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???

TeaKlaxon

There are plenty of people who wouldn't sleep with someone with HIV. Even if the risks are painstaking explained. For a variety of reasons. And even more people once they knew it hasn't been disclosed at the outset.

I understand your belief in whether it should be criminalised rests on the risk of transmission.

But for others it rests on lack of consent. Which the person who was HIV positive would be well aware of, making it worse.

I just want to clearly explain that. I don't have any questions, because I know what your answers will be.

It's my understanding that transwomen are at a far, far greater risk of HIV than other cohorts.

I think this explains it! But it's double Dutch to me.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4965251/

If it’s your view that non-disclosure of HIV status even in a zero risk scenario amounts to sex without consent, that depends on the test described upthread - would a reasonable person who is HIV+ know that their sexual partner does not consent (or would not consent if they knew).

So where does that test end? If it’s about consent, then surely any issue that might cause someone not to consent to sex should be disclosed? And failure to disclose would be tantamount to rape according to your logic.

I just want to clearly explain that. I don't have any questions, because I know what your answers will be.

🤷‍♀️

You're not exactly unpredictable, Tea.

Perfectly put.

Well indeed. My posts are fact based so anyone with access to google can predict what I’m going to say.

It's an ethical consent issue. You can slice it however you like, but it's morally wrong to decide for someone about a risk to themselves, however tiny.

And the active deception does make it worse.

”So where does that test end? If it’s about consent, then surely any issue that might cause someone not to consent to sex should be disclosed? And failure to disclose would be tantamount to rape according to your logic.”

And it keeps coming back to your deliberate polarisation of the issue. You bring in irrelevant examples (heart condition, mental health) but this is a sexually transmitted infection that is dramatically life changing.

You can keep playing this down. However, you also only portray the best scenario. Even IF the person I was about to have sex with had an effectively zero risk, I would want to know. Because I am not someone who wants to have the decision removed from me. It is not that hard really. A person who has tested positive in the past is not the person who has just had their right of consent removed by another person. And if that relationship was to be more than a one off, what then? When would the partner be told? Because I sure would not be staying with a partner who ‘assumed’ my consent in that way.

It is really remarkable what some people declare is their right to privacy when in fact it is foundational to consent for others.

No, no, no, I don't need Google! we've seen it loads.

You want to make sure that there are no consequences for someone who doesn't disclose whether they are HIV positive to a potential partner.

And you'll use any and every analogy to do so What about this? Is this rape? What about that? Or this??

No? A ha! See!!

Tedious.

And if that relationship was to be more than a one off, what then? When would the partner be told? Because I sure would not be staying with a partner who ‘assumed’ my consent in that way.

It is really remarkable what some people declare is their right to privacy when in fact it is foundational to consent for others.

This. And we often see that the same people feel that whether a person is male or female is "their privacy and not anyone else's business" in a similar situation where the person is not open to sexual relations with a member of their actual sex. The law may disagree, currently, although I see there is some gender ideology pandering in the current online guidelines.

Apologies, italic fail! Meant to quote @Helleofabore

Again, I'm specifically discussing what the law ought and ought not to criminalise.

In which case then whatever complaints Datun has, you do then need to grapple with what that means for any other decisions that have no actual impact or risk on a sexual partner but which they might want to know.

Because if you're applying this to zero-risk HIV, but not, say, to the common cold (someone with the common cold has more chance of transmitting that during sex than someone with undetectable HIV) you need to explain why.

You're unwillingness to use google is painfully obvious.

Do you think if you grounded your argument slightly more in fact and logic - both around the law and the science - you might be able to have a bit more of an informed discussion?

If that's not your bag, I guess there's always the Daily Mail.

@ HIV pos
So knowing you have the AIDS virus you still don't think it necessary to tell your sexual partners. It may be undetectable in assays but it is still there and so carries an infection risk however low.

Yes. If a person has a common cold and I am about to kiss them, I would also expect them to tell me. Because I that would interfere with my immediate plans for the future.

Goodness. It really is not that hard.

YOU might not let a common cold stop you from having sex, but considering my vulnerability to colds, I fucking would choose differently. And it has to do with respect.

And you certainly cannot see the ethics involved, it is clear.

I have HIV - human immunodeficiency virus. AIDS is not a virus in itself, it’s the name for a group of illnesses that untreated HIV might lead to.

The virus being undetectable in blood tests means it is also undetectable in genital secretions. For relevance six months is given after the first undetectable result to allow for this although thought by many HCPs to not be needed. Undetectable at this point means zero risk. The legal aspect has been shared in other posts, including the link to the THT website.

If you want to read more, I linked all the studies that led to this being endorsed by world health organisations upthread. Will link again here https://i-base.info/htb/32308
The science bears out the fact, however clearly there will always be those who are resistant to believing this, make assumptions and stigma around the condition will continue.

The virus itself can be quite easily treatable nowadays. I just take one pill a day just as I might take a vitamin D pill a day in winter. However, the mental health challenges around it can be far more of a challenge for many of us, especially when being on the receiving end of stigma or seeing it happen to others.

It only takes 1 virion!

Goodness. It really is not that hard.

It would appear it is for certain people determined to have sex without informing their partner of something that would otherwise remove their consent.

Same old entitlement. Depressing really.

Haha!! I missed this!

Withholding information that would affect sexual consent isn't the high ground you seem to imagine.

And yes, you should tell someone if you haves a cold! Or a cold sore coming.

Strewth.

And also, yes, I think I would like to know if a person I was about to have sex with had a heart condition that could mean they die in the process of having sex.

OR if that person was someone I was just about to have sex with that I viewed as someone I potentially wanted a long term relationship with.

There are many considerations before committing to a long term relationship, and I believe that before I take a relationship forward, I do expect that potential partner to be up front about any life limiting or life shortening condition that they know about.

It is called respect.

It seems that some people really do believe that they can 'assume' other's consent for them and just assume that this person in front of them will still want sex if they knew the truth.

And it is also noticeable that some people will use polarised examples (cold vs HIV status) to emotionally manipulate other's to try to make their point. Forgetting that basic respect is that you don't fucking expose your sex partners to a fucking cold when you know you are getting one or have one!

Or maybe some people are so determined that they have their sexual needs satisfied that basic respect for other people and what other people might wish to know before engaging is just twisted to suit the person who wants that sexual need fulfilled. NO! if you know you have a cold coming or are infectious with a cold virus, don't fucking give it to your sex partner!

Again, we're talking about the law here, not ethics. Unless you think the law should criminalise anything unethical.

So do you think the law should criminalise someone who has sex with someone without telling them that they've got a cold? Do you think that should be prosecuted as rape on the basis of lack of consent?