Re: Promiscuity among PLHAs

[Guest guest]

Dear forum,

/message/9712

Dr. Murugan, accused the community of PLHIV for transmitting HIV, you said "

Those 5% of the clients with any NGOs or voluntary organization at any point of

time, in spite of regular counseling, support services are sexually transmitting

the HIV infection. "

Dr. Murugan, which data, which studies you refer to to make this allegation?.

It's not OK to accused or blame someone without evidence.

 

You said " The culture of living together, love affairs, promiscuity among men

PLHAs are common among them " Where did you get this information?

Is this not also a culture among non-HIV positive ? or people who don't know

their HIV status? Why did you blame and single out PLHIV?

 

Because of ONE of your client having 4 partners per day, how dare you blame the

rest 1.5 lakh PLHIV?? I agreed some people may still go for unprotected sex no

matter what but it's not good to generalise because of one clients of yours.

I think you better go for refresher course in counselling.

 

Loon Gangte

e-mail: <dnpplus@...>

[Guest guest]

Dear Forum members,

Re: /message/9712

This is in response to Dr. Murugan Sankarananthan's  email refering to the

alleged promiscuity among PLHAs.

I feel we should first recognize that, they are also part of our society and

have same behavior like most of the other population.

 

We should not marginise any population, by calling them names but advocate for

for behavior change instead of condemning.

 

Promoting marriages among PLHAs is also one option

 

Raja , LLB

e-mail: <rajasolomon777@...>

[Guest guest]

Dear Forum Members

Re: /message/9712

The mail from Dr. S. Murugan about promiscuity among PLHAs is disturbing.

The word 'promiscuity' itself is jarring as its connotation is replete with

passing a value judgment and stigmatization of groups.

The message wishes to convey through statistics something we all knew for years

that PLHAs are sexually active and a minor percentage of them continue to

practice unsafe sex.

In every development model there are bound to be leaks and it is our

responsibility as people working through marginalized communities to facilitate

the process of addressing them.

Mixing up sexual drives with active sexual habits(as the message refers to it)

and conflating it with the pathos of young helpless widows with or without

children seeking for earning support, dependency and for their sexual needs only

marginalizes women once more and the statement reeks of gender insensitivity.

If funds for HIV prevention are flowing like anything, then we all need to

introspect how to handle such instances of unsafe sexual practices more

creatively rather than blame the estrogen or testosterone levels of women and

men living with HIV.

If this practice continues despite efforts to bring about behavior change, it

only highlights the need to strategize than blame.

The message refers to 5% of PLHAs who are under care and support of NGOs (now

isn't that a rather small figure considering (a) so many of us have not

volunteered to test and do not know our status despite our " sexual habits " , (

so many PLHAs are still not covered through services of GOs or NGOs, © so many

are still reluctant to admit their sero status and finally (d) so many are

blissfully unaware of their status.

The culture of living together, love affairs is common among thousands and

millions of us and is not restricted to PLHAs alone.

So are we saying people should stop loving? Or should the focus be on unsafe

sexual practices?

A classic case of mixed messages like don't drink and drive and drink, but don't

drive

You decide which a healthier message to pass on is!

 

If a woman in her late thirties is practicing unsafe sex, it is about time she

was properly counseled and spoken about the risks of re-infection and its impact

on her viral load (of course, this is stating the obvious).

But we cannot dip our brushes in such examples and paint the larger community in

the same color.

 

The conclusions of 5% PLHA population practicing unsafe sex is confusing as it

does not seem to refer to any scientific basis on which the argument rests. The

message starts with 5% of PLHAs who are under regular follow ups, surveillance

and support services and drifts on to 5% of the NACO data of HIV prevalence.

Statistics can sometime be a total misguide.

While NOT trivializing the problem stated in the message, it is very important

to address it through involving and engaging persons living with HIV rather than

lamenting on their obduracy to change.

The fact is, prevention is feasible only by persons living with the virus. Those

who are not HIV positive can only attempt to facilitate this process. The

identification of the problem itself suggests people have their eyes open and we

need to find ways to address without stigmatizing PLHAs further as promiscuous

community.

Most of us are (though we dare not admit), and some of us are living with HIV,

that is the only difference.

The prevention efforts is not like collecting water with a pot having a hole,

but it is a matter of knowing you need to close the tap first if you wish to

drain water from a flooded bathroom (sic as the analogy may read).

 

Let us constructively think how we can close the tap without further damaging or

marginalizing the PLHA community.

 

In solidarity

Sreeram

e-mail: <setlurs01@...>