Status Misrepresentation

[+ PhileasFogg]

There are a couple of posts out there that touch the periphery of this question, but don’t hit it directly:

In your opinion, when a provider specifically  represents themselves as “Negative and on PReP” but is actually “Positive and Undetectable,” are they:

1. blatantly lying 
2. playing the grey area since, IF they are sticking to the treatment protocol, there’s little difference
3. ok and we shouldn’t worry about it since U=U
4. something else

And, is it your right to know and their responsibility to be transparent in disclosure

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 11:18 AM by PhileasFogg

[maninsoma]

I'd choose response number 1.  As far as I know, it is possible for providers to just not include this information in their ads so if they don't want to disclose their status honestly then they should just omit it entirely. 

[+ nycman]

1.

The definition of lying doesn’t change based on convenience.

[DenverDad]

57 minutes ago, PhileasFogg said:

And, is it your right to know and their responsibility to be transparent in disclosure

 

 

 

Well it would be nice if the provider (or anyone) would be honest about their status and what they are doing to manage their health, if they are on Prep, etc but it is our responsibility to decide if the risk is worth it and take appropriate precautions.   This is not just for HIV but also for any STI.

[ShortCutie7]

1!  As @maninsomasaid above, the provider has the option and right to not disclose status at all, so if he is disclosing it, it is expected to be true. It is the client’s right to know the truth if it is in the profile and/or if he asks. If there is nothing on the profile and the client doesn’t ask, the provider has no responsibility to disclose anything to the client unless he believes there is a chance he gave the client an STI.

[urbanfetish]

Definitely #1. Neg/on PReP and Poz/Undetectable are two completely different things. Yes, we are taking our chances either way, but I would rather be in the situation with the correct knowledge so I can make a decision based on what I am comfortable with.

[MscleLovr]

I think that in life in general it’s good to trust everyone.

I expect people I socialise with to be friendly and kind.

I hope that strangers I meet will be decent people and behave well.

All that said, I don’t trust advertising and marketing claims. And I look after my own sexual health, regardless of what others may say. 

[Nue2thegame]

#1. But, I really don’t have much confidence in the reliability of most of the responses. Despite RMs tepid reassurances to the contrary, they really have no way to validate the posted self descriptors. Ultimately, safety is our own responsibility. 

[DMonDude]

3 hours ago, PhileasFogg said:

There are a couple of posts out there that touch the periphery of this question, but don’t hit it directly:

In your opinion, when a provider specifically  represents themselves as “Negative and on PReP” but is actually “Positive and Undetectable,” are they:

1. blatantly lying 
2. playing the grey area since, IF they are sticking to the treatment protocol, there’s little difference
3. ok and we shouldn’t worry about it since U=U
4. something else

And, is it your right to know and their responsibility to be transparent in disclosure

They obviously are lying. There's no gray area there whatsoever, but i do also think that if they indeed are on their treatment protocol then yes "there's little difference" for the person interacting with them. Both of those things are true at the same time.

In terms of their ability to infect you with HIV, whether they are negative (as of the last time they tested) and on PrEP, versus being Positive but Undetectable. The chance for infection indeed is the same (basically 0) and they are just trying to avoid dealing with the stigma (and thus impact to their business) that results from people still having intense stigma towards HIV positive people. This doesn't make the lie ok or justified, but i get why they do it.

Is it our right to know? No. Is it their responsibility to be transparent and disclose? It'd be nice if they did, but they aren't obligated. The only thing that is our right and our own responsibility is to protect our own self by being on PrEP/using condoms, or not engaging at our own discretion. You can't rely on other people to protect you for you or to show you their medical records before every interaction. Because we now have the ability to protect ourselves, the onus is on us as individuals to use that protection. In my personal opinion.

Edited yesterday at 02:26 PM by DMonDude

[maninsoma]

59 minutes ago, Nue2thegame said:

#1. But, I really don’t have much confidence in the reliability of most of the responses. Despite RMs tepid reassurances to the contrary, they really have no way to validate the posted self descriptors. Ultimately, safety is our own responsibility. 

Before the widespread availability of PReP, I remember frequently seeing advertisers have different statuses on different websites (e.g., HIV Negative on Rentmen but HIV Positive/Undetectable on BBRT).  I sometimes would see the same person's status change back-and-forth (one week Positive and the next week Negative), and the same thing happened with Safe Sex practices, too (sometimes Safe Only, sometimes Anything Goes).  It really drove home the point that instead of believing what was in a profile, it was important to make choices about my own behavior independent of what any given man said about his sexual health and practices.

[la_connor]

HIV status should be removed from the ads.

Demanding health info as a condition of employment is coercive.

[+ PhileasFogg]

23 minutes ago, la_connor said:

Demanding health info as a condition of employment is coercive.

It’s not demanded.  Many don’t report.  Or they say “ask me”

 And guys on RM are not “employed,” they are “engaged” as contractors.  Labor laws do not apply to contractors.

But I think the question here is “if they do report, should they be truthful”

My interpretation of the consensus so far appears to be that “yes”

 

Edited yesterday at 05:17 PM by PhileasFogg

[la_connor]

56 minutes ago, PhileasFogg said:

It’s not demanded.  Many don’t report.  Or they say “ask me”

 And guys on RM are not “employed,” they are “engaged” as contractors.  Labor laws do not apply to contractors.

But I think the question here is “if they do report, should they be truthful”

My interpretation of the consensus so far appears to be that “yes”

I stand corrected.

In response to the original question, I'll pick #4 and add that it's neither my right to know nor his responsibility to be transparent in disclosure. 

Statements about HIV status are no more credible than those about inches and, unlike the latter, have no bearing on job performance.

[nomad]

What people self-report doesn't matter.  I assume by default that everyone is positive and take precautions.  You're the only one that knows what you're doing to protect yourself.  

[jeezifonly]

Misrepresentation has been part of sex ever since humans have been having it. 

I suppose we could demand disclaimers and warnings be tattooed adjacent to all body parts that might be pathogen access points, if we're treading into labor litigation territory. 

 

 

 

[la_connor]

1 hour ago, jeezifonly said:

warnings be tattooed adjacent to all body parts

I've seen a few guys with biohazard tattoos. 

[soloyo215]

10 hours ago, PhileasFogg said:

There are a couple of posts out there that touch the periphery of this question, but don’t hit it directly:

In your opinion, when a provider specifically  represents themselves as “Negative and on PReP” but is actually “Positive and Undetectable,” are they:

1. blatantly lying 
2. playing the grey area since, IF they are sticking to the treatment protocol, there’s little difference
3. ok and we shouldn’t worry about it since U=U
4. something else

And, is it your right to know and their responsibility to be transparent in disclosure

 

 

 

Technically 1. Maybe using 2 as an excuse, Justifying their lie with 3. Since there are so so so many providers out there, I'm sure that there are at least one or two who fall into 4.

Personally, with my experiences, professionally and personally speaking, that's not an issue for me.

However, I see both sides of the issue. Side one might be fear of clients disclosing, accusing or creating unsavory situations for a provider who has HIV, and on the other side, clients unable to trust what they read or hear from the provider.

My rule (emphasis on my) is that there are only levels of risk when we incur in hiring, personal, financial, emotional and health-related. There never is a guarantee of everything going perfectly safe. It's a matter of what level of risk I am willing to take.

Edited 21 hours ago by soloyo215

[+ PhileasFogg]

Thank you to all for the thoughtful and well reasoned responses.  

[+ purplekow]

Ethically, truthful answers should be given.  Truthful status should be reported.  As clients, we should be able to expect honesty, but as human beings we should expect lies.   As big a question, do you report your status to your provider?  Should you if he asks?  Would you be angry if he would not provide if you refused to give an answer?  Truth and trust go in two directions.  Even if you want to make the point that providers should account for the risks of their profession and protect themselves, if a client is positive and not being treated or is sloppy about his adherence to the medication, might that change the willingness of a provider to perform certain acts?

[PhillyCheese]

Sorry but I remember the dark era.  I don’t care what anyone says about their status.  Don’t believe anyone. If you want to take a chance that’s up to you. However, don’t depend on anyone to make that decision for you. Also, HIV isn’t the only STD out there.  Always be safe and comfortable with what you are willing to risk not what someone else is risking for you. 

[+ PhileasFogg]

1 hour ago, purplekow said:

As big a question, do you report your status to your provider?  Should you if he asks? 

I do.  And I offer to show the results if they’d like. 

[BigK]

#1.  If the ad doesn’t say negative on prep, then you have to assume they’re positive.  And of course they could be positive anyway and just lying.

[+ PhileasFogg]

24 minutes ago, BigK said:

#1.  If the ad doesn’t say negative on prep, then you have to assume they’re positive.  And of course they could be positive anyway and just lying.

I’m aware of a number who are just lying.  But as I learn of substance abuse and addiction, I begin to wonder if they have capacity to stick with the protocols

[ShortCutie7]

16 minutes ago, PhileasFogg said:

I’m aware of a number who are just lying.  But as I learn of substance abuse and addiction, I begin to wonder if they have capacity to stick with the protocols

Exactly- I have an acquaintance who used to be neg/on PreP, but ”partied” a bit too hard and is now poz/undetectable.

[PileDriver]

in theory an easy one...everyone should be honest and explicit...in practice it's more complicated...in practice being HIV neg or HIV positive has the same effect...in raw fucking no HIV transmission...in reality maybe the real issue is that if someone is HIV positive but not honest about whether they are on Meds or undetectable, no? At the end of the day someone who advertises as HIV negetive and on Prep can also be lying so...choose yopur risk level and take care of yourself and get on Prep and just deal with it...hand wring and fretting is not the answer on a site that is about sexual connection