Can anyone who's sexually active ever be certain that they aren't in fact infected with the virus? I had no idea I
That being the case, isn't it time we sought to do away with the term HIV 'negative'?
Can anyone who's sexually active ever be certain that they aren't in fact infected with the virus? I had no idea I was positive when I was diagnosed, and I am sure I wasn't the first to whom their diagnosis came as a surprise. Many of the sex date sites give the option to state one's status but, in reality, the only people that really know are those who've actually been diagnosed. The rest are basically 'HIV - unknown'.
That being the case, isn't it time we sought to do away with the term HIV 'negative'?
I think thats pretty silly. If you always have safe sex and test regularly HIV-, you pretty much know you are HIV-. Although it is only confirmed again the next time you take the test.
Also, if you are HIV- and don't have sex, then you know you are HIV-.
I knew I was HIV- for over 20 years! What's your point exactly?
You don't know your car isn't stolen until you see it in the driveway again the next morning. Your conundrum applies to so much we "know" in life - I hope it doesn't blow your mind! :o
the only people that really know are those who've actually been diagnosed. The rest are basically 'HIV - unknown'.
.you are either Positive or Negative when it comes to HIV.
Aroha
Jan
Edited to add: Although, I understand where you are coming from. I didn't bother getting tested in 5 years as I consistently used condoms and thus assumed I must be negative, when in fact I was infected 5 years prior.
This edit is interesting, as I imagine that many people also underestimate their risk factors and believe testing is unnecessary as they assume themselves to be negative
I've heard people say that they would never have sex with someone who knew themselves to be positive because, to them, that means the risk of contracting the virus is higher, than someone who hasn't been diagnosed as, statistically, they are likely to be negative.
This mentality is wrong and is precisely what causes the spread of the virus. Explains the very flaw in your argument I am trying to highlight.
Here's an idea -- instead of trying to rewrite logic -- go answer the other post you started about being "HIV Positive" or "HIV". ::)
Interesting notion.
Here's an idea -- instead of trying to rewrite logic -- go answer the other post you started about being "HIV Positive" or "HIV". ::)
Here's an idea -- instead of trying to rewrite logic -- go answer the other post you started about being "HIV Positive" or "HIV". ::)
not reallyUsing Zoharian logic, it's not an interesting notion to you.
a tree falls in the woods, it still makes a sound whether anyone hears it or not
i see 3 catagories of hiv status for sexually active people, but you can always split hairs and point out exceptions
positive
negative as of last test date
unknown status due to lack of testing
wear your condoms boys and girls, and get tested regularly
If you mix both topics, would it then make up something like : "I am the unknown" ?
It sounds mysterious. Like a Stephen King novel or the like... ::)
Le_liseur, You don't mess with zohar! ;) ;D.
Sorry couldn't resist.
You for some reason want to drop the term ‘HIV neg’ and substitute it for 'HIV unknown' which includes everyone except people diagnosed positive.
Like I said before, this illusive ‘catch all’ term just adds more confusion to the clear cut SCIENTIFIC definitions -poz or neg. It also seems to falsely lead people to believe that there are MANY more undiagnosed poz folk than what is the reality.
And you just said that many people are ok with screwing someone who hasn't been diagnosed poz, as statistically, they are likely to be negative. So by your example, people would be more willing to have sex with someone who claims to have an HIV unknown status than HIV positive status and that’s precisely how the majority of people get infected.
Put another way, your rehashing of terminology is counter productive and not only exacerbates fear, paranoia and resulting stigma but by your example also illustartes how it can contribute to more infections. The vast majority of infections have ocurred precisely when people fucked and where one person was unaware of his/her status.
So you see, HIV unknown = more ambiguity of the person's ACTUAL status = more people having sex with such a person being led into the false sense of security that such person is negative, as per your example = more infections.
Way forward is- More voluntary testing so that people know whether they are poz or neg (whether they have HIV or not). And of course, educating everyone, particularly sexually active people, of HIV transmission risks.
Maybe you should just not cruise internet sex sites, then you won't have to worry about this dribble.
Here's an idea -- instead of trying to rewrite logic -- go answer the other post you started about being "HIV Positive" or "HIV". ::)
It's one thing for science to have distinct definitions, which I do not dispute.
However. it's quite another for people - and I've limited the discussion to people who are sexually active - to be able to say with certainty that the definition of negativity applies to them. Being negative as of your last test, is in no way a guarantee of NOT being positive.
I don't see how HIV unknown means people will be having more sex because of the 'ambiguity'. Where's the evidence for that?
Also, as I've said, there's already a false sense of security anyway, by those who state they're negative when they're not, but have yet to be diagnosed.
The fact is, ambiguity is already a factor, it's just that people often make the assumption that it's not when they see/hear the words 'HIV negative'.
Your very first post does dispute distinct defnitions. You wanted to drop 'HIV -' and substitute it for HIV unknown. Now it seems that you're either backpedaling and changing your line of argument or are even more confused than I previously thought. Either way, what you now say is self-defeating for the suggestion you made in your first post.
Please read what the poster Zach above has said. No one is disputing that. If this is your new line of argument. I agree with you.
Your reasoning is extremely flawed and I have already pointed out why and so its not worth repeating. Another gaping flaw- please define 'sexually active'. It sounds so very vague like the rest of your arguments. Do I have to have sex once a year? once in 3, 6, or 4 months? once a month? once a week? every day? twice a day?- with multiple partners. I already pointed this out, but here it is again- If the last time I had sex was 6 months ago, a negative test today is a guarantee of not being positive. Your absurd HIV unknown term flies foul in the face of this scientifc fact.
I was relying on the the example you provided that people are more willing to have sex with someone of unknown status- a term which you thought should replace the scientific term HIV negative- thereby resulting in more infections. I gave you a long winded explantion as to why.
Do you disagree that HIV unknown is much more vague and ambiguous terminology and serves no useful purpose but only adds a new layer of vagueness and makes the waters murkier ?
Yes, and this I do understand. I was running around thinking I did not have HIV when in fact I did. Or I was HIV + and thought I was HIV -. The solution would have been, for me to have grown a pair and get tested sooner rather than continue fucking around by saying I am HIV unknown! (precisely what your HIV unknown term’s (as per your original definition) effect will be).
Why do you fail to understand that the solution is to get tested and ascertain your status rather than a pointless and counter productive semantic change that only adds to the sense of false security?!
If ambiguity is already a factor then adding a new term does nothing but increase the vagueness and uncertainty of the actual status of people (i.e. whether they actually have HIV or not!)- and makes the waters murkier. There is NO benefit.
Give up already Zohar. And let’s hear what you have to say on the 'I am HIV' poll please?
I'm not disputing definitions, but I am disputing the way in which people can apply them to themselves and to other people. HIV 'negative' often seems to come with an unspoken caveat, which is really what this thread is about.
There often seems to be a dividing line - HIV positive and HIV negative - but things simply aren't that clear cut and HIV negative can actually be a very grey area depending on individual circumstances
I'm not particularly stuck on the phrase 'HIV unknown'. I just used it to highlight the uncertainty. And I'm all for more widespread voluntary testing. I wonder what might convince more people that they need to have then more often? Perhaps the fact that things aren't quite as black and white as they initially appear.
Whatever.
I think this has less to do with enlightening the masses than it does with the OP trying to make himself feel better about his status by making everybody else either "poz" or "potentially poz".
And I also don't know why anyone on here would continue to engage in this ridiculous prattle - especially when the OP is obviously, deliberately ignoring all requests that he address his "I am HIV" thread.
HIV is everyone's problem, not just those of us who have been diagnosed. The number of people with undiagnosed HIV is around a quarter to a third of all people with HIV, and that estimate seems to have remained the same for years. That's quite a few people walking around thinking, and possibly telling others, they're negative, when they're not.
Think what you like about me, but nothing will change in terms of these figures as long as people assume that one negative test result months ago, means they are still negative today, if they've been sexually active since.
as people assume that one negative test result months ago, means they are still negative today, if they've been sexually active since.that's just untrue. Condoms have repeatedly been proven to be extremely effective at stopping the spread of HIV, so that a sexually active person consistently using condoms (like untold millions do now after years of anti-pregnancy and anti-HIV messaging) can assume that they have remained negative. This assumption is confirmed by the vast majority of people who regularly test for HIV and consistently remain HIV negative. Thousand upon thousands of people in America have remained negative through the 30 known years of this epidemic; while only a relatively small amount of the population has actually ended up infected (the potential 1.5 million people infected in US are less than .5% of the nearly 308 million total population).
OK, back to my Discovery channel show on the spectacular lifespan of the beatle moth, which is indigenous to parts of the world yet explored (NOW, THIS IS INTERESTING!!)......