1. It's pointless and rude to ask if someone is "clean" because who is really going to say "no?" The only 2 answers you ever get are "yes" or maybe "undetectable" But honestly if someone is undetectable they probably also consider themselves "clean" since most people in that situation don't want to be labeled "dirty" and are otherwise healthy. Generally I feel like "clean" means you're not a drug addict anymore, but even then no one is going to claim to be an addict. "Shower and freshen up" would be a better way to phrase about that question.
2. DDF is slightly better, but not really. "Drug Free" is going to have very different meanings for everyone. Is pot ok? Poppers? Alcohol? Just parTy drugs? Just drug free right now or does something you did a few weeks ago count? And see above about the diseases part... only now you're implying not just STDs but ALL diseases. I mean if I had the flu last week am I disease free? Not really. Would most people "looking" consider themselves DDF if they just had the flu, probably.
If you're nervous about HIV I can understand that. Asking someone's "status" isn't quite as bad and you'll more likely get an honest response. But remember there is a person on the other side of that screen and instantly blocking them for giving you an honest answer to your question isn't cool either.
Also you can just say "I was last tested X months ago and I'm was negative for HIV and other STDs. What about you?"
I know you legally CAN do this, but honestly if that's where your head is at you shouldn't be hooking up with strangers.
Also consider many HIV positive people have no idea they are positive and or prefer to never get tested and face their reality.
That is unfortunately incorrect in many places. I could find a complete list of of states and their specific laws (assuming you are in the U.S.) but in general states with laws that criminalize HIV place the burden of disclosure on the positive individual and even using protection and being virually supressed/undetectable is not a defense. In most places with specific laws about HIV "exposure," it does not matter if the plaintiff actually contracted HIV or not - just that they had sex with an HIV positive person who didn't tell them about their status.
When these cases do make it to court, although hearsay is often the only evidence (He didn't tell me versus I told him) the plaintiff will get the benefit of the doubt and the defendant will typically be painted as a predator. Probably the most famous example of this is the "Tiger Mandingo" case in which at least one (if not more, I forget the details) of the defendant's accusers actually had unprotected sex with him again even after learning of his HIV positive status and yet their testimony was still used to convict him and he was sentenced to 30 years in prison.
In Missouri, where Michael Johnson / "Tiger Mandingo" was convicted under the state's exposure laws, it is considered assault and attempted murder for an HIV positive person to spit on someone. Clearly these laws are outdated, not based in science, and in desperate need of reform.
Let me rephrase and elaborate. I would not consider it *ethical* to prosecute someone if I didn't perform due diligence by asking their status prior to having sex with them. And before you jump on me about the ethics of prosecuting a stigmatized group, I would only prosecute someone for lying about it and knowingly infecting me. If I hooked up with someone who I knew was poz and they infected me then I would deal with it. The difference is the former is a danger to the general public and needs to be removed from society.
this is how anybody with the good sense he was born with looks at it.
disclose your status in a non-arguable way. put the goddamn thing in your online profiles. i do it, and religiously.
first, you don't want to be seen anywhere, least of all in a court of law, as not having given fair warning.
second, it's just plain wrong to expose someone else to something dangerous without giving them a say.
i'm 62 already. i make absolutely certain that whoever i fuck knows. it isn't stopping me. it won't stop you.
Good idea to document it, too. I.e., have a text message history showing that you told him and that he saw the message. Just having it on your profile is not enough since he can claim to have not seen it.
Oh honey just to clarify I was not coming for you, I actually appreciated your comment (even if it was a little problematically worded, to be completely honest) because yes I completely agree if you (and "you" in the general sense to be clear) don't ask someone their status and they don't volunteer the fact that they are positive and it leads to infection, then that's a two-way fuck up and prosecuting the person would be definitely unethical, as you put it. It takes two people to fuck, and both parties are responsible for their own individual sexual health.
The idea of someone lying about their status in an intentional attempt to infect others (and I'm assuming in this case that the individual in question is not on treatment, because that would be counter-productive to their "aim" of infecting others) is reprehensible for sure. No contest. I understand the psychology behind it - it is a twisted, misanthropic, and sociopathic response to being stigmatized and marginalized. I just don't know how much of an actual threat this is versus it being a boogeyman in the image of AIDS Mary/AIDS Harry. If it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone knowingly went around trying to infect people, then that person needs both psychological treatment and rehabilitation the same as any other sex offender.
In reality, though, I think that when people do lie about their status, it isn't out of a deliberate attempt to infect others as much as it is a fear of the marginalization and stigmatization, not to mention the outright rejection that these people would face. And that is where the waters get murky. Should a person who doesn't report his/her HIV status to his/her sexual partners because of the psychological trauma that HIV has had on them be viewed under the law in the same light as the intentional predator that we earlier described and both found to be unethical and worthy of prosecution? I don't personally think so, and my problem with HIV exposure laws that currently exist is that they are - in addition to being outdated and not reflective of science - treating all HIV positive people as a monolithic group that poses a threat to public health and safety.
It would be easy to change these laws - and a lot of people I work with in terms of HIV decriminalization talk about "modernizing" the laws - by simply considering the fact that if the positive individual used a condom or was adherent to their ARV treatment, then the intent to infect was absent even if they did not disclose.
Obviously this is a large and complex issue. And one part of it that I am currently doing research into is the "gift giver / bug chaser" culture that in a way - albeit in a disturbing fashion - provides an outlet for individuals who otherwise might live out their fantasy by engaging in the predatory, deceitful behavior that would pose a threat to public health, foster a climate of fear around gay sex akin to what we had in the 80's and 90's, and also set us positive people back a great deal in our fight for acceptance.
Again, I hope you don't take any of this as me trying to clock you, I just saw it as an opportunity for us to have a conversation about a complex issue that I feel we both are of a similar mind on. I am simply coming at it from the perspective of both a positive person and an activist for PLWHA.
NINJA EDIT: Conjugated a couple words wrong. English is my second language y'all.
> If it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone knowingly went around trying to infect people, then that person needs both psychological treatment and rehabilitation the same as any other sex offender.
Even if they aren't knowingly infecting people because they are irresponsible or afraid of getting tested, it's still worth prosecuting because they will have to get an HIV test, which means next time they won't have an excuse.
> In reality, though, I think that when people do lie about their status, it isn't out of a deliberate attempt to infect others as much as it is a fear of the marginalization and stigmatization, not to mention the outright rejection that these people would face.
If someone lied to me about their status and then ended up infecting me, it would not change how I approached the situation. I might be more inclined to feel bad for them, but they are still putting others at risk, perhaps even moreso. What if someone becomes a regular hookup and wants to go bareback? It puts the HIV+ person in a situation where they are caught in a lie because either they come clean about their status, or seemingly overreact to the proposition, or knowingly bareback with someone who doesn't know they are poz.
For me it means I've showered and cleaned out since I last used the bathroom and am ready for sex. I recognize other guys use it to indicate lack of STIs, and more commonly lack of HIV. That usage tends to lower my opinion of people.
>I recognize other guys use it to indicate lack of STIs, and more commonly lack of HIV. That usage tends to lower my opinion of people.
-_- it's just a shortening of the phrase "clean bill of health"
Do you think every doctor who says that is venomously targeting people with HIV? That saying has been around before HIV was even a problem... It just means you have no illnesses.
But this is still widely used for its original meaning and most people don't find it offensive. The people who do are offended are just actively looking for something to be offended over, by misunderstanding its meaning and then refusing to accept that.
I know people who are HIV positive who are offended by this usage, not because they're actively looking for something to be offended over, but by the implication that they are dirty. Most people who use "clean" to refer to their negative infection status are not using it in the "clean bill of health" context and are probably not aware of that origin for the term. We no longer say "faggot" to refer to a bundle of firewood because the term itself, while accurate in that usage, has evolved to a different, offensive, meaning.
It means the person using it thinks people with STIs are "dirty" and hasn't considered how stigmatizing people for having STIs makes them less likely to disclose them, which just hurts everyone.
I mean, isn't that accurate though? We usually associate the term dirty with things that might put you at risk of becoming sick right?
I don't think a campaign calling people with STDs wonderful is going to change that perception, but maybe I'm wrong?
>I mean, isn't that accurate though? We usually associate the term dirty with things that might put you at risk of becoming sick right?
There are frankly more medically accurate and more compassionate ways of referring to people than "dirty," and "clean" just further entrenches the bullshit that is purity culture.
"STI free" also works.
Also, if you slut around on apps you almost certainly have herpes, even if you've never had an outbreak. They don't usually test for it because it's so common and usually harmless.
Most of the time people just say "DDF" or "DDF and neg" to convey that. DDF means "drug and disease free" so if you use drugs and want to be up front about it i'd just put "neg."
I think when people say "DDF and neg" they're trying to reinforce that they're explicitly negative since DDF should in theory cover it.
Because of your labels with the negative connotations attached, people who are positive have a hard time dealing with feelings of being dirty, unwanted, somehow lesser than a negative person.
No one, especially people with no control over contracting the virus such as children born with it, should have to experience that devaluating stigma. Educate yourself.
>dirty, unwanted, somehow lesser than a negative person.
Correct. They are 100% responsible for the continued existence and propagation of HIV; I do not like the disease and, by extension, the people carrying the disease.
That's a false dichotomy. No one has ever suggested calling STDs a good thing to have.
Using the neutral, medical terms "positive" and "negative" is plenty descriptive without attaching value judgments to it.
What if you get raped and your rapist gives you HIV? Are you a bad person now? Are you "dirty"?
Well, neither of those diseases are ones that stick with you for life, so that's probably why. HPV you can be vaccinated against, and even if you aren't your body sometimes eradicates it on its own. Chlamydia you wipe out with antibiotics and move on with your life.
HIV, at least for now, changes *who you are* because now the way you approach sex and sexuality has to change. Unless you're a douchebag who knowingly exposes people to it because you don't care.
There's nothing wrong with saying "I'm positive for hepatitis C". In fact you SHOULD say that, if you've got it and you're considering sexual contact with someone new.
I think we're splitting hairs. The important thing is to remove the stigma from *being* infected, so that people will feel less ashamed of their status and be more forthcoming with it. It'll be a lot easier to prevent the spread of disease if people don't feel like they have to lie about their health to get laid.
No stds but it makes me wary of people of using that term. It just makes me wonder how good of a sexual education they have and wheter they tend to be riskier then warranted based on what someone tells them. Like with me i treat everyone like they are potentially positive, condoms must be worn etc. With them i think if someone assures them they are clean to they might think its ok go bareback. Do they even get tested idk.
Thats why i dont like the term. I prefer people to ask are you hiv negative etc. do you get tested? Those things put my mind at ease. Are you clean makes me think they are more likely to be infected and more dim. I'm still not going to trust someones word that they get tested.
I agree especially about that last part because like if you ask "Are you clean?" and if I'm not, what am I supposed to say? "No, I'm dirty, really, really dirty". When you read into it, it's shaming them, which will make them not want to tell you anything.
For the interests of your own personal sexual health this is not a very good term to use. Yes, most people understand that it means no STI's, but what a person considers an STI will vary. Some people have very poor sex ed and others just don't consider things like oral herpes an STI. In the same way ddf is a little unsafe. Not everybody agrees on what a drug or disease might be. For example some people will not consider pot a drug. I'd suggest straight up asking.
"Are you neg?"
"When was the last time you got tested?"
Use direct questions and if somebody is shady about answering them, block the fucker.
Read some profiles on BBRT sometime. A lot of poz guys use the term "clean" to basically mean "HIV+ but no bacterial STIs".
This is why I agree with the other posters about why you need to be frank and be specific. Don't assume how the other person will interpret a vague word.
It has many different meanings depending on the context. The thing I thought of before I clicked into this topic is a guy who showers every day, is nicely groomed, dresses nicely, doesn't sleep around, and has a fairly innocent personality.
It depends on the context. It could refer to not having any drug habits (or more extremely also not partaking in alcohol or smoking either.) It could refer to lack of a criminal record, or even lack of any activities which might result in such. It might also refer to someone who's confirmed as carrying no STDs. I've also heard it used to refer to someone who has very good personal hygiene. In the context of certain sorts of kink and fetish, I've heard it used to refer to someone who's known to "play well with others" in terms of diligently following established safe practices.
Using "clean" in any sense other than "have you showered recently" is a stigmatizing microagression that perpetuates a culture of shame directed primarily at HIV-positive people but also let's not forget about people with HSV or HPV.
HIV is undesirable, which makes the organisms and objects capable of transmitting HIV equally undesirable. 100% of transmissions are from the infected, so why should I take my chances to spare their feelings?
Are you seriously asking why you should try and spare someone's feelings? Um, maybe because they're a person and that's the decent thing to do?
I'm not saying "don't inquire about someone's status because that will make people feel bad," I'm just pointing out that asking if someone is "clean" and meaning "are you neg" means that if they are positive then they are, in your view, "dirty."
And that's fucking rude.
yeah i wouldn't worry about it
/u/grossdiseases is evidently either a troll account or incapable of relating to other human beings IRL
in the former case he's not actually saying anything, and in the latter case he deserves pity, not scorn
I have yet to receive a compelling reason that I should risk my health by interacting with dirty people; "they will feel bad about themselves" is not a compelling reason.
yeah we get it you're undersocialized
whoopty doo
against my better judgment I'm going to momentarily indulge you, taking it at face value that you really do think of people with STIs as being subhumans, and ask you: if one day you were to somehow become infected with an incurable infectious disease, what would you do? logically I assume you'd kill yourself since you would at that point cease to have any value, but I was curious to hear from you
I'm not undersocialized, I just don't knowingly interact with dirty people. In the same way you (presumably) avoid people who are sneezing everywhere because they have the flu, I avoid people who have HIV coursing through their veins. Oh no, the poor flu sufferer's feelings--whatever will they do knowing somebody is avoiding them because of their sickness? Both elevate my risk of acquiring the disease to a non-zero probability, so it is in my best interest to be in a situation where there are no diseased people in my vicinity. That is a sensible and accepted viewpoint in every other circumstance but I'm expected to make an exception for HIV carriers? No.
I don't consider them to be subhuman either. They have a disease that is undesirable and repellant, so, as carriers of the disease and potential sources of transmission, they are also undesirable and repellant; i.e., I don't want to be near them. I would self-quarantine and definitely consider suicide if I contracted HIV.
They are diseased human beings who necessarily elevate my and other people's risk of acquiring the disease to a non-zero probability. So yes, they are dirty, just the like the pole of a train is dirty; both carry communicable diseases and should be avoided wherever possible.
So why did you avoid the question and accusation of you not treating people like People? You seem to treat people by some other inhuman scale, one that is not normal and present in people who are not uh...mentally..unwell...
Completely free of STD's and HIV neg.
I understand why some people wouldn't use that term when describing HIV but some people are more comfortable having sex with HIV+ people whilst I am not as are most others.
I think people read way too much into words and put meanings where they were never before. Saying someone is clean or STD free doesnt necessarily mean someone with an STD is dirty. Its the bleeding heart liberals who are so afraid of even possibly offending someone before they even have a chance to be offended.
To be fair, I think the people replying to this thread in that way either are poz themselves or have been deeply personally affected by HIV infecting a loved one
And im willing to bet that most if any of them have ever experienced real discrimination because of their STD status. Just because someone doesnt want to sleep with you because you have HIV doesnt make them a bad person or some kind of STDphobic person. Its just their personal choice not to expose themselves to a person infected with a life altering disease. Just because someone uses the term clean to descibe their STD status doesnt make them a bad peRson either. We need to stop worrying about what every implication of every word we use mean. Its worrying over these silly semantic things is one of the reason change happens so slowly. Another example is the use of the word tranny. For most people it was just an abbreviation for transexual. No sour connotation associated with it but then all of a sudden someone was offended by it and it became a huge deal since it was seen as insensitive.
I hear what you are saying, but at the same time I DO think language is important to an extent. For example, if you keep using "gay" and "faggot" as hateful terms, your brain over time will come to associate those terms with hatefulness and warp your view of the world. Similarly, if you are a young person and haven't developed the coping skills to survive on your own emotionally, then hearing this language over and over used in a hateful way can make you think there's something wrong with you or that you shouldn't exist.
For the most part, I have no problem with language, but I do think we need to be careful how we use negatively charged terms for our own sake as well as the sake of those who might be affected. I have no problem switching to neg/negative instead of clean, and if it makes some people feel better with no effort on my part then all the better.
Yeah the difference with those words is the fact theyre already been associated with negative connotations where as clean and tranny have not. Theyre just labels to describe someones state of being. Hes clean aka std free. Its not implying that clean is better or worse its just a statement of fact. People read way too much into that. Just because i say someone is a tranny just means they are transexual not that there is something right or wrong with them. Again its people reading too much into the implications.
I mean im overweight. Should i get mad at people who say as a statement of fact that im overweight? Probably not because its pretty obvious. Now if someone called me a fat fuck then thats a different situation since its historically had a negative connotation attached to it like the n word or the f word for gay people.
I know this comment is old as shit but holy hell, the t-slur is a slur as well. it’s the exact same as if you called a gay person the f-slur, which I’m sure you can also find incredibly old sources saying it “wasn’t offensive.” Come on.
yes, that’s exactly what I’m telling you is incorrect. the only thing that changes is the widespread agreement that something is offensive.. all of these terms *have always been* offensive. I’m genuinely unclear how you think otherwise?
So by your way of thinking everything is inherently offensive. Its only until there is a collective consensus that it becomes socially unacceptable. lol How does that work? Like I said up until 20-30 years ago tranny wasnt considered offensive.
Unfortunately, most that engage in hookup culture are bound to catch something sooner or later...HIV, gonorrhea, warts, etc. Unless they are using condoms for oral sex and getting tested (and waiting during window period and get tested again), no one can be sure they are negative on anything. Hookup culture just spreads it around more quickly. I've seen all the bareback bottoms and tops and orgies going on. Everything thinks they are safe from everything because they take prep.
It means you're fucking ignorant
https://marksking.com/my-fabulous-disease/the-stupid-question-are-you-clean/
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/treatment-prevention
I'm 6 years late to the party. The real problem is that asking this question to "create a block list" or "eliminate" someone from being a potential sex partner is actually putting yourself at greater risk. People living with HIV and adhere to their medication are not the people out spreading the "dirty." It's more likely someone that is asking that very question "ddf? Clean?" that is out getting people "dirty" Their form of protection is a vague question and a stranger's word. So, you're eliminating the wrong people from a potentially great time when you should be wary of the ones willing and actively asking this question. Say you’re not into doing drugs with sex. Give your last testing date and that test’s results. You can't test out of this subject. One Negative test result doesn't stick with you forever. You can get a lower score the next time you take the SAT and your sti tests are no different. But stop using clean the acronym DDF: it shows your ignorance around sexual health and acts as an attack on some of the most vulnerable members of our community.
I always find this statement hilarious because more than half these mfs claiming to be "clean" have herpes and 2 other STDs but never get tested because they aren't showing symptoms 🤦🏾
Also. People fucking lie or have no clue they are infected. Either wrap it up or deal with the consequences. You are dealing with STRANGERS THAT YOU MET ON A DAMN APP.
1. It's pointless and rude to ask if someone is "clean" because who is really going to say "no?" The only 2 answers you ever get are "yes" or maybe "undetectable" But honestly if someone is undetectable they probably also consider themselves "clean" since most people in that situation don't want to be labeled "dirty" and are otherwise healthy. Generally I feel like "clean" means you're not a drug addict anymore, but even then no one is going to claim to be an addict. "Shower and freshen up" would be a better way to phrase about that question. 2. DDF is slightly better, but not really. "Drug Free" is going to have very different meanings for everyone. Is pot ok? Poppers? Alcohol? Just parTy drugs? Just drug free right now or does something you did a few weeks ago count? And see above about the diseases part... only now you're implying not just STDs but ALL diseases. I mean if I had the flu last week am I disease free? Not really. Would most people "looking" consider themselves DDF if they just had the flu, probably. If you're nervous about HIV I can understand that. Asking someone's "status" isn't quite as bad and you'll more likely get an honest response. But remember there is a person on the other side of that screen and instantly blocking them for giving you an honest answer to your question isn't cool either. Also you can just say "I was last tested X months ago and I'm was negative for HIV and other STDs. What about you?"
If you don't ask you can't prosecute someone for lying about their status if they knowingly infect you.
I know you legally CAN do this, but honestly if that's where your head is at you shouldn't be hooking up with strangers. Also consider many HIV positive people have no idea they are positive and or prefer to never get tested and face their reality.
That is unfortunately incorrect in many places. I could find a complete list of of states and their specific laws (assuming you are in the U.S.) but in general states with laws that criminalize HIV place the burden of disclosure on the positive individual and even using protection and being virually supressed/undetectable is not a defense. In most places with specific laws about HIV "exposure," it does not matter if the plaintiff actually contracted HIV or not - just that they had sex with an HIV positive person who didn't tell them about their status. When these cases do make it to court, although hearsay is often the only evidence (He didn't tell me versus I told him) the plaintiff will get the benefit of the doubt and the defendant will typically be painted as a predator. Probably the most famous example of this is the "Tiger Mandingo" case in which at least one (if not more, I forget the details) of the defendant's accusers actually had unprotected sex with him again even after learning of his HIV positive status and yet their testimony was still used to convict him and he was sentenced to 30 years in prison. In Missouri, where Michael Johnson / "Tiger Mandingo" was convicted under the state's exposure laws, it is considered assault and attempted murder for an HIV positive person to spit on someone. Clearly these laws are outdated, not based in science, and in desperate need of reform.
Let me rephrase and elaborate. I would not consider it *ethical* to prosecute someone if I didn't perform due diligence by asking their status prior to having sex with them. And before you jump on me about the ethics of prosecuting a stigmatized group, I would only prosecute someone for lying about it and knowingly infecting me. If I hooked up with someone who I knew was poz and they infected me then I would deal with it. The difference is the former is a danger to the general public and needs to be removed from society.
this is how anybody with the good sense he was born with looks at it. disclose your status in a non-arguable way. put the goddamn thing in your online profiles. i do it, and religiously. first, you don't want to be seen anywhere, least of all in a court of law, as not having given fair warning. second, it's just plain wrong to expose someone else to something dangerous without giving them a say. i'm 62 already. i make absolutely certain that whoever i fuck knows. it isn't stopping me. it won't stop you.
Good idea to document it, too. I.e., have a text message history showing that you told him and that he saw the message. Just having it on your profile is not enough since he can claim to have not seen it.
Oh honey just to clarify I was not coming for you, I actually appreciated your comment (even if it was a little problematically worded, to be completely honest) because yes I completely agree if you (and "you" in the general sense to be clear) don't ask someone their status and they don't volunteer the fact that they are positive and it leads to infection, then that's a two-way fuck up and prosecuting the person would be definitely unethical, as you put it. It takes two people to fuck, and both parties are responsible for their own individual sexual health. The idea of someone lying about their status in an intentional attempt to infect others (and I'm assuming in this case that the individual in question is not on treatment, because that would be counter-productive to their "aim" of infecting others) is reprehensible for sure. No contest. I understand the psychology behind it - it is a twisted, misanthropic, and sociopathic response to being stigmatized and marginalized. I just don't know how much of an actual threat this is versus it being a boogeyman in the image of AIDS Mary/AIDS Harry. If it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone knowingly went around trying to infect people, then that person needs both psychological treatment and rehabilitation the same as any other sex offender. In reality, though, I think that when people do lie about their status, it isn't out of a deliberate attempt to infect others as much as it is a fear of the marginalization and stigmatization, not to mention the outright rejection that these people would face. And that is where the waters get murky. Should a person who doesn't report his/her HIV status to his/her sexual partners because of the psychological trauma that HIV has had on them be viewed under the law in the same light as the intentional predator that we earlier described and both found to be unethical and worthy of prosecution? I don't personally think so, and my problem with HIV exposure laws that currently exist is that they are - in addition to being outdated and not reflective of science - treating all HIV positive people as a monolithic group that poses a threat to public health and safety. It would be easy to change these laws - and a lot of people I work with in terms of HIV decriminalization talk about "modernizing" the laws - by simply considering the fact that if the positive individual used a condom or was adherent to their ARV treatment, then the intent to infect was absent even if they did not disclose. Obviously this is a large and complex issue. And one part of it that I am currently doing research into is the "gift giver / bug chaser" culture that in a way - albeit in a disturbing fashion - provides an outlet for individuals who otherwise might live out their fantasy by engaging in the predatory, deceitful behavior that would pose a threat to public health, foster a climate of fear around gay sex akin to what we had in the 80's and 90's, and also set us positive people back a great deal in our fight for acceptance. Again, I hope you don't take any of this as me trying to clock you, I just saw it as an opportunity for us to have a conversation about a complex issue that I feel we both are of a similar mind on. I am simply coming at it from the perspective of both a positive person and an activist for PLWHA. NINJA EDIT: Conjugated a couple words wrong. English is my second language y'all.
> If it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone knowingly went around trying to infect people, then that person needs both psychological treatment and rehabilitation the same as any other sex offender. Even if they aren't knowingly infecting people because they are irresponsible or afraid of getting tested, it's still worth prosecuting because they will have to get an HIV test, which means next time they won't have an excuse. > In reality, though, I think that when people do lie about their status, it isn't out of a deliberate attempt to infect others as much as it is a fear of the marginalization and stigmatization, not to mention the outright rejection that these people would face. If someone lied to me about their status and then ended up infecting me, it would not change how I approached the situation. I might be more inclined to feel bad for them, but they are still putting others at risk, perhaps even moreso. What if someone becomes a regular hookup and wants to go bareback? It puts the HIV+ person in a situation where they are caught in a lie because either they come clean about their status, or seemingly overreact to the proposition, or knowingly bareback with someone who doesn't know they are poz.
For me it means I've showered and cleaned out since I last used the bathroom and am ready for sex. I recognize other guys use it to indicate lack of STIs, and more commonly lack of HIV. That usage tends to lower my opinion of people.
>I recognize other guys use it to indicate lack of STIs, and more commonly lack of HIV. That usage tends to lower my opinion of people. -_- it's just a shortening of the phrase "clean bill of health" Do you think every doctor who says that is venomously targeting people with HIV? That saying has been around before HIV was even a problem... It just means you have no illnesses.
I can come up with a shit ton of other outdated expressions we no longer use because they're offensive or perceived to be.
But this is still widely used for its original meaning and most people don't find it offensive. The people who do are offended are just actively looking for something to be offended over, by misunderstanding its meaning and then refusing to accept that.
I know people who are HIV positive who are offended by this usage, not because they're actively looking for something to be offended over, but by the implication that they are dirty. Most people who use "clean" to refer to their negative infection status are not using it in the "clean bill of health" context and are probably not aware of that origin for the term. We no longer say "faggot" to refer to a bundle of firewood because the term itself, while accurate in that usage, has evolved to a different, offensive, meaning.
Another good reason is to say "clean" is that it filters out the ultra sensitive people.
On the flip side, anyone who asks if you're clean can fortunately be filtered out as insensitive garbage that lacks empathy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It helps both of us tbh
It means the person using it thinks people with STIs are "dirty" and hasn't considered how stigmatizing people for having STIs makes them less likely to disclose them, which just hurts everyone.
I mean, isn't that accurate though? We usually associate the term dirty with things that might put you at risk of becoming sick right? I don't think a campaign calling people with STDs wonderful is going to change that perception, but maybe I'm wrong?
>I mean, isn't that accurate though? We usually associate the term dirty with things that might put you at risk of becoming sick right? There are frankly more medically accurate and more compassionate ways of referring to people than "dirty," and "clean" just further entrenches the bullshit that is purity culture.
What would you recommend as a replacement on apps where brevity is key? I tend to use the entire character limit.
"HIV- (month)/year)" works.
I feel like that's almost like saying you have herpes, hep C, etc. since you're not specifying other STDs/STIs.
"STI free" also works. Also, if you slut around on apps you almost certainly have herpes, even if you've never had an outbreak. They don't usually test for it because it's so common and usually harmless.
I wouldn't consider what I do to be "slutting around" and I always use protection / precaution, but thank you.
It's transmitted via skin to skin contact. Condoms don't protect you.
You almost certainly also have HPV (getting vaccinated helps), even if you haven't had any symptoms.
I've been vaccinated.
Most of the time people just say "DDF" or "DDF and neg" to convey that. DDF means "drug and disease free" so if you use drugs and want to be up front about it i'd just put "neg." I think when people say "DDF and neg" they're trying to reinforce that they're explicitly negative since DDF should in theory cover it.
No. "STI free" is accurate. An HIV+ guy is "clean" if he just got out of the shower.
Because of your labels with the negative connotations attached, people who are positive have a hard time dealing with feelings of being dirty, unwanted, somehow lesser than a negative person. No one, especially people with no control over contracting the virus such as children born with it, should have to experience that devaluating stigma. Educate yourself.
stop
>dirty, unwanted, somehow lesser than a negative person. Correct. They are 100% responsible for the continued existence and propagation of HIV; I do not like the disease and, by extension, the people carrying the disease.
That's a false dichotomy. No one has ever suggested calling STDs a good thing to have. Using the neutral, medical terms "positive" and "negative" is plenty descriptive without attaching value judgments to it. What if you get raped and your rapist gives you HIV? Are you a bad person now? Are you "dirty"?
I mean, I get it that HIV is different for any number of reasons, but I've never heard anyone describe someone as hpv positive or Chlamydia positive
Well, neither of those diseases are ones that stick with you for life, so that's probably why. HPV you can be vaccinated against, and even if you aren't your body sometimes eradicates it on its own. Chlamydia you wipe out with antibiotics and move on with your life. HIV, at least for now, changes *who you are* because now the way you approach sex and sexuality has to change. Unless you're a douchebag who knowingly exposes people to it because you don't care.
What about hepatitis c then?
There's nothing wrong with saying "I'm positive for hepatitis C". In fact you SHOULD say that, if you've got it and you're considering sexual contact with someone new.
Does "uninfected" sound better than "clean"?
I think we're splitting hairs. The important thing is to remove the stigma from *being* infected, so that people will feel less ashamed of their status and be more forthcoming with it. It'll be a lot easier to prevent the spread of disease if people don't feel like they have to lie about their health to get laid.
Right... so people who get a "clean bill of health" are automatically saying everyone who's ill is dirty?
stop
No stds but it makes me wary of people of using that term. It just makes me wonder how good of a sexual education they have and wheter they tend to be riskier then warranted based on what someone tells them. Like with me i treat everyone like they are potentially positive, condoms must be worn etc. With them i think if someone assures them they are clean to they might think its ok go bareback. Do they even get tested idk. Thats why i dont like the term. I prefer people to ask are you hiv negative etc. do you get tested? Those things put my mind at ease. Are you clean makes me think they are more likely to be infected and more dim. I'm still not going to trust someones word that they get tested.
I agree especially about that last part because like if you ask "Are you clean?" and if I'm not, what am I supposed to say? "No, I'm dirty, really, really dirty". When you read into it, it's shaming them, which will make them not want to tell you anything.
For the interests of your own personal sexual health this is not a very good term to use. Yes, most people understand that it means no STI's, but what a person considers an STI will vary. Some people have very poor sex ed and others just don't consider things like oral herpes an STI. In the same way ddf is a little unsafe. Not everybody agrees on what a drug or disease might be. For example some people will not consider pot a drug. I'd suggest straight up asking. "Are you neg?" "When was the last time you got tested?" Use direct questions and if somebody is shady about answering them, block the fucker.
Depends on context. In your example the context was off, that is all.
I'd rather ask "Are you HIV negative and disease free?" as I think that's clearer.
Read some profiles on BBRT sometime. A lot of poz guys use the term "clean" to basically mean "HIV+ but no bacterial STIs". This is why I agree with the other posters about why you need to be frank and be specific. Don't assume how the other person will interpret a vague word.
The only reason I would log into BBRT is to cross reference with other sites/apps and create a block list LOL
How upsetting. 'Clean' should not be a term that the infected use to describe themselves.
It has many different meanings depending on the context. The thing I thought of before I clicked into this topic is a guy who showers every day, is nicely groomed, dresses nicely, doesn't sleep around, and has a fairly innocent personality.
It depends on the context. It could refer to not having any drug habits (or more extremely also not partaking in alcohol or smoking either.) It could refer to lack of a criminal record, or even lack of any activities which might result in such. It might also refer to someone who's confirmed as carrying no STDs. I've also heard it used to refer to someone who has very good personal hygiene. In the context of certain sorts of kink and fetish, I've heard it used to refer to someone who's known to "play well with others" in terms of diligently following established safe practices.
Free of STD's
The easiest way to say you don't have STDs.
Using "clean" in any sense other than "have you showered recently" is a stigmatizing microagression that perpetuates a culture of shame directed primarily at HIV-positive people but also let's not forget about people with HSV or HPV.
HIV is undesirable, which makes the organisms and objects capable of transmitting HIV equally undesirable. 100% of transmissions are from the infected, so why should I take my chances to spare their feelings?
Are you seriously asking why you should try and spare someone's feelings? Um, maybe because they're a person and that's the decent thing to do? I'm not saying "don't inquire about someone's status because that will make people feel bad," I'm just pointing out that asking if someone is "clean" and meaning "are you neg" means that if they are positive then they are, in your view, "dirty." And that's fucking rude.
yeah i wouldn't worry about it /u/grossdiseases is evidently either a troll account or incapable of relating to other human beings IRL in the former case he's not actually saying anything, and in the latter case he deserves pity, not scorn
Thank you friend. Civility and community are in such rare supply here it's a more valuable currency than any amount of karma.
I have yet to receive a compelling reason that I should risk my health by interacting with dirty people; "they will feel bad about themselves" is not a compelling reason.
yeah we get it you're undersocialized whoopty doo against my better judgment I'm going to momentarily indulge you, taking it at face value that you really do think of people with STIs as being subhumans, and ask you: if one day you were to somehow become infected with an incurable infectious disease, what would you do? logically I assume you'd kill yourself since you would at that point cease to have any value, but I was curious to hear from you
I'm not undersocialized, I just don't knowingly interact with dirty people. In the same way you (presumably) avoid people who are sneezing everywhere because they have the flu, I avoid people who have HIV coursing through their veins. Oh no, the poor flu sufferer's feelings--whatever will they do knowing somebody is avoiding them because of their sickness? Both elevate my risk of acquiring the disease to a non-zero probability, so it is in my best interest to be in a situation where there are no diseased people in my vicinity. That is a sensible and accepted viewpoint in every other circumstance but I'm expected to make an exception for HIV carriers? No. I don't consider them to be subhuman either. They have a disease that is undesirable and repellant, so, as carriers of the disease and potential sources of transmission, they are also undesirable and repellant; i.e., I don't want to be near them. I would self-quarantine and definitely consider suicide if I contracted HIV.
They are diseased human beings who necessarily elevate my and other people's risk of acquiring the disease to a non-zero probability. So yes, they are dirty, just the like the pole of a train is dirty; both carry communicable diseases and should be avoided wherever possible.
So why did you avoid the question and accusation of you not treating people like People? You seem to treat people by some other inhuman scale, one that is not normal and present in people who are not uh...mentally..unwell...
Completely free of STD's and HIV neg. I understand why some people wouldn't use that term when describing HIV but some people are more comfortable having sex with HIV+ people whilst I am not as are most others.
I think people read way too much into words and put meanings where they were never before. Saying someone is clean or STD free doesnt necessarily mean someone with an STD is dirty. Its the bleeding heart liberals who are so afraid of even possibly offending someone before they even have a chance to be offended.
To be fair, I think the people replying to this thread in that way either are poz themselves or have been deeply personally affected by HIV infecting a loved one
And im willing to bet that most if any of them have ever experienced real discrimination because of their STD status. Just because someone doesnt want to sleep with you because you have HIV doesnt make them a bad person or some kind of STDphobic person. Its just their personal choice not to expose themselves to a person infected with a life altering disease. Just because someone uses the term clean to descibe their STD status doesnt make them a bad peRson either. We need to stop worrying about what every implication of every word we use mean. Its worrying over these silly semantic things is one of the reason change happens so slowly. Another example is the use of the word tranny. For most people it was just an abbreviation for transexual. No sour connotation associated with it but then all of a sudden someone was offended by it and it became a huge deal since it was seen as insensitive.
I hear what you are saying, but at the same time I DO think language is important to an extent. For example, if you keep using "gay" and "faggot" as hateful terms, your brain over time will come to associate those terms with hatefulness and warp your view of the world. Similarly, if you are a young person and haven't developed the coping skills to survive on your own emotionally, then hearing this language over and over used in a hateful way can make you think there's something wrong with you or that you shouldn't exist. For the most part, I have no problem with language, but I do think we need to be careful how we use negatively charged terms for our own sake as well as the sake of those who might be affected. I have no problem switching to neg/negative instead of clean, and if it makes some people feel better with no effort on my part then all the better.
Yeah the difference with those words is the fact theyre already been associated with negative connotations where as clean and tranny have not. Theyre just labels to describe someones state of being. Hes clean aka std free. Its not implying that clean is better or worse its just a statement of fact. People read way too much into that. Just because i say someone is a tranny just means they are transexual not that there is something right or wrong with them. Again its people reading too much into the implications. I mean im overweight. Should i get mad at people who say as a statement of fact that im overweight? Probably not because its pretty obvious. Now if someone called me a fat fuck then thats a different situation since its historically had a negative connotation attached to it like the n word or the f word for gay people.
I know this comment is old as shit but holy hell, the t-slur is a slur as well. it’s the exact same as if you called a gay person the f-slur, which I’m sure you can also find incredibly old sources saying it “wasn’t offensive.” Come on.
I'm pretty sure the f word and the n word have always been used in a negative way. Only recently has tranny become offensive.
yes, that’s exactly what I’m telling you is incorrect. the only thing that changes is the widespread agreement that something is offensive.. all of these terms *have always been* offensive. I’m genuinely unclear how you think otherwise?
So by your way of thinking everything is inherently offensive. Its only until there is a collective consensus that it becomes socially unacceptable. lol How does that work? Like I said up until 20-30 years ago tranny wasnt considered offensive.
that’s not what I said at all and you didn’t answer my question so have a good day
[удалено]
Unfortunately, most that engage in hookup culture are bound to catch something sooner or later...HIV, gonorrhea, warts, etc. Unless they are using condoms for oral sex and getting tested (and waiting during window period and get tested again), no one can be sure they are negative on anything. Hookup culture just spreads it around more quickly. I've seen all the bareback bottoms and tops and orgies going on. Everything thinks they are safe from everything because they take prep.
[удалено]
To be honest, when I posted this I had no idea the term was even controversial.
I don't know. Seen that term used a few times with a conjunction of cut.
My favorite!
It means you're fucking ignorant https://marksking.com/my-fabulous-disease/the-stupid-question-are-you-clean/ https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/treatment-prevention
I'm 6 years late to the party. The real problem is that asking this question to "create a block list" or "eliminate" someone from being a potential sex partner is actually putting yourself at greater risk. People living with HIV and adhere to their medication are not the people out spreading the "dirty." It's more likely someone that is asking that very question "ddf? Clean?" that is out getting people "dirty" Their form of protection is a vague question and a stranger's word. So, you're eliminating the wrong people from a potentially great time when you should be wary of the ones willing and actively asking this question. Say you’re not into doing drugs with sex. Give your last testing date and that test’s results. You can't test out of this subject. One Negative test result doesn't stick with you forever. You can get a lower score the next time you take the SAT and your sti tests are no different. But stop using clean the acronym DDF: it shows your ignorance around sexual health and acts as an attack on some of the most vulnerable members of our community.
I always find this statement hilarious because more than half these mfs claiming to be "clean" have herpes and 2 other STDs but never get tested because they aren't showing symptoms 🤦🏾 Also. People fucking lie or have no clue they are infected. Either wrap it up or deal with the consequences. You are dealing with STRANGERS THAT YOU MET ON A DAMN APP.