Latest Tweet
@Team_Magassia @HIVForum @CATIEInfo @CANFAR @PAN_CBR @pozlivingbc @sexpressionss thanks for RTs, mentions. in reply to Sexpressionss 10 mins agoBlog Archive
Disclaimer
This blog represents the ideas of individual writers, and does not necessarily reflect any formal stance taken by Positive Women's Network.Read our comments policy.
The “HIV Party Woman”: A Sun Media Production
September 23rd, 2011
Another person in Canada has been charged for allegedly not disclosing their HIV+ status before having sex. The woman in question was convicted in 2005 of sexual assault for non-disclosure in a case involving men at a military base.
The issue of criminalization for non-disclosure of HIV is already a sticky and complicated one. On the one hand, there’s the problem of not informing a sexual partner of potential health risks; on the other, charging and trying positive individuals doesn’t solve anything, and creates more problems by disproportionately targeting some groups and hampering prevention efforts.
Adding another layer of complexity to the issue, as it often does, is the media coverage. Media don’t just reflect reality back to us; they produce narratives about the world we live in.
What kind of narratives have resulted from the recent media coverage of the woman charged for non-disclosure of her HIV status?
The Headlines
The main news article about the charges was written by reporter Tracy McLaughlin and printed in Sun Media newspapers. Check out some headlines given to the piece:
HIV-infected woman faces new charges (Toronto Sun)
HIV carrier in custody once again (Barrie Examiner)
HIV party woman back in jail (Ottawa Sun)
“Infected” and “carrier” suggest that the woman is tainted because of her HIV status; “carrier” in particular is a piece of stigmatizing language. And then there’s the most ridiculous of the bunch: “HIV party woman”? What the heck is an HIV party woman?
That sets the tone for the article, as it can be read as an indictment of women, an essay on woman as sin—at least once you get past the overly large images of the woman that lead off the Toronto and Ottawa posts. (And that picture of blankets and chairs in the woods? Where exactly did you get that Ottawa Sun? Whose blankets are those?)
The Opener
The first line of the article immediately reveals an egregious disregard for women: “An HIV-infected woman who became notorious after enticing CFB Borden soldiers to have sex with her in 2005 is back behind bars charged with a similar offence.” Enticing. What a word choice. The woman enticed men to have sex with her. It’s 2011, and still there’s this myth that women are seductresses and that men can’t control themselves, can’t be held responsible for their actions when a woman’s involved. Either that, or Tracy McLaughlin needs to look up entice in her dictionary.
From Bad to Worse
Much space in the article is devoted to reminding readers that the woman was charged with and pled guilty to sexual assault in 2005. I don’t have a problem with this necessarily; I can get behind contextualization, and history’s important, right? So what do we need to know about that past case?
Apparently we need to know that a “soldier wept as he testified” that the woman did not disclose her HIV+ status before they had sex and that “the young soldier … lived in fear that he may end up with AIDS.” Notice he’s not just a man; he’s a young soldier, the suggestion being that he’s youthful (has his life ahead of him), working for our country (a contributing member of society), and courageous (but able to feel deep emotion. as demonstrated by his crying).
According to the article, this brave but sensitive young soldier found the woman “wandering through the barracks approaching soldiers to have sex with her.” “Wandering” suggests the woman is aimless, in contrast to the young soldier who gives to the country. All she’s doing is trying to get men to sleep with her. There’s that temptress again. What were the soldiers to do? Especially considering that she “wandered the halls wearing a pink thong and asking the soldiers to party.”
Wait a minute, “pink thong”?
How is a description of her underwear at all relevant to this story?
Media Reproductions of Inequality
This isn’t about the issue of HIV criminalization or the question of right and wrong in a particular case. What I’m highlighting is the media narrative constructed around the charges laid against the woman. Because it sounds to me like her partners consented to have sex with her (and if they didn’t, that’s a different problem). If the issue is non-disclosure of HIV status, then the “enticing” of young soldiers, a desire to party, and the colour and style of a woman’s underwear are irrelevant details at best, and misogynist at worst. Tracy McLaughlin and Sun Media would do well to take some basic journalism courses.
- Erin
This was posted on Friday, September 23rd, 2011 at 5:45 am and is filed under HIV and the Law, HIV stigma, Media, News . Feel free to respond, or trackback. Read our comments policy.
Great post, Erin- thank you. Those with HIV (and other STIs) are so often demonized; these articles unfortunately highlight that. Thank goodness for insight like yours and great energy in the HIV community to address this kind of discrimination!
Great piece! Thanks for keeping me in the loop, especially on issues related to the law … I can’t wait to be intervening effectively in cases like this!