HIV Tattoos

[Helo]

Should there be some kind of requirement for a person who contracts HIV to have some sort of perminant identifying mark on thier boddies?

I dont mean like on thier face or hands, but somewhere where if a person was going to be in an intimate position with a non-infected person, the non-infected person would see the mark and be able to re-think thier decision to have sex with the infected person.

 

[loriersea]

Absolutely not. If someone is concerned about their sex partner having HIV, they can 1) not sleep with them at all, 2) not sleep with them until they see the results of an HIV test, 3) only engage in sexual activities that cannot result in HIV transmission, and/or 4) use a condom and spermicide, as directed.

Given that it can take several months to get a positive HIV test, a plan like that--aside from issues of human rights--would create a false sense of security in people. They might assume that because someone doesn't have an HIV tattoo, it was fine to sleep with them, when the person in question might have contracted HIV a week before, or might have herpes or another STD.

 

[Helo]

Why is it not ok?

 

[loriersea]

Why is it not ok?

Because we have a right to privacy. Should women who've had abortions have a big A tattooed on their butt? Should any man who has herpes have an H tattooed on their scrotum? Should people with TB or SARS be forced to have a sign so that we'll stay away from them? Should a woman who is not using birth control have some sort of tattoo so that a man she might sleep with will know that?

Of course someone should notify their partner if they have HIV, but medical information should be private. If you are concerned about your sex partners HIV status, then don't have sex with them or use a condom.

 

[Helo]

Im sorry, but I put the safety of people above my privacy IN CERTAIN CASES.

And I fail to see how a small tattoo on the thigh of an HIV infected person would violate thier privacy. Its not a spot usually seen in public

A bunch of fundamentalists found out you do not have to notify daycare providers or teachers that your child is HIV positive when sending them to school or daycare. They flipped right the heck out.

I would too.

 

[Helo]

Why can't you exercise responsibility in who you sleep with without requiring the government to do so? You should be accountable for your sex life, not the government.

In most cases I would agree. But when your dealing with a virus that once contracted is fatal I think more needs to be done than the "Now kids, remember to use condoms" routine, thats worked about as well as a lead balloon up to now.

If you knew the stigma and branding these kids had, you wouldn't. If it was your child, you wouldn't.

We have an HIV child in one of our classes. The torment the child goes through by his peers is disgusting.

And their 3 years old.

I do know what its like to be branded as different because of circumstances you cant control.

We need adequate education for young people about HIV that they are currently not being given. To them, its a big scary virus that they can get by sitting next to annother kid with it.

I fail to see how its fair that I should have to gamble with the life of my child to preserve someone else's privacy.

 

[loriersea]

Why can't you exercise responsibility in who you sleep with without requiring the government to do so? You should be accountable for your sex life, not the government.

Exactly. And, I don't see how this would affect people's sexual behavior, because it would take some time to have the virus show up, and so you could still be at risk from contracting HIV from anyone you have been with for less than six months and/or who isn't completely monogamous.

Plus, how would it work? Would everyone in the country be required to get an HIV test? How often? Every year? Every six months? Every three months? Once a month? No matter how often you tested, there would still be a window in which people could get infected and transmit the virus. Plus, anyone who really wanted to hide their status could get some heavy-duty cover-up to cover the tattoo.

If you knew the stigma and branding these kids had, you wouldn't. If it was your child, you wouldn't.

I see no reason to know if any of the children who are in my son's playgroup, or who will be in his pre-school class in the fall, are HIV positive. They will not be having sex. They will not be sharing needles. If either of those things are happening at a day care/preschool, HIV is probably the least of things a parent needs to worry about. It is possible that there might be injuries that bleed, but schools know what precautions to take, and there has NEVER been a case of a child contracting HIV from another child in that way. It is simply not something to worry about.

 

[Helo]

Plus, how would it work? Would everyone in the country be required to get an HIV test? How often? Every year? Every six months? Every three months? Once a month? No matter how often you tested, there would still be a window in which people could get infected and transmit the virus. Plus, anyone who really wanted to hide their status could get some heavy-duty cover-up to cover the tattoo.

After you got a HIV test voluntarily, you would be required to have the mark put on you.

And trust me, a good tattoo is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to cover up effectively.

and there has NEVER been a case of a child contracting HIV from another child in that way. It is simply not something to worry about.

HIV is NOT like chicken pox, this is a virus with a 100% mortality rate that has NO cure.

Now normally I like taking chances, but I am not willing to put my child's life on the table when the odds are so crappy

 

[flicka]

Nope. You gamble with your life and the lives of your children just by LIVING. We do not get to know the details of everyone else's life just to make ourselves feel more secure in ours. Besides, your idea of marking those with HIV sounds eerily Nazi-ish to me. And why stop at HIV? I'm sure with with a little imagination we could come up with all kinds of social stigmas to inflict on people in the name of 'public safety'.

 

[Helo]

You cannot protect people from themselves.

And let's be honest, ignoring the fact that most people who spread HIV don't know they have it (which would void out the effectiveness of a tattoo), but how many of us, when in the throws of passion, would stop to look?

The only thing that is served by branding people who're HIV positive is to attach a stigma to them that serves absolutely no purpose.

The goal of the mark is to protect people who dont know thier partner is an HIV carrier and thier partner hasnt told them. I dont know about you, but I sure as hell would stop what I was doing if I saw the HIV mark on a woman's leg. Sex is fun but its not worth dying for.

Trust me, what you dealt with is a small fraction of what this small child goes through. If he's lucky enough to live to adulthood, he will be a traumatized adult with more issues that I care to go over.

Trust ME, I understand what it means to be singled out because your different and given a hard time.

Branding people would do nothing to fix this mindset, either.

No one is talking about branding. The mark would be on the thigh where it wouldnt be seen EVER by the general public

This would also be of great assistance to medical personell who could look for the mark when rendering aid to prevent the spread of the disease un-wittingly

 

[Helo]

Well, that'd be the end of people taking the HIV test voluntarily. An expensive test that could require you to be branded? No thanks. I'll take my chances.

If a person is planning on being responsible then whats the hang up?

The mark is not visible in daily life, no one at any point during the day would accidentally see it

 

[Helo]

Then do what NY and NV have done... Make it manslaughter when somebody who knows they have HIV transmitts the virus to somebody else.

Or we could help prevent it alltogether and use the mark

Ok, seriously... Are you looking that closely when you have sex that you can pick up on things like that? Once my husband and I had an encounter where we didn't realize until after the fact a quarter which fell out of his pants pocket was stuck to my hip.

Most people do not stop to observe each other while in the throws of sex so they can find tatoos and other identifyers. Rape victims, who are in the process of being violated, who have everything to gain by finding identifiers like tattoos, don't even gain that sort of identifyer when it's in their best interest.

A quarter is a little different than a tattoo, and you also werent looking for it

The only point tattooing somebody would serve is to ostrasize them and stigmatize them.

How could it if no one but someone you were gonna have sex with could see it?

Trust me, you have no clue what this child goes through. Not even the slightest, foggiest, faintest clue. What he suffers with is far beyond "being given a hard time."

Dont presume to tell me what I do and do not know. I understand how cruel children can be.

 

[loriersea]

If a person is planning on being responsible then whats the hang up?

If a person is being responsible, they will tell any potential sexual partner they are HIV positive, anyway. People who are going to hide their HIV status would just not get the test.

The mark is not visible in daily life, no one at any point during the day would accidentally see it

What about teens showering in a locker room? People getting a routine check-up in order to get a job? A person swimming in a public pool?

I just can't see this doing any good. If you were having sex with a woman and DIDN'T see an HIV tattoo on her, I would still treat the encounter as if she did have one. If you wouldn't have sex with someone with an HIV tattoo, then you shouldn't have sex with someone who doesn't have one, unless you are 100% certain they don't have HIV. And, if you would have sex with a woman with an HIV tattoo and just use a condom and spermicide, that's exactly what you should do with a woman without a tattoo.

 

[Helo]

If a person is being responsible, they will tell any potential sexual partner they are HIV positive, anyway. People who are going to hide their HIV status would just not get the test.

The compulsory nature of the mark would prevent people getting tested then hiding thier status from thier partners.

What about teens showering in a locker room?

What school uses showers anymore?

People getting a routine check-up in order to get a job?

Doctor-patient privalege

A person swimming in a public pool?

Unless your wearing Speedos, I dont think ittl be a problem

 

[Helo]

It wouldn't help prevent it, since the largest "offenders" are people who don't know they have it. The bulk of the people who pass on HIV don't know they have it, so forcing people to declare their status by tattooing them will have little impact on preventing the spread of HIV.

I think if we can save 5 lives then its a good thing and we should do it.

The point is if you can miss a bright, shiny, raised quarter while groping around in the dark, you're going to miss a "small, hidden tattoo."

Well you could also miss the rodeo clown and the barrel if its dark, besides, who has sex in total darkness

Because you're legally requiring them to announce their HIV status and forcing them to get a tattoo. You're treating them as offenders, future criminals, because they're HIV positive.

You are NOT requiring people to ANNOUNCE thier status, your requiring people to have an un-deniable indicator of HIV status that serves as a red flag for people who are going to be in a position to be on the recieving end of a deadly virus.

No, you really don't know. Unless you've ever worked one-on-one with an HIV positive child attending a school where his HIV status is announced, you haven't the foggest.

Having HIV is not a pre-requisite for having kids be mean to you. Hell, my crime was having red hair and being smart and I had liquid soap poured down my throat.

 

[Helo]

Saving five lives at the expense of millions of people's civil liberties is more than a little extremist.

Well since we're talking about thousands of lives, one of which might be your childs, I think its worth it.

Most people have sex in a degree of darkness where they can't see clearly, where a spot can be a tattoo, lint, or a quarter.

You'd have to be blind, drunk, or unconscious to miss a thigh tattoo. TRUST me

And that's not announcing their status?? What is announcing somebody's medical status in your mind if a "red flag" is not an annoncement??

No its not, its in a spot where ittl only be seen by one person and its meant to protect that one person.

No, having HIV is not a pre-requisite for having children be mean to you. Nobody ever said it was. However, the ribbing and harrassment you got for having red hair and being smart doesn't come even close to what this child deals with, even if you had liquid soap poured down your throat. I doubt at the age of 3 you had to deal with a group of parents walking into school and trying to forcibly remove you because you're infected with "(gay slur) disease." On the scale of mean things, what this child deals with is beyond what most people deal with. And I'm sorry, to assume that being picked on for having red hair and being smart is anything the same as being a 3 year old who's berated for being born with a disease is a little silly.

No, I had a parent try to get me kicked out of school when I fought back and bashed thier kid's face into the tiles.

I DO understand how cruel human beings can be to eachother. I experienced a good portion of it myself and I was a peer counselor for four years straight. What I havent experienced personally, Ive heard.

I notice you also brushed over how we'd treat people with equally dangerous/deadly STDs... Would people with Hepatitis and VD and Herpes have to be branded too?

Its something I think could be looked at

 

[SisterGeoff]

Let me get this all lined up here, you want to give the state the power to hold you down and carve the name of a STD, should you test posative for it, into your flesh?

 

[charvel]

I only read throught the first page of this thread. You're angering me. Really,where do you get off?
Maybe all the people with HIV that may be serving your breakfast or the cashier that sneezes on you should be marked as well. You can check the degree of medical longevity of HIV patients too. It's no longer "fatal" as you put it.Marking people with HIV is like primitive.

 

[loriersea]

Condoms, used correctly and with spermicide, are quite effective at preventing the spread of HIV. According to the CDC, "studies examining sexually active people at high risk for contracting HIV have found that 'even with repeated sexual contact, 98-100% of those people who used latex condoms correctly and consistently did not become infected'" (link). Condoms used correctly and consistently are highly effective at preventing HIV transmission, even for people at high risk of infection (such as those with partners who have HIV).

And, of course, you can avoid exposure to HIV almost entirely by not having sex with anyone you aren't completely sure isn't HIV-negative (assuming you aren't engaging in other risk behaviors like needle-sharing, of course). I would personally suggest that if anyone is worried enough about HIV infection that they'd advocate government-sponsored tattooing of those infected, they should probably refrain from having sex with anyone they aren't 100% sure is HIV-negative, which means making sure they are tested immediately, and then again in three months (and then again three months after that if you are going to be REALLY certain), and being absolutely sure the relationship is monogamous.

Again, I fail to see how the tattoo would really help anyone. The only thing I can imagine it doing is stopping some people from having sex with someone who was HIV positive and would have lied to them about it. However, considering that many people would probably think that No Tattoo = No HIV = Woo Hoo, No Need For a Condom!, any positive health benefits would be greatly outweighed by the negative ones. There would be no way of knowing whether someone without the tattoo was HIV negative or HIV positive, but it is very likely that people would use their tattoo-less status to convince others they didn't have HIV, even if that wasn't the case or they weren't sure, or that people would simply assume that someone without the tattoo was HIV negative.

I don't see why it would change people's behavior. If you are being responsible, you are either going to use condoms consistently and correctly, or you are going to not have sex with anyone you aren't sure is HIV negative. And, if you are irresponsible enough to not do that now, chances are you aren't going to be responsible enough to examine your partner for a tattoo.

 

[trunks2k]

The point is if you can miss a bright, shiny, raised quarter while groping around in the dark, you're going to miss a "small, hidden tattoo."

To add to this fact...

I've been fooling around with someone recently. It wasn't until the second time I was with him, that I noticed a rather noticable scar on his arm from when he fell off of a mortorcycle in Vietnam. This was a dark spot about three inches long and two inches wide. And I didn't notice it.

And marking a person would be useless. If a person cared about not infecting another person, there's no need to mark them because they are already going to be careful. If a person doesn't care, then they'll just end up not getting tested. Even though I do care about not infecting someone else, if I was going to be physically marked that I had HIV, then I would avoid getting tested. Doing that to someone just creeps me the heck out.