Why are Primark promoting "Found Family"

From Terence Higgins Trust, apparently summarising the legal position:

Does the law say I have to tell my partner about my HIV status?

If you’re having protected sex there’s no law saying you must tell your partners that you have HIVV_. It’s your choice whether you tell them or not.

However, in England and Wales there’s a risk of being prosecuted for reckless transmission of HIV if:
you had sex with someone who didn’t know you had HIV
you knew you had HIV at that time
you understood how HIV is transmitted
you had sex without a condom, and
you transmitted HIV to that person.

The law in Scotland is largely the same, except that a case can also be brought if transmission hasn’t taken place but someone has been put at risk of transmission without their consent or knowledge.

Just for clarity. That is for Klaxon.

What evidence do you have that a 'reasonable' person would or would not refuse consent solely on the basis of a person's HIV status, regardless of the list reported viral load? Or any sexually transmitted infection for that matter.

What evidence do you have that a 'reasonable' person would continue with a sexual encounter without making a different decision if they knew? And that decision may include changing the nature of the sexual contact, or saying no outright.

Or is it such now that any person about to have sex with another should expect that person to have sexually transmittable infections, even the worst ones, until the time that they produce very recent evidence for all screening? Is that now the 'reasonable' person standard?

Baddies are people using the Q word.

Evidence that a 'reasonable' person would not refuse consent solely on the basis of a person's HIV status regardless of last report viral load.

Evidence of what?

Reasonableness in law is a legal concept rather than something quantifiable, so I’m not sure what evidence you are after.

"It’s not a justifiable imposition to conclude that the reasonable person would refuse consent solely on the basis of a persons HIV status if viral load is undetectable, or condoms are used, or a low-risk form of sex is engaged in. So it doesn’t meet the most basic legal criteria for criminalisation for lack of consent."

I would like to see your evidence for this thinking, please. Do you have studies to show this?

And how would a person know to engage in only 'low-risk' sex with that person if they did not understand that there was a history of HIV to begin with?

Don’t know but support networks for queer people whose families were unsupportive have existed forever. Lots of high profile examples of women who essentially acted in a mother-type role to queer young people who had left or been kicked out of home (often these women knew these kids either through their own queer kid, or by being part of the community).

The New York house system was another part of it. Queer people, often young and people of colour in this case, lacking any support network who found chosen families.

There has to come a point, surely, when you lot reflect on your railing against support networks for queer people, rail against a charity that works with homeless queer people etc and start to ask if maybe you guys are the baddies?

The alternative is to presume that all people with HIV pose a transmission risk which is simply counter to scientific fact.

There are many ways in which someone can limit the chances of HIV transmission to zero or close to it. Undetectable viral load is the most obvious way (and no, there is no likelihood of medication just stopping working with a sudden increase in viral load - that is the point of regular checks). Other ways include condom use or limiting sex to oral sex.

When you talk about non-disclosure in terms of, essentially, rape - you ignore a key legal component. The alleged rapist would need to know, or reasonably ought to know, that the alleged victim does not consent (or would not consent if they had all the information).

It’s not a justifiable imposition to conclude that the reasonable person would refuse consent solely on the basis of a persons HIV status if viral load is undetectable, or condoms are used, or a low-risk form of sex is engaged in. So it doesn’t meet the most basic legal criteria for criminalisation for lack of consent.

Ah, but you see, unless you can define homosexuality, a gay woman could be a male heterosexual.

Quite. As many such male people do indeed style themselves.

Seems to echo the online ‘activists’ who target children and young people work ‘in your family now’. Who was the woman who used to wear a rainbow bear jumper - something along the lines of mama bear fighting for rainbow cubs again nasty old parents who don’t understand?

"So there is zero risk to someone having sex with a person with an undetectable viral load."

Provided the undetectable viral load is still undetectable.

I DO know that people have regular check ups.

So, what you are saying is that no person could have any interaction with their medication that causes it to not work. And that no person would ever neglect their medication or their check ups. Ever.

Good to know.

Umm - who is to know? The person with HIV does. You know that HIV+ people on treatment have regular check ups on their viral load.

There is more chance of someone with a common cold passing that on to a sexual partner than someone with an undetectable viral load.

So there is zero risk to someone having sex with a person with an undetectable viral load.

Who is to know if a person’s medication is working (due to other interactions for example) or if that person has maintained their medication? It absolutely removes the consent of someone to not know that they have to make a choice about any sexually transmitted infection. Particularly one that can kill someone.

Umm no. That’s not what it says at all.

It says that the law should not criminalise a faikure to disclose.

Which of course makes sense -why would we criminalise someone who is HIV+ with an undetectable viral load for not disclosing that to a sexual partner?

@ Datun
It seems clear that they DON'T think anyone with HIV/AIDS should inform sexual partners! Horrible.

No. I cannot lay claim to that part of the world at all.

Hmmm.

Because some posts are deleted immediately while others languish....

I can think of at least two prominent TW who advocate this approach, along with "you can contact me in private". Huge safeguarding issue.

"Dolt"? Are you Scottish? -.-

Ahh! Thanks for that, what a numpty I am.

You said the word starting with c and rhymes with dolt. That word and the community you were discussing cannot be mentioned together.

@Moomoola I was down my local shopping centre yesterday & was actually surprised at the lack of rainbow shite everywhere... Primark had their window campaign, Schuh had a pride sticker, Flying Tiger had a rainbow themed type window but nothing ort... River Island etc had nothing which was very refreshing.. It's not as in your face as other years.

Must be a mistake

Eh? What was that? And why was I deleted so quickly?