Let's bring someone with HIV into the pig pile

submitted by jet199 from (reddit.com)

all 31 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Conqueeftador 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

Every time I get even a small glimpse into the goings-on of the poly community, I appreciate my traditional monogamous marriage even more. It might not be everyone's idea of an exciting life, some people would even call me vanilla for being happy with just one man. Maybe I am boring, but at least I'll never have to worry if I missed my daily dose of the hardcore medication I have to take to avoid catching AIDS from a dynamic roster of sexual partners 👍🏼

[–]jet199[S] 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Frankly if you look at how these poly people organise their relationships, literally with rotas and contracts, I can't think of anything less exciting. This person is having a week long discussion with their lovers over whether to fuck someone or not when that should be an instantly instinctual reaction. And apparently that's considered consensual when it's clear they don't want to and have to be talked/pressured/guilted into it.

Just layers and layers of bullshit to avoid intimacy and vulnerability.

[–]Alienhunter 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

I look at these sorts of posts and just laugh at how stupid it is. People are free to live their lives how they want, but it's like they have to ask the internet for a fucking concensus to their own choices like they are some Borg drone or something.

Polycule social dynamics being generally unstable notwithstanding. The answer to this is fucking obvious. Don't bring someone with HIV into your sex circle unless you want everyone to catch HIV. We're I somehow ok with this polygamous situation and one of the partners was going to say "hey we are bringing an HIV positive person into the sex pile" I'd be like, no you aren't or I'm done. Actually I'd not even give them the chance to choose no, if they are asking they've already had sex with them, so you just leave, unless you want HIV.

And if you're the one asking "how do I introduce the HIV positive person into the polycule in a way that won't break it" you are too retarded to have sex anyway.

[–]Conqueeftador 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Only bigots are afraid of HIV! Come on people it's 2023, StIgMaS aRe OuTdAtEd

Literally, that is the sentiment in that thread. Inclusivity now means being willing to catch an incurable disease to avoid making the carrier feel bad.

Mindboggling.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Only bigots are afraid of HIV! Come on people it's 2023

This but unironically. HIV is not the AIDS of 1990. Its a manageable disease like Hep B, herpes, chlamydia.

Inclusivity now means being willing to catch an incurable disease to avoid making the carrier feel bad.

If someone you loved -- wife, husband, son, daughter -- caught an incurable infectious disease, one which cannot be cured but can be managed, what would you do? Abandon them and move on?

"Sorry hubby to hear that you caught hepatitis B from a blood transfusion, but you're dead to me now."

"Son, sorry to hear about your Zika caught while on a tour of duty in Africa, but I can never see you again."

I can just feel the waves of love flowing off you.

[–]Conqueeftador 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yes cause not wanting to be infected with an incurable disease means I will definitely abandon sick loved ones. I've had friends who died of AIDS, it may be "manageable" nowadays but I still don't want it. Just like I don't want hep B, chlamydia, herpes, or any other STD.

But that's fine, I'll add "doesn't want diseases" to the ever-growing list of things that make me a bigot.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I will definitely abandon sick loved ones.

Well at least you have admitted what sort of person you are.

[–]Conqueeftador 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Lol well that's not the gotcha you think it is but thank you for such a perfect example of progressive thinking. Someone disagreed with you so you instantly jump to maligning their character by cherry-picking a snippet of a single comment, stripping out ALL relevant context and obvious sarcasm, then proudly present it as proof of your radically incorrect yet strongly held conclusions that anyone who disagrees with you is a Bad Person.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You literally said that you would "definitely abandon sick loved ones", because you don't want to catch the disease.

obvious sarcasm

Right, suuuure it was. (Now that's sarcasm.)

anyone who disagrees with you is a Bad Person.

No, just people who think that people who have manageable diseases don't deserve to be part of a loving relationship.

In this thread, people seem to have forgotten that we're discussing actual human beings who want to have a relationship, and you're saying that they are the bad people.

Fuck that.

[–]Conqueeftador 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yep. Sharing partners goes directly against our hardwired need for emotional intimacy. Every poly 'relationship' I've ever encountered- either online or in real life- has consisted of one narcissist incapable of functioning without a constant running tap of external attention and validation, their original partner who's so terrified to be alone that they just go along with whatever the other wants at the expense of both their mental and physical health, and a revolving cast of degenerate coomers taking advantage of both of them for meaningless sex. I have never once seen a 'polycule' consisting of mentally healthy, mature, emotionally secure people who all actively chose that arrangement without any coercion.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sharing partners goes directly against our hardwired need for emotional intimacy.

Because we are only capable of emotional intimacy with one single person in our life. If they die or leave, we'll never ever be able to move on and fall in love with another person. Gotcha.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

apparently that's considered consensual when it's clear they don't want to and have to be talked/pressured/guilted into it.

Apparently it's considered consensual when I go off to work too 🙁

Not all consent is enthusiastic consent. People often have to be convinced, talked, pulled, pushed, pressured, guilted and sometimes even threatened into doing things that they otherwise don't want to do.

I don't think that my wife wants to do the ironing, but she does it because somebody has to and that's how we agreed to divide up the chores.

[–]NastyWetSmear 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

I think my favourite part is how the Mod locks the thread and answers the question, as though this wild ride of right and wrong and personal responsibility had a "Right" answer all along and they were tired of people not getting the answer right and just decided to give them the answer... Like the Mods on Reddit have a morality answer sheet given to them by God that, if the thread isn't getting it, they have divine permission to reveal the answer like it's a quiz night and everyone has given their guess already.

"Is it right for me to tell my friend that their partner might be cheating on them?"
"Tough question. If you can't be sure, maybe you should keep your nose out of it. You don't really want to ruin things with suspicion if you aren't certain."
"You owe it to them to tell them! You should be able to share concerns with your friends."

"Okay, I'm locking this thread! The answer was: Send an anonymous letter with the information in it. I'm so disappointed you aren't all exactly as moral as I am! I shouldn't have to read the answers to life's problems out like this. See me after class!"

[–]Alienhunter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It comes pretty close to breaking Saidit rules but I'd say you have a moral obligation to stop someone who is spreading a fatal disease to people without their consent. If you choose to interpret that as "telling everyone they are HIV positive" that interpretation does not break the rules of this website.

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I'm not sure what you mean. You mean the Mod should lock the thread and end all argument?

[–]Alienhunter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Good. That's the general reaction I was hoping for. Plausible deniability.

What I'm saying is that someone who is HIV positive has a duty to let people know before they engage in activity that might spread it. Legality be damned. It is a moral duty. If they don't, other people who know have the duty to inform people of such, again legality be damned. And in extreme situations I'd say they have a moral obligation to stop the person from spreading the disease, by any means necessary, which should hopefully be simply telling people they have the disease.

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Oh, so we're just arguing the mortality of the situation? I was confused because my post was about the Mod of the thread just locking it and stepping in with their answer as though being the Mod and being able to lock the thread makes their answer the only correct one.

If you're asking about my thoughts on the situation, I should preface by saying that some time during the polly mess of fruit names I started to lose track of who was who and gave up with an eye roll and a self-summary of: A new person they want to fuck has HIV and they don't know if they should tell their wife's many boyfriends... That might be not totally accurate and more than a little facetious, so if I miss any important details, that's my fault.

Otherwise, yes, I agree with you. If you have a sexual partner and, for some reason, there's a risk of exposing that person to an STI of any kind, you should let them know. In the case of one that can be permanent and life threatening, I'd say you're all the more obliged. The idea that it's okay because this person takes medication to keep it under control and this reduces the chances of passing it on doesn't seem like a strong argument - If the chances aren't 0 and it relies on their commitment to a daily routine, you really are at the mercy of human error.

I know there's an argument being made that you have a greater chance of catching HIV from someone who has had sex since they were last tested than from someone on the medication, but I think that's wishful thinking. I know the person on HIV medication has HIV, while the person who had a test recently didn't at the time of the test. Asking if they've had unprotected sex since the test and asking if the person with HIV is totally sure they are up on their medication and have a 0% chance to pass the disease on seems to be two sides of the same coin - I can only trust in their honesty and commitment to their own health and safety... The difference being, if the person with HIV is lying or lazy, I'm certain to be at risk, while if the person who has had a test is lying, there's only a chance they've been exposed in the mean time.

I'd agree, they should be cautious and honest.

[–]Alienhunter 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Mods suck in general. Reddit mods are something else. But this is just standard for that site.

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Seconded.

[–]SerpensInferna 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I (a lesbian) briefly dated a (bi) woman who was in a polyamorous relationship. I had never done so before but I was really into her so I decided to give it a go. While I was the only other person she was dating at the time, her boyfriend was extremely active in the sex party scene, and it didn't take me long to realize how deeply uncomfortable I was with that. Lots of sex with random people is just flat-out dangerous, and no method of protection is fool proof.

I'm pretty happy being monogamous and at this point see little benefit to the drama of poly.

[–]jet199[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Give Jada my regards

[–]KyleIsThisTall 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Holy fuck what degeneracu

[–]UncleWillard56 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's funny because I've heard the argument from HIV positive gay people that they shouldn't even have to disclose their status. I saw a vide of a black guy complaining about it (Aba and Preach I believe) and that it's up to the person who has concerns to use a condom. He shouldn't have to divulge his status to anyone, even sexual partners. That just sounds nuts to me.

[–]jet199[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I've also heard them say that they just assume anyone not using a condom must also be HIV positive because why else would you take the risk.

They assume people who are in the fucking around stage have the same worldview as those who found out.

[–]hfxB0oyA 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Based on what I've read, it sounds like this is nearly 100% effective and preventing the spread

If it's "nearly 100% effective" at not giving you AIDS, it's not 100% effective at not giving you AIDS. Personally, I wouldn't want to risk that for what sounds like awful sex with an awful person. Or any sex for that matter.

[–]Evola 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Daily reminder that the only thing keeping them alive is the medical industrial complex outputting at the current rate.

[–]jet199[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And the fact that Indian scientists decided to ignore western patents

[–]Aladin 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Hard to deal with this information. I feel your thoughts Elastic man deeply.

[–]BanditMcFuklebuck 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Junst make sure there u=u!

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

tRuVaDa fOr PreP

[–]TaseAFeminist4Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

All the comments will focus on muh consent and muh feelings. Anyone who posts an actual sane reaction (like, "OMFG run back to your mommy and take like 50 showers you weirdo!") will be PowerShamed.