Katie Rutter
The rise in reported cases of spiking in university towns over the past week has justifiably caused mass hysteria, particularly within the female student population. Central to this hysteria has been the emergence of the use of needles as a new tool of spiking and that it is this spiking by injection which has really shaken people up. However, the vast majority of conversations I have had regarding fear surrounding being injected with a needle in a club hasn’t even centred on the potential drugs being used but the transmission of disease. The use of a needle to spike girls in clubs is scary for so many reasons which do not incorporate the transmission of HIV yet for some reason the possibility of contracting this virus in particular has caused a hysteria which has fogged our conversation regarding spiking. A needle represents an unimaginably calculated attempt to spike someone as well as innovation in methods to enact violence against women.
From a young age, we, as girls, have internalised the obligation for US to never leave a drink unattended and to not accept a drink from a stranger. If we do this, we are as safe as we can be and the risk is minimised. However, when it comes to spiking through injection, the fallacy of a safety net woven together by precautionary tips is torn up. The protective measures which have been deemed sufficient prior to this new phenomenon no longer apply. The premise of agency which has given us the options to protect ourselves has become different. The victim-blaming rhetoric which has previously undermined the spiking of girls through drinks, supported by the precautions we’ve urged girls to take, has been completely torn up due to the nature of spiking via injection.
Interestingly, this idea that we cannot protect ourselves and that spiking is now affecting those who protect themselves as well as those who indulge in “riskier” behaviour also intersects with the conversation which has surrounded HIV. When many think about HIV they think of a distant and vague historic tragedy, an AIDS crisis which affected the LGBT+ community. While incredibly saddening, it doesn’t apply to their current reality or really intersect with their sphere. The narrative surrounding HIV in the late 80s and 90s and which to some extent persists today, is that HIV affects risk-takers. Suddenly, due to the rise in reported spikings using needles, many people have been hysterical regarding the fact that this alien virus could potentially affect straight women who have indulged in nothing riskier than heading out to a club.
The hysteria surrounding the contraction of HIV is fogging our conversation regarding violence against women. Not only this, but the conversation surrounding HIV is fuelling the misconceptions which follow the virus around and damage those affected by it. Yes, HIV can be transmitted through the use of contaminated needles. However, as tweeted by the National AIDS Trust, ‘getting HIV from a needle injury is extremely rare. A diagnosis takes weeks’. Furthermore, they have shared that if you do fear that you have been exposed to HIV in the past 72 hours, you can access a medication called PEP from a healthcare professional which reduces the risk of acquiring the virus. The NHS recommends blood testing for HIV and says that they ‘can normally give reliable results from 1 month after infection’. Much of the hearsay surrounding the spiking has claimed that those who have been spiked with needles have had confirmation of their contraction of HIV. This is incredibly unlikely. The NHS does not recommend blood testing until a month following exposure. HIV may well not show up in some individuals’ blood tests for 6 months following exposure. It goes without saying but HIV and AIDS are not synonymous. HIV can develop into AIDS if left untreated however treatment is available. People living with HIV today can take a single tablet daily which not only stops the virus from developing but also reduces the viral load to undetectable in the bloodstream. Not only this, but undetectable = untransmittable. People on effective HIV treatment cannot pass it on. If you are going to fuel fear regarding contracting HIV, you have to contextualise it with the facts. This does not invalidate fear surrounding spiking. It is an incomprehensible and very real fear. This fear though, should centre violence against women. Scaremongering regarding HIV de-centres the actual conversation which needs to be had and harms many groups of people.
The transmission of HIV shouldn’t be central to or allowed to obscure the conversation surrounding gendered violence through spiking. It detracts from the real fear felt by women and girls yet also fuels the already well-lit flames of stigma surrounding the virus and its link to the LGBT+ community. HIV shouldn’t be a dirty subject which is drowned in hysteria and misinformation. Yet, this is a different point. Female fear surrounding spiking is valid, justified and deserves every second of attention it has been garnering.
Recommendations:
Gareth Thomas: HIV and ME
Terrence Higgins Trust website
It’s a Sin
