Semantics and how we understand HIV transmission

I am curious about the semantics in place in our language today that guide our understanding and thinking about HIV+ people. Below I am presenting examples to elaborate on this thought.

I posted an earlier message about how I came to actualizing discovery of new ways of coping. It was personal but I thought it might hold insights to the idea of self-discovery for personal growth and learning. I feel perhaps that it was vague and too personal--nonetheless it was my experience.

After more thought, I have discovered that my experience or contents of my experience may be similar to the experience of others.

I am given to recognizing through my experience that semantics play a role in understandings held by those who use language and thus by just about everyone we may be involved with on a daily basis and that we could be affected by the understandings based on semantics in place in language. That the language that guides us in our daily activities holds meanings and avenues for thought and actions. I am specifically concerned in this discussion with the semantics surrounding how we describe the process by which someone becomes infected by HIV and also the semantics surrounding how we describe a sexual engagement between an HIV+ person and a non-HIV+ person.

Currently, common usage involves the words get and give. I wonder if these words have an outdated semantic. Are we ready for a more contemporary explanation related to specific verbs involved in the language construction previously noted?

Example 1: An HIV+ person meets another person who has noted that he or she is HIV- (based on whatever means by which they know that with a sureity realtive to the time at which they had difinitive knowledge of that negative status and assuming there was no interim compromise) We currently might say that the HIV- person might get HIV from the HIV+ person. If they consent and as a result of the compromising act HIV- person is now HIV+, we might say that the HIV- person got HIV from the HIV+ person, or that the HIV+ person gave the disease to the other. In the last example the previously HIV- person is now HIV+ and has been a victim of sorts, and that makes the HIV+ person an assailant of sorts.

I see that it is a little more delicate a situation than that and that the consent given by the HIV- person is somehow negated and has exonerated him or her from his share of the burden of compromise.

Now, what can we see about speech and its meaning based on that usage or semantic? What does that language usage implicate on how we think socially about people with HIV in a wider sense? Do we look at them as possible assailants? Why do we not look at the consenting HIV- person in an equally negative light?--they could be seen as a seeker certainly.

Better yet what if we looked at the same scenario this way?:

Example2: An HIV+ person meets another person who has noted that he or she is HIV- (based on whatever means by which they know that with a sureity relative to the time at which they had difinitive knowledge of that negative status and assuming there was no interim compromise) The HIV+ person tells of his or her status and thus presents in the scenario with HIV. We now, given to new semantics might say that the HIV- person might assimilate HIV from the HIV+ person. If they consent and as a result of the compromising sexual act, HIV- person is now HIV+. We might say that the HIV- person assimilated HIV from compromise involving the HIV+ person, or that the HIV+ person presented with the disease in an encounter with an HIV- person, they mutually consented to a compromising sexual engagement and the outcome would find the HIV- person either having assimilated the disease or not assimilated the disease as result of the shared experience.

In this example might the semantics be more subtle as to how we view the parties involved? How are the meanings different between person1 who presented with HIV and after compromise, person2 who assimilated the disease versus person1 gave the disease to person2? With a fuller and more subtle description, both parties are more equally responsible for their mutually individual consents.
With a fuller use of the language, is there a better undestanding of what transpired?
If so, could widespread use of this kind of semantic affect effect a difference in how we look at the HIV culture and environment?

I hope my elaboration was clear, and I hope to see some feedback.

Post Extras: Remind Me!