Comments on: Michael Alvear & Manhunt – Remind Me Never To Be Your Friend If I Contract HIV

By: PozThinker

PozThinker — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 16:31:30 +0000

I believe the writer made absolutely the right choice. He practiced the true ethics of friendship, validating trust in the ways that it should exist in that relationship: he did not betray a confidence, and he justifiably relied on his poz friend voluntarily to divulge, which he did, also commendable.
I further believe that the angry friend missed an opportunity to face his fears, demonstrate sensitivity, and get some insight, as well as to validate the life and integrity of the poz man. In addition, he threw away a friend who had just proven trustworthiness.
I recall the problem we had with ActUp, outing people who had not chosen to be out. And the perception of poz people is still fraught with complication, so how much more important to let them reveal that themselves, one-to-one, for dignity’s sake.
The writer lost nothing, and gained my respect. I did not catch HIV from the poz friends who told me and with whom I had safe sex, by free choice. I got it from one who did not know and did not say. And I lost opportunities by being honest, but I will keep being honest, my choice, as a man.
In short, the columnist blew it! That lack of integrity is inexcusable, condoning treachery and espousing the egotistical view that he knows what’s best for another. Betray one friend to make points with another? What kind of ethics does that columnist have? I have a hunch.

By: Dudesdate

Dudesdate — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 22:51:41 +0000

Of course One should always be cautious, because there is a lot more out there than just HIV. I think we focus on this one STD (HIV) a lot more that we should when we should realize that there is Hepatitis, Gonorrhea, Herpes, syphilis, and others not mentioned here that can and is spreading rampant. In fact it is much easier to contract these than HIV. In fact some of these are a lot more serious than one would think, The gay community needs to wake up again to this information because quite frankly the information is not getting to them loud enough. I am literally amazed by the inaccurate information that is in the minds of our community. It seems that unless one catches something they are flat out ignorant to it, and even them they some still really don’t know the facts.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 16:49:53 +0000

Dudesdate,

Thanks for the link. That truly is interesting – the last I had heard erred on the side of caution.

By: dudesdate

dudesdate — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 08:05:58 +0000

Also, I am very sorry for the double negative. I should have been a bit more through when referring to such important information.

By: dudesdate

dudesdate — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 08:00:58 +0000

I apologize for not referencing this the first time. The third paragraph states as follows, “The statement’s headline statement says that “after review of the medical literature and extensive discussion,” the Swiss Federal Commission for HIV / AIDS resolves that, “An HIV-infected person on antiretroviral therapy with completely suppressed viraemia (“effective ART”) is not sexually infectious, i.e. cannot transmit HIV through sexual contact.””I

http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/4E9D555B-18FB-4D56-B912-2C28AFCCD36B.asp

By: Jim Burroway

Jim Burroway — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:07:54 +0000

Dudesdate,

I share your opinion almost completely on everyone’s responsibility to exercise caution for all the reasons that you give. You pretty much echoed what I wrote a few days later.

However, I do have to take issue with your statement that “without a doubt that there is 0% chance of NOT transferring the virus to another sex partner.”

Double-negative aside, the assertion that there is “0% chance” of transmitting HIV from someone with an undetectable viral load has not been proven for two reasons:

1)While HIV may not be detectable in the blood, it does not mean that the virus is not present in semen in significantly detectable amounts. The test for HIV levels is a blood test only, and doesn’t reflect its levels in other parts of the body. I am not aware of any studies which have suggested an accurate correlation between HIV levels in the blood with HIV levels in semen.

2) An undetectable viral load in the blood does not mean HIV is not present. It’s just not at levels which are detectable.

The evidence does suggest that the risk of transmission is lower from someone who has an undetectable viral load. Some evidence even suggests that the risk is significantly reduced. But the risk is still there. As far as I know, that risk has not been quantified and I am not aware of any medical expert who is willing to go on record and say that the risk is zero or practically zero. If you know of someone who has said so, I’d be very interested in learning of it.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:44:01 +0000

dudesdate,

I don’t disagree with your overall comment but I do question one statement:

For example, are you aware that a recent study reports that one is undetectable and on an HIV medication that doctors are now 100% certain without a doubt that there is 0% chance of NOT transferring the virus to another sex partner?

I may be misreading this (there is a double negative) but if you are saying that undetectable HIV cannot be trasmitted, please provide a source for that claim.

By: dudesdate

dudesdate — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:28:26 +0000

In my opinion, it is our responsibility to be responsible enough as grown adults to make it our business to ask and make our own choice as to whether or not we want to have sex with someone with or without a condom. I don’t expect my friends to tell me someone else’s status. It is not their place. Remember what sex we are attracted to is not a choice; however, with whom and how we have sex is a choice.

There are too many ignorant people on this subject. Picking up information from other ignorant people. If HIV is so important for people not to get then why are we not getting the facts from sources who are credible? Personally, I don’t think it is even a hook-up sites responsibility to pose the question about status. It gives members a false sense of security. Members think, “Oh well, his profile says negative… he must be negative.” So, they proceed with having unprotected sex solely based on their sex partners profile; as if it were unequivocal fact. Do you have any idea how many people lie in those profiles. If they are willing to lie about their pictures, lie about their current age, lie about their cock size; what makes you think they won’t lie about their HIV status. Where do we draw the line? If we pose the question about HIV status, why not pose the question of Hepatitis, gonorrhea, syphilis; the list goes on. However, if a site insists on putting the HIV status question up they should at least add the option “undetectable”.

Do you actually know a lot of people who got HIV, because their profile said ‘positive’; so, they had unprotected sex anyway? I think not. This issue is based on a fundamental problem in our society; a lack of education. We must keep up with recent studies and learn so we can peel away the stigma associated with this and other sexually transmitted diseases.
For example, are you aware that a recent study reports that one is undetectable and on an HIV medication that doctors are now 100% certain without a doubt that there is 0% chance of NOT transferring the virus to another sex partner? However, there are other STD’s one can pick up, but HIV is not one of them. This is based on a recent report conducted by some top Swiss Doctors. Of course, some American doctors would like to continue to leave their patients in fear and over kill information so not to get sued by chance. But this is a whole other topic. So instead of this guy getting angry at his friend for not informing him, he should instead inform himself before he has his next sexual encounter. For God sake someone give him a book or reference a website! I am not sure he will do it himself!!

By: kris

kris — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:47:56 +0000

Jay … As I said, I strongly disagree behavior of this guy ( who used to be my friend). What can I do? Find out all the guys he hooked up on manhunt and contact them?? He told me before that he was dissed by many guys once he revealed his status. He is no longer my friend because of his deception & sick obsession toward sex. Everybody who engages sexual contact by ” internet hook up” should be responsible for each behavior.

By: Jason D

Jason D — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:15:03 +0000

In college there was a situation where about 30 people knew that a friend/classmate had a cheating husband. The Mistress had a habit of drinking and telling whoever would listen about the situation. The husband, in private, also sheepishly admitted to it. For over a year nobody told our friend/classmate. Then one day, someone, assuming it had all been out in the open and dealt with, made a casual reference to it — unintentionally letting it all out. Her anger at her husband’s infidelity was multiplied by the realization that all her friends and classmates knew — and none of us bothered to tell her.

Since then, I have come to the conclusion that there are simply not enough responsible people in the world. So I aim to do right by those I love. If I know something that can protect them, or at least allow them to make an educated decision — I tell them. Each situation is different, but I do what I can to be a good friend.

BTW: I’m not equating HIV with infidelity. I am saying that lying about your status is not any better than cheating on your spouse. Both involve deception that is to the detriment of a trusting party.