
Originally Posted by
Deaner
Sorry to beat the horse on this one, but there is another point to make. You are pretty well informed about HIV issues. Many of your readers are also quite well informed. But NEVER underestimate the overwhelming legions of people who admittedly know nothing about the subject, or are completely misinformed, or have studied the situation for years yet make decisions based entirely on emotions, convenience or opinion. Even the CDC is guilty of that much of the time.
Somewhere out there is some fool who will read this and make the assumption that because an 'unhealthy looking' person is supposedly poz, then that means that a 'healthy looking' person must be neg. Really, if you spend five minutes on Craigslist, you'll see that there are thousands of people who somehow assume that a wedding band is more effective against HIV-transmission than a miracle vaccine. Education on the topic is surely not your primary concern, but you'd be amazed at how many folks out there are completely lacking in knowledge on the subject.
RawTop, you've made several posts about discrimination based on skin color, so I assume you meant no harm in this. But is it really any better to make an assumption about somebody's health status based on their cheek structure, than it is to determine a person's work ethic based on their skin color or their education based on their accent? Even though T.I.M. does not /disclose/ their actors' HIV status, that does not mean that they don't sero-sort prior to filming... so even an actor's on-screen activities are no guarantee of being poz or neg. While they do dance around the issue, it's because they specialize in the same thing you do: barebacking. You address HIV, they don't (publicly), and that's fine in both cases. We all need a little fantasy and a little reality, and the ability to choose between them at the appropriate times.
Bookmarks