Why are Primark promoting "Found Family"

[WandaWomblesaurus]

www.primark.com/en-us/a/inspiration/special-occasions/celebrating-found-families

"A Found Family Is About Finally Feeling Whole, Something That Might Be Absent In Your Biological Family, Like A Full Set Of Acrylic Nails Or A Good Pair Of Fake Lashes. It’s A Community You Choose, Whose Values And Honesty Speak To Your Own."
- Jude & Michael, Germany

What???

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.

Baddies are people using the Q word.

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?

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.

www.tht.org.uk/hiv-and-sexual-health/being-diagnosed-hiv/telling-people/sexual-partners

Indeed.

So non-disclosure of HIV status in itself is not regarded as a rape in the UK - with good reason. The HIV+ person in England and Wales who is undetectable or uses a condom cannot be prosecuted.

I think a queer person using the term queer is nowhere near the level of nastiness that comes with losing your shit over a company donating money to an LGBT+ homeless charity (per other threads on this board) or railing against the sort of support networks that LGBT+ have depended on for generations.

I should clarify that my previous post - written in haste - was slightly misleading.

The test would not actually be whether the reasonable person would consent to sex with someone with a negligible or zero risk of HIV transmission. The reasonable person test actually applies the other way around.

So the question is whether the reasonable person, being HIV+, would know that the person they are having sex with would refuse consent if they knew about their HIV status.

In asking for evidence that they would not, in most circumstances, I think you misunderstand the concept of a reasonable person. It is not based on some quantifiable evidence of what people think. It is a legal concept built on logic and reasoning, and assumes the reasonable person is in possession of the appropriate evidence and facts.

If Jack has sex with James, knows that he is HIV+, but also knows that his viral load is undetectable (because Jack knows that at his last check up it was undetectable, and he knows he has taken his medication as prescribed since then) then there is no basis at all on which to think a 'reasonable person' would conclude that James would not consent to sex if he knew Jack's HIV status (assuming consent is present for all other purposes).

But of course don't take my word for it - I am describing the law as it is now. If the contrary were true, and a reasonable person would be expected to know their sexual partner would not consent to sex if they knew their HIV status, then that would constitute rape under England and Wales law. But the CPS has not prosecuted a single case that I am aware of based on this principle.

So the CPS certainly doesn't seem to consider that the HIV+ person knows, or reasonably ought to know, that consent would not be given if the sexual partner knew about HIV status.

And yet, as Eresh thankfully posted, there it is.

The only reason for not telling a prospective partner that you're HIV+ is because you think they might refuse to have sex with you or restrict how you have sex with them. By implication, concealing your HIV+ status from a partner is denying them informed consent.

There what is?

The law does not treat non-disclosure of HIV status as rape, as would be implied by your claim that it automatically vitiates consent.

The only reason? Really?

You don’t think medical privacy and avoiding stigma play any part in that desire to not disclose a HIV status that you know causes no risk for a sexual partner?

The concept of ‘informed consent’ also doesn’t exist in the law of sexual offences - except at a very basic level about deception as to the nature of the act (the famous case being the choirmaster who told an intellectually disabled girl that oral sex was a means of improving her vocal chords).

But beyond that there is no provision that consent to sex be informed by anything in particular - whether that’s HIV status or anything else.

Your morality is in the toilet.

Because I’m describing how the law works?

What other areas of non-disclosure of issues that carry zero risk to a sexual partner do you think should be charged as rape?

Should it be a requirement that someone disclose a mental health condition to a sexual partner?

What about disclosing a heart condition?

https://www.gendermapper.org/post/the-secret-tactics-of-glitter-moms-a-tale-of-betrayal-and-grooming

I think this is part of it. - or rather this is the harsher , realistic side of found family

Should it be a requirement that someone disclose a mental health condition to a sexual partner?

What about disclosing a heart condition?

They aren't transmissible via sexual intercourse, are they? You know that's a disingenuous comparison.

As pp said, it won't be "zero risk". The only way to be zero risk is for neither party to be HIV positive.

That is just not true.

There are HIV+ people who know, with 100% certainty, that they cannot transmit HIV to a sexual partner. Their HIV status is no more relevant to a sexual partner than their mental health, and less relevant than a minor but transmissable illness like a cold.

Thank you @TeaKlaxon, I’ve been reading your very knowledgable posts with interest.

It is very rare that science says zero risk. However in this case where someone is on effective meds with undetectable viral load they literally cannot pass it on, so zero risk is true. This is endorsed by all major World Health Organization worldwide. The evidence is backed up by studies going back over 20 years of which the Partner study was the clincher (actually there were 2 Partner studies).
https://i-base.info/htb/32308

Unfortunately lack of knowledge, refusing to believe the data and stigma still exist as do memories of the past.

As pp said, there are reasons the antiretroviral drugs might become less effective. You can say there is zero risk if your viral load is below a certain level as has been researched, you cannot say there is zero risk altogether for a given individual as they unknowingly may not be below that level at a point they have intercourse.

For instance, proton pump inhibitors:

Therefore, concurrent use of proton pump inhibitors and antiretrovirals is a common practice in the clinical setting. However, this practice may alter antiretroviral pharmacokinetics and lead to treatment failure due to inadequate drug exposure.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17428151/#:~:text=Therefore%2C%20concurrent%20use%20of%20proton,due%20to%20inadequate%20drug%20exposure.

Maybe let people make their own mind up? It's deeply unethical to not tell them when you think they might not want to have sex with you because of it.

And alternative medicine, for which interactions are even less likely to be known about by clinicians.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1198743X20302275

Are we talking ethics or the law? Do you have any data showing that someone with an undetectable VL has passed the virus on to any partner? The studies linked bear out the facts which are endorsed by relevant organisations. Where would it help the World Health Organisation and others or us if people thought to be UD then pass HIV on to their partners?

Our HIV clinicians are well aware that other treatments might interact which is why we're all made aware of the Liverpool Interactions website and advised on anything specific that might interact with our particular regime. For me it's supplements like magnesium which I take - and are fine to take at the other end of the day with no impact. We are asked what we're taking including any alternative medications at our regular check ups. Goodness - St John's Wort mentioned in the link above is know universally to react with pretty much anything else https://www.hiv-druginteractions.org/checker. With any other consultant/health condition they usually ask what meds we are on when prescribing something and we go from there. If there were to be an interaction it's not like we suddenly become massively infectious. It takes time and would be picked up at our regular tests.

For myself I have had an undetectable viral load for 6 years now - since 1 month (the first blood test) post my diagnosis and starting meds. The machine measures to <20 and the studies were done on a viral load of <200 so quite a bit higher. I and my clinic have no reason to believe that anything will change. If I miss the odd dose it will make (and has made) no difference - we know there is an allowance for this.

We know the facts and we know the science. It is up to anyone else on if they also wish to believe this. I get there would be concern if we were to share our status due to the history of HIV. Thankfully there are those that are happy to learn and have healthy and happy relationships and families with no risk to them.

Anyone contemplating having sex with someone new of course there might be risks until testing on both sides has been done and taking into acount any window period where something recently contracted might not show up. This is why condome are usually used. I know that I am less risk than someone I have sex with and trust plays a part in what someone tells you.

Condoms do not excuse you making an informed decision on someone else's behalf. You know the risks, the other party doesn't. You should tell them. It's an awkward moment but that's part of growing up.

Fully agree with @PatatiPatatras. It's a consent issue, ethically. I hope you are able to enjoy mutually pleasurable sex within a framework of informed consent.

Part of growing up? That’s rather patronising apart from the fact I am quite grown up thanks. It’s absolutely my choice if I wish to tell any sexual partner of my status, regardless of condom wearing - although as mentioned I would insist on them being worn and would expect them to do so too.