Screengrab via nypost.comArts+Culture / OpinionWhy our speculation about the HIV+ Hollywood star is grossTabloids, broadsheets and social media alike have been reporting on the news that an A-Lister has the virus – it’s offensive and archaicShareLink copied ✔️November 12, 2015Arts+CultureOpinionTextEmma Hope Allwood As we approach World Aids Day (1st Dec), here’s some news you didn’t expect to find in the headlines: Superstar Hollywood womaniser has HIV. Or, Hollywood gripped with fear because womanising A-lister is HIV-positive. Ok, one more – 'A-list' Actor Is Hiding His HIV Status & We'll Tell You. From the gossipy tabloid press to worldwide news outlets and respected broadsheets, yesterday it seemed like everyone was discussing the rumours of a famous actor who was HIV positive and facing lawsuits from previous partners for not disclosing his status. The original article, written by The Sun, steered clear of naming the celebrity but did provide enough handy hints about their love life that the internet has been engaged in a constant guessing game over just who the mystery man could be. That’s right, the world is occupying itself with outing someone with HIV, and are seemingly even more interested because the individual appears to be straight. Let’s take a second to think about how utterly gross that is. What’s behind our curiosity? Firstly, because the lingering stigma of HIV as a disease tied to intravenous drugs, promiscuous sex and homosexuality remains – nevermind the fact it’s a disease you can be born with, and one that being heterosexual will not protect you from. HIV carries a ‘seedy’ reputation that other illnesses do not – we’re morbidly fascinated that someone in a position of wealth and privilege could be HIV positive, and what’s more, spreading the disease to other rich, famous, beautiful people. It’s impossible to imagine the public turning the diagnosis of any other disease into such salacious gossip – would we report on a mystery celebrity with cancer, or multiple sclerosis in the same scandalised way? While the kicker in this case is that the disease might have been transmitted to more celebrities, the fact is that with proper medical care you can live a relatively normal life with HIV, and practise safe sex with a partner. “For anyone diagnosed with HIV, they are given treatment that reduces the amount of HIV virus to an ‘undetectable’ amount and this means HIV cannot be passed on,” said Shaun Griffin, the Executive Director External Affairs of the charity Terrence Higgins Trust in a statement. “Stigma is a dangerous construct...It can deter people from accessing testing or treatment, and can isolate a person living with HIV causing anxiety or depression” – Shaun Griffin, Terrence Higgins Trust But anyway – why is this individual’s health record any of our business? These headlines are symptomatic of our twisted celebrity culture that thinks that the personal lives of public figures exist purely for our voyeuristic pleasure (see: the reporter who photographed Caitlyn Jenner before she had made her entrance into the world on her own terms). We’re talking about someone’s health, one of the most intimate aspects of their lives. It’s both irresponsible and ethically bereft to try and “out” someone for having contracted an infectious disease simply because they are famous. Of course, there are legalities around disclosing your HIV status to partners. In the UK “if you have sex without a condom, you know you have HIV, you understand how HIV is transmitted, you have not told your partner you have HIV and you then infect them, you could be prosecuted for reckless transmission”. If you attempt to infect someone deliberately, you also face prosecution. In California, which is supposedly the home state of the individual in question, you can be given up to eight years in prison for knowingly and maliciously infecting a partner with HIV, although otherwise exposing the disease to an individual carries a lesser misdemeanour charge. Still, whatever the ethics of this person’s choice to disclose their illness, it’s important to recognise this kind of journalism as reckless and damaging. “Even with the advances made in HIV testing and treatment, this shows that unfounded prejudices still remain. It is attitudes like these that perpetuate HIV stigma,” Griffin said. “Stigma is a dangerous construct and we’ve seen that it has a damaging effect on individuals and on public health. It can deter people from accessing testing or treatment, and can isolate a person living with HIV causing anxiety or depression.” There are many brilliant artists who have announced their HIV status on their own terms. There are many people living with HIV worldwide, including celebrities. If someone wishes to discuss their HIV status, that’s their decision – end of story. Text RIBBON to 70080 to donate £1 to the Terence Higgins Trust and get your free ribbon for World Aids Day (1st Dec). Escape the algorithm! Get The DropEmail address SIGN UP Get must-see stories direct to your inbox every weekday. Privacy policy Thank you. You have been subscribed Privacy policy Expand your creative community and connect with 15,000 creatives from around the world.READ MOREWhy did Satan start to possess girls on screen in the 70s?Learn the art of photo storytelling and zine making at Dazed+LabsMerrellMerrell 1TRL trades the trail for Shoreditch to launch Moab Slide Woven8 essential skate videos from the 90s and beyond with Glue SkateboardsThe unashamedly queer, feminist, and intersectional play you need to seeParis artists are pissed off with this ‘gift’ from Jeff KoonsA Seat at the TableVinca Petersen: Future FantasySnarkitecture’s guide on how to collide art and architectureBanksy has unveiled a new anti-weapon artworkVincent Gallo: mad, bad, and dangerous to knowGet lost in these frank stories of love and lossEscape the algorithm! Get The DropEmail address SIGN UP Get must-see stories direct to your inbox every weekday. Privacy policy Thank you. You have been subscribed Privacy policy