bugchasing and HIV

[eastofeden]

Homosexuality is not contagious nor a disease.

Diabetes is not contagious.

Well...Mike Huckabee suggested the anyone who has HIV be segregated from society and confined to an isolated island. Do you agree with his suggestion?

 

[bankside]

And in what specific way could those be used to prevent a neg person from seeking a poz one and ask to be infected by them?

The point of a quarantine law is to contain and isolate someone apt to contribute to the spread of a communicable disease. A person seeking to be infected qualifies.

Well...Mike Huckabee suggested the anyone who has HIV be segregated from society and confined to an isolated island. Do you agree with his suggestion?

Of course not. Most people with HIV are horrified, not aroused, at the possibility that they might be responsible for infecting someone else and they will take safety precautions to prevent it. But those who think the spread of HIV is something they should be a part of, then quarantine them.

 

[eastofeden]

The point of a quarantine law is to contain and isolate someone apt to contribute to the spread of a communicable disease. A person seeking to be infected qualifies.


Of course not. Most people with HIV are horrified, not aroused, at the possibility that they might be responsible for infecting someone else and they will take safety precautions to prevent it. But those who think the spread of HIV is something they should be a part of, then quarantine them.

...and how would you go about making that distinction? Perhaps the feds can hang out at the bug chaser site and quarantine anyone who participates in the discussion? ...or quarantine anyone who barebacks?... maybe Putin can help out with a "good idea"?

Let's not forget the flu givers...the ones who know they are sick and knowingly infect others. They are responsible for thousands of deaths worldwide every year.

 

[hylas]

Um... yes. Yes, it is that much more stupid. Yes.

My point is, bug chasing and smoking cigarettes is both self destructive behaviour; they both likely (but not necessarily) lead to death by pretty terrible diseases; they both affect the larger population by the medical costs they cause.

Yes, of course there are differences. But I'm also a bit disturbed by the unfiltred hatred the issue seems to cause. You said it yourself really well in another post. Those people are not evil, they are just really disturbed and mentally ill and self-destructive. Is there something about this particular form of self-destructive behaviour that deserves more hate than other forms?

And at the end of the day, everybody can do with their own bodies what they want. Feed themselves to death on fast food; starve themselves to death; destroy themselves with heroin or crystal meth; waste themselves with steroids; deform themselves through excessive plastic surgery and injections; or, you know, get HIV on purpose. Of course, bug chasers do affect us indirectly with the medical costs they cause; but then again, so do smokers. Hence my comparison.

 

[eastofeden]

Only if Huckabee were to go with them.

EEK...I might agree to it if that was the case...I can set aside some of my principles for the greater good

But, you have blurred the line between carriers and intentional spreaders. The thread is addressing bug chasers, not simply the ill.

Well...in the case I presented....Huckabee blurred the lines...as do so many other people.

IF a man wants to infect himself...how is that harming anyone but himself? Are we to assume he will intentionally spread the disease to someone else?

I would think eventually....like pretty much anyone else who is forced comes to terms with their respective diseases and the part they played in it...if any...that there will be stages of denial...grief...and acceptance.

I don't see how the person who wants the bug is harming anyone but themselves...

I think it is tragic...but then again I think a lot of self destructive behavior is tragic.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

This all saddens me as well. I have no problem with those who are HIV positive going at it with one another both barrels blazing...but it dismays me to see the self-destructive want to risk their health and then, accordingly the health of others with pathologiccal behaviours.

sigh....

A reason one of the men in the documentary gives is that once you're infected you don't have to worry about getting infected anymore.

 

[kallipolis]

A reason one of the men in the documentary gives is that once you're infected you don't have to worry about getting infected anymore.

I'm addressing the misapprehension of the men cited in the documentary.

I quote:

http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jan/hiv-victims-reinfected#.Up9ERCeqaic

Although several major HIV strains exist, only one type predominates in the United States, leading infected Americans to assume they cannot be reinfected through unprotected sex with one another. But a study of recent infections, published in September in the Journal of the American Medical Association, shows reinfection, called superinfection, with another kind of HIV can and does occur. “What we found was that you could get it again. And when you did, you got it worse,” says study author Davey Smith of the University of California at San Diego.

Smith and his colleagues analyzed stored blood samples from 78 people newly infected with HIV and then compared these with blood drawn from the same people six months to a year later. Their analysis revealed a second, genetically distinct virus proliferating in the blood of three subjects—not a different strain but different enough to suggest a second infection. Worse, these patients began to deteriorate. Within six months the virus load in their blood shot up and their CD4 counts—a measure of immune system function—fell. The presence of the competing viruses diminished the effectiveness of antiretroviral drugs.

 

[journo25]

A friend of mine who is positive insists on condoms even with positive partners because of the new strains of virus emerging. Not surprisingly, he gets a lot of resistance from positive guys who feel "relieved" that they can now enjoy unprotected sex. It's why they decline invitations from hot guys to have sex if it means using a condom.

Which raises an interesting point. From my personal experience, for all the negative guys advertisng on hook-up and dating sites for "negative guys only," there are just as many positive guys who steer clear of negative guys because they don't want the hassle of having to think about protection. Discrimination cuts both ways.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

^ What if you were positive and said you were negative and had bareback sex with those negative guys?

 

[highwindcaleb]

^ What if you were positive and said you were negative and had bareback sex with those negative guys?

then you can be charged with attempted murder in many places.

 

[bankside]

And should be charged.

But it does seem really out of touch to trust a random internet stranger.

 

[bankside]

...and how would you go about making that distinction? Perhaps the feds can hang out at the bug chaser site and quarantine anyone who participates in the discussion? ...or quarantine anyone who barebacks?... maybe Putin can help out with a "good idea"?

Let's not forget the flu givers...the ones who know they are sick and knowingly infect others. They are responsible for thousands of deaths worldwide every year.

Well Putin is mostly concerned with terrorizing people for morally acceptable behaviour, so I don't think his approach would apply. Other than that, rounding up the bug chasing bare backers seems fine.

 

[Rolyo85]

The intentional spreading of HIV or AIDS, whether surreptitiously or consentually, is a valid reason to list said person as a sex offender. It is an act that far exceeds any label such as "lapse in judgment." If a man would deliberately infect or seek to be infected, it is a sign of dangerous behavior and deserves to be the subject of an alert.

This is not true only of active disregard for public health, but passive disregard. The prevalence of incurable TB in areas like NYC resulted directly from a class of drug user that repeatedly failed to take the prophylaxis until a fourth strain of TB evolved that was resistant to all classes of drugs. Such behavior is so dangerous that they deserve to be on a database that identifies them in a medical screening, else the caregivers are at risk of death. The situation sparked a public health care debate some years ago about the validity of forced confinement for these walking passive killers.

However, I asked for a specific way to deal with the issue. How exactly will the poz guy be labeled as a sex offender if the one he infected wanted it and doesn't report him?

 

[Rolyo85]

I disagree completely. The person who has been diagnosed with diabetes and continues to eat crap and refuses to exercise is engaging in EXACTLY the same behavior as the person who wishes to contract the bug. The person who contracts lung cancer and continues to smoke is also guilty of the same offense. These people are no less dangerous to themselves than the guy who seeks to be infected.

The irony here...so many of the arguments presented in this thread are the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS used against gay men...how we are a threat to whatever the fuck they think we are threatening. What they "may" do is BS as well. We have heard for years what gay men "may" do..to the family...to children...to society...when the truth is what consenting adults do doesn't really affect anyone but the consenting adults...

One more thing...we all know that unprotected sex can possibly lead to HIV and AIDS...and at some point...we each have got to take responsibility for that as well. I have friends who have never had sex without a condom...even in long term relationships. For those who don't...they know the risks. We all do. Should anyone who has had sex without a condom be labeled sex offenders as well?

Very well said.

 

[Rolyo85]

The point of a quarantine law is to contain and isolate someone apt to contribute to the spread of a communicable disease. A person seeking to be infected qualifies.

Of course not. Most people with HIV are horrified, not aroused, at the possibility that they might be responsible for infecting someone else and they will take safety precautions to prevent it. But those who think the spread of HIV is something they should be a part of, then quarantine them.

Quarantine is for people who could infect others simply by being near them. There is neither moral, nor legal justification to quarantine someone that you could literally give a blowjob to without risking infection. Tone down the hatred please, you're bordering on suggesting concentration camps at this point.

 

[Rolyo85]

My point is, bug chasing and smoking cigarettes is both self destructive behaviour; they both likely (but not necessarily) lead to death by pretty terrible diseases; they both affect the larger population by the medical costs they cause.

Yes, of course there are differences. But I'm also a bit disturbed by the unfiltred hatred the issue seems to cause. You said it yourself really well in another post. Those people are not evil, they are just really disturbed and mentally ill and self-destructive. Is there something about this particular form of self-destructive behaviour that deserves more hate than other forms?

And at the end of the day, everybody can do with their own bodies what they want. Feed themselves to death on fast food; starve themselves to death; destroy themselves with heroin or crystal meth; waste themselves with steroids; deform themselves through excessive plastic surgery and injections; or, you know, get HIV on purpose. Of course, bug chasers do affect us indirectly with the medical costs they cause; but then again, so do smokers. Hence my comparison.

Well, HIV decimated an entire lgbt population. I'd say that it's understandable if people aren't treating it the same way they do smoking.

 

[Rolyo85]

Only if Huckabee were to go with them.

But, you have blurred the line between carriers and intentional spreaders. The thread is addressing bug chasers, not simply the ill.

Again - there is a serious distinction between intentionally infecting an unwilling victim, and doing it for someone who wants it. I am all manner of not ok with blurring the line between the two.

 

[journo25]

But it does seem really out of touch to trust a random internet stranger.

Absolutely.

 

[bankside]

Quarantine is for people who could infect others simply by being near them. There is neither moral, nor legal justification to quarantine someone that you could literally give a blowjob to without risking infection. Tone down the hatred please, you're bordering on suggesting concentration camps at this point.

I want to stop the spread of this infection, even if other people don't, even the people who would spread infection or be willingly infected. There is no right to be infected with a chronic and deadly disease. They aren't being oppressed by policies that would prevent them from getting their way. That isn't hatred. Calling it hatred is just an empty slur. It becomes even more obvious when you start talking about concentration camps.

 

[Rolyo85]

I want to stop the spread of this infection, even if other people don't. That isn't hatred. Calling it hatred is just an empty slur. It becomes even more obvious when you start talking about concentration camps.

I didn't bring up quarantine into it. Stopping the spread of HIV should mean sex education, easy access to protection and finding a cure/vaccine. The marginal percentage of HIV+ people involved in big chasing can't be controlled and wouldn't solve anything if it could.