 'laced' with something else, or it might have been transported close to chemicals that ruin the product. I know it might fuck me up. So, I take precautions to avoid that happening, I examine my buds, smell them, have a tiny taste of a new bag before I roll a whole joint. I would NEVER smoke a nug of weed I knew for a FACT had other drugs laced into it or that was shipped with hardcore chemicals. You can't always detect/prevent that from happening.. but I still take the precautions.. and I'll still TURN DOWN bad product if I know for a FACT that it is indeed bad.

 

[arabking]

Yeah seriously stop comparing yourself to a Leper because other people DON'T wanna catch a disease. How dare you get upset that we are trying to protect ourselves?? Like I said before, this is an expensive disease to contain if it doesn't kill the individual. Why should people not refuse sexual contact (one of the methods to contract it)?

 

[jujube]

Personally I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITHOUT a CONDOM EVER. Mmm. So paint me a dirty leper, fucktards.

Are you trying to buy people's sympathy?

If you thought about it a bit more logically, you should realize that your having contracted HIV without ever having sex without a condom is all the more reason to avoid having sex (even protected with a condom) with an individual who is known for a fact to be HIV+.

 

[AlteredEgo]

Well said. I second.

In my opinion, if you aren't having sexual contact with someone you like simply because they are HIV+, yes, that's shallow. It also speaks to the above, stigmatization and ostracism. And, it's a choice made from fear and ignorance.

Is it then shallow when I reject sex with someone who seems to have a bad cold? Who admits to ever having had an STD (which is something I may or may not do based on answers to follow-up questions)? Who admits to having ever had a herpes outbreak or a partner who had them? At what level of illness does it switch from being shallow to self-preserving risk management?

To Auspoz, No one with whom I have ever had sex has ever had to notify me. I ma still friendly with nearly every person I have ever had any kind of sexual contact with. There is no HIV in my past. I believe I just met the last partner I am ever going to need. We plan to have a monogamous relationship after my divorce. The way I engage in sexual practices, I am at a much higher risk for contracting a herpes simplex in my mouth, and two people in my past have (years later) had outbreaks, and so it is obvious that virus may been dormant but in my circle, and most of us have been lucky. I don't attempt to have guarantees, only best odds. And just as I don't stand downrange in Kevlar and allow myself to be fired upon, I don't have sex with anyone who is knowingly ill, with anything, even a bad cold. Are people who are coughing and sneezing being treated like lepers? And since I do believe I have met the man who will be the last sexual partner I ever have, and his status is negative, I believe that you are also wrong that I will have a positive partner in my future. You don't get to just make up statistics from your asshole just because you're bitter and wish it on me. Want some dip for that chip on your shoulder?

The "offensiveness" of refusing to have sex with someone with any STD (let alone a life-threatening one), is Political Correctness gone mad... What does offend me is the smallness of mind of some people with STD's who feel that no-one has the right to refuse them sex.

That's what I was thinking, and the more I stumble across the dissenting opinion online, I just wonder if that's crazy. I keep waiting for the opposing side to say something actually compelling, but the argument just amounts to name-calling, and unneeded reminders that those whose status is poz are people too. I have never declined friendship and all it entails- hugs, kisses on the cheek, late-night telephone gossip fests, dancing, cooking for each other, being the date for "this stupid work junket", laughing about "those idiots online" or crying about heartache together. But just like I was never gonna fuck the girl I've been friends with since high school because she drinks too much, used to have a coke problem, and may not remember what risky behaviors she's engaged in, but we stay friends because she's loyal, brilliant, talented, and fun to be around, I have never intended to have sexual contact with the few people I know/have known who have/had HIV. Not that any one of them has ever offered me the dick. The old friend from high school? She offers me sex from time to time. The first time she did, I kicked her in the shin as hard as I could. So far, no one I knew for sure was HIV+ has offered me sex, and as long as they don't offer it like she did (lifting up my skirt without invitation and making a lewd suggestion) I would turn the invitation down as I normally turn down those I'd prefer to decline. I'd be straightforward and respectful. When I say no to potential partners over something that comes up after we've begun talking about hooking up, but before we have a chance to, I typically just say something like, "I don't think we are as compatible as we thought. I don't see this working out. I hope you won't feel like I've led you on, and if you like, we can continue to hang out, be friends, but sex is off the table now." Is this somehow disrespectful, as polite as that language is, if the reason is HIV status as opposed to ...say... a kink I can't get into? If so, why?

Yes, it made me want to smack him too.

I've got news for you all. If you've EVER had sex, you've been exposed to risk, period. Judging people who have contracted the HIV virus is hypocritical at best.

Please educate yourselves.

Not one person has said they were hoping to avoid 100% of risk. I think every respondent knows that's impossible. I think they want to mitigate risk. At least that's what I want. Why is that wrong? How is that judging? Is it judging when I reject sex with dudes who have a cough?

Avoidable except for the people born with it and/or people who are too poor to have access to good sex ed that is.

There are other cultural causes too. No matter the cause of infection, every last transmission is unfortunate.

No, it's not shallow to avoid HIV at all costs. Nothing is shallow when it comes to keeping yourself healthy. It's your health. Being over cautious seems pretty damn smart to me. HIV is one of those FOREVER things... That's like saying it's shallow to avoid walking through areas of town with really high
Murder rates....

Sounds legit to me.

This thread seems like it's right out of the1980s. Apparently, some people deserve HIV more than others, and there's even a murder analogy.

Not an analogy to murder, but an analogy to willful exposure to dangerous neighborhoods. Let's not get hysterical.

Is it shallow? Hard to say...

I do think it's pretty hypocritical, however, to judge those that are honest about their status, yet dismiss the countless masses that have no clue what their status is and engage in so called "risky-behavior." THOSE are the people that scare the hell out of me, not the individuals who know and own their status.

Who is dismissing those people? Or are you saying that anyone who would dare ask his or her potential playmate's status and bow out if there is infection is automatically otherwise irresponsible? If that is, in fact what you are saying (and I do not assume it is, I'm asking) that would be hypocritically judgmental, would it not?

The fact is, if you are on medication and have an undetectable viral load, the chances of you passing the virus on to your partner, even having unprotected sex, are slim to nil. That's why the issue of PrEP is so hot right now.

This is an illogical argument. However diminished the odds of contraction are, they are necessarily greater than those from sex with a person of recently determined negative status, with the benefit of a prophylactic barrier. To suggest otherwise is patently ridiculous, isn't it?

Sero-sorting is a very poor way of preventing HIV infection because the incubation period and window of infection varies greatly from person to person. This is pretty much Russian roulette. The bottom line is this: having sex with people you don't know (no matter how fun it can be... ) carries risk, and it doesn't really matter how you slice it.

That's the issue I have with this thread. That is a fact, and hypocritical comments about "demanding a test result" or "only having sex with 'clean' 'neg' people" make me angry, because you're doing exactly what I try and fight everyday. You're stigmatizing a disease that any one of us that's not a virgin could potentially be exposed to.

I require recent results from STD screening. I do mine every three months and require my regular partners to do the same. I would treat chlamydia the same way as HIV. And if I wanted to be monogamous with the person with chlamydia it might be up for discussion when he was no longer contagious, but since I am promiscuous, I cannot knowingly have someone in my circle who has recently been having unprotected sex with someone else who has been having unprotected sex, which the presence of chlamydia suggests.

I'm looking out for all of us, and I expect my partners to do the same. I catch one slacking, he's out. And yes, I have caught them slacking. Example: I had a partner who introduced me to a woman who later confessed she sucked a lot of anonymous dick routinely. Example: I found out a recent partner lied to the other women in his life about each other and me. Sure, he told me about them. But if he lied to them about fucking me, what other lies is he telling, and which ones is he telling to me? Am I really different from them? If so, if I'm so special why am I more like a dirty secret? Nope! He had to go. I don't knowingly fuck dudes who lie about sex. It is use of judgement, but not what is typically meant when one uses the word judgmental. It is the application of logic and sense to a risk assessment process.

If you would call it discrimination just because a person has a reason to not have sex with another person, everyone would be guilty of discriminating A LOT OF PEOPLE.
Just as I have my reasons, everyone else does too.

I wouldn't have sex with a person who knowingly might give me a deadly or in a negative way life-altering disease (HIV/AIDS included, but certainly not the only one).


Oh, and I believe the OP only wanted to discuss the sex part, but someone brought up love and the idea of one losing their soulmate because of saying no to sex with a HIV+ person. I just had a fun thought. What if you, if you're homosexual, and let's say a guy, find a girl who you become instant friends with, she's awesome, shares your thoughts and interests and so on - she's your soulmate in that regard. Would you have sex with her? Or would you discriminate her and say no to sex just because she's a woman? If you answer yes, keep in mind - you might miss the chance to find your soulmate!

Everything up to the last paragraph is exactly what I have been saying, though perhaps not as well as you. As for the last paragraph, excellent point.

This is a good post that illustrates my point. HappyBoi has made his own personal risk / benefits list. It's HIS choice. I doubt he's mean to HIV people based on what I've seen here. Is that discrimination? No - HIV is a risk for all. It can be mitigated to a certain extent but there is always a risk. Hell I might be hit my a meteor if I walk out the door tomorrow morning but I'll still take that risk.

It is discrimination. That is not in question. The question is, is it shallow criteria for discrimination? Sex is about discrimination. I want all my partners to be discriminatory. I want them to find me more attractive than they find other women based on their long lists of reasons they want to be with or exclude someone. I want it to be special. I discriminate hard. I'm nice about it, but there is very little wiggle room; I never settle, and I hope my partners don't either. Lot's of the reasons I have for rejecting a potential playmate are fairly shallow. We have to have at least one language in common. They have to know that the sun is the center of the solar system and is larger than the Earth. They cannot be in a religion that refers to me as an Earth. Seriously, I'm not doing that again. No more Taoists either. And if I'm not horny just looking at them, they can't get any from me. But is it shallow just because it is, like every other criterion, discrimination?

In your post you mention many times, take precautions, be careful, use protection. All true and all sound advice. Yet in a loving, very passionate relationship, maybe after few drinks feeling horny, oops left the protection on top of the bedside table.. or none available for some reason or other...let's do it anyway.

It happens, because that is how many people contract HIV in the first place, and still do because people are still being infected...

In answer to the OP's question, no, it's not shallow. If a person who had contracted HIV through a moment of unprotected passion could have there time over again, they might, and I stress, they might, think differently about taking any chances at all.

Or which chances are more acceptable to take than others. I hate condoms. I only use them because I'm promiscuous. I don't want to use them in the context of a long-term, monogamous relationship, which I intend to have again some day.

 

[auspoz]

Well, if nothing else, it's pleasing to see people's prejudices out loud.

And also, I see now I'm one strong human. To exist within this web of stigma, prejudice and ridiculous fear, I'm doing ok.

Would be nice to hear from any other people with the HIV virus.

Good luck all. Lol.

 

[lovinglife]

Well, if nothing else, it's pleasing to see people's prejudices out loud.

And also, I see now I'm one strong human. To exist within this web of stigma, prejudice and ridiculous fear, I'm doing ok.

Would be nice to hear from any other people with the HIV virus.

I havent looked at the whole thread, but this last page doesnt have a lot of prejudice, stigma or ridiculous fear. Sex is a choice.

I can choose to not have sex with a drunk girl, to not have sex with somebody with an STD, to not have sex with somebody that I dislike (their personality), to not have sex with somebody that I simply dont find attractive. I can say no to sex for any reason that I want to. Sex is a very personal thing, and if something makes you uncomfortable you can say no.

I am sorry that your life has been difficult because of your situation, but you are looking at these posts with very jaded views. So jaded in fact, that if anybody disagrees with you for any reason at all they are wrong and a bad person.

 

[erratic]

I havent looked at the whole thread, but this last page doesnt have a lot of prejudice, stigma or ridiculous fear. Sex is a choice.

As someone who just waded through the rest of the thread, there's some particularly revolting stuff. Unsurprisingly, unfortunately.

HIV + people have a shitty deal on a lot of levels. I hear all the people who are saying "don't compare yourself to a leper" but that's how many poz guys feel. That's an analogy I've heard many, many times. Many poz guys (I don't know many poz women) are touched less, given more personal space, stop having food shared with them. They tell me that people avoid kissing them, shaking hands, that they even look at them differently. When that happens again and again, day in and day out, every day of your life, it adds up.

So yes, the poz guys in this thread are reacting in a pretty heated way. They've earned it. I think negative folks should chill out - since we have that privilege when entering in to this kind of discussion - and give positive folks some slack on this one.

As for my opinion about the original question of this thread "It's shallow to always decline any sexual contact with someone who is HIV+?" Yes.

Is it shallow to make decisions that prioritize your health, even if it means rejecting someone else? No.

Can those two principles come in conflict, and will people's feelings be wounded as a result? Yuup.

"Any sexual contact" includes contact that carries no risk of HIV transmission. Saying "I won't touch your penis because I don't want to contract HIV" is as ridiculous as saying "I won't shake your hand because I don't want to contract HIV." You could finger paint with a poz guy's semen and not get infected (unless you've got big, bleeding sores on your hands or something).

"I won't let you blow your load in me," however, makes sense - and the poz guys I've known personally have always expressed being freaked out by (and refusing) negative people who say "don't worry about the condom."

Meanwhile, some people are arguing that they have every right to reject or deny sex for any reason, full stop. This is absolutely true, but not the point of the thread. You can reject anyone for any reason, yes. No one must provide anyone sex. But that says nothing about the quality of one's reasons, or of one's character, just that any reason is adequate.

 

[invisibleman]

^^you live in western NC and don't do drugs?!?! That's a minority.

Very much so. Very much so.

 

[dutchbottom68]

All I have to say about this is, if you have sex with a stranger you should always protect yourself, even if you think they are HIV-.
If someone told you they had HIV it would be safe to have sex with him/her if you used a condom. If that person is taking medicines and has an "undetectable status" the chances that you could get infected are almost nil… There are a lot of men and women who never test and don't know and assume they are healthy , because they feel healthy.. I suggest every person who has multiple partners should get tested regularly and everybody should always have protected sex, so no-one can infect anyone and no-one has to be excluded… a condom will protect from every std.. stay safe, stay sexy!!!

 

[Gecko4lif]

I'd be business partners with someone HIV+
I'd be teammates with someone hiv+
I'd be friend with someone HIV+

But that's it where the line is drawn.

 

[AlteredEgo]

All I have to say about this is, if you have sex with a stranger you should always protect yourself, even if you think they are HIV-.
If someone told you they had HIV it would be safe to have sex with him/her if you used a condom. If that person is taking medicines and has an "undetectable status" the chances that you could get infected are almost nil… There are a lot of men and women who never test and don't know and assume they are healthy , because they feel healthy.. I suggest every person who has multiple partners should get tested regularly and everybody should always have protected sex, so no-one can infect anyone and no-one has to be excluded… a condom will protect from every std.. stay safe, stay sexy!!!

A condom will not protect from every STD, please don't tell people that half-truth, and you failed to address the only question asked by the thread. Is it shallow to reject sexual contact simply because of HIV status.

 

[AlteredEgo]

The gist I am getting from some of the respondents to this thread is that it is shallow to add discrimination as one more layer of risk management because there are some ways to mitigate risks without discrimination. That sounds like... nonsense.

 

[patro78]

As someone who just waded through the rest of the thread, there's some particularly revolting stuff. Unsurprisingly, unfortunately.

HIV + people have a shitty deal on a lot of levels. I hear all the people who are saying "don't compare yourself to a leper" but that's how many poz guys feel. That's an analogy I've heard many, many times. Many poz guys (I don't know many poz women) are touched less, given more personal space, stop having food shared with them. They tell me that people avoid kissing them, shaking hands, that they even look at them differently. When that happens again and again, day in and day out, every day of your life, it adds up.

So yes, the poz guys in this thread are reacting in a pretty heated way. They've earned it. I think negative folks should chill out - since we have that privilege when entering in to this kind of discussion - and give positive folks some slack on this one.

As for my opinion about the original question of this thread "It's shallow to always decline any sexual contact with someone who is HIV+?" Yes.

Is it shallow to make decisions that prioritize your health, even if it means rejecting someone else? No.

Can those two principles come in conflict, and will people's feelings be wounded as a result? Yuup.

"Any sexual contact" includes contact that carries no risk of HIV transmission. Saying "I won't touch your penis because I don't want to contract HIV" is as ridiculous as saying "I won't shake your hand because I don't want to contract HIV." You could finger paint with a poz guy's semen and not get infected (unless you've got big, bleeding sores on your hands or something).

"I won't let you blow your load in me," however, makes sense - and the poz guys I've known personally have always expressed being freaked out by (and refusing) negative people who say "don't worry about the condom."

Meanwhile, some people are arguing that they have every right to reject or deny sex for any reason, full stop. This is absolutely true, but not the point of the thread. You can reject anyone for any reason, yes. No one must provide anyone sex. But that says nothing about the quality of one's reasons, or of one's character, just that any reason is adequate.

I've just progressed through this heated but interesting thread, and your level-headed and clear summation beats any that I could produce. Refocusing attention on the precise terms of the original question - actually highlighting them and elaborating on their implications so as to define the scope of the issue - is, and I hope will continue to be, salutary and constructive. Thanks.

 

[everyinch123]

This entire discussion is offensive. Just trade the word HIV with Jew, Black, woman, Hispanic or cancer...and see what the reaction would be. Perhaps spending less time obsessed with cock size and more with the body of knowledge would be rewarding for a lot of people here.

 

[Brisler]

As someone who just waded through the rest of the thread, there's some particularly revolting stuff. Unsurprisingly, unfortunately.

HIV + people have a shitty deal on a lot of levels. I hear all the people who are saying "don't compare yourself to a leper" but that's how many poz guys feel. That's an analogy I've heard many, many times. Many poz guys (I don't know many poz women) are touched less, given more personal space, stop having food shared with them. They tell me that people avoid kissing them, shaking hands, that they even look at them differently. When that happens again and again, day in and day out, every day of your life, it adds up.

So yes, the poz guys in this thread are reacting in a pretty heated way. They've earned it. I think negative folks should chill out - since we have that privilege when entering in to this kind of discussion - and give positive folks some slack on this one.

As for my opinion about the original question of this thread "It's shallow to always decline any sexual contact with someone who is HIV+?" Yes.

Is it shallow to make decisions that prioritize your health, even if it means rejecting someone else? No.

Can those two principles come in conflict, and will people's feelings be wounded as a result? Yuup.

"Any sexual contact" includes contact that carries no risk of HIV transmission. Saying "I won't touch your penis because I don't want to contract HIV" is as ridiculous as saying "I won't shake your hand because I don't want to contract HIV." You could finger paint with a poz guy's semen and not get infected (unless you've got big, bleeding sores on your hands or something).

"I won't let you blow your load in me," however, makes sense - and the poz guys I've known personally have always expressed being freaked out by (and refusing) negative people who say "don't worry about the condom."

Meanwhile, some people are arguing that they have every right to reject or deny sex for any reason, full stop. This is absolutely true, but not the point of the thread. You can reject anyone for any reason, yes. No one must provide anyone sex. But that says nothing about the quality of one's reasons, or of one's character, just that any reason is adequate.

Word!

 

[185248]

This entire discussion is offensive. Just trade the word HIV with Jew, Black, woman, Hispanic or cancer...and see what the reaction would be. Perhaps spending less time obsessed with cock size and more with the body of knowledge would be rewarding for a lot of people here.

I don't see what trading HIV with Jew, Black, woman, Hispanic is going to prove?

The HIV virus does not discriminate, no matter what culture you are from.

People try to make decisions based on risks of being infected. Risks identified and made known in all up to date literature concerning the virus. Nothing to do with what nationality or sex you are.

 

[AlteredEgo]

This entire discussion is offensive. Just trade the word HIV with Jew, Black, woman, Hispanic or cancer...and see what the reaction would be. Perhaps spending less time obsessed with cock size and more with the body of knowledge would be rewarding for a lot of people here.

That is a lame comparison. Has anyone ever developed a terminal disease simply from contact with [insert ethnicity]? Is ethnicity or cancer contagious? Take some ginko biloba, eat some salmon, or find some other brain food and try again with something not patently ridiculous.