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???

AIDS and HIV are not the same thing. Please check your ignorance.

Also, undetectable is not 'low risk' it is zero risk.

But yet again, this isn't about what you should do. This is about what the law should mandate you to do.

Should someone who has sex without informing their sexual partner that they've got a cold sore be prosecuted for rape?

It is the virus that causes AIDS so don't be disingenuous.

We don't normally criminalise lack of respect though.

You seem to have also shifted from 'non-disclosure should be a criminal offence' (IIRC you were specific in saying it vitiated consent which would therefore make it the same as rape) to 'non-disclosure is a shitty thing to do'.

But since you've now acknowledged that there are a lot of things you would want to know in advance of having sex with someone and therefore non-disclosure would compromise your consent, including a common cold or a heart condition - can you confirm if you think non-disclosure of those things should also, legally, be treated as rape.

You are the one being disingenuous.

There is no 'AIDS virus'. AIDS isn't a virus, and someone on successful treatment for HIV will never develop AIDS.

You're still shifting the goalposts.

We don't generally criminalise disrespectful or shitty behaviour. We don't criminalise adultery, for example. Do you think we should?

So all of your talk about what is ethical or respectful isn't what's at issue here. What's at issue here is the Feminist Declaration's provisions about what the law says about non-disclosure of HIV status.

Virtually nobody is prosecuted for rape.

No. I have been pointing out the complete irrelevance of your comparators.

They are your own flawed arguments.

You've actually been agreeing with my comparators.

You said that you would want to know if your sexual partner had a heart condition or a cold, and that your consent may be dependent on this knowledge. Just like you would want to know if they were HIV+ with an undetectable viral load.

So my very simple question - since you claim that your consent to sex might be contingent on knowing whether someone has a cold or heart condition - do you think that someone who has sex without disclosing a cold or a heart condition should be criminalised for rape?

There is no 'AIDS virus'.

You may be young, and unaware, but that's what media and common parlance used to refer to it as.

Trust me, I am not unaware of the ignorance that surrounded HIV.

That is not the justification for ongoing ignorance you seem to think it is.

Don't project on to me just because I recognise the moral issues around consent.

I'm projecting nothing. I pointed out that the fact that the media were ignorant and bigoted about HIV thirty years ago isn't an excuse for a poster to be similarly ignorant today.

I don’t think the media (in the uk) were that bad. It initially reported the truth that it was a virus mainly spread by promiscuous gay men (in the bath houses and saunas, etc, where there is no equivalent for women or heterosexual men), and people were frightened about the scope of it because it wasn’t clear exactly how it was transmitted (Could it be saliva? Coughing? Touching?). Princess Diana was famously photographed shaking the hand of a guy with AIDS in hospital which did a lot to dispel those uncertainties and fears. The media made sure that image was spread far and wide - nothing ignorant and bigoted about that.

It became evident that unprotected anal sex or sharing needles was the biggest risk factor (because semen and blood carried it and the vagina walls are better protected and vaginal fluids are not mobile). There was a huge government effort to misinform the public about this, to stop any backlash against gay men, which was pretty successful, to the point that people who were are very low risk of contracting the virus were going and getting tested and those at very high risk struggled to get tested.

It is really tiresome how people are trying to make out that the 80s were like a decade of Puritanism or something. The 70s through to the 80s were highly promiscuous, tolerant and liberal times, the AIDS virus was a massive slap in the face when it came - a wake up call. People can’t party hard and exchange bodily fluids with random people without risk. I think society is still reeling from the shock of that, so we are still more ‘puritanical’ now than people were in the late 60s to the late 80s.

"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)."

Klaxon's entire argument relies on this.

It relies on a person with a HIV diagnosis believing that their partner for sex 'would still' consent to sex knowing that person had the HIV diagnosis.

Please explain why ANY HIV diagnosed person would expect all their potential sex partners to consent to sex knowing they had HIV?

It relies on a person with a HIV diagnosis believing that their partner for sex 'would still' consent to sex knowing that person had the HIV diagnosis.

And in that case, why wouldn't you tell them?

Still not answering the question.

What do you actually think the law should be?

I think this is the crux of what is so wrong with all this stuff.

Diversity and inclusion used to be all about soliciting opinions, listening, temperature-checking, learning, in order to not make assumptions which exclude people.

It seems that a generation have stuck a stick in the spokes to stop that feedback loop from turning.

They’re like…

”No need to ask for consent. We are the generation who know what people want. We don’t listen and learn, we educate and hold others to account.”

So sad that decades of learning are now back at square one.

I think the law should be that people who don’t disclose should be prosecuted with attempted actual bodily harm or recklessness which could endanger life, manslaughter.

I think it is confusing to call it rape.

But then again sexually abusing someone by tricking them into something they don’t consent to is still sexual abuse.

Non-disclosure of what?

Just HIV?

All STIs?

Any issue that consent might hinge on for a sexual partner (e.g. Hellofabore said she might not consent to sex on the basis of a cold or a heart condition)?

Also the manslaughter/endangerment of life doesn't given that someone with HIV will generally be able to live a completely normal life, with normal life expectancy.

It’s actual/grievous bodily harm to give someone an incurable disease and make them life-long dependent medical patients.

Knowingly giving people STIs is also assault.

Also, women with HIV aren’t allowed to breastfeed their babies.

Also the manslaughter/endangerment of life doesn't given that someone with HIV will generally be able to live a completely normal life, with normal life expectancy.

That's a first world view, which isn't true in some other countries around the world.

Indeed. These people rely upon the affordability and access to the drugs. If something happens to the supply chain and they aren’t able to get them, they are in trouble.

It never, ever ceases to amaze me what boundaries are removed once you believe that men should have none.