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???

Quite.

This is actually incorrect if you'd like to do a little research. Things have moved on and more is known re risk

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hiv-drug-resistance#:~:text=HIV%20drug%20resistance%20is%20caused,emergence%20of%20drug%2Dresistant%20virus.

HIV drug resistance is caused by changes in the genetic structure of HIV that affect the ability of medicines to block the replication of the virus. All antiretroviral drugs, including those from newer drug classes, are at risk of becoming partially or fully inactive due to the emergence of drug-resistant virus

Drug resistance threatens us all.

So this is suggesting going backwards instead of forwards and disregarding the proof that exists now that someone with HIV and an undetectable VL cannot pass the virus on. Therefore there is no transmission risk so no ABH, GBH or other law broken. The studies conclusively proving this used a VL of <200 as the benchmark. Nowadays the machines are so sensitive they measure down to <20.

As previously requested to someone else can you find any data where someone with an UD VL has transmitted the virus to someone else? If this were to happen it would make headlines everywhere - and then some!

But I'm not talking about intentional transmission.

I'm talking about non-disclosure.

We're talking about the legal position in England and Wales. Keep up.

You are splitting hairs.

Testing first before starting meds to find if there are any we are resistant to, then taking meds regularly means drug resistance does not happen. Also as mentioned above discussing anything else we are taking at regular checkups and so on.

You seem unwilling to believe the science and proof of U=U, yet here is no data to say otherwise - unless you can find any?

Yes, I have been reading about how drug resistance occurs with the HIV virus. Apparently it only takes the occasional missing dose.

Actually there is a massive difference between the two.

No, I'm really really not.

There is a massive difference between someone who has a detectable viral load knowingly having unprotected sex with someone in the knowledge that there is a reasonable prospect that they could transmit the virus, and that person then becoming HIV+,

and someone who has an undetectable viral load having sex - protected or unprotected - in the knowledge that there is no prospect that they could transmit the virus and that person then, of course, does not become HIV+.

It's bizarre that you think the distinction between those two scenarios is 'splitting hairs'.

oh dear - this is also incorrect. Meds nowadays allow for the odd missed dose. I've missed a few over the past few years with no issue. There were studies done once on 5/2 where people took meds for 5 days and then stopped for 2 if you want to do a search.

thanks Klaxon - was losing the will there for a minute

From the perspective of the sexual partner, it is splitting hairs. They are not being given the opportunity to withdraw consent.

I think that any person who does not disclose something that has serious implications has had sex without consent.

All that you and other posters have done is tell us that it is all very safe and that no one should have any concerns at all. While totally ignoring that if that person is wrong about their effectively zero count, and it could be completely innocent, that the sex partner has had their consent removed.

All Klaxon's but what about 'colds' and what about 'heart condition' has been to try and equate these instances as equal or worse. Worse because if, and that relies on trust that 'if' the HIV virus is fully controlled there is less risk. But if it is not, then it is a life limiting act of sex that has taken place.

I would expect all partners to be fully informed and be able to make their own decision as to whether they fully trust the person they are about to have sex with. I think it is incredible that we have posters here who believe that ALL their sex partners would consent if they were fully informed and therefore make the assume of consent on behalf of that partner. I also suspect that some people have much lower boundaries around sex and consent than I have.

I don't agree that your comparators are 'comparators'. Because the consequences if someone is not as non-infectious as they believe are, are not comparative.

That's just not true.

The occasional missed dose would not be sufficient to develop drug resistance. But even if it did, that is precisely why HIV+ people regularly have their viral load checked.

As a pp has pointed out, the point at which there is zero risk of transmission has been tested as 200 particles/ml. But undetectable means below 20 particles/ml.

Which means that for someone who is undetectable to go from that position to being a risk of transmission, their viral load would need to increase by at least ten times. That does not happen from an concessional missed dose.

You think there is no meaningful difference for a sexual partner, between scenario 1, where they were exposed to the risk of HIV and become HIV+; and scenario 2 where they are not exposed to any risk of HIV and do not become HIV+.

You're really trying to tell me that both scenarios are essentially the same for the sexual partner?

Define serious implications?

You said that your consent to sex might be conditional on whether someone had a cold or a heart condition.

I know you keep talking as if people who are HIV+ cannot know for certain if their viral load is undetectable. But they can. And they do. About 90% of them in fact. The people I know who are HIV+ are the most in tune with their bodies people I know, precisely because their own health depends on them being.

I've seen them fret about missing a dose because they couldn't get to the pharmacy on time. I've seen them religiously moving mountains to get to their check ups.

The hypothetical person who fails to disclose because they claim - falsely - to have an undetectable viral load is not relevant here. I am talking about the person who has sex in the total knowledge that their viral load is undetectable. You seem to think that person has raped his or her sexual partner.

From the perspective of the sexual partner, they are having their right to withdraw consent violated.

The intention of the perpetrator might be to actively harm or just to get their rocks off. Yes the first seems more evil, but lots of people commit crimes when in their own heads they just want to get off and find obtaining consent a hurdle they’d rather not bother with.

And yet, I have read several sources just this morning who have warned just as I have said.

"I know you keep talking as if people who are HIV+ cannot know for certain if their viral load is undetectable. But they can. And they do. About 90% of them in fact. The people I know who are HIV+ are the most in tune with their bodies people I know, precisely because their own health depends on them being."

So. '90% of them in fact!'

"You seem to think that person has raped his or her sexual partner."

And there it is again. That absolutist, hyperbole driven and polarised speech that is deployed to emotionally manipulate any person reading or posting.

We can stipulate here that in both situations, the sexual partner is consenting to sex.

So you really think that consensual sex where you are deliberately exposed to risk, and then become HIV+, versus consensual sex where you are exposed to no risk and do not become HIV+ are pretty much the same from the perspective of a sexual partner?

Yes. 90% of them. The 90% with undetectable viral loads. I'm not talking about the 10% with detectable viral loads, who I certainly agree have different levels of legal obligations.

So for the 90% who have undetectable viral loads who you want to criminalise for non-disclosure, why do you continue to pretend that HIV+ people don't know their own viral loads?

As for hyperbole - you keep telling us that non-disclosure of HIV status = vitiated consent. What is sex without consent if not rape? If you don't think it is rape (and I agree) then you should explain why.

Because in this country rape requires sex with a penis does it not? Women don't have penises and yet can infect partners too.