Author Topic: Is online profile disclosure.... disclosure? (Read 18985 times)

jkinatl2 · « **on:** March 17, 2007, 04:22:40 pm »

I wanna get feedback on this topic.

If someone has POZ or HIV+ or both in an online profile (ok, POZ personals and other specifically HIV related sites notwithstanding) does that count as disclosure?

aupointillimite · « **Reply #1 on:** March 17, 2007, 04:25:32 pm »

Oooog... because you're relying on the assumption that people are going to read the fine print, as it were.

I'd say you're more than halfway home by putting it on the profile... but I would say it stops short of full disclosure.

It's like passive sonar as opposed to active sonar.

milker · « **Reply #2 on:** March 17, 2007, 04:27:04 pm »

Yes to the people that read this + their friends + the tralala and blah blah blah + the drama + whoever thinks that because you're hiv then you were/are/going to be a murderer/slut/whore/bitch/serialkiller/pig

Yes I had bad experiences disclosing that way, so now I've cleared those profiles and disclose privately.

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #3 on:** March 17, 2007, 04:43:39 pm »

I get your point. There's a great risk in disclosing over the internet, as the information is immediately and universally, irrevocably available.

I guess what i was asking is whether putting one's status in an online profile was legally sufficient (not that states or countries are in any way standardized) or morally sufficient insofar as disclosure was concerned.

My own status as an HIV positive blogger, and my easy Google to that effect, really makes the issue moot with me. But I wonder, because on several occasions I have had dates where I would throw out a comment about HIV and stuff and the other party would be shocked - having not read my online profile before concenting to meet for coffee or a beer.

I am always shocked too, because I assume that the other person is simply being cool with it, having all the information he needs available before the very first contact. Which is sort of the POINT of profile - related disclosure.

I mean, if spelling it out verbally on the first date is the only way to disclose, why bother putting it on an online profile to start with? Sure, if we are getting hot and heavy, and he tries something with an element of risk to it, I am probably going to say something.

But is it enough to have HIV and POZ in online profiles? How much of a conversation about my medical history is required? I actually get really testy when someone does not read my profiles until the third date in, and acts surprised. Is that misplaced guilt? Is it the assumption that people I meet are going to be as literate and intelligent as I? And to be fair, how literate do you need to be to read the acronyms HIV and POZ?

I am conflicted over this. It's a great argument towards serosorting.

puertorico2006 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 17, 2007, 04:46:42 pm »

I dont know if it counts as "full disclosure" because ive had people right me on gay.com when i opened up the profile "poz_pr" at first to get to know other positive people (or people that dont care)...and ive had people talk to me for hours/days and then want to meet up i guess for "fun" and then i mention the fact that im poz and they say "are you for real?" i didnt read that part (some people are just oblivious)

So i guess putting it on your profile doesnt really count (but can make the disclousre easier)

Matty the Damned · « **Reply #5 on:** March 17, 2007, 04:49:18 pm »

An excellent question JK.

I'm entirely open to anyone about my HIV status. That's not to say I introduce myself as "Matty the Damned, gadfly and AIDS sufferer" but it's never something I hide.

But it's interesting the number of people who I've presumed knew my status (whether learning it online or otherwise) who express shock when I mention it explicitly to them.

"But you don't LOOK like you have it", they say.

It's still early in the AM down here and that's as far as I've gotten on this subject. I'll be back with more once I've had my second breakfast vodka.

MtD
(Who is explicit in all things)

thunter34 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 17, 2007, 04:55:32 pm »

This is a really interesting thread, Jonathan! I'm curious to know if the profile disclosure would have enough legal muster to protect one against charges. I would think it should if two people meet through an online site. That sort of written disclaimer works for most every other sort of situation, doesn't it? The moral issue is something else. That's why when I hook up with someone online*, I go ahead and tend to look for someone else who has a positive designation in their profile. It does seem that many people (through illiteracy, tweakiness or what have you) don't look past the most basic few words..."top, his place, now" and go with that.

* Humor me and let's all pretend like I'm getting some these days.

aupointillimite · « **Reply #7 on:** March 17, 2007, 04:58:12 pm »

Quote from: matty.the.damned on March 17, 2007, 04:49:18 pm

But it's interesting the number of people who I've presumed knew my status (whether learning it online or otherwise) who express shock when I mention it explicitly to them.

"But you don't LOOK like you have it", they say.

I have heard this many, many times from the negatrons as well.

Personally, I make a point to tell everyone in private conversation. I have found that it's best to assume that everyone is a moron.

keyite · « **Reply #8 on:** March 17, 2007, 05:08:51 pm »

No, sadly I don't think it can be seen as full and final disclosure. Like you I assume other guys are intelligent and that they bother to read the profile they're responding to. Most do, but I've come across at least a handful on Gaydar who simply hadn't noticed my declaration of HIV status. So unless they're obviously poz too I usually bring up the subject before actually meeting up. Still think it's worth stating it on the profile because it does the majority of separating the wheat from the chaff.

milker · « **Reply #9 on:** March 17, 2007, 05:16:52 pm »

Yeah I've had one dude that insisted that we meet RIGHT NOW and I emailed back "you know I'm poz, right?" and he said "WHAT? YOU ARE POZ?" I replied "Yes, it's on my profile, did you even read my profile?" and he never replied.

Like aupoint, I disclose during private conversations and it's been working way better, most of the time people are "cool with it, but I'd rather be safe" (whatever that means), or "that's why condoms were invented, let's fuck, but since it must be difficult for you to find fucks now so maybe can you help me with my rent?" or "i'm poz too, let's swap loads" (ahhhhhh romance) or "thanks for the honesty, and I'd still like to meet you" (that one is on top of the list).

I don't think I look poz, I'm wearing jeans and a tshirt, is there anything special I should wear to look poz?

When do you get "Full disclosure"? You have to have the partner sign a document that state he or she knows your status and is ready to engage in (check the box: []blowjob, [] handjob, [] kissing, [] rimming [] etc...). If someone becomes poz after having sex with you, email threads, profile info, chat/IM logs would help.

Milker

Longislander · « **Reply #10 on:** March 17, 2007, 05:34:45 pm »

Quote

let's fuck, but since it must be difficult for you to find fucks now so maybe can you help me with my rent?"

that's too funny, did someone really say that?? lol

Having POZ or HIV+ in an online dating/sex profile in my neck of the woods would not only be disclosure, it would likely get a mention in the local bar rag...

Miss Philicia · « **Reply #11 on:** March 17, 2007, 05:41:06 pm »

If you want everything about disclose and the law neat and tidy why not just get everyone to sign a "release form" of some type verifying that you've stated your HIV status and that they recognize this? Otherwise I suppose it's he said/she said unless you have 3rd parties as witnesses of some type.

bear60 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 17, 2007, 06:05:30 pm »

I quess it wont hurt to offer my opinion here..... online profile disclosure does not count as disclosure in the real world. Its necessary to disclose before getting naked.

milker · « **Reply #13 on:** March 17, 2007, 06:11:01 pm »

Quote from: Longislander on March 17, 2007, 05:34:45 pm

that's too funny, did someone really say that?? lol

Yup

Quote from: bear60 on March 17, 2007, 06:05:30 pm

Its necessary to disclose before getting naked.

What? Not only i have to disclose but I have to get naked too?

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 17, 2007, 07:43:36 pm »

Which begs the question.... disclosure while one or both parties is intoxicated. Is that disclosure? An event which might or might not be remembered seems hardly an improvement over an online presentation of one's status, don't you think?

Like I said, I am conflicted about this issue. I agree that assuming people are not illiterate morons is a stretch. But aside from drawing up a signed, notorized contract of disclosure, how responsible are we ... am I .... for someone else's ability to assimilate information?

If I meet someone in a bar, and disclose, and they tell me they are cool with it, and are behaving relatively rational, do we continue the conversation? What about the next morning when they claim to have no memory of the conversation? Am I a felon at that point? A rapist, even?

As Milker said, when we put our HIV status online, we do it at our peril - and in the not unreasonable expectation that it will be so noted. How far does this have to go? How can we ever be sure that a person is sane/rational/sober/literate enough to understand the words in a profile, or the words coming out of our own mouths? And what is our responsibility towards this end?

I know, I know, serosort. But that is a stopgap measure, I think.

Joe K · « **Reply #15 on:** March 17, 2007, 08:04:10 pm »

Disclosure in a profile would not qualify as true disclosure because it generally must be done person to person. But the law also makes mention of culpable negligence or contributory negligence which I believe would apply if you shared disclosure while you were both in any altered state. The law assumes you will also protect yourself, so unless you deliberately lie and say you are negative, it is not your responsibility to determine the capability of your potential sex partner to understand the implications of your disclosure.

aupointillimite · « **Reply #16 on:** March 17, 2007, 08:13:01 pm »

Quote from: jkinatl2 on March 17, 2007, 07:43:36 pm

Which begs the question.... disclosure while one or both parties is intoxicated. Is that disclosure? An event which might or might not be remembered seems hardly an improvement over an online presentation of one's status, don't you think?

Like I said, I am conflicted about this issue. I agree that assuming people are not illiterate morons is a stretch. But aside from drawing up a signed, notorized contract of disclosure, how responsible are we ... am I .... for someone else's ability to assimilate information?

I have a general rule regarding disclosure and sex.

If you're fucked up, and I'm not... it's my bad.
If I'm fucked up, and you're not... it's your bad.
If we're both fucked up... it's no one's bad.

This applies to any possible sexual situation... its implications are thus: if you're sober, don't hook up with drunk people. This has nothing to do with your serostatus inherently, it's just a good idea... but I think that this could have extra weight if you're poz. I have never been in a situation where I was sober and took a drunk person home. Mostly because I'm an alcoholic... but also because it seems creepy.

If I'm drunk, and you're not... I'll disclose... but what you do is totally on you, because you're in full command of your faculties.

If we're both fucked up, I'll disclose... but did the poor neggie hook up with the walking plague when they were both drunk? Sorry, Charlie. People do lots of things they wouldn't ordinarily do when they're wasted. And in my opinion, me being intoxicated in combination with disclosure removes any possible ethical culpability that I may have. I've never been so drunk that I "forgot" I'm poz. So this rule works.

milker · « **Reply #17 on:** March 17, 2007, 09:01:55 pm »

Well it's not just drunkenness, there are drugs too, and I've never done drugs so I don't know if my partner is drugged or not, I don't know how to recognize symptoms of being drugged and knowing nothing about them I wouldn't know what questions to ask.

Milker

aupointillimite · « **Reply #18 on:** March 17, 2007, 09:04:24 pm »

My rules go for drugs, too.

How to tell if someone is fucked up on drugs.

Tiny pupils+constant scratching= heroin.
Wide eyed+proclamations of friendship and love= E.
Frequent trips to bathroom+large pupils= coke.
Completely fucking irritating+absolutely horny= meth.

northernguy · « **Reply #19 on:** March 17, 2007, 09:15:13 pm »

If you meet someone online and your profile says poz, you'd think that would count for something legally. After all, that's how you're advertising the "product" right? What does that say about someone's attention span that they want to meet up and share an intimate experience with you, but can't take the two seconds it takes to read a profile?!

milker · « **Reply #20 on:** March 17, 2007, 09:16:47 pm »

Which one is it when they keep playing with their tongue piercing and are unable to get hard and still keep trying to get hard for hours?

/edited to add:

And I've already given up and i'm sleeping /

Miss Philicia · « **Reply #21 on:** March 17, 2007, 09:24:38 pm »

Quote from: aupointillimite

Tiny pupils+constant scratching= heroin.

What? No nodding out?

aupointillimite · « **Reply #22 on:** March 17, 2007, 09:30:22 pm »

Quote from: philly267 on March 17, 2007, 09:24:38 pm

What? No nodding out?

Barbara, please (me love you longtime!)... by the time I was on the nod, either a) everyone could tell what I was on, or b) I had already gone home.

aupointillimite · « **Reply #23 on:** March 17, 2007, 09:32:40 pm »

Quote from: milker on March 17, 2007, 09:16:47 pm

Which one is it when they keep playing with their tongue piercing and are unable to get hard and still keep trying to get hard for hours?

/edited to add:

And I've already given up and i'm sleeping /

Something speedy.

Probably meth.

If they keep disappearing for "potty breaks" then it's coke.

Speedies make it virtually impossible to achieve an erection and also make one engage in repetitive behaviors.

For example, back during my more Kate Moss-y days, I used to rub my chin obsessively whilst on the blow.

jyngfilm · « **Reply #24 on:** March 17, 2007, 09:41:19 pm »

and alcohol ?

David_CA · « **Reply #25 on:** March 17, 2007, 09:42:10 pm »

All this reinforces, to me, the fact that if one wants to remain negative, they must take steps to ensure (as much as possible) their safety and not rely on someones disclosing. People are generally HIV+ prior to knowing it from test results. If one was neg on the last HIV test, declares themself neg, but has been infected, are they responsible. Disclosure is only useful if the information is accurate. This is not to say that one does not need to disclose. The only way that HIV- people will remain that way is if they protect themselves.

David

jyngfilm · « **Reply #26 on:** March 17, 2007, 09:51:32 pm »

hello David
~jordon

curmudgeonly · « **Reply #27 on:** March 17, 2007, 10:01:32 pm »

You might as well disclose you're an axe murderer on online "dating" sites since so many people fail to read one's carefully and wittily composed profile. I don't do the dating thing any longer but when I did I always talked to the guy on the phone or exchanged email and made sure he knew before I bothered setting up a meeting.

"Oh, I didn't read that." End of story but minimal loss of my precious time.

Queen Tokelove · « **Reply #28 on:** March 17, 2007, 11:57:25 pm »

I will not give my 2 cents on this topic because of my past posts about disclosure and I do not want to sound like a broken record but it is interesting to see others opinions...

DavidinCA92284 · « **Reply #29 on:** March 18, 2007, 12:33:10 am »

My 2 cents . . . Companies are using website personals to determine whether prospective employees are moral or ethical in their behavior. Job offers - especially to those just graduating college - often include questions regarding web exposure. So, in this instance, companies are using the information provided on website personals as legitimate in making hiring decisions.

I would venture to guess that anything that is included in a personal ad can be good enough to count as being "informed" and could probably hold up in a court fight. But I don't think it would be enough as a "final" warning. Final warning to me is when you've agreed to have sex and as you're waving the condom in the air as the whether it goes on or stays off, the 'information' is conveyed one last time. So much for romance.
- david

racingmind · « **Reply #30 on:** March 18, 2007, 12:52:24 am »

I agree with David NC.....it is ultimately the negative persons responsibility to protect themselves. I did and stayed negative for 20 years. It's just too bad I fucked up and messed around with the wrong person while under the influence.

BTW, that "wrong" person didn't disclose (until way after the fact), and I didn't think to ask. I blame myself for being so fucking stupid and careless. 20 years of playing it safe and smart went down the tubes in a matter of minutes....

red_Dragon888 · « **Reply #31 on:** March 18, 2007, 03:11:30 am »

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, will the dish run away with the spoon?

Central79 · « **Reply #32 on:** March 18, 2007, 05:25:29 am »

I think this is a really interesting question. The UK has recently had some high-profile HIV prosecutions, and the CPS (Criminal Prosecution Service) over here has had a consultation asking for opinion on this - generally the law in this country is getting pushed towards having to disclose and doing it in a clear way.

Personally, I think that disclosure on a website constitutes disclosure. I was on gaydar with a (headless) photograph and my HIV status up front in the text of the profile. I had a line by itself saying "First up, I'm HIV+, so if that's a problem for you - move on'. I can't remember anybody not having seen that. I went on to be witty, self deprecating and humourous in a seperate paragraph.

The other thing I did was when I was being IM'd I'd make the other person acknowledge that he'd read it in an IM, by asking a question like "are you happy sucking my cock?". Hell, I don't want to meet up if you're not. Then you've got an internet record of a) disclosure and b) the other person being aware of it. Because people in the UK are so backwards about being upfront about their status, it was often the first thing people remarked on in my profile anyway. I think this constitutes an excellent defense the way the law is heading if something nasty was to crop up.

It's a lot less ambiguous than disclosing in person, as there is not a record of what was said. Just like rape, it's one person's word against the other after the fact.

At the end of the day, I don't think the law has a role here - generally I think it should stay out of people's bedrooms, unless there is violence involved. To me, treating HIV like a sort of viral GBH is sophistry - unless there's coercion or an actual sexual assault involved the responsibility is with both parties to prevent transmission. For me this means disclosure. I disclose because it makes me more at ease with somebody else, and the sex is consequently better. Not because of the law.

I've never disclosed in a bar, like Jonathan. How do you go about doing that? I think I'd walk part way home with somebody, and tell them - but that could be as awkward as hell! I'd worry that everybody in the bar would start wispering behind my back.

Interesting to read all the points of view here.

M x.

newt · « **Reply #33 on:** March 18, 2007, 07:13:25 am »

Legally JK I dunno...

People can be pretty dumb esp. when they're looking to be dumb with pretty people...just saying

- matt

Now playing: Indigo Girls, Closer to Fine

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #34 on:** March 18, 2007, 12:47:02 pm »

Quote from: aupointillimite on March 17, 2007, 04:25:32 pm

Oooog... because you're relying on the assumption that people are going to read the fine print, as it were.

I'd say you're more than halfway home by putting it on the profile... but I would say it stops short of full disclosure.

It's like passive sonar as opposed to active sonar.

WHich begs the question, why disclose at all online and put ones' self at risk for, as milker and longislander pointed out, the world at large having access to some pretty sensitive information if, at the end of the day, it doesn't count as disclosure?

Its normally pretty hard to ignore or overlook HIV or POZ in an online profile, but if there is significant risk of the "wrong" people finding out about a person, and only a "halfway" or "passive" opportunity to fulfil the moral and ethical obligations insofar as disclosure is concerned, why place it out there at all?

Seems what I am hearing is that there are no really significant upsides to online disclosure, and that the conversation must still take place in person. I find that ironic, in that online disclosure is far more quantifiable should anyone have a problem with the concept, than the s/he said-s/he said factor inherent in private conversations (or the lack thereof).

Insofar as bars are concerned, it's been an easy five or six years since I met anyone at a bar, and even then, exchanged numbers and email rather than going home together. One of the reasons I don't go out much is that A) I dont drink and drive, and B) shouting one's HIV status over a sound system seems a little much to ask, even for this activist. Waiting until we are at his place seems like something of a bait and switch to me.

I did have one guy write me after we had flirted and stuff at a bar and ask if he needed to get tested because we kissed goodnight. So I totally get the fact that even in this decade, gay men can be utterly moronic regarding their health and safety.

Still, as a fan of the quantifiable, I am inclined to think that online disclosure is sufficient. Vased of course on the possibly faulty assumption that I am not dealing with someone of a diminished mental state, either as the result of drug/alcohol intoxication or bone-shattering stupidity.

Still, all in all, a great argument against those who take the risk of online profile disclosure, as the consensus seems to be that it carries a rather low benefit to risk ratio.

pozinbama · « **Reply #35 on:** March 18, 2007, 12:53:24 pm »

I think that putting it in your profile should be counted as disclosure. Especially if you are talking about a hookup site. Unless you put a little + sign at the end and don't explain what it means. But I'm one of these funny people that think even if there are no words spoken that it is up to each individual to take responsibility for their own bodies.

Buckmark · « **Reply #36 on:** March 18, 2007, 01:26:04 pm »

I think online disclosure needs to be followed up with a "one-on-one" conversation in person. Stating that you are HIV+ in an online profile might help weed out some folks, but only if they actually bother to read the entire profile, which not everyone does. IANAL (I am not a layer) -- I have no idea what legally constitutes disclosure, but it seems to me that having it in your online profile could only help your case if you were accused of failing to disclose. But I think there does need to be a one-on-one conversation. I think someone mentioned this below, but I'm surprised there is no requirement to have potential partners sign a release indicating they know you are HIV+. How romantic...

I agree with many of the posters here who have stated that it is basically up to each individual to take responsibility for their own bodies. Unfortunately, disclosure laws appear to put the responsibility on those who are already poz, IMHO.

Speaking of disclosure laws, has anyone ever heard of them being use to prosecute anyone other than HIV+ folks? I mean, there are a lot of other unpleasant STDs out there, though admittedly few with the repercussions of HIV (though Hep C comes to mind). Somehow, I've always suspected that these laws were just meant to cater to people's irrational fears over HIV, rather than really intended to prevent spread of STDs.

For me, I have had no negative repercussions that I can recall from disclosing my status in my profile on gay.com. I still get just as few responses as ever.

I thought it would be such a big step, but in reality seems to have been almost inconsequential.

Regards,

Henry

Bucko · « **Reply #37 on:** March 18, 2007, 02:05:35 pm »

Quote from: jkinatl2 on March 18, 2007, 12:47:02 pm

Its normally pretty hard to ignore or overlook HIV or POZ in an online profile, but if there is significant risk of the "wrong" people finding out about a person, and only a "halfway" or "passive" opportunity to fulfil the moral and ethical obligations insofar as disclosure is concerned, why place it out there at all?

Insofar as bars are concerned, it's been an easy five or six years since I met anyone at a bar, and even then, exchanged numbers and email rather than going home together. One of the reasons I don't go out much is that A) I dont drink and drive, and B) shouting one's HIV status over a sound system seems a little much to ask, even for this activist. Waiting until we are at his place seems like something of a bait and switch to me.

Still, all in all, a great argument against those who take the risk of online profile disclosure, as the consensus seems to be that it carries a rather low benefit to risk ratio.

Jonathan-

I selected the two points to quote above because they relate to the two salient points I can bring to the conversation:

My profile on Manhunt not only states that I am HIV+ and that I'm looking for HIV+ bottoms in the text copy, but also underneath in the appropriate checklist spot. Additionally, I use serostatus as an icebreaker when approaching someone ("Nice ass, you poz?") or when responding to the approach of others ("Hot profile, nice pix. You poz?"). It's the ultimate qualifier.

In bars my approach is different, I guess. About two weeks ago I went out looking for that fraternal comradeship one finds in gay bars (ie: not looking to hook-up), conversation and sociability, as I was feeling kinda lonely and withdrawn.

The first bar was a very popular "cruise" bar, no dancing and sound system not set at deafen. On the patio outside where smokers congregate I responded to a "How ya doin'" with a guy who was stereotypically "pozlook" (older, lipoface, etc) and we struck up a conversation. he was intelligent and witty, but not my type (despite much smutty smalltalk).

I moved on to another bar in the same complex (everything here in SoFla is in a strip-mall). That one had a video lounge in front with a boom-boom dancefloor on the other side of some doors. I was grabbed by a cute-ish younger man (mid-late twenties) who pulled me close and began a face-suck and fondle in the darker dance portion of the place. He was obviously intoxicated, and I eased away after a couple of minutes with a thanks-but-no-thanks. He looked confused and asked me if I didn't find him attractive. Not wanting to dwell on his appearance (again, he did little for me, and I wasn't hunting ass that night anyway), I just spoke into his ear that I was HIV positive and that I could tell that he wasn't. He looked confused for a second before smiling and wishing me well.

I also made a pit-stop at The Ramrod on the way home, but with similar results. Maybe because I wasn't actively looking my mindset was in a different place, and in that place no one seemed all that interesting. But my mind kept turning over the idea of how much easier everything is online, without the negotiating and public disclosure drama. If they read enough to know that I'm a top, then they read enough to know that I'm poz as well. And in case they miss anything, a few minutes of notes passed back and forth dispel any lingering doubts.

I guess in brief, it comes down to this: face-to-face disclosure in the public arena of a bar is potentially a minefield of rejection, one that is witnessed by everyone around you. Online hook-ups are easier and cost-effective (no beer or water need be purchased), and any issue of disclosure is neatly tied up in a few simple qualifying written exchanges.

Brent
(Who serosorts exclusively)

/edited to spell-check/

aupointillimite · « **Reply #38 on:** March 18, 2007, 02:20:42 pm »

I'm with Buckyball.

This why I'm now in my second trimester of becoming a serosorter.

Too late to abort; I can only go on with this.

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #39 on:** March 18, 2007, 02:26:58 pm »

Quote from: aupointillimite on March 18, 2007, 02:20:42 pm

I'm with Buckyball.

This why I'm now in my second trimester of becoming a serosorter.

Too late to abort; I can only go on with this.

This is me refraining from quoting Sarah Silverman.

aupointillimite · « **Reply #40 on:** March 18, 2007, 02:30:37 pm »

"On the law that requires women to wait twenty-four hours before they are permitted to have an abortion: I think it's a good law. the other day I wanted to go get an abortion. I really wanted an abortion, but then I thought about it and it turned out I was just thirsty."

I couldn't help myself.

Bucko · « **Reply #41 on:** March 18, 2007, 02:40:40 pm »

I understand that the crux of the discussion is trying to remain true to oneself (and the law) while not insisting on serosorting.

But my experience is that this is like attempting a jigsaw puzzle with no concept of the finished picture and with more than half of the pieces missing. It's too much of a challenge and offers too little by way of reward upon completion.

Brent
(Who is always the pragmatist)

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #42 on:** March 18, 2007, 02:43:50 pm »

Quote from: Bucko on March 18, 2007, 02:40:40 pm

I understand that the crux of the discussion is trying to remain true to oneself (and the law) while not insisting on serosorting.

But my experience is that this is like attempting a jigsaw puzzle with no concept of the finished picture and with more than half of the pieces missing. It's too much of a challenge and offers too little by way of reward upon completion.

Brent
(Who is always the pragmatist)

I agree.

Central79 · « **Reply #43 on:** March 18, 2007, 04:34:23 pm »

So what is the state of play legally in the US? I understood it varies state by state... I heard a story that if an HIV positive person spits at another person (admittedly disgusting) in one US state it would be classified as quite a serious assault, by virtue of the HIV alone.

In the UK at the moment you don't have to disclose. But you do have to not be deemed "reckless". This basically means wearing a condom. It also means that the other person can't consent to take the risk of infected if they do know you're status, like you cannot consent to any other assault.

This seems okay, until you have policemen trawling through suspect's rubbish to try and find evidence, or appealing for previous partners to come forward and get tested. It's can sometimes be a total fishing expedition, with the police not knowing if you're positive or not, and no proven transmission to another person, but quite intrusive and agressive ways of getting a conviction.

bear60 · « **Reply #44 on:** March 18, 2007, 04:43:55 pm »

Now I understand why friends of mine were getting the HAZMAT tatoo on their bodies....so it can be brought up in conversation...."I never saw that tat before!" "Whats it mean?"

I am not suggesting that a tatoo is the answer. I am just reporting how certain individuals personally dealt with the disclosure issue.

aupointillimite · « **Reply #45 on:** March 18, 2007, 04:46:54 pm »

Quote from: Matt Mee on March 18, 2007, 04:34:23 pm

So what is the state of play legally in the US? I understood it varies state by state... I heard a story that if an HIV positive person spits at another person (admittedly disgusting) in one US state it would be classified as quite a serious assault, by virtue of the HIV alone.

In the UK at the moment you don't have to disclose. But you do have to not be deemed "reckless". This basically means wearing a condom. It also means that the other person can't consent to take the risk of infected if they do know you're status, like you cannot consent to any other assault.

This seems okay, until you have policemen trawling through suspect's rubbish to try and find evidence, or appealing for previous partners to come forward and get tested. It's can sometimes be a total fishing expedition, with the police not knowing if you're positive or not, and no proven transmission to another person, but quite intrusive and agressive ways of getting a conviction.

Here in Virginia, if I fuck a negatron without disclosing... regardless of whether a condom is used or not... it's termed "reckless endangerment," with a maximum fine of one year in jail. This law also applies to Hep B and syphilis.

This law passed in 2004.

To my knowledge, the number of people thus far convicted under this law is zero.

Matty the Damned · « **Reply #46 on:** March 18, 2007, 04:51:16 pm »

For the record Matty the Damned believes that revealing your status online constitutes disclosure. Whether or not this is legal is a matter of supreme indifference to him. He regularly ignores laws that get in the way of him doing whatever the fuck he wants to do.

He encourages others to do the same.

MtD

Miss Philicia · « **Reply #47 on:** March 18, 2007, 06:21:01 pm »

Quote from: bear60 on March 18, 2007, 04:43:55 pm

Now I understand why friends of mine were getting the HAZMAT tatoo on their bodies....so it can be brought up in conversation...."I never saw that tat before!" "Whats it mean?"

I am not suggesting that a tatoo is the answer. I am just reporting how certain individuals personally dealt with the disclosure issue.

Call me sheltered (or just clueless... we know I'm not sheltered) but I didn't learn what that meant until a few years ago. I don't think that should count as disclosure unless you really think everyone is going to get it.

bear60 · « **Reply #48 on:** March 18, 2007, 06:29:40 pm »

OK I'll call you sheltered. Thats why southern boys are so popular!!!

Seriously, I agreee having a tatoo does not equal disclosure, but it does allow one to "break the ice" I guess. What do I know. It was very popular there for awhile.

Bucko · « **Reply #49 on:** March 19, 2007, 12:00:16 am »

Quote from: matty.the.damned on March 18, 2007, 04:51:16 pm

For the record Matty the Damned believes that revealing your status online constitutes disclosure. Whether or not this is legal is a matter of supreme indifference to him. He regularly ignores laws that get in the way of him doing whatever the fuck he wants to do.

He encourages others to do the same.

MtD

Should anyone ever ask what I mean when I say that I'm an anarchist, I'll often as not paraphrase the last two sentences of Matty's quote above.

And Philly:

Quote from: philly267 on March 18, 2007, 06:21:01 pm

Call me sheltered (or just clueless... we know I'm not sheltered) but I didn't learn what that meant until a few years ago. I don't think that should count as disclosure unless you really think everyone is going to get it.

Clueless works for me, babe

Brent
(Who is not the Antichrist, just an anarchist)

Forums Index

Welcome

Author Topic: Is online profile disclosure.... disclosure? (Read 18985 times)