Hi, it's Fizzygato, the writer of the article. Again, ha

Insisting on having safe sex with someone who has HIV is a personal choice that I respect; anyone should have safe sex for whatever reason they want. However, I think that to treat it like "Someone who has HIV ESPECIALLY needs to have safe sex is a bit overboard." I mean, if you are on anti-retrovirals, in theory, your viral load should be low enough to the point that it is almost below detection and thus incredibly hard to pass on to someone else, especially if you are both on anti-retrovirals. So, I think it is possible to have "not safe sex" with someone who has HIV and still not worry too much about it. ("Not safe" being defined as barrier-less.)

I also agree that "having to take medications daily" can be a big deal. However, if they are coming from a place of privilege, where resources (i.e. money and medicine) is not that big of a deal, I don't think it's that big of a deal, either. I also know people who have missed a day without their meds and been fine. However, I know also people who have consistently missed meds, thus making the anti-retrovirals no longer work for them because the virus developed immunity during their "off" period.

I also agree with what you are saying. Some meds can have side effects. However, HIV meds are getting to the point that they now have much less side effects. For example, before, they used to make people sick often. (I think the NRTIs did, because that's also attacking yourself... I'm pretty sure.) But they've switched over now, and those are mostly only given to people in Africa now. (Blah blah, insert rant about nationalism and privilege.)

I have never heard of HIV meds not working with other meds. I can't imagine how they would interfere, as HIV meds are often designed specifically to target the virus and its parts, and nothing else. (i.e. it will target specific proteins that only that virus makes)

Again, you can consider it self-injury if you'd like, but I personally don't. After all, bugchasing is typically only used to define chasing HIV, not AIDS. You can have HIV but never show any of its symptoms (hence, not cause any "harm"/pain/etc to yourself) if you are on meds. Thus, it's not really harming you; it's just there inside of you.

I don't consider it immoral, personally.

I agree it can put a "burden on the health system," however again, I personally think that to put "blame" on people for being "burdens" on the health system is similar to "victim blaming." Both are really, "It's your fault this happened to you. Why do you deserve help?" Although, I acknowledge they're not the same thing, either. Phrasing it as "burden" just reminds me of such, though.

I appreciate your insightfulness toward my article, but there's a reason I wrote what I did and stick by it mostly

Many are referred to as MSMs (not closeted homosexuals). Some are like, "I'm just a guy who happens to have sex with other guys."

But being an MSM/ participating in "unsafe sexual behaviors" doesn't necessarily make you a bugchaser. I agree, though, that it's awful that's how many get HIV is through a partner that they trusted but who turned out to be "untruthful" (in having sex without telling their partner).

Married women are statistically the highest at-risk group of getting HIV because of this, particularly African American women, I'm pretty sure.

Bugchasing is different than gift-giving.

Gift-givers are often aware of who they're giving it to, and are like, "Hey, you want HIV? Okay, cool, I'll give it to you," not secretly trying to give it to people.

HIV also isn't a disease; it's a virus

Many are against the phrase "sexually transmitted diseases" and prefer "sexually transmitted infections" because it more accurately describes the situation.

While I understand what you're saying, I think that's part of autonomy and love also is respecting what someone wants to do with their body, and for me love is someone being like, "I get it. It's what you want to do with yourself, no matter what the consequences are, so I'll support you with your decision no matter what."

I also agree that there is no guarantee the treatment will work for them. They could have a strain that is resistant to most/all available anti-retrovirals, but my guess is it'll probably be treatable to some extent by something out there, esp with research constantly producing "better" results.

I probably wouldn't be able to live with myself either, giving HIV to someone (assuming that's what you were saying?). I think that's part of why I find it hard to inflict pain on people, in terms of S/M.

I don't know if it's "the ultimate" taboo, but it is really wierd.

Yeah, no I totally get what you're saying about it being two totally different things. Like one is rape, and one is HIV, or however else you're labeling it as.

I think that I even acknowledged (here or in my article or in a comment in my article, I don't remember which) that I couldn't think of a better comparison, yet that was the first immediate comparison that came to mind, especially when it were being phrased as HIV being a "burden" as if it can be your "fault" that you have HIV. i.e. I think that could lead to medical practitioners being like, "Well, how did you get HIV? Did you get it in the 'acceptable' way or did you get it in the 'unacceptable' (aka 'your fault') way?"

Similar to how people treat HIV today--- like them being like, "It's unacceptable if you got HIV through drug needle sharing, not using condoms, etc." but it is "acceptable" if you got it because your mother had it and it was transmitted through birth, through rape, etc.

I worry that could lead to a victim blaming sort effect, if people think of it as a "burden" on the medical system, like this burden that can be "avoided" if one follows the "right" procedures, lifestyles, etc.

So I guess I'm not saying the bugchasers would be "victim blamed" but that anyone who happens to seek medical treatment for HIV would then be subject to high amounts of scrutiny to the point that ones who got it in the ~acceptable~ way would also be blamed. (Here, acceptable meaning non-bugchasing, which I think can be problematic as mentioned before.)

It's also cool to come off as combative. I don't mind. ha, argue with me, anyone.

Like I said, I agree a better term than victim blaming can be used, and I agree rape =/= having HIV, etc thing you want to fill in the blank with, but I think something similar could happen if one creates binaries of acceptable/ not acceptable ways of acquiring HIV.

It would be hard to "catch them all," if you consider all of the different strains of everything there is.

I also agree that it would be good to talk to a bugchaser (or many, actually) to better understand these issues. It is something I would like to do in the future

"I think that could lead to medical practitioners being like, 'Well, how did you get HIV? Did you get it in the "acceptable" way or did you get it in the "unacceptable" (aka "your fault") way?'"

Ah, now I understand what you're saying, or at least the comparison you were making. But wouldn't the idea and practice of having unprotected sex with the intent to become infected with HIV--wouldn't that just help perpetuate such misconceptions?