Main Forums > Living With HIV

Woman jailed for infecting lover with HIV......

(1/8) > >>

skeebo1969:


This is the same story that Ann shared with us.  This is an account on how the charges were brought forth....

http://www.rastafarispeaks.com/cgi-bin/forum/config.pl?noframes;read=74640

jkinatl2:
As someone who has been slandered here on this very forum with half truths and outright lies, I shudder to think that we take a prosecutor's office spokesman and an angry ex-lover as gospel. I know what it's like to have my words and actions misinterpreted, and to be in the position of ignoring or defending the virtually indefensable.

However, the evil nature, the intent, the actions of this woman do not in any way negate the culpability of men who willingly had unprotected sex with her. I still see the responsibility as a total two way street here. They were willing to go without condoms, in many cases after she refused to get an STD/HIV test with them.

HIv prevention is not about finding out if your partner is "clean." HIV prevention is using condoms each and every time until said time as you get tested together, and test negative. Hell, even then, the test is only as good as the day/hour the blood is drawn. Thing is, even if the worst case scenarios presented here are absolutely true, the men STILL had the responsibility to protect themselves. The fact that (according to some of the men) she was throwing up red flags left and right about her HIV status does not, in my opinion, help the case that they were victims of an unswerving, unavoidable monster.

I write this keeping in mind how I was infected, by someone who swore they were tested, by someone who swore they were not cheating, by someone with whom I lived and who had access to every area of my life.  Were they monstrous? Their actions certainly were, insofar as I was concerned. But was I responsible for my choice? YES.

We are not talking person steps out into the street and gets his by drunk driver here. We are talking the adult choice to remove condoms and have unprotected penetrative sex. That's a mutual decision, and one with risks - including the risk of an STD. In my case, it ultimately proved to be a foolish and gullible choice, whose consequences FAR outweighed the emotional and physical misstep.

But that's what happens sometimes. Life has this way of not being fair, so far as we can see with our human-hindered eyes.

Had I not held myself accountable for my actions, and realized (albeit eventually) that HIV is a pathogen, nothing more or less, to which I exposed myself (however misled, however mistaken) I would still be living in that moment, yanked from linear time and insane with anger. I would be helpless to move past it, because I would not have taken responsibility for  the direction, right or wrong, that my life had gone.

I was not a child. I was not raped. I made the best choice I knew to make under those circumstances. And I paid a price - am still paying a price - that is in no way commiserate with the depth of my foolishness.

And that's what happens in the world. I submit that almost every man and woman alive has, at some point, taken an action in a moment of foolishness which, under the worst possible circumstances, could have had dire outcomes. I submit that most sexually active people have, at some point, participated willingly in behaviours which could have exposed themselves to an STD including HIV. Are the vast majority who "lucked out" somehow superior? Is there character based on dodging a bullet?

I just find it odd that we give HIV so much POWER as a determination of character, and so LITTLE credit for it's pathogenic nature. Much in the way we give this woman so much power as a deliverer of disease, and the men so little power as those who accepted the risk.

Then again, who said life was fair? We are pariahs, and are likely to remain so far beyond my little trek across this solar system.

I still think we need to fight it, though.

Ann:
Just for everyone's information, the Sun newspaper, published in the UK, is just about the equivalent of the National Enquirer in it's reliability as a source of real news. They pay people for "kiss and tell" stories, often presenting opinion as though it were fact.

I read that article the day it came out and I gave it about as much credence as I would any other gossip rag.

The original poster in Tom's thread likened the Sun to toilet paper. I wouldn't even use it for that.

Ann
(trying to shed some perspective on a very inflammatory account written in a very inflammatory, right-wing-nutjob-garbage-presented-as-fact, newspaper.)

sweetasmeli:
Hi Tom
I looked in on Ann's thead on this topic quite late into it so I didnt bother posting on it, but seeing as you've started this thread now I just wanted to say that I agree with your point of view on this (as I think you will probably have guessed from past threads/discussions).

However, I must admit even I was uncomfortable/unimpressed with this particular Sun article and the way it was written, yet you all must pretty much know by now where I stand on reckless hiv transmission.

I'm with you 100% on your standpoint, just maybe not the best choice of reportage on the matter!

Incidently, I used to line my kitty cats litter tray with better quality paper than any choice of UK tabloid... ;D

Melia

skeebo1969:


  Hey I think I found the same link in the National Enquirer ;)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version