Write a Comment
16 Comments
It seems that there is no introduction of the other side of things presented in the trailer. Where are the legal vicitms in these cases and what are their stores in regards to how the individuals in the trailer not disclosing their positive status affected them. Just an observation of what seems to me to be a bias and perhaps an area of growth hopefully to be presented in the finished documentary.
This is exactly why I refuse to date a negative person under any circumstances. I am deathly afraid of being taken to prison by a lying prosecutor who says I did not disclose when I did. I do not trust the courts or the negative people to not do me wrong.
Once you test positive, you become a target and an outcast. One would think that the LGBT community would be more accepting, but often they are the ones who have brought criminal charges against those that are HIV+. The gay world is split between those who have HIV and those who don't. It's sad situation. If you are gay and HIV+, it makes you want to isolate yourself from the LGBT community and the rest of the world.
This is my question: Why is it that the negative person doesn't suffer consequencies as well? This is a proof that all this criminalization is stigma & discrimination. If i am dating someone today, then when having coffee/lunch/dinner i ask the other person if they are tested for HIV, what will the person think? Even before i disclose my status, the person will start wondering what i thought of him/her in order to ask a HIV question. These prosecutors need to realize that disclosure is not like a piece of cake to stigma that exists. This is a conversation that should take place between the two parties and not leaving it on the person who is HIV positive alone. If this becomes a common discussion between the two parties, then disclosure will just be a normal thing when dating. It is unfair to leave the whole burden to the person who is HIV+.
Hi fokls, the Austrian criminalisation case of mother to child transmission continues .... kleinezeitung.at/steiermark/graz/graz/2903045/mutter-infizierte-baby-hiv-verhandlung-vertagt.story Cheers.
What I fail to understand about the criminalization attached to HIV is that the entire burden of responsibility is placed on the shoulders of infected individuals and not the negative people. Why are they not held responsible for their own protection, especially if their sexual relationships are consensual? I thought ignorance has never been an excuse for anything related to the law. Surely, there must be some constitutional grounds for suing states that have passed such monstrous legislation with equally monstrous and inhuman punitive measures. Sean, where does the ACLU stand on this issue. One thing I do know: even if a cure were at hand and HIV+ persons reverted to a negative status, the mere mention of one's PAST status will still not overcome that stigma. Society has been poisoned by the media to see HIV+ in such rabid terms that those infected will be stuck with the stigma forever.
When we all take responsibility for our own health and sexual health, the need for disclosure becomes greatly diminished ... perhaps irrelevant. If you don't want a baby, you take precautions. Well then, if you don't want HIV, you should take precautions. Both are preventable. You control your behavior. When we engage in certain behaviors we take certain risks. Accept the consequences. We know that criminalizing HIV has little to do with actual transmission or health risk. In fact the HIV status of "victims" is not disclosed at trial. Prosecuting an HIV+ person for engaging in safer sex, or when no transmission occurred, is just plain hateful. I would go one step further and suggest that if we all took responsibility for ourselves and accepted the consequences for our behavior, prosecution of an HIV+ is never appropriate.
xNavyMadScientist
@Jeton, true, that an ignorant str8 majority thinks disclosure holds the higher moral ground because it protects innocent victims of consensual sex from selfish lying predatory poz men ... as if they have the right to risky unprotected sex some in the poz community think non-disclosure is "controversial"...only the broad consensus that HIV+ persons should be legally required to disclose their status to all sex partners before sex, under all circumstances. Non-Disclosure - back in the early years, b4 HIV tests, disclosure was irrelevant. WE ALL had to assume everyone had IT. so we all had to protect ourselves n have safe sex. then after the anti-body test, the poz/neg schism "sero-sorted" the "deadly" from the living [aka "clean"]. now disclosure is relevant. now it was possible NOT to have to protect ourself if both partners "knew" they were neg. which could possibly b a fallacy because dated test results expire with next sexual contact. this was dangerous because it allowed for unsafe unprotected sex under the guise/illusion of safe unprotected sex. some thought it best to know ur own status so as to treat early b4 symptoms progressed. others thought it best to not know because treatment was ineffective n dangerous, or the more common reasoning that it was dangerous to get tested n get on an official state health department list which could have legal/criminal, employment, housing, loss/denial of insurance, possible quarantine, etc implications that were way too scary for someone facing this issue to deal with. so who wins when ignorance wins the day ? the result being that no one gets tested. as long as u can deny being poz, u had a legal defense of ignorance. then the person would have to deny themselves any medical care for fear of possible discovery, leading to untreated disease progression of a highly infectious person living in denial. thats a no win situation. if u dont get tested then how can one know who gives HIV to who ? who had it first, who gave it to who, what legal proof of what occurred is required of an encounter behind closed doors? its a lurid he said, she/he said, giving a partner a weapon to use regardless of the truth. @Luvmud Ingiliya - the entire burden of responsibility for both partners is placed on the shoulders of infected individuals and not the negative people. Why are they not held responsible for their own protection, especially if their sexual relationships are consensual? @Lou - When we all take responsibility for our own health and sexual health, the need for disclosure becomes greatly diminished ... perhaps irrelevant. If you don't want a baby, you take precautions. Well then, if you don't want HIV, you should take precautions. Both are preventable. You control your own behavior. all individuals r responsible for the choices when we engage in certain risky behaviors. Accept the consequences. so that leaves us with each person back to having to protect themselves. so what use is disclosure ? im only recently single, but until recently, i havent heard of anyone asking status in over a decade. it just rarely happened because almost everyone had safe sex. now that barebacking has spread from a legitimate arguement when both partners r poz, to the general uninfected population who ignorantly think they can tell if someone has HIV by asking them. and then trust that response n their health/neg status to someone who may b lying or does not "know" cause they dont get tested. this quest for disclosure is insane. what idiots think a law will prevent transmission from happening. that depends on the legal, ethical, moral behavior of strangers not in the best mind and in an casual, emotional sexual moment that may b influenced by altered judgement [drugs/alcohol] with no forethought to legal/health consequences in some distant future when the encounter has been long forgotten. so does depending on forced legal disclosure really prevent infection ? or is justice or vengeance after the fact the only useful purpose ? asking or legally requiring disclosure of status WILL ONLY LEAD TO MORE INFECTIONS thats y defending non-disclosure is right. it makes HIV status moot because by treating everyone as if they are infected with HIV, then safe sex is mandatory and cant b compromised by denial or fanciful wish thinking that they can engage in risky sex without threat of infection.
January 26, 2012