How's That "Clean" Label Feeling to You Now?

A few weeks back, a Fet friend asked the question, “Is there really a difference between COVID and syphilis?” They’re both pathogens that can be spread through sexual contact, so is the very idea of a special STI label puritanical? I stopped believing in Jesus when I learned there was a teapot orbiting the earth, so I won’t judge you for having the flu, and I won’t judge you for having HPV.

The STI acronym drags centuries of stigma behind it, so it has a certain judgmental timbre. I don’t care if the acronym is technically correct. We’ve turned it into a scarlet letter. You’re only “clean” if you don’t have an STI, which tells you everything you need to know about our judgement. We won’t criticise your values or character for having a cardiac or neurological disease, but once your genitals are in the picture, we'll assume your disease reflects your values and morality.

I understand that we label illnesses on the basis of the systems they affect, but only one of them will earn you a puritanical label.

We have our share of infected people who boldly spread their STIs without giving people the choice of exposure. If you have a raging case of coronavirus, you should give others the information required to make informed choices, and HIV is no different. If you’re going to make contact with someone while you’re infected, you should tell them. You don’t know their bodies, so you can’t make their choices. Whether we’re discussing COVID or HIV, you can’t predict the risks a disease would pose to another, so you cannot make choices on their behalf.

If we assigned stigma to this kind of behaviour and removed the stigma from the STI itself, there would be far fewer transmissions. People have a right to determine their own risk, but you’ll only cop some stigma if someone exposes you without your consent. If you’re on the giving side of the nonconsensual exposure pile, your reputation will stay as clean as bleach.

Most medical conditions have the potential to become catastrophic in certain patients. You have to give people the information required to make their own informed medical choices. Only they know which risks are reasonable to take, and only they know how well they’ll handle the stigma inherent in these kinds of infections. You can’t predict the risks an STI might pose to another.

I’ve had this post languishing in a folder for a month. I couldn’t bring myself to post it because I didn’t want to contribute to the stigma by pointing out the risks of exposing others without their consent. There isn’t any room for criticism or negativity in this conversation because puritanical people have mired the waters too much already. We don’t speak about STIs. We don’t discuss the ethics or science around them because people who use words like “clean” have made the world too uncomfortable for people who’ve tested positive.

The kicker? Half of us have no idea of our status because most humans have no idea how to get a comprehensive STI screen. Want to know why? Doctors don’t include all STIs in standard screens because their stigma is worse than their symptoms. There’s also no way to screen for HPV in men, so you’re more ignorant of your status than you think you are.

How’s that “clean” label feeling to you now?