I stopped feeling a moral duty to disclose my HIV status in 2012. Two sources convinced me. The first was a pamphlet about disclosure that I found in my doctor’s waiting room. The pamphlet informed me that, in Canada, if a person living with HIV has a viral load of 1,500 copies or below and uses condoms, he or she is not legally obligated to disclose their HIV status. Finally, the fact that I had kept myself undetectable for over a decade had a positive effect on my sex life. It felt like being given a present. Like “Here you go! You have taken these medications for over a decade. They have made you feel sick but now you get a prize! Congratulations! You no longer have to have uncomfortable and potentially dangerous conversations with men you have just started to date. Happy 15th anniversary of your undetectable HIV-positive status!” What a relief.

For a long time being undetectable simply meant that HIV did not get to ravage my immune system. I am thankful for that. However, before 2012 I still disclosed my status to any new partner before sex. Even though I was undetectable, I had been told there was still a slight chance that I could transmit HIV if I did not use a condom. I have also had condoms break during sex in the past. It felt like my moral duty to disclose. I now knew that the Canadian government had decided (based on medical studies) that a person who has an undetectable viral load and used condoms was not a transmission risk. That there was not a realistic chance of infecting another person.

"U=U refers to “Undetectable = Untransmittable”, (which is a slightly confusing way of saying that people who are undetectable are not contagious). It was affirming to have governmental and health agency websites echo what I had known in my heart for years. I felt so relieved to have my choice back"

The second source that helped change my view was the U=U initiative. U=U refers to “Undetectable = Untransmittable”, (which is a slightly confusing way of saying that people who are undetectable are not contagious). It was affirming to have governmental and health agency websites echo what I had known in my heart for years. I felt so relieved to have my choice back. The choice to pick when or even if I want to talk about this very personal thing. After all, when dating a new person, I have no idea how long it will last. Maybe it will be a one-night stand? Maybe I will have this person in my life for years? Under Canadian law, as long as I have an undetectable viral load and use condoms, I can choose to wait until I feel like it is the right time to disclose my status. I can also choose not to disclose to people with whom I do not become deeply emotionally intimate. A weight has been lifted. One I had carried for too long. I don’t mind using condoms. So, having to insist on them did not feel like a burden, at first. Especially, after the heavy burden of having to disclosing to people I barely knew with no real idea how they may react.

"The Canadian law about HIV disclosure is still unjust. By mandating condom use, the law still doesn’t match up with current science around HIV transmission risk and individuals with undetectable viral loads."

I have had a few years to get used to this freedom now. And in those few years I have come to realize that the Canadian law about HIV disclosure is still unjust. By mandating condom use, the law still doesn’t match up with current science around HIV transmission risk and individuals with undetectable viral loads. Don’t get me wrong, I think condoms are great. They protect against contracting other STDs and pregnancy. What I take issue with is creating a law that forces a group of people, who are not contagious, to use them. It is an unnecessary hold over from a time of fear and stigma. People living with HIV should have the same sexual rights as others. This includes the right to decide if condoms are the correct choice for them individually. Some people cannot or do not want to use them. That should be an individual’s choice to make. The government should not be able to single out a group of people and decide for them what HIV prevention or contraception method they “must” use.

Why do we continue to police sexual behaviour in this way? It is unfair and discriminatory. The government needs to get out of our bedrooms. It is infantilizing to take away sexual choice and freedoms. Sex is not a crime. It should be a priority to have laws that keep up with medical science. Laws that allow sexual freedom and are not based on outdated science and sex-negativity. The Canadian law on HIV non-disclosure has simply not gone far enough.