When/if to disclose HIV status

[Guest Love Bubble Butt]

The discussion in the thread regarding a dishonest partner has certainly brought on some passionate opinions. And I've been surprised as some of the positions taken. So I'd like to start a discussion about the responsibility (if one exists) for revealing one's HIV+ status under various situations.

 

Do you feel that an HIV+ person has a moral (legal issues, if any, aside) to voluntarily reveal their HIV status in the following situations if he HAS NOT BEEN ASKED?

 

a) A tryst in a book store or bath house.

b) A trick you pick up for the night at a bar.

c) On a "date" (first or otherwise) and you're about to have sex for the first time.

d) You've been dating for awhile and have decided to see each other exclusively and have unprotected sex.

 

And what if he IS asked? Especially at a book store or bath house? I know some would argue that no matter the situation, someone who is HIV+ has an obligation to be honest IF they are asked. And likewise, I know some would argue that at a book store and/or bath house, everyone is hooking up, all bets are off, and that it is simply up to everyone to protect themselves in that kind of an environment.

 

(There was a posting some time back on gay.com where a guy became infected by his new boyfriend. After he found out he was now HIV+, he told his new boyfriend about his results and that he needed to get checked out ... only to have his new boyfriend react surprised that he thought he was negative! Obviously, a lot of assuming was going on here!! The negative guy ASSUMED that since his new boyfriend was willing to have unprotected sex, he must have been negative. The positive guy ASSUMED that since his new boyfriend was willing to have unprotected sex, he must have been positive (also). Good grief!!)

 

And although these questions have focused solely on the responsibility of the guy who is HIV+, I don't mean to imply that the HIV- guy doesn't have a responsibility himself. It is my belief, that if an HIV- guy wants to stay negative, it is *ultimately* his responsibiilty to insure that. But with that said, that doesn't give the HIV+ guy a free reign. Or does it? I'm just curious as to what level of responsibility (if any) do all of you feel that an HIV+ guy has towards a hookup, trick, date, or partner?

[+ deej]

Personal responsibility is exactly that: Personal.

 

You can take responsibilty or not. It's like a friend who routinely reminds me "things will get better, or they won't". It's a fairly black and white condition.

 

YOU are responsible for your own condition. Ask any sorority girl and they'll tell you guys will say ANYTHING to get some.

 

You can be safe, or not. It's YOUR choice.

[nate_sf]

My two cents:

 

>a) A tryst in a book store or bath house.

 

no

 

>b) A trick you pick up for the night at a bar.

 

yes

 

>c) On a "date" (first or otherwise) and you're about to have

>sex for the first time.

 

yes

 

>d) You've been dating for awhile and have decided to see each

>other exclusively and have unprotected sex.

 

um, yeah. This would be the time to tell....

 

I think if he is asked, he should tell the truth. It is what it is, but hopefully the other guy (who's presumably negative) won't go running off just because of that. By now we know enough about what is risky and what's not, and that there are lots of ways to play safe. Along those lines, it's definitely the HIV guy's responsibility to protect himself, either because the other guy is afraid to tell the truth or he doesn't know his status. But hopefully if people can keep the real vs. implied risks of HIV in perpective, guys who are positive will be more likely to reveal their status without qualms.

 

As for not practicing safe sex within the context of a committed relationship, I know so many people who have been infected this way it's not funny. Despite the best of intentions, accidents, misunderstandings, and incomprehensible weirdness happen. My partner was infected this way right before we met six years ago, and if we had stopped having safe sex when we started dating I would have been infected too. But we have a great sex life despite our mixed status.

[giovoni]

If everyone acted ideally they would answer you honestly in each case. Honesty should be right up there with personal responsibility for one's health and safety. Unfortunately, in today's society and especially among homosexuals neither of these issues seems to be taken as seriously as they should be by far too many people. However, even assuming you get an honest answer in every case their true status could still be in doubt. If the person you asked received his (or her I guess) results that very day you only know that their bodies were not making antibodies to the HIV virus at the time of the test. As has been pointed out on here before there can be in some cases a latency period of six months or longer from the time of infection to an HIV+ antibody test. So even if everyone who was ever asked was honest it would still be very dangerous to take that word and makes decisions on how or if you're going to have sex with them.

 

If you're in a bathouse/bookstore I'm not sure why someone would even ask. Of course I think everyone has a moral obligation to answer truthfully, however..... What if they did say no I'm HIV- and what if they were right.. are you not going to ask about syphilis, ghonnorhea, chlamydia, herpes? Tricking at these sorts of places just brings up an entire morass of potential problems that would, in my opinion, make it essential that you take every precaution you possibly can no matter what sort of pre-sex health interview you want to use. (when I say 'you' here I'm not meaning you personally LBB just someone going into these situations in general)

 

When on a date and getting ready to have sex again there is a moral obligation to answer any questions truthfully though I think the exact same caveats apply as in the bathouse/bookstore situation.

 

As for the final situation if you decide to see each other exclusively and start having unprotected sex you first need to make sure you trust your partner to follow the rules that you have set out which is a whole other risk. Once that has been accepted by both sides a question shouldn't even be answered, a test should be gotten. Either an HIV-DNA test by both partners with the results given to both partners in the same room at the same time or two successive HIV antibody tests at least 6 months apart while still having 'safe sex' and faith to the rules of the relationship in the interim (and again the results given to both partners at the same time in the same room). Anything less is irresponsible at best.

 

Gio in Denver

http://www.angelfire.com/co3/massagebygio

[Flower]

Moral duty, moral obligation, ethics, ethical, virtuous, etc., are all terms dealing with what's RIGHT AND WRONG. Moral duty is not of necessity tied to "responsibility" or "fault."

 

Is it ever right to endanger the life or well being of someone not threatening your own safety or well being? Some on this board have even argued that it is wrong or immoral for the State to take the life of the most heinous criminal (capital punishment) and that it is AMORAL to do so.

 

It seems so basic that when one has an infectious disease, he NOT intentionally infect others. The more serious the disease, the higher the duty not to infect others at all costs. So if you have a strep throat, you certainly don't kiss, lest your partner be infected. You may tell him or not, but if you do not tell him, then you are assuming a higher degree of responsibility for his safety and you make sure you don't kiss--it's that simple.

 

I have read on this board the righteous indignation of many when we were told that a client kept a date with an escort or visa versa and didn't mention the infectious disease. The more serious the disease, the more BRIGHT LINE the rule is. Syphilis or gonorrhea even more so maybe than the strep throat. You don't intentionally endanger someone else--especially without them knowing your condition.

 

I suppose it could be argued that kissing is not GUARANTEED to infect another with strep, syphilis or gonorrhea, but the risk is very high and even though the disease is readily curable, I doubt that anyone here would condone going ahead and kissing knowing the risk--especially to an unsuspecting partner. The gravity of the disease really shouldn't change the moral duty, however. RIGHT IS RIGHT--PERIOD.

 

Depending on the activity, HIV may be more or less difficult to infect another with. Certainly a direct deposit into the rectum is about as high risk as you can get except for possibly injecting blood or seamen into blood. The disease is at this point in time, incurable and eventually ends in death if the person lives long enough. We all pray a cure will be found b4 many more die that way. Nevertheless, the disease is so dreadful, the cure so elusive and the transmission so very easy depending on the activity, that anyone with HIV+ status who is about to have UNPROTECTED ANAL SEX with another is, in my opinion, MORALLY OBLIGATED TO INFORM NO MATTER where or when or why or how.

 

It is NOT the location of the activity, or casualness of the contact, as suggested by LBB's post that determines what the MORAL DUTY is, although those factor might help in assessing fault if infection occurs.

 

Possibly the activity itself and the known relative chance of infection determines whether you disclose or not, assuming you don't accept the "always disclose no matter what" argument.

 

For instance, statistically, oral, even swallowing, is very unlikely to infect. There is a more "acceptable" argument for not disclosing for oral than for anal; a more "acceptable" argument for not disclosing for protected anal than uncovered anal. BUT not disclosing for a bath house BB anal fuck is just as reprehensible when applied to Mr. Anonymous or to Mr. Goodfriend. It is so calculated to infect with an incurable, life taking disease, not to disclose would always be AMORAL.

 

By strict definition, an act is either moral or amoral, and when we start making excuses for not being moral, we are really trying to justify being amoral and actually just lying to ourselves.

 

SO, again, when is it "OK" to intentionally endanger the life of another, no matter how slight? The world was shocked and righteous indignation followed Michael Jackson's hanging his baby over the rail of the high rise. Slight but certainly possible risk of death to the infant. The aftershock was so great so as to raise questions as to his fitness as a parent--and rightly so.

 

BUT there is a distinct difference between "fault" and "responsibility" in contracting HIV as opposed to when is it morally OK not to disclose or the converse, when must you disclose. It is no excuse or lessening of the MORAL responsibility of the infected person to say "well he could have prevented HIV infection if he took responsibility for his own safety and wore a condom!" While that statement is TRUE, it doesn't lessen the MORAL responsibility of the infected person, ESPECIALLY IF HE KNOWS THE UNINFECTED PARTNER IS UNPROTECTED! That's like saying that the drunk driver who ran the red light and killed the pedestrian crossing the street is not at fault because the ped should have been looking more carefully. While they both might be assigned fault in a courtroom, it does not in anyway excuse the AMORAL conduct of the drunk driver in getting into a car drunk and potentially endangering life. A drunk driver is acting AMORALLY whether he hurts another or not. Likewise, the person infected with HIV is acting amorally whenever he puts another's life at risk without allowing that person the ability to himself assess and accept the risk or not.

 

Is this realistic? Maybe not, but the question was about moral duty, not practical application. If we all acted morally, there would be no crime or punishment. We know that isn't the case, but it is an ideal to hope for.

 

In the case of HIV, a life threatening disease by any standard, from which I and many others here have had friends die; a disease which presently infects my brother and my two best friends, I would hope that the moral high ground is the norm or at least sought after.

[Barry]

I don't think I've ever heard it stated better. Thank you Flower.

 

Barry

[Guest Bitchboy]

If a person doesn't know what the MORALLY correct answer to any of these questions is we're all in big trouble. This is not to say one should believe anything he hears, from dick size to HIV status. HIV still kills, but dealt with safely and honestly it need not deter anyone in the love department.

[chrismac]

Flower summed up the moral argument very well for me. I agree completely that anyone with an infectious disease, whether it be life-threatening or simply the flu has a moral obligation to protect others around them to the extent possible. When I have the flu, even if I feel well enough to attend meetings thanks to the beneficial effects of medication, I abstain from public contact in order to hopefully contain the disease and not spread it to perhaps an individual with lowered immune capabilities, or anyone for that matter. Attending meetings certainly isn't considered risky activity by anyone, compared to cruising a bathhouse or sex club, however. So in those situations, it is practical for everyone to assume a higher level of risk, and to protect themselves accordingly.

 

At the same time, I go back to Flower's assertion, with which I agree, that this does not give free license to anyone who knowingly carries an infectious disease to spread it around. One only has oneself to blame for contracting infection in a place where clearly the risks are higher - yet the moral question remains the same.

 

It seems to me that the horns of this dilemma surround the idea of rights of the individual. HIV+ people, or those with other STDs still have a right to privacy, and the pursuit of happiness. These are still possible without putting others at great risk. I'm encouraged when viewing personal ads online that many openly identify as HIV+. At least you know THEY aren't lying. And there are many many fun activities that can be done without incurring great risk. These people are both brave and caring, in my mind. They take the higher road.

[Guest Merlin]

An HIV+ person clearly has a moral duty to disclose his status to another with whom he is about to have sex, even if he is not asked. The problem is that safe sex is not safe, it is only safer. So even when someone is practicing so-called "safe sex", accidents can happen. The condum can break for one. The semen can splash or spill in ways that are not anticipated. On another thread a knowledgeable Doctor pointed out that a splash in the eye may be more dangerous than sucking. And, of course, all the ways of transmission are not known for certain, because in the nature of things, some incidents of trasmission may never be known so as to be reported. Obviously mutual jo can transfer virus from one person to anothers penis. Can we be certain that infection cannot happen this way? Given the extent of the danger, a moral person will disclose the danger to others he is placing at risk.

[Guest Ant415]

If someone acts irresponsibly or immorally by not telling the truth about his hiv status; it does not matter if the guy is wrong or kinda wrong. You can only be responsible for yourself and you should only trust yourself. Just assume a new trick is niv poz and act safer. There are many angles to take on this issue, to disclose, to ask, etc., but one should not let their future health be based on another's concept of being morally, ethically, or legally righteous.

 

I don't think this can ever be a legal issue. You cannot legislate moral conduct, especially when it comes to sex. Even more so when you take into the account of shared responsibility for protecting oneself.

 

Then there is the very simple concept that some guys just do not care. Fortunately, many people do care and will discuss things. A friend I met recently told me of his newly discovered positive status before anything happened.

 

There are others that may not advise of their poz status, but will continue with sex in a safer framework. Many guys will not have sex if the partner tells them they are poz. But, the guy that didn't tell and engages in safe® sex deserves credit for showing concern, thus he is moral and ethical.

 

Lastly, are some guys that just don't care if they are immoral, amoral, responsible, or truthful. I just read some spot on the net that porn star Jeff Palmer was a star bareback bottom at a gang bang party in SF. Over fifty men fucked him raw and came inside his ass.

 

I believe people can do what they wish with their body, as long as does not harm others. But, I suspect dear Jeff does not care about his ethics and morality with future fuck dates.

[Guest Love Bubble Butt]

>It is NOT the location of the activity, or casualness of the

>contact, as suggested by LBB's post that determines what the

>MORAL DUTY is, although those factor might help in assessing

>fault if infection occurs.

 

Flower, thanks for such an eloquent response! However, I must say that I didn't (or at least I didn't intend to) "suggest" anything in my post. I tried very hard not to interject my own opinion in my original post. My intent was to pose the question in as objective manner as possible.

[+ Charlie]

I hate to be a pedant (that's a lie: I enjoy it almost as much as the departed Ethan), but the opposite of "moral" (i.e., good, just) is "immoral", not "amoral". "Amoral" refers to acts that do not contain the element of moral distinction; i.e, they are neither moral nor immoral. Otherwise, I like Flower's analysis.

[VaHawk]

I don't understand why you categorize your inquiry? Morality is not based on situationality but on life as a whole. As far as a moral definition of the situation goes, I think Flower summed it up best. As far as real life goes, no one said it better than deej.

 

If Earth was indeed Utopia, we would all be honest, and moral and upfront about our HIV status, or whether we have STD or herpes or the flu or genital warts or strep throat or whatever. But we don't live in Utopia, and as such need to LOOK OUT FOR NUMBER 1!

 

You're in a bookstore and sucking and/or fucking an unknown cock thru a glory hole??? You are in a bar, have had a few cocktails, done a few lines, done a little ecstasy and retire to the back room for a little "totally unimpaired" action? Meet another "totally unimpaired" compadre after a night of bar hopping and got the "hots" to get it on? Let's see, at this point your lust isn't ruling your ethics/morality right? You can make a moral honest decision to reveal, unasked, your health issues? Yeah, right.

 

We have not lived in a totally moral society since God evicted Adam and Eve from Eden. I believe you'll find that depending on OTHER'S MORALITY can often result in your OWN MORTALITY!! x(

[Guest Love Bubble Butt]

>I don't understand why you categorize your inquiry?

 

Because it was one of the two main points of the inquiry: (1) What responsibility does an HIV+ person have, and (2) Does the situation make a difference?

 

I categorized my inquiry because I have in the past heard guys on occasion making these distinctions. I didn't say I agree with them. Actually, I haven't said either way. But I had a guy once tell me (I didn't know what his HIV status was) that in his opinion, when you're in a book store or bath house, all bets are off. I assumed he was referring to STDs. I also met a guy on-line who had herpes and he told me that he doesn't tell guys of his condition if it's "just a trick" but does if it is someone he's dating. Like it or not, there are some guys who make these distinctions. I was just curious as to how common this is and asked for feedback.

 

 

>Morality

>is not based on situationality but on life as a whole. As far

>as a moral definition of the situation goes, I think Flower

>summed it up best. As far as real life goes, no one said it

>better than deej.

 

Would have to agree with you there.

 

 

 

>I believe you'll find that depending

>on OTHER'S MORALITY can often result in your OWN MORTALITY!!

 

That should be framed and put on a wall. Did you come up with that yourself? If so, very good!

[Guest Julian Kaye]

with clients, when they ask --- still neg after all these years. most never asked.

 

i assumed all my clients were, even if they said no. some clients admitted they were. always played very safe, treated no one differently cuz they admitted they were

 

guys lie all the time so its safest just to believe everyone is +

[VaHawk]

Yes, my own words and my own personal sentiments and way of living. Thanks for the compliment. I try not to berate others, and try not to preach, but sometimes I get so frusrated at adults who should know better.

 

For instance a friend of mine, who I used to work with on a daily basis, but only see a few times a year now, has just left my place after calling me out of the blue. Why? Because he needed someone's shoulder to cry on because he thinks he is now HIV+ because in a weak moment during a recent trip to Morocco, he allowed an escort to bareback him. Now this is not a stupid man, as he has an MBA and is a senior manager for a major telecommunications firm.

 

He just got the test results from his swab test from Whitman Walker clinic that came back indeterminate and suggesting a followup blood test. This guy is beside himself and if his blood test comes back positive, I really don't know how I will be able to calm his fears and concerns after a the two hour crying session I just endured in an effort to calm him down tonight. And yes, he admitted and for the same reasons that like the poster in another thread, that when he was with his last lover they engaged in unprotected sex without ever asking the first question that should have been asked.

 

This is my last post on the subject, as there truly are "none so blind as those who will not see". Oh well, perhaps something cheery will be post tonight as my own spirits are in the dumps right now.

[Guest Love Bubble Butt]

My heart goes out to your friend. I hope it works out OK for him. Everybody makes mistakes and he's only human. A lot of guys have had "slips in judgement" in the past (myself included) where they have put themselves at risk. As a result, some were lucky while others weren't. I think it's great that you're being there offering emotional support for your friend. That's what true friendship is about. Again, I hope everything works out for him.

[VaHawk]

Thanks, LBB, even though we sometimes disagree on the points, I respect your views, your honesty and your compassion.

[Flower]

Hmmmm......you're absolutely correct--so as I see it, your correction, while maybe pedant }( is well taken. It is however, AMORAL although certainly NOT immoral:P

 

Seriously, though, I had been under a total misapprehension for more years than I care to count, so I appreciate the information

[seaboy4hire]

When ever I am just playing or am hired out I always make sure that I tell the person I am about to have sex with I am poz. It is my obligation to tell someone. I can't begin to count how many times one thing led to another and were about to have sex and the other person never asked me my status of course I stop things and tell them but more times then not they are ok we say that they always use protection and we are on our way again. But esp with being hired out I always make sure that I tell the person way before hand that I am poz even though it is in ALL my profiles and even here on the review site which I just updated with a cute new pic ;-). It's only fare that everyone is on the same page whether you are being hired, hirring or just playing. Oh ya and rememeber everyone not everyone is truthful about his or her status so alway assume they are poz cause even us poz people like myself look "healthy"

as some of you would say. Well I've said my peace whos next?

 

Hugs,

Greg

Greg Seattle Wa [email protected]

guystats.com/meximelt69

[Guest jeffOH]

Good for you Greg! If more POZ people were as honest as you are, I'm sure there would be fewer cases of HIV infection. I've bitched at my POZ friends who go by "If they don't ask, I don't tell". In a situation like this the privacy thing is bullshit. Most just don't want to ruin their fun. And it doesn't matter if they're playing safe or not. As you said Greg, you feel like you have an obligation to tell rather than having a selfish, uncaring attitude regarding another human being's health.

 

Of course, everyone must be responsible for their own health, but I believe someone who has a virus that is potentially life-threatening does have a moral obligation to inform potential sex partners and allow them the opportunity to make their own decision.

 

There's a POZ escort here in town who is now a former friend. I'm the one who introduced him to escorting. About a year after, he found out he was positive and told me that very day. We talked about whether or not he was going to continue escorting. I didn't think he should, but he did. I hoped against hope that he would at least play safe. I found out about a year later that he had unsafe sex with at least 2 mutual clients. I told these clients that this escort was POZ and they were shocked at, but appreciative of the information.

 

JEFF

[email protected]