Michael Stevens: Sexual safety is your own duty

The ruling by Judge Thomas in Wellington that those of us living with HIV have no legal duty to disclose our status as long as we practise safe sex and take all reasonable precautions to ensure our sexual partner's safety, has kicked off a nasty backlash.

This is understandable on one level. The sexual act is one of the moments when we make ourselves most vulnerable. Trust is seen as an essential requirement needed to allow the ideal state of bliss we are told this act should engender.

This may all be true on an emotional level, yet our emotions are not the only factors that should be taken into account in our reaction to this decision. Emotions alone are notoriously unreliable in making the best possible choices. It is worth recalling that Herman Goering claimed he thought "with his blood", that is, with his emotions.

HIV is a terrible infection. It changes one's life. Even with the wonderful advances in treatments, it still shortens the life of those who have it and it affects day-to-day well-being and abilities.

In my experience, people who are HIV positive are extremely careful to ensure their partners do not become exposed to the virus.

Yet what we know is that in any population, a third of those who are HIV positive will be unaware of the fact.

If 1500 people are officially diagnosed as having the virus, there will be another 500 who do not know they have it. How can anyone protect themselves from exposure to HIV?

The only sure way to do so is to take personal responsibility for ensuring sexual practices do not leave us exposed to the risk of infection. For a small group of people, celibacy is an option. For most of us it is not.

If married or in a long-term relationship, the expectation is that we will be faithful to our partner and this should ensure our sexual safety. This belief is often proved false.

While social or religious expectations may officially condemn such activities, we know that extra-marital relations are far more widespread than we openly acknowledge.

If we are finding sexual partners through the great new bazaar of the internet, as happened in the case that set this court ruling in motion, then it is naivety verging on idiocy to believe what a total stranger does or does not tell us regarding their lives, their health, and their intentions towards us.

The technology has in many ways outstripped the culture. Expecting sexual partners met this way to comply with our older, emotionally formed cultural beliefs simply will not work.

From a public health stance, it is far more desirable that people are encouraged to take responsibility for their own sexual well-being. Your partner may not know that he or she has HIV, and one cannot tell simply by looking at or meeting them and having an in-depth conversation.

What we do know is that condoms, when used properly, reduce the risk to an almost negligible factor. They are far and away the most effective form of preventing the spread of HIV and most other sexually transmitted diseases.

The man in this case used condoms. The woman was not infected and no harm was done on a physical level. Emotionally, I am sure she felt harmed and betrayed, but that is because she was moving in the new world of internet liaisons with cultural and emotional expectations based in another age.

I agree with the judge's comment that those of us who are HIV positive have a moral duty to inform our partners, but legislating for morality is not a wise course. I also believe those who have HIV should be allowed to have a sex life, in line with Judge Thomas' comments that all reasonable precautions are taken.

The real reason this case has excited such a reaction is that our culture does not deal comfortably with the topic of sex.

The public reaction to this ruling has revealed much ignorance and fear, as well as outrage on the topic. For the sexually active, the only way to ensure our safety is to insist on practising safe sex. Relying on anything else is relying on a mirage.

* Michael Stevens is a PhD candidate at Auckland University, where he is studying the social context of HIV infection. He is HIV positive.