HIV and using "Clean" term

J_E

Mr.Frame wrote: »

Wow!???
It only takes "one go" to be infected.
No matter what he tells you,unless you both get tested at the same time and get the results at the same time, there is no way of knowing if he is clean,it's that simple.

I have a little niggle with terms like 'clean', I think it makes some pretty negative connotations, it's fairly rude to be honest. There are many people in the world who have to live with what they have, be it through victim of circumstance or irresponsible behaviour, and the stigma is bad enough. Even with testing it really isn't definite anyway, there are many STD's that won't initially activate until a while after exposure.

Annasopra

J_E wrote: »

I have a little niggle with terms like 'clean', I think it makes some pretty negative connotations, it's fairly rude to be honest. There are many people in the world who have to live with what they have, be it through victim of circumstance or irresponsible behaviour, and the stigma is bad enough. Even with testing it really isn't definite anyway, there are many STD's that won't initially activate until a while after exposure.

Yeah many HIV positive people really get angry when words like "clean" are used.

J_E

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yeah many HIV positive people really get angry when words like "clean" are used.

In a day and age where HIV/AIDS is no longer the instant death sentence it was, and treatment/control of spreading is so much better nowadays, it's really something we should avoid using I think. Always maintain awareness and precautions but never discard the people.

Aard

I think the tradeoff between a minority of people who have HIV getting upset, and a majority of people not exposing themselves to infection is 100% worth stigmatising the disease and using terms such as "clean". I also think that some people, not necessarily the OP, (and certainly not limited to gay people) need to be spoken to as if they were idiots -- far too many people are blasé about safe sex, and they're generally the ones who will happily continue having unprotected sex even while harbouring disease (probably unknowingly, since they seem to not get tested).

floggg

Aard wrote: »

I think the tradeoff between a minority of people who have HIV getting upset, and a majority of people not exposing themselves to infection is 100% worth stigmatising the disease and using terms such as "clean". I also think that some people, not necessarily the OP, (and certainly not limited to gay people) need to be spoken to as if they were idiots -- far too many people are blasé about safe sex, and they're generally the ones who will happily continue having unprotected sex even while harbouring disease (probably unknowingly, since they seem to not get tested).

No. The trade off absolutely isn't worth stigmatising anybody. And it's frankly disgusting that anybody should be treated as being so expendable.

To be honest, using words like clean just shows ignorance, naivety and immaturity in my book. I see it more as a reflection on the user, rather than the subject.

Aard

floggg wrote: »

No. The trade off absolutely isn't worth stigmatising anybody. And it's frankly disgusting that anybody should be treated as being so expendable.

To be honest, using words like clean just shows ignorance, naivety and immaturity in my book. I see it more as a reflection on the user, rather than the subject.

I said stigmatise the disease, not people who have it. This is not about people who already have the disease being made feel bad -- it's about getting across to people who practice unsafe sex the life-changing nature of contracting HIV.

floggg

Aard wrote: »

I said stigmatise the disease, not people who have it. This is not about people who already have the disease being made feel bad -- it's about getting across to people who practice unsafe sex the life-changing nature of contracting HIV.

Sorry, inferring that those who are HIV positive are "dirty" or "unclean" (which is unavoidable when you use the term clean to describe those who don't) is stigmatising the person.

Yes, it is important to educaye people on the seriousness of the disease. That doesn't however mean you need to stigmatise anybody, or use language that dehumanises, degrades or hurts those that have contracted it.

I'm fact it likely does more harm than good as people will tend to be more wary of being tested and seeking proper treatment if they are made to feel like they have something to be ashamed of or are ostracised. Though history has shown it won't stop them having sex.

And as regards sometimes talking to people conaidering something risky like they are stupid, that's also counter productive.

Rather than hammering the point home, it means that next them they have a question they just won't ask.

Given that education is the best way of reducing new infections, an attitude that deters people from asking questions will prove very counter productive.

Annasopra

Aard wrote: »

I said stigmatise the disease, not people who have it. This is not about people who already have the disease being made feel bad -- it's about getting across to people who practice unsafe sex the life-changing nature of contracting HIV.

Saying a HIV + person is unclean isn't just "making them feel bad" or about a few of them being "upset"; it is stigmatising the person, it is shaming the person and it is a way of reinforcing prejudice and discrimination against that person.

Mr.Frame

floggg wrote: »

No. The trade off absolutely isn't worth stigmatising anybody. And it's frankly disgusting that anybody should be treated as being so expendable.

To be honest, using words like clean just shows ignorance, naivety and immaturity in my book. I see it more as a reflection on the user, rather than the subject.

The word "clean" is used all the time by those who are infected with HIV,whether its the right word to use or not ,that's how uninfected people are called.
If you are referring to me,, I have at no time treated or would treat anyone as "expendable".

Aard

There are a few inferences being made about people who use certain words that, for the most part, are not used in a manner that intends to be disparaging. Maybe more P's and Q's should be watched, and instead of the word "clean" the phrase "virus-free" might be used instead.

At the end of the day, I'm not out to offend anybody, and any offence caused is unintended. I just want people, and especially young people, to be careful about who they have sex with and in what manner so that they don't end up making decisions they might regret later.

floggg

Aard wrote: »

There are a few inferences being made about people who use certain words that, for the most part, are not used in a manner that intends to be disparaging. Maybe more P's and Q's should be watched, and instead of the word "clean" the phrase "virus-free" might be used instead.

At the end of the day, I'm not out to offend anybody, and any offence caused is unintended. I just want people, and especially young people, to be careful about who they have sex with and in what manner so that they don't end up making decisions they might regret later.

It's not a case though that i or anybody else here are drawing subjective inferences from your use of the word "clean" though.

It's that, on an objective analysis, the use of the word "clean" to describe those who are HIV negative automatically carries the contrary inferences about those who are HIV+, and that's why it's use is problematic and offensive.

As for your desire for young people to think about who they have sex with and in what manner - that's really not the approach that needs to be taken with regard to sex ed in book.

The focus shouldn't be on who, but the how. It should be assumed that everybody may potentially carry an STD until you can prove otherwise, and build sufficient trust to be assured that will remain the case.

Focusing on the who is why we've ended up in the position where some people will accept an unverified assurance that their partner is "clean" and then engage in risky behaviour. There is a sense that infections are the fault of the infector not the infectee. As long as you avoid somebody who's HIV+ your fine. But due to the use of words like 'clean', there tends to be a sense that you can almost tell by looking or asking a few basic questions you can identify somebody who is HIV+.

I know for me, on first coming out and having sex, hearing the use of that word kinda created an image in my head of how I expected HIV+ people to look and behave - a sickly gaunt looking type hanging around saunas and cruising spots in the park. While i still took precautions, I more or less assumed most of the guys I would kiss or sleep with were negative - simply because they "looked" clean.

In any case where an infection occurred due to (consensual) irresponsible sexual practices, the fault is with the infectee for engaging in them.

And the chances of contracting HIV from a person who is on meds and has controlled their viral load are statistically remote so there is little actual need to avoid.

The ones to avoid are the ones who either don't know they have contracted the virus or who willingly conceal that fact - and in both cases you'll never actually know that they should be avoided.

So they advice should be to always take precautions unless you can be absolutely sure of your partner's status. The focus should be on the how not the who, and that how should generally apply regardless of the who is.

ninty9er

I would consider "clean" to mean STI free, not just related to HIV status. If someone gets seriously offended by it, perhaps it's better you wouldn't have sex with them anyway.

J_E

ninty9er wrote: »

I would consider "clean" to mean STI free, not just related to HIV status. If someone gets seriously offended by it, perhaps it's better you wouldn't have sex with them anyway.

Bit of an unfair evaluation.

Annasopra

ninty9er wrote: »

I would consider "clean" to mean STI free, not just related to HIV status. If someone gets seriously offended by it, perhaps it's better you wouldn't have sex with them anyway.

Try saying that to Panti :pac:

At the end of the day - you're entitled to your opinions - however the reality is that many people who are both HIV + and HIV do get offended by such language with negative connotations.
Not only that but many HIV activists have continuously pointed out that it is language with consequences including stigma and discrimination.

It really is ridiculous that you would suggest that a HIV + person shouldnt get offended by such language and that they are not worth having sex because of their feelings of offense.

ninty9er

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Try saying that to Panti :pac:

At the end of the day - you're entitled to your opinions - however the reality is that many people who are both HIV + and HIV do get offended by such language with negative connotations.
Not only that but many HIV activists have continuously pointed out that it is language with consequences including stigma and discrimination.

It really is ridiculous that you would suggest that a HIV + person shouldnt get offended by such language and that they are not worth having sex because of their feelings of offense.

My physical health > a stranger's feelings, or Panti's opinion for that matter.

Annasopra

ninty9er wrote: »

My physical health > a stranger's feelings, or Panti's opinion for that matter.

Its not just a few peoples opinions or feelings though. You're completely disregarding and ignoring the issue of stigmatisation.

normaldude

yea id have thought clean means you don't have any sti's, HIV is probably the worst STI of all, right?

ninty9er

Stigma or not, my only interest is knowing whether someone is a danger to my health. I'm more open to offending someone than catching and STI.

People getting their nickers in a twist over the use of the word "clean" is doing nothing to address stigma tbh. While using the phrase "committed suicide" is incorrect, I get over it as nobody intends to stigmatise dying by suicide with language.

floggg

ninty9er wrote: »

I would consider "clean" to mean STI free, not just related to HIV status. If someone gets seriously offended by it, perhaps it's better you wouldn't have sex with them anyway.

For their sake I would imagine.

If you realise that your words can offend, yet still don't feel any compulsion to choose your words more wisely, then they are better off without you can

ninty9er wrote: »

My physical health > a stranger's feelings, or Panti's opinion for that matter.

So?

Nobody is suggesting you engage in risky sexual behaviour just to avoid causing offence - simply that you refrain from using offensive language.

And asking somebody if their "clean" doesn't really offer you the slightest bit of protection just so you know. So the word does nothing for your physical health, but I hope you knew that already.

ninty9er wrote: »

Stigma or not, my only interest is knowing whether someone is a danger to my health. I'm more open to offending someone than catching and STI.

People getting their nickers in a twist over the use of the word "clean" is doing nothing to address stigma tbh. While using the phrase "committed suicide" is incorrect, I get over it as nobody intends to stigmatise dying by suicide with language.

What's funny is that you accuse us of being irrationality worked up by the word. Buy we have pointed out why it's offensive - and it's clearly not due to any subjective reasoning.

However, you are defending the use of the word, and you're right to use it notwithstanding offence caused, without being able to point to an actual benefit or justification for it continued use.

That's seems to me to be the irrational mindset.

As for your point on suicide, if it could be shown that the wording tended to cause offence and why, then I'm sure I and many others would be happy to stop using it.

J_E

floggg wrote: »

And asking somebody if their "clean" doesn't really offer you the slightest bit of protection just so you know. So the word does nothing for your physical health, but I hope you knew that already.

I think this is a really important point actually...many of us have this habit where we ask someone if they're STD-free, usually right before hopping into bed with them - it's more a way for us to feel safe than a general indicator. Who's going to say "oh actually I have gonorrhea" when you're both ready to go at it!

Really, that's the point of safe sex - you take precautions regardless of who you're with.

floggg

J_E wrote: »

I think this is a really important point actually...many of us have this habit where we ask someone if they're STD-free, usually right before hopping into bed with them - it's more a way for us to feel safe than a general indicator. Who's going to say "oh actually I have gonorrhea" when you're both ready to go at it!

Assuming they even know if they have it