Mikeya Jackson-Harper
Public discourse on HIV/AIDS issue is from a standpoint of reducing HIV infections in communities. However, both public conversation and research ignores the reality of HIV/AIDS and its emotional impact on emotional psyches and systematic oppression. When conversations explore systematic oppression’s influence on trauma, the HIV/AIDS positive identity is ignored. For instance, conversations that explore intersectional oppression in regards to race, class, gender, and sexual orientation within academia and other educational forums never engage in critical dialogue that explores the intersection of oppressions for people either living with a disability or with HIV/AIDS.
The HIV/AIDS positive identity encompasses the reality of social stigma and discrimination, such as; dealing with negative assumptions and stereotypes individuals assume about HIV+ people. First, many negative people not living with HIV/AIDS often assume that a person living with HIV/AIDS are always engaged in irresponsible behaviors continuously, or they are sexual promiscuous, or even worse they suffer tremendously from lack of nutrition and malnutrition in the body. Second, many people fail to analyze the perspective of a person living with HIV either due to sexual abuse, or a blood transfusion, or a child born with the this virus. Furthermore, people who contracted HIV through those three events are not guilty for obtaining the virus because they never on purposely engage in risky behaviors. Society on the other hand, demoralizes individuals who contracted HIV through those three methods as deviant and lump them together in a category as sexual predators, a threat and an abomination to society. Coincidently, people who contracted HIV either through sexual intercourse or sharing needles must be included in public discourse on identity, creating both emotional support and social support services that promote a healthy life. Most importantly, ignoring the emotional trauma of an HIV+ and AIDS+ people further suppress them into depression and invisibility.
Activism efforts to diminish new infections by getting people tested further alienates HIV/AIDS positive people because they ignore the influence it has on a person’s identity. For instance, many negative people not living with HIV/AIDS are reluctant to get tested because many of the fear the isolation and suffering associated with a person once branded positive. It’s very important for the public to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS amongst populations but must advocate social support services to people once diagnosed with HIV/AIDS so they are able to live healthier lives and so maybe they be able to educate negative people about both the stigma and reality of living with HIV/AIDS, the functions of the disease, and or encourage safer sex. Overall, social stigma further harms HIV/AIDS positive people in regards to creating emotional programs for HIV+ people.
Stigma in public discourse of HIV/AIDS issues criminalize people living with HIV/AIDS. The legal realities for people living with HIV/AIDS is an important issue and an issue worth taking into consideration because there are over thirty states in America and over twenty countries that have specific laws for a person’s intent to harm an individual by infecting them with HIV. In rare cases, this law may overlook both the possibility of condom may break or a person not knowing their HIV-positive. Coincidently, allegations under the Partner Disclosure Law, further perpetuates stigma and may prevent people from disclosing their HIV status. Academic scholars, Leslie E. Wolf and Richard Vezina, researched the case of Nushawn Williams, an African-American male with negligent behavior who is guilty of infecting over 30 women with HIV, they theorized in Crime and Punishment: is There a Role for Criminal Law in HIV Prevention Policy? According to them, the media coverage of this man illustrated powerful images and suggestive language Wolf and Vezina affirm, “[the] news […] emphasized Williams […] as an abusive sexual predator, describing how he liked to have rough sex, and that he never used a condom” (Frey, Jennifer and Henry L. Davis in Wolf and Vezina). Williams portrayed historical stereotypes and transformed the laws surrounding HIV and disclosure. Stigma influencing the Partner-disclosure law by criminalizing HIV-positive people with intent to harm does not actually reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS because there is “over 2.1 million children are HIV–positive, with more than 400,000 children becoming newly infected with HIV / AIDS each year (UNICEF).” Moreover, it is both the responsibility of the HIV negative and positive person to engage in safe sex behaviors and to negotiate a safe emotional space.
In regards to intimate romantic relationships it is the responsibility of the HIV+ person to reveal their status to the person before either engaging in sexual intercourse or relationships so the negative person has the option to either be in a relationship with the infected person or not. It is horrible for a HIV+ person to rob that choice when they do not tell them their status. Most importantly, it is the responsibility of the negative person to either engage in safe sex or request that both you and your partner be tested. If the HIV negative person continuously engages in sexual intercourse without protection with partners then they are asking for trouble. Responsibility is a two way streak not solely on the HIV+ person. Furthermore, it is tremendously important for negative people to be ally’s and take into consideration the oppression and social stigma living with HIV/AIDS and its difficulty in disclosing their status to people.
In a study that examined the complexities and intersections of identity living with HIV in Keeping Safe, Keeping connected: A qualitative study of HIV-positive women’s experiences of partner relationships investigated the emotional hardships living with HIV. They included six testimonials by HIV-positive women and Lesbians. The psychological investigation was analyzed in 2001 by Maria Jarman, Susan Walsh, and Gwyneth De Lacey. All these women affirmed they protected their loved ones by not disclosing their HIV-positive identity. Carol, for example avowed to keep her HIV status a secret. She questions herself, “Why burden a little child with something that it’s, it’s difficult enough to comprehend as an adult but for a child […] that would just mar his whole childhood and I think now, I’m not prepared to jeopardize his happiness” (Jarman, De Lacey, and Walsh 540). Her answer to her own question affirmed: she felt the need to shield her son so that he continues to have a normal life.
In conclusion, HIV negative people must acknowledge their privileges and its relationship in causing oppression for HIV+ people. They must also learn from the stories of HIV/AIDS positive people and their trauma, struggles, resistance, and intersecting identities living within society. Most importantly the must become ally’s to end stigma against HIV/AIDS positive people and all human beings.
Privilege for HIV negative people Identity (Mark an X that’s true)
I do not have to think about disclosing my status to partners
I worry about country’s travel ban against people living with HIV/AIDS
I am afraid to tell my boss/coworkers my status b/c of their discrimination
I can watch TV and read magazines and see people not living with HIV reflected positive
I can read/watch literature that captures my experiences not living with HIV/AIDS
I can enter classrooms and can feel safe when discussing HIV/AIDS issues
I do not worry about violence when revealing my negative status to loved ones
Works cited
Unicef. “Join the Fight Against Aids.” Web. March 31, 2011.
Jarman, Maria, Gwyneth De Lacey, and Susan Walsh. “Keeping Safe, Keeping connected: A qualitative study of HIV-Positive Women’s Experiences of Partner Relationships.” Psychology & Health 20.4 (2005): 533-51. EBSCO. Web. Aug.-Sept. 2009. .
Leslie E. Wolf and Richard Vezina. “Crime and Punishment: is There a Role for Criminal Law in HIV Prevention Policy?” Web. Aug-Sept. 2009.
