Having sex if you are HIV+

A friend of mine recently had sex with someone who didn't tell him that he was HIV+. They used protection, but he was still really upset about it afterward. He only found out because he saw some HIV medication on the guy’s dresser the next morning, and he went home pretty shaken. When he called the guy on it, he explained that it was a “very mild strain” or something. I was enraged on my friend’s behalf – I know I would be really worried if I were in his shoes.

I'm not close to anyone with HIV, so I don't know how this works, generally. I understand that safe sex can be pretty safe, and that everyone's gotta get laid, but I still feel like he robbed someone of the choice of whether or not to put himself in that situation. Is it OK not to disclose this information if your disease is under control and the sex is safe? Or is this never OK?

Or is this never OK?

this is never OK.

fuck no, lock thread

Agreed.

Now that's solved, what do you guys think of the new Hot Chip record. I like it.

Maybe it's okay if the person then says "PSYCH! You just got PUNK'D!" and Ashton Kutcher pops up from behind the dresser going "man you should have seen the look on your face".

(so basically, never okay)

ok. that's what i thought. i just needed to hear it from someone else.

you'll pretty much hear it from anyone else you ask

Like the opening track a lot but his vocals are putting me off the rest. Sounds wheezier than ever.

I understand that everyone's gotta get laid

not buying this either tbh

xxpost obv not from the guy who fucks everyone without telling he's positive.

acc. to interwebz people who regularly have unsafe sex with HIV are often psychopaths

yeah, i was pretty shocked.

Dick move.

cross ref with disgusting savages thread

Guy did a bad bad thing, but one should 'safely' act as if every partner IS positive IMO.

Morbs OTM.

I'm not close to anyone with HIV, so I don't know how this works, generally.

If you have been on meds long enough (and the meds are working for you), then you can get to a point where the virus is undetectable. This also assumes that you take your meds religiously. My understanding from my doctor, who is gay and specializes in infectious diseases, is that there is a very low risk for passing on the infection once the virus is no longer detectable. He still advises that you use protection, obviously. I know if you're on Atripla, all you have to do is miss a few days and it can throw all your progress off.

if your disease is under control

That doesn't matter, does it? I don't think it makes any difference to the chances of passing it on. There's a bit of legal controversy in the UK about it from time to time, whether exposing one's partner should be a crime or not (which it is).

Morbs OTM. It's a mellow-harshener to get in the mindset of "every partner is not potentially but actually HIV+" but it's foolish outside of having actually seen somebody's test results to behave otherwise imo.

Guy did a bad bad thing, but one should 'safely' act as if every partner IS positive IMO.

― Rage, Resentment, Spleen (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, January 27, 2010 3:37 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

what does this mean, though? you should never have casual sex, even if it's safe?

No. Reread subsequent posters have said.

*what

reread what exactly, alfred? what john said?

so John, you would say that any sort of safe, casual sex without actually seeing test results is foolish?

That's kind of up to you and how much risk you feel comfortable taking, is it not?

He explained that it was a “very mild strain”

He should be slighly sued.

Surm, just use condoms.

and dental dams

I tend to avoid certain kinds of sexual activity on casual hookups anyway; it's not a big deal. It helps that my uncle died of AIDS fifteen years ago.

i do use condoms! and my friend did. i just don't like to think that if i were in the same situation, i would be called foolish for enjoying safe sex without actually making a trip to the clinic with my partner.

its not safe sex its safer sex btw, like anything good there is a risk attatched and its worth doing everything you can to minimise that risk imo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YFC0O393DQ

i think the subject of this thread does a pretty good job of showing why morbs is OTM. as long as there are peeps out there that decide they have the right to determine that their disease is in check enough not to tell a partner beforehand, yer better off figuring everyone is a risk.

there is also not having been diagnosed

like, not knowing yet

surm made it pretty clear in the first post that his friend used protection, and that the issue at hand is about the other party being clear about their situation before hooking up. safe sex vs. unsafe sex isn't even a question here.

what does this mean, though? you should never have casual sex, even if it's safe?

This is the strategy I adopted in the 1990s, which had a significant impact on my social life. MTV News special reports FUCKED ME UP.

i think the point surms post ends up making is that even when you use a condom you are not always in a position whereby everything is a-ok

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugchasing

yeah IKR, i understand that it's "safer sex" and not "safe sex." and while i understand what you're saying justen, i just hesitate to use the term foolish in describing the behavior of people who do take precaution but are dicked over.

One thing I can assert without reserve is that if Ashton Kutcher ever 'pops up' in any, even tenuously, sexual circumstance, it's an unambiguously bad thing.

Yeah, but Bruce is totally cool with Ashton banging Demi.

We all seem to agree the duty to inform is clear, but that it's foolish to proceed as if a hookup thinks so.

Getting out of bed every day is risky.

http://llamabutchers.mu.nu/archives/Willis%20Vacation.jpg

so John, you would say that any sort of safe, casual sex without actually seeing test results is foolish?

No no - when you work under the assumption that any potential partner is HIV+, you practice safe sex (or "safer sex" as we were calling it back in the I-ain't-even-sayin-how-long-ago era) - condoms aren't perfect, but do provide a high level of protection

"you should never have casual sex, even if it's safe?"

This is the strategy I adopted in the 1990s, which had a significant impact on my social life. MTV News special reports FUCKED ME UP.

― kingkongvsgodzilla, Wednesday, January 27, 2010 4:02 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

i seem to have adopted this strategy too :/

surm, I think you're overreacting to a bunch of posts that boil down to "don't assume the person you're hooking up with is going to care as much about your health as you do"

you're right.

I have it on good authority that Bruce likes pegging.

well there's my day ruined

well there's my day ruined improved

there's a really cool article right here, you should read it

http://www.poz.com/articles/sound_of_stigma_2776_23873.shtml

imo anytime you make some hardline moral arguments you basically are saying that people ~should~ subscribe to the same standard, but w/e

otoh, if you're not suggesting that that moral standard be codified in law, then well go with god, we can just disagree on this stuff

look, here's the text of the article so you don't even have to click a link

Stigma is insidiously quiet. It is conjured in the mind, born of discomfort and fear, and then it is projected at “the other” among us. It judges them and isolates them. And it happens without a sound.

Stigma lets us take comfort in seeing things in others about which, we believe, they must be ashamed. It is a lazy way to feel better about ourselves—and therefore a popular human activity—and gay men are remarkably good at it. So many of us survive childhood taunts that by the time we come of age we have developed fairly lethal claws of our own. We know how to hurt others before they can hurt us.

But when the AIDS pandemic began over 30 years ago, gay men learned that whatever cleverness we possessed was no match for a crisis that questioned nothing less than our existence on this earth. Churches said we were damned. Politicians wanted us quarantined.

Gay men prefer to remember the earliest days of AIDS as a heroic time, and there is no doubt that many of us behaved that way, but stigma also was a fearsome, daily aspect of our lives in the early 1980s. Heterosexual parents were not the only people disowning someone with an AIDS diagnosis. Gay men also were driven by ignorance and fear. We kicked out our sick roommates. We refused to give them manicures or cut their hair. We turned away from their sunken faces at the neighborhood bar, when they had the guts to show up at all.

Once the initial hysteria subsided and the virus and its routes of transmission were identified, stigma between gay men calmed somewhat, if only because there was so much work to be done to care for the dying. Our brothers with AIDS were not so much stigmatized as pitied for their loss of dignity and humiliating deaths. They were tragic victims, exalted as martyrs.

Until they weren’t. With the advent of breakthrough treatment in 1996, the dying nearly stopped in its tracks. Patients got up from their deathbeds and rejoined the living. There were cheers all around. Within a few years, even the word “AIDS” had nearly disappeared from the gay lexicon.

Those former patients, and the many gay men with HIV to come after them, had no interest in playing tragedy, or in being wizened and terminal and predictable. They wanted to take their rightful places in our social scene, to date and fall in love, to enjoy the bars and the clubs and the house parties. They wanted to laugh and dance and live.

And fuck.

And that is when, in the deviously quiet way in which stigma operates, all hell broke loose. We built social fortresses to separate Us from Them. We didn’t have to bother labeling one another because the disease did it for us, creating an HIV hierarchy that started with “positive” and “negative.”

The more HIV treatments improved, the wider the viral divide became. Our mutual resentments and jealousies worsened. As the physical scars of AIDS faded—the skin lesions, the wasted faces—our anxiety level rose as HIV status became less apparent. You can just imagine the frustration of the discerning gay man, no longer capable of telling the positive from the negative. Where’s the comfort of stigmatizing someone when you can’t tell who they are?

Today, our attitudes about HIV and other gay men range from self-righteousness to outright contempt. From whatever our vantage point, we have shamed and stigmatized everyone else into a corner, and the result is a community in revolt against itself. We are a snake eating its tail.

It might be easy to doubt this gloomy view of the gay community. None of us like to believe ourselves guilty of treating “the other” badly. The only thing we admit for sure is that we have been mistreated and misunderstood. Our self-interest is telling.

Maybe the problem is that, beyond the convenient anonymity of online hookup sites or mobile apps, you don’t usually see HIV stigma in all of its black-and-white ugliness. You don’t hear its voice.

Listen closely to the ugly words of stigma. A special version even exists for the newly diagnosed.

Gay men who get infected today are out of their minds. They are the failed ones, the grave disappointments, the apathetic, the careless, the irresponsible. They spit upon the memories of our courageous dead. They have no respect for our history, for our monumental tragedy.

We might make motions to comfort them, but it is the kind of patronizing back-patting that we reserve for the truly stupid. We tell them they will be fine, really, and we don’t look them in the eyes for very long. Our weary judgment shows.

Never mind that they are guilty of nothing more than being human, of being in love or getting drunk or trusting the wrong person or saying yes when they should have said no. Their weak excuses will be met with furrowed brows, and their dating life will wither. They will be marked and socially downgraded. They should be ashamed, and something inside us hopes that they are.

Do you hear it? Keep listening. There is so much more to say.

Before long, those newly diagnosed will join the promiscuous ranks of sexually active HIV-positive men. They are the unclean ones, the barebackers trolling the Internet, the murderers with tainted blood on their hands, the crystal meth addicts lounging in bathhouses with the door ajar. They are the unrepentant, the whores, the vile merchants of death.

Never mind that these men struggle to disclose their status, that they are routinely rejected socially and sexually, that their waning self-esteem is being strangled by our judgment, that sometimes their lives feel so forsaken they settle on whatever community will have them. The fact that stigma and depression often lead to escapist behavior is of no interest to us. We fear they could be having more sex than we are—hotter sex maybe—and the chance it might not be hurting anyone is infuriating. They should be ashamed, and we will make damn sure that they are.

The lowest rung of the gay HIV hierarchy is inhabited by older gay men who have lived with the virus for decades. They are the dependent ones, the sunken-faced humpbacks cashing their disability checks and wiling away their days sipping coffee in Café Disabilité. They are the aging invisibles and the sexually worthless.

They try to mask their feeble wasting with testosterone injections and protein shakes and facial fillers, but we know the truth. We see. They remind us of our darkest days, these unwelcome relics, and though we ignore them their haunting persists, in the daylight of the grocery store and the darkness of the bars. We avert our eyes and anticipate their extinction.

Never mind that they were among our earliest activists, our courageous long-term survivors, the men who scrawled words like “empowerment” and “advocacy” across the bureaucracies of their time. Forget that they have seen death in obscene quantity, that whatever joy they possess is a triumph of spirit. They should be ashamed, but we don’t regard them with enough interest to care.

Do the words sound familiar at all? Do you hear the voice? It isn’t nearly done.

Take a hard look at HIV-negative gay men. They are the superior ones, the corrupt morality police, the hypocrites, the gentlemen in waiting. Above all else they are the supremely lucky, because they can’t possibly live by the crushing code of conduct they impose on the rest of us.

They reject us as damaged goods. They promote how “drug and disease free” they are. They publicly advertise their outdated HIV results. They tell us we would make better friends than sex partners and then they don’t call again. They find clean, disease-free love with other, similarly superior men so they might have a life out of reach of the great unwashed.

Never mind that they have successfully avoided infection thus far, that they have buried friends and comforted lovers, that they withstand the unnerving ritual of HIV testing and worry about whether or not they will pass or fail. And please, pay no attention to the fact that they fear HIV stigma at least as much as positive men do, which is one compelling reason they hold tight to their negative status with such fervor.

None of their circumstances can excuse their indictment of the rest of us. We marvel at their lack of shame, and wonder bitterly if their attitudes might change if they became infected.

At least they don’t suffer the same wrath as do HIV-negative men taking Truvada, the HIV medication used as a pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP. They are the traitorous ones, thumbing their noses at their elevated negative status by intentionally dipping themselves in the viral soup of casual sex. They are obviously barebacking infected guys or they wouldn’t be popping pills that blunt the consequences of being a poz-loving slut.

And God help those who don’t admit they are infected and have sex with a negative person, because they are the criminal ones, the terrorists, the dangerous liars who must pay dearly for what they’ve done. They belong in jail and off the streets, like drug dealers and rapists.

Never mind that, for reasons we all well know, they can’t always bring themselves to disclose, that they may use condoms, that they may be adherent to their meds and undetectable, and that no single case of an undetectable person transmitting the virus has ever been verified. Disregard the fact that conservative lawmakers and prosecutors are more than happy to exploit our thirst for vengeance and lock up some diseased fags who dare to have sex at all. Forget that during the first years of AIDS, when the virus reliably killed you, those who became infected took personal responsibility and called their doctors to start treatment and not the police to press charges.

That is the sound of stigma. It is bitter and rageful and terribly afraid. I can hear my own tones in it, like a voice in a chorus, when it says the words I would never admit to thinking. Do you hear your own?

Gay men have known since the AIDS pandemic began that empowerment is the antidote to stigma, that the more proactively we approach our health care and build support networks, the less stigmatized we feel. The answer lies in our refusal to be marked and shamed. But our own community challenges us at every turn.

Stigma operates exactly like the deadly virus we claim to oppose: It infects pieces of us and then turns those factions against the rest, until the entire body is weakened and vulnerable. We all know how that process ends.

That is what the gay community has become. We are AIDS itself.

When HIV disease is over—and some day it surely will be—our jubilation will be beyond all imagining. We will have finally put an end to the health crisis that has plagued us for generations, a crisis that polarized nearly everyone, most particularly us as gay men. And once the celebrations fade, another equally important moment will come.

We will take a look around at our friends and lovers on both sides of the viral divide—at all of our brothers whom we stigmatized for one reason or another—and our old judgments will be transformed to a deep regret. Hopefully, in that moment, a certain kind of grace will emerge. We will clearly see the deep, private wounds of HIV stigma, and we will finally allow that we are all simply and imperfectly human. And then everyone will have some explaining to do.

It wouldn’t be too soon for that moment to happen now.

contenderizer, I've followed this thread all day. I have no idea what you're advocating anymore. You've heard from gays, straights, John Yoo -- what else is there to say?

― A deeper shade of lol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:13 PM (20 minutes ago)

that's a fair point. i've said what i care to as clearly as i'm able. i suppose i keep at it because i'm interested, and the discussion is ongoing?

that said, the tone is getting more hostile than i'm comfortable with. so yeah, i'm done with this part of the discussion.

I will say this. I've come around to the idea that maybe it's not incumbent on the knowingly HIV+ individual to disclose if they have an undetectable viral load*, based on all the good things Stevie and gbx and them said.

But from what I've googled, and like, feel free to provide counter-examples because I'm open-minded, but like, basically everything I've found said "you may have an undetectable viral load in your blood, but it's probably still present in your seminal vesicles" or something. I dunno. Tell me more about that.

*still, "yow" at load. every time this thread is revived, it's just "load". That is the hottest word. RRRRRRrrrrrr.

Mmm-hm. You guys are all out having risky sex right now aren't you?

All sex is risky sex. Duh.

Otmfm, i tore ligaments coming down off a wardrobe once

Contends otm obv

I would say it's possibly still present in your seminal fluid but not probable. It's true that there are possible differences in viral loads in semen vs. blood, but from ppl I've talked to who do HIV prevention work and stuff, if you have an undetectable viral load in yr blood you are p much not going to give someone HIV.

What fascinates me is trying to hypothesize a way in which to spread this information without conversely suggesting that it's okay to have unprotected sex. I mean, stigma is a huge issue in the gay community, but people not even considering HIV to be relevant and thusly barebacking w/o any thought is also a huge issue, and it seems like it'd be very challenging to successfully address both of them w/o contradicting each other.

I suppose "So You Have An Undetectable Viral Load. Do You Really Want Herpes In Your Ass?" isn't a very catchy slogan.

ok lol

omg

i think it's catchy

we should commission Cypress Hill for a jingle.

lol

my load has gone viral

that said, the tone is getting more hostile than i'm comfortable with. so yeah, i'm done with this part of the discussion.

ok, sure. i'm hostile. i don't feel the need for a measured response to your weary thought exercises, whose only discernable purpose is to single out an already stigmatized population for special moral judgement.

That's a load of rubbish, a complete bullshit mischaracterisation.

i reject the casual equation of HIV+ people with those who conceal their STD status from their partners

do you think? you've repeatedly asserted that there is a moral obligation of unprompted disclosure on someone who is HIV positive and knows their status. you've deflected the conversation away from investigating whether there is any universal responsibility to ask your partner's status, or to know your own status. you've given no concession to any circumstances that might reasonably inhibit disclosure. you've shown little interest in actual transmission rates among various populations. and you've repeatedly characterized non-disclosing HIV+ folks as sexually selfish and fundamentally unable to accurately calculate the risk of transmission.

if the shoe fits.

bullshit

i have made every attempt to clarify that i'm not talking in any special sense about HIV+ status.
i'm talking about STDs (see the earlier phase of this thread for more detail), and by extension, the sharing of information about risks in general.
i have agreed countless times that anyone who cares abt their health has a common-sense obligation to ask.
i have never denied the obligation of every sexually active person to get tested frequently. i do this myself, and have mentioned that.
i freely admit that disclosure isn't easy, especially for HIV+ people, and i'm very sympathetic to that.
i'm under no obligation to demonstrate interest in other aspects of this discussion to anyone's satisfaction but my own.
and i've made it very clear that my concerns about human access to definitive certainty are in no way limited to the HIV+ population.

elmo, would you have sex with someone you didn't know very well who told you that they had HIV but had the virus "under control"? i don't see how i could trust that person unless i reeeaaaallllly knew them. like, i've gone stretches where i didn't take antidepressants i was supposed to out of negligence and it had bad consequences. and i've seen people be even more, way more, negligent with their health care than that.

http://sdccblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/coreleone.jpg

HAPPY THURSDAY EVERYBODY!

lol

is now a bad time to mention that I've had "Do You Really Want To Hurt Me?" stuck in my head since my last post

Sometimes when people meet they argue and misunderstand each other because they think they are having a contradiction when they are only being contrary. For example, I can say the wall is ten feet tall and you can say the wall is red, and we can argue all day thinking we are having a contradiction when actually we are only being contrary.

elmo, would you have sex with someone you didn't know very well who told you that they had HIV but had the virus "under control"?

it would definitely depend on the type of sex on the menu.

but enough about me.

i freely admit that disclosure isn't easy, especially for HIV+ people, and i'm very sympathetic to that.

your sympathy is not well demonstrated when you characterize non-disclosure as lying in order to get sex

that's how i'd feel about myself if i did it. if someone i love were deeply upset upon finding out that a partner had failed to disclose (since that's where this thread started), i'd agree that they'd been mistreated.

*shrug*

*shrug*

haha wow, your sympathy is so profound its practically palpable

"but i reserve the right to assert what i think is right, and to register objection when other people's behavior falls outside what i consider acceptable bounds."

wow dude fuck you

i mean what is the whole purpose of your moral grandstanding here

warning.gif again: if you are not prepared for the conversation to revolve around Contenderiser's Important Views and What They Mean For You, don't engage.

much of the discussion here revolves around people's personal views, i'm not at all special in that regard

and if you guys are just looking for something to disparage and dismiss, then have ats

now now, don't play the martyr, it's not very becoming of you.

you can't push a civil conversation towards outright insult and then act smug when people get annoyed.

oh wait, this is the internet. never mind.

so is that a moral failing or just an ethical one?

contenderizer knows what it's like to be responsible in sexual disclosure, he tells prospective partners that he gets an occasional cold sore on his face, just like 60 - 80% of the population of north america does. he gets what stigma is like.

Have to think I'd respond to an HIV test like Seinfeld with his no-vomiting streak.

sorry, a little ott there

but there's really no comparison to my own life I can readily make, nor really anything else that has the stigma and possible health issues that HIV does. the fact is that there are so many things that can be asymptomatic in the world of STIs that pretending casual sex isn't an incredibly grey area to begin with seems a bit naive.

do I have genital herpes? probably not, since I've never had an outbreak, but it's completely possible I'm an asymptomatic carrier. there are blood tests, but even they aren't reliable. do I carry a cancer-related strain of HPV? what about a wart-causing one? no idea. no way to tell. even with safe sex, asymptomatic carriers of these things can pass it on.

casual sex is rolling the dice regardless of who you are, it's just as a middle-class white male who doesn't have sex with men I'm in a group where I have the privilege of being less likely to get an infection even if I am an idiot about sexual health

he tells prospective partners that he gets an occasional cold sore on his face, just like 60 - 80% of the population of north america does. he gets what stigma is like.

― tweeship journey to 77 (mh), Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:20 AM (8 hours ago)

uh, i hope you know i wasn't mentioning that in order to claim any understanding of the stigma attached to HIV/AIDS. i was simply describing what my sense of ethics requires of me. relative to disclosure of HIV+ status, it's nothing, obviously. i completely understand why some would choose not to disclose. i sympathize very strongly, fwiw.

with any luck, it's a decision i'll never have to make. if i do one day find myself at that crossing, i can't be certain i'll act in accordance with my precious ethics. i'm fairly sure those ethics won't change much, though. i'm old enough to have a solid sense of where there's give in my own moral architecture -- and where there isn't.

maybe i should mention that my father died of AIDS/ARC (and maybe i've already mentioned it, my memory isn't as good as mh's). maybe that informs my feelings here, i can't say for sure. if i agreed that one could be 100% (no wiggle room) certain that transmission was flat-out IMPOSSIBLE, then i'd quickly change my tune. nonexistent risk is nonexistent, after all. but i can't agree with that, much as i'd like to. the best info i've been able to find suggests that an undetectable VL = minimal risk. not that transmission is impossible.

Well that's something

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/07/21/health-temple-university-researchers-successfully-eliminate-hiv-virus-in-human-cells/

https://medium.com/the-nib/sex-positive-d351b9f484a8

medium.com: reddit for the coastal elite

interested in people's take on that medium.com cartoon schlump posted

It's rly long and super teachable-momenty but I liked it

Like I rly hope ppl who don't already think that way read it and think "wow I never thought of it that way"

http://i-base.info/htb/30108

These results are simple to understand – zero transmissions from over 58,000 individual times that people had sex without condoms. They are also notable for the complexity of the analysis that was needed to prove that none of the new diagnoses were linked transmissions from within the couple.

Together, this provides the strongest estimate of actual risk of HIV transmission when an HIV positive person has undetectable viral load – and that this risk is effectively zero. While no study cannot exclude the possibility that the true risk might lie within the upper limit of the 95%CI, even if the true value is actually zero due to some as yet unproven mechanism, the 95%CI can never be zero, just becomes increasingly close. Neither the presence of STIs nor likely viral load blips between tests had any impact in enabling transmission.

The results provide a dataset to question whether transmission with an undetectable viral load is actually possible. They should help normalise HIV and challenge stigma and discrimination.

The results challenge criminalisation laws that in many countries, including the United States, continue to imprison hundreds of people based on assumptions of risk that these results disprove, even when condoms are used and viral load is undetectable. Activist Sean Strub, from the SERO project (www.seroproject.com) said: “Hundreds of people living with HIV in the US have been charged with criminal offences for the perceived or potential risk of HIV exposure or transmission. Some are serving or have served long prison sentences for spitting, scratching or biting and others for not being able to prove they had disclosed their HIV positive status before having sexual contact (even in the absence of any risk of HIV transmission). HIV criminalisation has created a viral underclass in the law, further burdening a disenfranchised community, putting a disproportionate share of the shared responsibility for preventing sexually-transmitted infections on one party, and discouraging people at risk from getting tested for HIV.”

The results will also positively impact on the quality of life for both HIV positive and HIV negative individuals who are in serodifferent relationships, irrespective of the choice to use condoms.

wow excuse me what?

https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/02/grindr-reportedly-shared-hiv-statuses-with-other-companies/

jfc