POZ Community Forums
Main Forums => Living With HIV => Topic started by: Buckmark on March 06, 2012, 10:28:53 am
-
A legislator in the U.S. state of Maryland wants to increase the penalty for HIV transmission from a misdemeanor with possible 3-year jail sentence to a felony with a 25-year jail sentence. So now I could get married in Maryland, but only if I don't get thrown in the slammer first. >:(
http://www.americanindependent.com/213258/maryland-lawmakers-consider-new-hiv-specific-criminal-law (http://www.americanindependent.com/213258/maryland-lawmakers-consider-new-hiv-specific-criminal-law)
And this from a Democrat. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, just disappointed. What's really irritating is this legislator's rhetoric -- flirting with equating HIV transmission with domestic violence. Of course, he doesn't support penalties for transmitting other STDs like Hep B or C, or HPV, only HIV. That's one thing that has always irritated me the most. If legislators are really serious about public health, in their mistaken view that criminalizing transmission reduces transmissions, why not make it a crime to transmit all STDs? I feel so special having HIV.
Reactionary hysteria. What is this, the 1980s and 1990s? If this legislator is serious about addressing the HIV epidemic in the African-American community, he needs to do better than just increasing the penalty on HIV transmission.
To be clear, in no way am I agreeing that it is OK to transmit HIV, but I know there is a whole cadre of folks here who will jump on that bandwagon.
Feeling special today... and not in a good way.
Henry
(Updated only to include a link to the news article.)
-
Of course, I should have provided a link to the article I referenced:
http://www.americanindependent.com/213258/maryland-lawmakers-consider-new-hiv-specific-criminal-law (http://www.americanindependent.com/213258/maryland-lawmakers-consider-new-hiv-specific-criminal-law)
-
Henry, that fucker probably has STD's and cheats of his wife, he may even be a closet case, ya know "do as I say and not as I do"
-
A legislator in the U.S. state of Maryland wants to increase the penalty for HIV transmission from a misdemeanor with possible 3-year jail sentence to a felony with a 25-year jail sentence. So now I could get married in Maryland, but only if I don't get thrown in the slammer first. >:(
http://www.americanindependent.com/213258/maryland-lawmakers-consider-new-hiv-specific-criminal-law (http://www.americanindependent.com/213258/maryland-lawmakers-consider-new-hiv-specific-criminal-law)
And this from a Democrat. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, just disappointed. What's really irritating is this legislator's rhetoric -- flirting with equating HIV transmission with domestic violence. Of course, he doesn't support penalties for transmitting other STDs like Hep B or C, or HPV, only HIV. That's one thing that has always irritated me the most. If legislators are really serious about public health, in their mistaken view that criminalizing transmission reduces transmissions, why not make it a crime to transmit all STDs? I feel so special having HIV.
Reactionary hysteria. What is this, the 1980s and 1990s? If this legislator is serious about addressing the HIV epidemic in the African-American community, he needs to do better than just increasing the penalty on HIV transmission.
To be clear, in no way am I agreeing that it is OK to transmit HIV, but I know there is a whole cadre of folks here who will jump on that bandwagon.
Feeling special today... and not in a good way.
Henry
(Updated only to include a link to the news article.)
C.T. Wilson is a prosecutor. It's in his blood. He is also one of the 26 democrats in Maryland who voted against same-sex marriage. The fact of the matter is that this passage from the article is correct:
"Any law that treats HIV exceptionally is problematic for the way [it] reinforces stigma and inaccurate information about the actual routes and risks of HIV transmission,” says Roose-Snyder. “It is similarly problematic to have a law that does not clearly require intent to do harm, and does not require any likelihood that the harm could actually happen.”
I can't say that I disagree with a law that prosecutes those who *INTENTIONALLY* infect others with our disease, but for those transmissions which are completely unintentional, this should not be the case.
-
The thing he said that raised a huge red-flag for me was this:
“I can’t imagine a person who would know that a person had AIDS and would sleep with them,” Wilson said of the reason to mandate disclosure. “I would say that is a very small percentage.”
This is all about his own ignorance and prejudice. What an uneducated (at least where hiv is concerned) jerk. People like him should not be permitted to propose laws concerning the realities of something they know little, if anything, about.
When are people going to wake up and accept all the studies that show hiv criminalisation has the exact opposite effect to what they're trying to achieve (reducing transmission)? I don't know of a single study that shows the criminalisation of hiv has had a positive effect on the reduction of transmission rates. It's wilful ignorance and it's dangerous and damaging. Pisses me off.
-
Why is it that these draconian laws never consider the "law of unintended consequences"? Such as this excerpt:
Brook Kelly, a human rights attorney for the U.S. Positive Women’s Network, says Wilson’s arguments are dangerous.
“You may have created these laws to protect women and black women, but they are being used against these women more often than not,” says Kelly. “These criminal laws are used as a form of coersiveness and a form of domestic violence to make a woman stay in a violent relationship.”
She says she has worked with at least three women in recent years who were in abusive relationships. The women had disclosed their HIV-positive status, and the abusive partners had attended doctor’s appointments with them. Regardless, says Kelly, when these women left the relationship, the abusive partner used the criminal law to harass the HIV-positive woman — with all three ultimately charged under those laws.
“It really slips the script when you see the reality,” Kelly said.
Kelly says the state of Maryland would be better off spending money to empower HIV-positive persons to disclose their status and to find “women controlled” prevention methods, of which currently there are none.
She also took exception to Wilson’s claim that no one would sleep with a person with HIV.
“It’s a form of AIDS stigma and it’s very dangerous,” Kelly says. “People who test positive do, eventually, end up having sex again.”
You are left with laws that can be manipulated and used against folks who do everything right, considering disclosure and treating their infection. These laws do not protect any "victims", they simply criminalize being poz.
Joe
-
Asked if he supported making transmission of HPV, or Hepatitis B or C a crime, Wilson said those viral infections are not the same as HIV. All three viruses can cause various forms of cancer in the infected person.
“There is only a casual connection between those viruses and cancer,” Wilson said. “The big difference between things that might cause you to get cancer and AIDS. HIV always leads to AIDS which leads to death.”
Someone should educate these legislators on the enormous strides made in HIV science that have made HIV a chronic illness today. That's what the doctors and researches say, don't they ? That one has a 'near normal life expectancy' prognosis. So why doesn't the law reflect that? Untreated HPV, Hep B and C can be fatal too. So what exactly are they driving at ?
This wilful inconsistency and vile hypocrisy only seeks to put HIV+ people under a special viral subclass- this won't stop new infections and will only heighten the stigma.
-
Actually news came out last week that Hep-C deaths now outnumber HIV/AIDS ones.
linky (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/21/news/la-heb-hepatitis-c-hiv-deaths-20120221)
-
If this legislator is serious about addressing the HIV epidemic in the African-American community, he needs to do better than just increasing the penalty on HIV transmission.
You mean, he needs to do anything and everything BUT criminalize HIV transmission.
-
Republicans, rascists, homophobes, and bible bangers should have to disclose before sleeping with anyone. "I can't imagine ANYONE would sleep with anyone of those kind" if they knew the truth.
-
Someone should educate these legislators on the enormous strides made in HIV science that have made HIV a chronic illness today. That's what the doctors and researches say, don't they ? That one has a 'near normal life expectancy' prognosis. So why doesn't the law reflect that? Untreated HPV, Hep B and C can be fatal too. So what exactly are they driving at ?
This wilful inconsistency and vile hypocrisy only seeks to put HIV+ people under a special viral subclass- this won't stop new infections and will only heighten the stigma.
No offense to anyone in Maryland, but Annapolis is rather a joke in the DC metro area. Maryland State Congress is filled with crooks, scandal and uninformed people. Legislation like this doesn't surprise me, with a large percentage of lawmakers being what political scientists refer to as the "ineffective public". They don't know any more about the issue they seek to address than the average Joe on the street does. That's why I'll never live in Maryland again. The Commonwealth of Virginia is better run, even if we can't get married here yet.
-
The thing he said that raised a huge red-flag for me was this:
“I can’t imagine a person who would know that a person had AIDS and would sleep with them,” Wilson said of the reason to mandate disclosure. “I would say that is a very small percentage.”
I must have been so incensed that I missed this particular paragraph. Now I'm even more incensed, and pissed off. I'm surprised this hasn't come up in the Texas legislature recently. Oh, wait, Texas is too consumed with telling women what they can and cannot do with their uterus. >:( Texas generally prosecutes HIV transmission cases as "assault with a deadly weapon", as we have no specific criminal statue for HIV transmission (yet).
I guess after being positive, we should no longer have sex. ::) I'm sure there are plenty of people out who believe this.
-
You mean, he needs to do anything and everything BUT criminalize HIV transmission.
Yes, correct, that's what I meant to say, but didn't express as well as you.
-
The Commonwealth of Virginia is better run, even if we can't get married here yet.
You mean like having a budget surplus and yet also running one of the largest waiting lists for ADAP?
-
You mean like having a budget surplus and yet also running one of the largest waiting lists for ADAP?
Touché. I forgot about the ADAP waiting list. I guess I meant in terms of our legislators and local officials not constantly being embroiled in scandal. A lot of us in this area are still pretty bitter about Jack and Leslie Johnson.
-
Touché. I forgot about the ADAP waiting list. I guess I meant in terms of our legislators and local officials not constantly being embroiled in scandal. A lot of us in this area are still pretty bitter about Jack and Leslie Johnson.
Dunno, the Cuccinelli obsession with vaginas is a bit scandalous if you ask me. The fact that he can even fathom running as governor speaks volumes about where Virginia sits in the Sanity Caucus, with the exception of a few places in NOVA and then Charlottesville. And then on a baser level Richmond sucks money out of those areas and gives them shitty highways that can't handle the traffic instead of raising taxes even a minute bit.
-
Dunno, the Cuccinelli obsession with vaginas is a bit scandalous if you ask me. The fact that he can even fathom running as governor speaks volumes about where Virginia sits in the Sanity Caucus, with the exception of a few places in NOVA and then Charlottesville. And then on a baser level Richmond sucks money out of those areas and gives them shitty highways that can't handle the traffic instead of raising taxes even a minute bit.
LOL! Why don't you tell us how you really feel.
I have to agree with you a little bit, I guess. I live in Arlington, and most of us in NOVA would rather become our own state than keep sending money to Richmond, but the fact remains that as a state, Virginia's government is better at running itself than Maryland's government. And this idiot from Charles County is a perfect example of why that is. THAT was my central argument.
The thing is that the majority party in Virginia is Republican. I don't think it's a sanity thing, it's just a political preference thing. Regardless, HIV is a bipartisan issue. It effects Republicans just as indiscriminately as it does Democrats. We can argue about McDonnell and Cucinelli until the cows come home. As a market liberalist, I will agree with you on most points.
But central to OP's point, I think it's flat our wrong to cast such a large net with a bill like the one C.T. Wilson is introducing. Forget passing on HIV, *THAT* is criminal.
-
Wherever you stand on markets and the economy it has bugger all to do with victimising people with HIV for hyperbolic and non-existent harm. People are people, they have sex, make bad decisions in sex, take risks, it's even in the Bible this, if that is a crime better turn a large state, or maybe just France or Mexico, over to being one big prison.
- matt
-
That sounds like an excellent final solution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution)
-
Man... I wish this forum had a "like" button like on Facebook... cuz i'd be likin' a lot of what you guys have said!!!! :D :D :D
-
When are people going to wake up and accept all the studies that show hiv criminalisation has the exact opposite effect to what they're trying to achieve (reducing transmission)? I don't know of a single study that shows the criminalisation of hiv has had a positive effect on the reduction of transmission rates. It's wilful ignorance and it's dangerous and damaging. Pisses me off.
Hi Ann,
Do you have any links for studies on the impact of criminalisation of transmission? I've previously had a look for supporting evidence when this topic has come up in forums elsewhere, and couldn't find what I needed, so would be really useful to have it on hand for future discussions.
Thanks
-
I think the criminalization of HIV/AIDS is a very dangerous misconception, not all of us pozies go around putting our dicks into everyone else and shooting cum up where ever we please, that's like saying all gays, as well as all pozies are monsters, and don't have any morals , we don't all swing naked from Shabby Chic Chandeliers ::)
-
Do you have any links for studies on the impact of criminalisation of transmission?
I used to have a few, but for the past several months google toolbar no longer works with the newer updates to Firefox and I haven't been able to access my huge library of links. I'm slowly building it back up elsewhere.
I don't recall ever finding them through google searches - I've just stumbled across them here and there and added them when I found them. I believe I came across one or two linked to in blog entries on Edwin J. Bernard's criminalisation blog (http://criminalhivtransmission.blogspot.com/) (this page (http://criminalhivtransmission.blogspot.com/p/essential-resources.html) and this page (http://criminalhivtransmission.blogspot.com/p/major-new-resource-hiv-and-criminal-law.html) might be good places to start on his blog) as well as the criminal law pages (http://www.aidsmap.com/law) over at aidsmap.com that Edwin wrote (also linked to on his blog).
-
I think the criminalization of HIV/AIDS is a very dangerous misconception, not all of us pozies go around putting our dicks into everyone else and shooting cum up where ever we please, that's like saying all gays, as well as all pozies are monsters, and don't have any morals , we don't all swing naked from Shabby Chic Chandeliers ::)
Quite. One thing I've noticed is that when the issue of HIV infection comes up, a lot of gay men who are negative (or think they are), start saying things like 'Well, that's what you get when you bareback in sex clubs all the time'. There's a very real belief that HIV is only acquired by 'sluts' and that because they don't consider themselves to be 'promiscuous' - which is a patently subjective - then they will be immune to HIV. It's a way for them not wanting to personally deal with the reality of HIV (that anyone who's sexually active can be at risk) and that's exactly the fear that criminalisation laws tap in to.
-
Quite. One thing I've noticed is that when the issue of HIV infection comes up, a lot of gay men who are negative (or think they are), start saying things like 'Well, that's what you get when you bareback in sex clubs all the time'. There's a very real belief that HIV is only acquired by 'sluts' and that because they don't consider themselves to be 'promiscuous' - which is a patently subjective - then they will be immune to HIV. It's a way for them not wanting to personally deal with the reality of HIV (that anyone who's sexually active can be at risk) and that's exactly the fear that criminalisation laws tap in to.
Sounds like sheer denial to me, on the neg's part, some of them do have HIV/AIDS and do even know it, or care, so that to me makes them just as acountable for there actions, you simply cannot use ignorance of the law it's really not a very viable excuse, so they should be proscuted just like us pozies are, why do they get a FREE PASS from the HIV criminalization , that's very hypocritical to me :o
-
Sounds like sheer denial to me, on the neg's part, some of them do have HIV/AIDS and do even know it, or care, so that to me makes them just as acountable for there actions, you simply cannot use ignorance of the law it's really not a very viable excuse, so they should be proscuted just like us pozies are, why do they get a FREE PASS from the HIV criminalization , that's very hypocritical to me :o
I know what you're getting at but I don't think anyone should be prosecuted for HIV transmission, under any circumstances, whether they know their status or not. And I say that as someone where's there's a 50% chance that I acquired HIV through forced sex.
-
I know what you're getting at but I don't think anyone should be prosecuted for HIV transmission, under any circumstances, whether they know their status or not. And I say that as someone where's there's 50% chance that I acquired HIV through forced sex.
Yeah, I don't agree with it as well, however RAPE is another story we all know that is already a crime, and I know the laws of the land & some states do have very "gray area's" in what HIV criminalization translate too....
that was one of the reasons I got outta law enforcement, I had to enforce those laws on the books, and most all of them, I didn't believe in as a gay man w/ AIDS, I'm surprised I last 5 yrs. in that profession, I later went on the do something else :)
-
There are few studies on the impact of ciminal laws on tranmission, testing, seeking care etc etc. There are two running now in the UK on testing and whether the criminal law affects professional attitudes, what they offer/do/discuss etc.
There is however much testimony, eg:
http://www.hivjustice.net (http://www.hivjustice.net)
And a very good book and online resource:
http://www.aidsmap.com/law (http://www.aidsmap.com/law)
And people who are inclined can sign the Oslo declaration:
http://www.hivjustice.net/oslo (http://www.hivjustice.net/oslo)
- matt
-
Lemme throw my hat in the ring here. My feelings are that if I'm moving towards anything that's going to lead to sex or a relationship...I'll tell them my status before either of us has too much invested emotionally. That way it's "if there answer's no...tell me before I spend $10 on drinks (or rubbers)".
If somebody wants to go around having sex with or without a condom, without letting the other party know their status, and that partner becomes infected due to exposure through that contact...fuck the person keeping the secret. If the law dictates it...send the fucker to jail.
If somebody feels they don't need to disclose to somebody they're banging...it's because they know right well the other person wouldn't have anything to do with them if they did...
-
Lemme throw my hat in the ring here. My feelings are that if I'm moving towards anything that's going to lead to sex or a relationship...I'll tell them my status before either of us has too much invested emotionally. That way it's "if there answer's no...tell me before I spend $10 on drinks (or rubbers)".
If somebody wants to go around having sex with or without a condom, without letting the other party know their status, and that partner becomes infected due to exposure through that contact...fuck the person keeping the secret. If the law dictates it...send the fucker to jail.
If somebody feels they don't need to disclose to somebody they're banging...it's because they know right well the other person wouldn't have anything to do with them if they did...
Why is the onus (heh) on the pozzer? Why shouldn't HIV negative people bear the responsibility for protecting themselves?
MtD
-
Case in point, kinda hard to prosecute consenting adults, if the poz+ discloses their status, were all adults and we make our beds and lay in them, NO I don't think it's right to throw us pozies in jail, but come on now disclosure might just save your ass in the long run ya think ::)
-
Why is the onus (heh) on the pozzer? Why shouldn't HIV negative people bear the responsibility for protecting themselves?
MtD
Tell the HIV negative person that you're HIV+. With that knowledge fresh in hand I'm sure they'll be happy to protect themselves, via condom or deciding not to have sex with the poz person at all.
-
Tell the HIV negative person that you're HIV+. With that knowledge fresh in hand I'm sure they'll be happy to protect themselves, via condom or deciding not to have sex with the poz person at all.
You seem to think that the only "risk" is if a negative person has sex with a positive person...... I dare say that a large number of folks in this forum got HIV from not using a condom with someone who thought or said they were negative -- or -- simply assumed they were.
If the negative person treats all sexual partners like they are positive (i.e. use a condom), then they don't have to worry about someone who THINKS they are negative, but aren't..............
M
-
I wonder if anyone has ever considered criminalizing unplanned pregnancies when one partner lies and says she's on the pill. Why should straight men pay the price when a one-nighter lies to them. Same concept.
Wolfie
-
Why is the onus (heh) on the pozzer? Why shouldn't HIV negative people bear the responsibility for protecting themselves?
MtD
Of course not! They are the innocent victims who should assume every encounter is a safe one, right? Its p to us, singlehandedly, to protect the moral masses from our viral scourge.
And what if we're not buttfucking? Do we disclose before a kiss? before giving (not getting) oral sex?
Because technically giving a blowjob can open us up to prosecution - despite it being zero risk to the guy getting it.
*modified for content
-
Tell the HIV negative person that you're HIV+. With that knowledge fresh in hand I'm sure they'll be happy to protect themselves, via condom or deciding not to have sex with the poz person at all.
Why not just use condoms all the time? I mean, some people tell fibs about their status. A standing prick having no conscience and all that.
Why rely on somebody else to protect you from the virus? That's always struck me as the height of fucking stupidity.
Consider the number of newly diagnosed people who come in here whinging about getting HIV because some evil maggot lied to them. If they'd just insisted on frangers in the first place (whether their partner disclosed, lied or neither) then they wouldn't be HIV positive at all.
Stupid fuckers.
MtD
-
Tell the HIV negative person that you're HIV+. With that knowledge fresh in hand I'm sure they'll be happy to protect themselves, via condom or deciding not to have sex with the poz person at all.
This promotes a mindset where people will rely more on disclosure than on protecting themselves by just wearing a condom.
Unintended consequence is that, most certainly, the neg person will at some point hook up with someone who is untested and THINKS and thus says that he/she is negative and the neg person will eventually get infected.
I nearly infected my ex-partner precisely because I thought I was neg and could therefore bareback with no possible ramifications.
Wear a condom, protect yourself. It's really not much different than wearing a seatbelt or a helmet.
Here is a link on the UNAIDS stance on Criminalization of HIV transmission.
"The thrust of the paper is: There are no data indicating that the broad application of criminal law to HIV transmission will achieve either criminal justice or prevent HIV transmission. Rather, such application
risks undermining public health and human rights. Because of these concerns, UNAIDS urges governments to limit criminalization to cases of intentional transmission i.e. where a person knows his or her HIV positive status, acts with the intention to transmit HIV, and does in fact transmit it."
http://data.unaids.org/pub/basedocument/2008/20080731_jc1513_policy_criminalization_en.pdf
-
Why rely on somebody else to protect you from the virus? That's always struck me as the height of fucking stupidity.
It IS the height of fucking stupidity, and it boggles my mind that a positive person would advocate that victim mindset - which obviously did not serve THEM very well at all.
WHY not assume a person is positive until proven otherwise? A negative status, once revoked, cannot (at this time) be reinstated. Seems that the person with the most to lose would want/need to be the most vigilant.
I am honestly baffled at the US/THEM attitude I see sometimes - even here on these forums. To consent to a sexual act IS to consent to the possibility, however remote, of getting an STD including HIV. That is with or without a condom. Using a condom IS performing due diligence.
I submit that the people who think otherwise also believe that some of us deserve it, and some of THEM are sad victims of monsters.
Which is an awfully juvenile notion for a supposed grownup to espouse.
-
I apologize if I've struck a nerve with anybody. This is a sore subject for me because I know somebody that is poz and is fucking as many woman as possible without disclosing his status. He's using protection with every partner as "far as I know"...but this does open a can of worms for both parties.
A) At what point do you disclose, if fucking turns into something more? It's pretty naive to think that the uninformed partner is going to be very understanding that "this was a difficult topic to bring up". In this case...honesty in the relationship is out the window, and I wouldn't "expect" the uninformed partner to hang around.
B) Condom breaks...girl ends up pregnant AND positive.
C) Condom or no condom...disclose to the uninformed ignorant partner and have them have to deal with the mind fuck of wondering if they're going to have HIV now or not? YES...welcome to the world of HIV/AIDS. Aren't you glad I never told you? NO...holy shit! How long do I have to wait to know for sure that I'm not going to catch HIV/AIDS now?
D) Wow...I really fell in love with that person and they just left because of something I can't change.
E) Wow...I really fell in love with that person and I have to leave because I'm a germophobe.
Other option..."Hey...before we get too involved here, I need to tell you something. I'm HIV+. I just wanted you to know right up front before this gets too far down the road. Yes...we can have safe sex, and I'm willing to answer any questions you have or can direct you to any information you're looking for."
What's the problem of just disclosing if you know your positive? If somebody doesn't know they're positive...that's entirely different. But the judicial system could find out this information easy enough by checking health records for better clarification of just who knew what and when. I'm just asking...if somebody knows they're positive, why not just disclose? What's the advantage of keeping quiet, other than getting laid vs not getting laid. Why the fuck add more turmoil to our lives by theoretically having to walk on egg shells, because we know we're going to have to deal with some type of shit at some point, whether it's an honesty/trust issue...or seeing somebody become positive and now justifying that "they had as much responsibility to keep this from happening as we did." Justify away...but it would be so much easier to just be up front and let the other person decide how they want to handle the situation.
-
What you just posted was LEAGUES away from this:
If somebody wants to go around having sex with or without a condom, without letting the other party know their status, and that partner becomes infected due to exposure through that contact...fuck the person keeping the secret. If the law dictates it...send the fucker to jail.
If somebody feels they don't need to disclose to somebody they're banging...it's because they know right well the other person wouldn't have anything to do with them if they did...
(emphasis mine)
One statement makes an ethical/moral argument for the benefits disclosure. The other, well says "send the fucker to jail."
I'm not debating what you JUST wrote, I am debating what you originally wrote with such vehemence.
So a law that says if I give a BJ to someone without disclosure is cool with you? Or a law that says that I go to jail regardless of whether or not transmission occurs is OK with you?
And what of the other party? Are they utterly not responsible for their health?
Do you not even fathom the damage that mindset does to getting people to test and know their status?
You write far too eloquently for that to be the case.
-
What's the problem of just disclosing if you know your positive? If somebody doesn't know they're positive...that's entirely different. But the judicial system could find out this information easy enough by checking health records for better clarification of just who knew what and when. I'm just asking...if somebody knows they're positive, why not just disclose? What's the advantage of keeping quiet, other than getting laid vs not getting laid. Why the fuck add more turmoil to our lives by theoretically having to walk on egg shells, because we know we're going to have to deal with some type of shit at some point, whether it's an honesty/trust issue...or seeing somebody become positive and now justifying that "they had as much responsibility to keep this from happening as we did." Justify away...but it would be so much easier to just be up front and let the other person decide how they want to handle the situation.
What's the problem in disclosing if you're positive??
You seem to totally gloss over or fail to understand these facts:
-Sexual desire is an innate want, need and urge for most of the human race.
-Condoms, if used correctly and consistently, provide effective protection against STI’s.
- It is unbelievably hard for many (if not most) people to disclose and I can easily imagine situations triggering violence. (I think you should understand this example: A woman in an abusive relationship has an affair with someone else and contracts HIV. She’s afraid of telling her husband but insists on condoms).
-The overwhelming vast majority of infections (virtually all) occur due to someone being oblivious of their infection passing it on unwittingly and not from people who’ve learnt about their infection.
-After one turns poz, nearly each and every person, takes steps to ensure no onward transmission takes place via a combination of these measures (whether they disclose or not): consistent condom usage, sero-sorting, safe sexual practices, an undetectable vl through meds etc).
-No one wants to get infected or to pass on the infection (except for a minuscule fraction of deranged loons who are doomed regardless of HIV).
-Criminalization of HIV transmission is counter-productive for us as a community. It serves no purpose other than the media getting their rocks off in hysterical coverage at the expense of making all our lives more difficult than they already are.
Edited typo
-
I apologize if I've struck a nerve with anybody. This is a sore subject for me because I know somebody that is poz and is fucking as many woman as possible without disclosing his status. He's using protection with every partner as "far as I know"...but this does open a can of worms for both parties.
A) At what point do you disclose, if fucking turns into something more? It's pretty naive to think that the uninformed partner is going to be very understanding that "this was a difficult topic to bring up". In this case...honesty in the relationship is out the window, and I wouldn't "expect" the uninformed partner to hang around.
B) Condom breaks...girl ends up pregnant AND positive.
C) Condom or no condom...disclose to the uninformed ignorant partner and have them have to deal with the mind fuck of wondering if they're going to have HIV now or not? YES...welcome to the world of HIV/AIDS. Aren't you glad I never told you? NO...holy shit! How long do I have to wait to know for sure that I'm not going to catch HIV/AIDS now?
D) Wow...I really fell in love with that person and they just left because of something I can't change.
E) Wow...I really fell in love with that person and I have to leave because I'm a germophobe.
Other option..."Hey...before we get too involved here, I need to tell you something. I'm HIV+. I just wanted you to know right up front before this gets too far down the road. Yes...we can have safe sex, and I'm willing to answer any questions you have or can direct you to any information you're looking for."
What's the problem of just disclosing if you know your positive? If somebody doesn't know they're positive...that's entirely different. But the judicial system could find out this information easy enough by checking health records for better clarification of just who knew what and when. I'm just asking...if somebody knows they're positive, why not just disclose? What's the advantage of keeping quiet, other than getting laid vs not getting laid. Why the fuck add more turmoil to our lives by theoretically having to walk on egg shells, because we know we're going to have to deal with some type of shit at some point, whether it's an honesty/trust issue...or seeing somebody become positive and now justifying that "they had as much responsibility to keep this from happening as we did." Justify away...but it would be so much easier to just be up front and let the other person decide how they want to handle the situation.
Some thoughts:
1. Brevity is the soul of wit;
2. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Each of us is responsible for protecting ourselves. Once we negate that obligation diseases like HIV thrive. As Spacey so eloquently demonstrated, laws which criminalise HIV non disclosure do nothing to stop the spread of the disease. They probably make things worse.
The chap you refer to sounds like a real cunt. But (assuming he's not raping these women) if his sexual partners insist on condoms for vaginal and anal sex, his non disclosure is not an issue. By not taking steps to protect themselves, they are complicit in their own potential infections.
We must inculcate a culture of personal responsibility. HIV disclosure laws allow people to eschew their obligations.
MtD
-
We must inculcate a culture of personal responsibility. HIV disclosure laws allow people to eschew their obligations.
That's something that pisses me off about the Republican party in the US. They are usually the most vocal about enforcing - and strengthening - hiv criminalisation laws. Yet in most every other sphere, they're always yanking on about "personal responsibility" - like when they slash (or attempt to slash) the budgets for safety net measures to protect the more vulnerable in society. Or socialised medicine. They're always banging on about "personal responsibility" in being able to afford health care.
It's like they're saying "I don't want to pay for YOUR healthcare, but I expect YOU and YOU ALONE to protect MY health when it comes to hiv and if you don't, we're gonna throw your ass in jail. And by the way, I don't want ANYONE to know how to protect their health through using condoms. I'm not gonna fund sex education, I'm just gonna throw your ass in jail." (and while we're at it, which costs more - sex education or years of incarceration?)
They only espouse personal responsibility when it suits their political agenda.
Klipsch, the way many of the criminalisation laws are set up, disclosure won't protect you against a vindictive ex who may claim non-disclosure after the relationship has broken up. I think someone in this thread provided some examples - either here or in the other recent criminalisation thread about the case in France.
And the case in France brings up another aspect of criminalisation laws. Are you aware that a man was recently convicted of hiv related offences even though he didn't even know he was poz? This has set a VERY dangerous precedent, one that I fear will be cropping up in other areas of the world.
Hiv criminalisation sucks and needs to be gotten rid of. NOW.
-
A) At what point do you disclose, if fucking turns into something more? It's pretty naive to think that the uninformed partner is going to be very understanding that "this was a difficult topic to bring up". In this case...honesty in the relationship is out the window, and I wouldn't "expect" the uninformed partner to hang around.
You are a bit inexperienced.
I know many gay couples where the disclosure happened well AFTER the sex started because the sex starts right away. The sex was safe. At disclosure, the negative partner did not run away. In some instances the negative partner said "who cares." In other instances, it was a bit of a bump in the road.
I also know that other times, yes, its like you imagine, the negative one can't deal with the news. For different reasons.
I broke up with a guy in the late eighties for this reason. I asked him quite a number of times over a few years if he was positive. Always said no. Yet he knew he was. The sex was always safe. When he finally did disclose, the issue was as you say - broken trust. Many years later, I wonder if my issue really was trust at the time. Maybe I wasn't really in love with him, or not anymore, or maybe it was fear of HIV, or whatever.
But, as I explained, there are certainly PLENTY of gay men who "hook up" and don't expect any discussion of their history of STDs. That question might come quite a bit later on, after mutual interest is established.
The world is filled with almost infinite different types of people, psychologies, and ways of constructing a couple. When people start making gross generalizations, it leads to baseless arguments, biased observations and, finally, personal values masquerading as... Oh wait, this isn't a thread about Santorum and Romney... ;D
-
That's something that pisses me off about the Republican party in the US. They are usually the most vocal about enforcing - and strengthening - hiv criminalisation laws. Yet in most every other sphere, they're always yanking on about "personal responsibility" - like when they slash (or attempt to slash) the budgets for safety net measures to protect the more vulnerable in society. Or socialised medicine. They're always banging on about "personal responsibility" in being able to afford health care.
It's like they're saying "I don't want to pay for YOUR healthcare, but I expect YOU and YOU ALONE to protect MY health when it comes to hiv and if you don't, we're gonna throw your ass in jail. And by the way, I don't want ANYONE to know how to protect their health through using condoms. I'm not gonna fund sex education, I'm just gonna throw your ass in jail." (and while we're at it, which costs more - sex education or years of incarceration?)
They only espouse personal responsibility when it suits their political agenda.
Ann, I couldn't agree with you more -- well said.
-
Lemme throw my hat in the ring here. My feelings are that if I'm moving towards anything that's going to lead to sex or a relationship...I'll tell them my status before either of us has too much invested emotionally. That way it's "if there answer's no...tell me before I spend $10 on drinks (or rubbers)".
$10? You sure know how to impress the person you are courting, big spender. ::)
If somebody wants to go around having sex with or without a condom, without letting the other party know their status, and that partner becomes infected due to exposure through that contact...fuck the person keeping the secret. If the law dictates it...send the fucker to jail.
Of course, this doesn't change the fact that the partner became infected. And that's the problem with disclosure laws.
If somebody feels they don't need to disclose to somebody they're banging...it's because they know right well the other person wouldn't have anything to do with them if they did...
Aren't you presumptuous?
-
$10? You sure know how to impress the person you are courting, big spender. ::)
Do note that the actual response was $10 on drinks OR a box of condoms. I guess if it's gonna be one of those REALLY big nights and a guy's gotta spring for the condoms, it's just a Hershey Bar and maybe some nylons for you.
-
Do note that the actual response was $10 on drinks OR a box of condoms. I guess if it's gonna be one of those REALLY big nights and a guy's gotta spring for the condoms, it's just a Hershey Bar and maybe some nylons for you.
;D Only 10 dollars on drinks PLEASE try like $100 that sounds reasonable to me ;)
-
Consider the number of newly diagnosed people who come in here whinging about getting HIV because some evil maggot lied to them.
This is the situation that I'm talking about where the lying bastard gets locked up. Nothing more...because if somebody is unaware that they're positive, then there's nothing to tell. But the practice of No Balloons No Party...should be taught and understood by all to protect oneself and their partner from other STD's at the very least. In a case of knowingly exposing another person to HIV, without making them aware is a totally different than exposing them to herpes or some other STD. Regardless of the advances in medicine and HIV being considered a chronic illness instead of the death sentence it once was...it doesn't put it in the same category as genital sores and warts.
If knowingly exposing (and transmitting) somebody to the possibility of contracting HIV without their knowledge can be tried in court and carry the possibility of a life sentence...then those that are already positive would be doing a lot more to inform their potential sexual partner of their status beforehand. Of course it would be up to a prosecutor to prove previous knowledge, but that's easy enough to establish. Let the fuckers guilt or not be decided by a jury of his or her's peers.
Maybe I'm just a complete idiot and can't get past my own beliefs and morals regarding disclosing or not disclosing. I disclose as soon as I see myself or the woman becoming more than friends. Society is ignorant...and if she's going to run, I rather know now than later. The "before I spend $10 on drinks" line was something that I used to see on t-shirts when I was still in my teens...so I'm showing my age here...lol. But if the only possibility of being tried for HIV transmission hinges on previous knowledge and non-disclosure...then I can't see a reason for it not being escalated criminally.
It's kind of like the seat-belt law. Insurance companies got tired of paying medical expenses and death benefits to those involved in car accidents and not wearing their seat-belts. How could they limit their liability in auto insurance policies? They lobbied to make wearing seat-belts the law, and their liability dropped.
I don't know about anybody else...but if it weren't for Ryan White and ADAP, there's no way in hell I could afford my HIV meds...not to mention the other meds I'm on due to side effects of side effects of side effects. Those funds are limited to nonexistent in some states. The only way to decrease, level or possibly increase those resources for those already infected with the HIV virus...is to slow the the number of new infections. So they want to make it a law to make every possible effort to not risk the possibility of transmitting HIV to another individual. It's a money thing...not a moral thing in their eyes.
So if you're reading this and you're already poz...continue, or get used to telling the person your gonna fuck that you're positive, or the likelihood of being locked up in the future may be imminent.
-
I'm not see this as a disclosure issue --- I'm seeing it as a responsibility issue. Who has the primary responsibility to their own well-being?? The negative person should assume the person they are fucking is positive and use a condom. I've not seen anyone in this thread say the positive person should not disclose -- they are saying that criminalization is not the answer (well, not in the vast majority of cases, IMO - we can probably always come up with that heinous example that might warrant it).
Your response seems to put the entire onus for keeping the negative person negative on the positive person. That is insanity! -- why?? because the real goal should be to stop the spread of the virus -- that can be done (at least in sexual situations) via using condoms. If I had used a condom everytime, I wouldn't by typing this -- however, I didn't use one everytime, so here I am. It's not because someone didn't disclose -- it's because I chose to fuck bare.
It's not about morals --it's about looking out for your own well-being. Quite honestly, when someone holds up their own morals as a reason why others should do "X", the hairs on my neck stand on end. Your morals are your own -- act on them all you want, but don't use them to tell others what they should/should not do.
Personally, I hope that I would always disclose -- but that won't keep someone negative -- only their use of condoms will do that.
Mike
-
This is the situation that I'm talking about where the lying bastard gets locked up. Nothing more...because if somebody is unaware that they're positive, then there's nothing to tell. But the practice of No Balloons No Party...should be taught and understood by all to protect oneself and their partner from other STD's at the very least. In a case of knowingly exposing another person to HIV, without making them aware is a totally different than exposing them to herpes or some other STD. Regardless of the advances in medicine and HIV being considered a chronic illness instead of the death sentence it once was...it doesn't put it in the same category as genital sores and warts.
If knowingly exposing (and transmitting) somebody to the possibility of contracting HIV without their knowledge can be tried in court and carry the possibility of a life sentence...then those that are already positive would be doing a lot more to inform their potential sexual partner of their status beforehand. Of course it would be up to a prosecutor to prove previous knowledge, but that's easy enough to establish. Let the fuckers guilt or not be decided by a jury of his or her's peers.
Maybe I'm just a complete idiot and can't get past my own beliefs and morals regarding disclosing or not disclosing. I disclose as soon as I see myself or the woman becoming more than friends. Society is ignorant...and if she's going to run, I rather know now than later. The "before I spend $10 on drinks" line was something that I used to see on t-shirts when I was still in my teens...so I'm showing my age here...lol. But if the only possibility of being tried for HIV transmission hinges on previous knowledge and non-disclosure...then I can't see a reason for it not being escalated criminally.
It's kind of like the seat-belt law. Insurance companies got tired of paying medical expenses and death benefits to those involved in car accidents and not wearing their seat-belts. How could they limit their liability in auto insurance policies? They lobbied to make wearing seat-belts the law, and their liability dropped.
I don't know about anybody else...but if it weren't for Ryan White and ADAP, there's no way in hell I could afford my HIV meds...not to mention the other meds I'm on due to side effects of side effects of side effects. Those funds are limited to nonexistent in some states. The only way to decrease, level or possibly increase those resources for those already infected with the HIV virus...is to slow the the number of new infections. So they want to make it a law to make every possible effort to not risk the possibility of transmitting HIV to another individual. It's a money thing...not a moral thing in their eyes.
So if you're reading this and you're already poz...continue, or get used to telling the person your gonna fuck that you're positive, or the likelihood of being locked up in the future may be imminent.
So we differ.
I and most of the other people contributing to this thread are interested in stopping the spread of HIV. We believe that this is best achieved by encouraging everyone to be responsible for themselves. Not in the hardass cantankerous conservative legislator way, but in the liberating, empowering way. Taking control of one's sexual health rather than leaving it in the hands of manipulative sociopaths.
You, on the other hand, want to punish wrongdoers. I'm not sure how you got HIV and I don't really care to review your posting history in an effort to find out but I fancy that is what colours your view of this issue.
Well, whatever.
MtD
-
It's kind of like the seat-belt law. Insurance companies got tired of paying medical expenses and death benefits to those involved in car accidents and not wearing their seat-belts. How could they limit their liability in auto insurance policies? They lobbied to make wearing seat-belts the law, and their liability dropped.
Bullshit. It wasn't insurance companies lobbying for HIV criminalization laws to save them money. It was public health officials in their misguided thinking that it would reduce infections, and prosecutors / legislators bent on showing that they were punishing and eradicting AIDS-infected faggots from their communities. It's demonstrated by the fact that most of these laws single out of HIV. Sure, it's not the same as other STDs, but I'd expect a well thought out though still misguided law to address all sorts of STDs (Hep C isn't a picnic). Why the singular maniacal focus on HIV transmission? These laws are all just to make some reactionary public official either feel good that they are doing someone about HIV infections, or feel good about punishing people who have HIV.
While most of us here would like to focus on reducing HIV infections, your focus seems to be squarely on punishing people with HIV. Punishment doesn't stop HIV infection. Condoms, and encouraging people to take responsibility for their sexual health, does.
-
I recall having several conversations shortly after I tested positive.
Tested positive while in a "monogamous" relationship with someone who took the extra effort to go get tested together with me before we took off condoms for sex. Of course in those dark, dim days of yore, same-sex couples could not receive their test results together. I was negative. He was too, he said.
Key words, those.
So long story short, I acquired my infection despite jumping through the right "hoops." We waited three months, tested together, and only then used condoms. But I still acquired HIV.
That event took three things to happen. Three things which, in my opinion, were of equal value- seeing as how if ANY of the things had not happened, I would likely be a rich sitcom writer living in some balmy California suburb of the Greater Los Angeles Area, snorting cocaine off prostitutes' asses and complaining about the traffic.
The three things were:
A) My chosen Love Of My Life had to lie to me.
B) I had to believe that lie.
C) I had to allow sex without a condom.
Had any of these three events not transpired, I would be negative still. But they did. Was I super young and naive? Absolutely. Was he at best a frightened and insecure man? In my most charitable moments, yes. But HIV doesn't give passes for youth, self esteem or naivete. HIV is a virus.
I had friends who asked me if I was going to pursue him through the courts. The thought never occurred to me until I was directly asked. And I really didn't have to think about it very much at all. I was responsible, ultimately, for my infection. I made a choice, an unwise choice.
Did he do a shitty thing? Of course he did. Hell, he could have kept lying about his status, so long as we used condoms - and barring extraordinary events, I would still be driving a series 4 Mercedes and letting calls from Chuck Lorre go to voicemail.
But to blame him in some lopsided way, to say that HIS behavior caused my infection to a degree greater than my own? Ludicrous.
Of course I was too naive to see the signs that all was not well in our world. But that's what happens in the land of Grownups. We often are saddled with paying full retail plus interest for our life lessons.
My best friend has routinely barebacked, even with HIV positive boyfriends. And he remains negative. And despite my whinging about it and throwing him Truvada and condoms. To date, he has crossed the viral street over and over again with blindfolds on and has not been struck. I was not lucky in that regard. It happens.
And were I to blame my ex for my infection, I would have skirted the very important life lesson that my infection taught me. My life is my own responsibility. My infection was and remains my own responsibility.
People sometimes annoy me when they talk about HIV having a positive (puns included if not intended) impact on their lives. Personally, I would trade any life lessons learned from my 19 years with HIV/AIDS for the alternative. But I will concede this: A life lesson was handed to me, and I chose to accept it.
Criminalization of HIV works completely against that valuable notion: that our lives are our responsibility.
The only way to prevent HIV infection is to reduce the stigma of HIV infection.
(huh? What?)
If people are too scared to get tested, they won't. This has been borne out tima and again by study after study. And if the KNOWLEDGE of your positive status makes you a pariah, then the logical (if short-sighted and immature) reaction is to simply not know.
That shit obviously needs to stop. HIV needs to be given the respect and concern it is due. But no more, not a scintilla more.
Untreated HIV is deadly. So is untreated syphilis. Yet there are no laws pertaining to syphilis disclosure. Why is that? Because though primary syphilis is fairly easy to cure, secondary and tertiary syphilis can be disastrous. Fatal, even. And often, the damage done by that pathogen is irreversible, from blindness to insanity.
We as a society have lumped all our fears, our loathing, our dark lustful judgment, onto one pathogen; HIV. And that shit needs to stop.
It will not stop so long as we single out HIV infection as a criminal act. I say this with absolute certainty, having worked in HIV prevention and education since 1995. I say this in the knowledge that, at it's core, fear and rage fuel the pro-criminalization argument.
This is not about deterrence, because we know that is bullshit.
This is not about saving society from predators, because we know that is bullshit as well.
This is about the boogeyman, whom we have indeed met, and who is us.
-
Look...the truth of the matter is that we would all like to reduce the spread of HIV. But yes...I do feel that if transmission is criminalized, it could reduce exposure. Shooting people is criminalized. If it were not...then there would be a lot more dead people due to road rage and PMS. Am I equating transmitting HIV to shooting somebody? Yeah...I guess I am. Life as they knew it, is over. Premeditated manslaughter carries certain punishment. Not knowing the gun was loaded carries different punishment.
If you don't want to believe that any of this is money driven at all...you need to wake up. I've often become very angry at the fact that I can get completely free/funded healthcare...while others with what I consider worse conditions are on their own. Why are we so privileged to goes as far as to even receive free massage treatments? Because some maniac with HIV could go on a bender and infect half a city block in a sex crazed murder spree. Half a block more people that will receive free treatment so as to diminish the possibility of them transmitting HIV to somebody else. Perhaps where ever you folks live, there are doctors that are working pro bono. But it's not like that around the North East. Less infections means less necessary free care (free to the patient...not to the state). How many states are decreasing their AIDS assistance programs due to funds? Come on! The less the state needs to outlay cash for free care to HIV/AIDS patients...the less the necessity to cut spending in other areas or look for ways to tax the rock salt people are using to melt the ice on their sidewalks. How do you get backing for legislature? Tell the people in the state that free healthcare for the HIV community is being decreased so they won't increase taxes.
They can wrap this shit in whatever shiny paper they want to...but it comes down to one person trying to get in a position of power so that they can eat shrimp 4 times a week instead of twice. Criminalizing HIV transmission satisfies the tax payer that is thinking "Dirty Gay Disease"...It WILL make a few people think twice before barebacking their uninformed club hook-up...and if new infections are decreased...then there's less coin that's going to have to be budgeted for free care. I don't know about anybody else...but after being seen at a well known medical facility in the HIV community for about 3 years, my medical insurance lapsed after being laid off. I was told..."We're sorry, but you're going to need to go over to the free clinic from now on". When I got to the "free clinic"...I told them what I had been told, and their response was "we're free?".
Why it matters how I was infected...I don't understand. I'd say I fall into the category of transmission by somebody that probably had no idea she was positive.
Going back to the previous knowledge, non-disclosure qualifier...why wouldn't anybody stand behind a mandate that says "If you're positive...you better fucking tell the person you're about to lay down with, so they can decide if they really want to or not". Why keep your status a secret, if your really ok with it? Actually...I'd be very interested to know what types of sexual situations dictate that it is not necessary to disclose ones status?
-
I do feel that if transmission is criminalized, it could reduce exposure.
But here's the rub: That's your feeling. There is no proof. There is. however, proof of the exact opposite.
I would have liked to address the other things you said, but you seem to ignore that one, singular, dramatic piece of information.
*modified to add:
You appear intent on making this a disclosure argument. It is not. It is a criminalization argument.
A woman can agree that abortion should be a legal choice, yet hold the passionate opinion that she, herself, would never choose it. That is not a dichotomy.
I might totally agree with you about disclosure, but I do not think it should be a criminal act prosecuted by a governmental agency. See how those are different things?
-
If knowingly exposing (and transmitting) somebody to the possibility of contracting HIV without their knowledge can be tried in court and carry the possibility of a life sentence...then those that are already positive would be doing a lot more to inform their potential sexual partner of their status beforehand.
Call me dense but I don't understand this sentence or exactly what your opinion is.
You are in favor of laws and punishment for the lack of disclosure, even if there is no transmission???
A HIV+ person has safe sex, there is no transmission, and its a crime if there is no disclosure???
Well, if so, there are some states you can move to, and feel right at home. righteously at home....
"If knowingly exposing (and transmitting) somebody to the possibility of contracting HIV"
?????
-
Look...the truth of the matter is that we would all like to reduce the spread of HIV. But yes...I do feel that if transmission is criminalized, it could reduce exposure. Shooting people is criminalized. If it were not...then there would be a lot more dead people due to road rage and PMS. Am I equating transmitting HIV to shooting somebody? Yeah...I guess I am. Life as they knew it, is over. Premeditated manslaughter carries certain punishment. Not knowing the gun was loaded carries different punishment.
And this ^^ reflects your prejudices with which you paint all poz people.
Other than those ‘rarest of rare’ cases where someone has a clear and malicious intent to transmit HIV, and does in fact transmit it (which has its own serious legal difficulties of proof, hearsay, failing the test ‘proving beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law’ and therefore the real risk of miscarriages of justice) criminalization of HIV, not only makes NO SENSE but runs contrary to principles of human rights and throws water over public health efforts that emphasis use of condoms (if you’d care to read the UNAIDS article I linked earlier).
It is counterproductive in that it heightens stigma and prejudice by painting all of us as monsters in the eyes of the public (as you so vividly elucidated). Consequently, it severely sharpens the fear of people testing themselves which only serves to fuel the epidemic rather than contain it.
As for your shooting someone with a gun and your HIV transmission analogy- it is wholly nonsensical and incomparable. People don’t get erections and sexual urges to shoot someone in the head, but they do (all the f*&^*# time!) for sex. Sex is a primal urge.
Would you toss someone in jail for sneezing next to you and giving you a cold (which is also a viral infection btw)? What about second-hand smoke which has been attributed to cancer in people who've been subjected to it a long time? Or Syphllis, HPV, HBV that can also be fatal if left undiagnosed?
Going back to the previous knowledge, non-disclosure qualifier...why wouldn't anybody stand behind a mandate that says "If you're positive...you better fucking tell the person you're about to lay down with, so they can decide if they really want to or not". Why keep your status a secret, if your really ok with it? Actually...I'd be very interested to know what types of sexual situations dictate that it is not necessary to disclose ones status?
If you read what others and I stated (in my previous post), you’d hopefully appreciate that everything isn’t dressed up as black and white as you’d like. There are many shades of grey.
Not every situation warrants disclosure. Also you seem to totally ignore how difficult disclosure is for many people and that no one intends to harm anyone.
And lastly: Beware of the law of unintended consequences and the cascading effect. You may look no further than what they did in France recently (as Ann stated before).
Wear a condom, protect yourself. It’s as simple as that.
-
I feel sorry for those who can't differentiate between disclosure and criminalizing. The MAJORITY here believe in full disclosure before sex. But when we start legislating morality, we take many steps backward.
For many of us who lived through the persecution years, this seems so obvious. We can't let feelings and emotions dictate the course of events. This is just another ultra conservative method of once again persecuting those with HIV (which they believe are still mainly queers and IV drug users).
Can't believe I jumped in another debate here about this topic. Oh wait, it wasn't about disclosure.....What was the main topic again? ;D ;D
Wolfie
-
For many of us who lived through the persecution years, this seems so obvious. We can't let feelings and emotions dictate the course of events. This is just another ultra conservative method of once again persecuting those with HIV (which they believe are still mainly queers and IV drug users).
Homos, Haemos and Haitians. :)
MtD
-
Why criminalize only HIV? There are many potentially fatal diseases that one can pass on to another -- many that are far easier to pass on than HIV.
For instance --
Say I find me a hot little trick. I disclose my HIV status and have safe sex... all is well, right? Wrong -- I also had a bit of a cold, but neglected to tell him of this. Now, he not only catches my cold -- he has an underlying lung issue that ultimately causes him to develop pneumonia and die. Would I be arrested and thrown in jail for not disclosing the fact that I harbored this virus? Of course not -- yet the man not only caught it, but died of it.
Now -- say I didn't have a cold, but also didn't disclose my HIV -- had safe sex, but refused to call him back. He's a bit miffed -- and finds out I have HIV from a mutual acquaintance. He goes to the police -- and because I live in the enlightened state of Virginia, my ass gets thrown in jail. He NEVER got infected, but I didn't disclose, so off to the slammer I go.
One scenario results in death and no legal issues for me. The other causes no harm but I land in jail.
Now, can you see the idiocy of criminalizing HIV? Why treat it differently from other diseases, many of which can kill you just as dead.
So, as others have said -- the question here is NOT disclosure -- it is holding people with THIS virus to a different standard and inflicting penalties that aren't in line with other viruses or diseases. PLUS -- throwing people in jail will only cause a false sense of securtiy and, likely, increases in infection (my educated opinion).
Mike
(who's scenarios above are complete fiction -- told to make a point)
-
Homos, Haemos and Haitians. :)
MtD
Don't know what that implies but I might agree. :o
Wolfie
-
OH, and BTW. Just wondering how that conservative sex ed is going? Achieved the results they were expecting? Telling a horny teenage boy that abstinence is the way to go when he is willing to fish in any pond....Oh my!
-
Don't know what that implies but I might agree. :o
Wolfie
And you're an LTS? :o
MtD
-
And you're an LTS? :o
MtD
And once again, when I don't understand your humor and try and make an effort.....Not sure what this comment even means. I've been plagued with a lot of nuero-cognitive issues and don't always pick
up on things for a while. It takes me a while to process things, but if this another slam that I don't understand, I'll just glady bow out.
-
And once again, when I don't understand your humor and try and make an effort.....Not sure what this comment even means. I've been plagued with a lot of nuero-cognitive issues and don't always pick
up on things for a while. It takes me a while to process things, but if this another slam that I don't understand, I'll just glady bow out.
It's all good Wolfie. I wasn't having a go at you. :-*
MtD
-
Exactly Wolfie, Matty wasn't being snarky towards you at all.
Maybe you would've caught on faster if he'd said:
Chimpanzees, Africans, and faggots - since (some) people think those are also the real origins (carriers) of teh aids ::)
Anyway, these disclosure threads are starting to be quite reductive every other week. (And) the only good thing is that they reveal the true colors of the advocates who want to propose harsh punishments for people who don't yell their status from the rooftops for everyone to hear prior to fucking.
PS: Wolfie, thanks for bringing up the scenario/analogy I asked about the last time we went round and round about disclosure, which seems to never produce any logical answer from the dissenters
I wonder if anyone has ever considered criminalizing unplanned pregnancies when one partner lies and says she's on the pill. Why should straight men pay the price when a one-nighter lies to them. Same concept.
Wolfie
-
Supposedly Santorom yammered on about just that in the 90's. That single mothers couldn't get welfare unless they identified the father.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/rick-santorum-single-mothers-unwed-moms_n_1333302.html
"What we say is that in order for Mom to be able to go on welfare if she has a child out of wedlock, you have to tell us who the father is," Santorum said at an event in Carlisle, Pa., on April 1, 1994. "If you don't tell us who the father is, you're not eligible for any welfare benefits, none, not even medical care. You tell us who the father is or you don't receive benefits."
Santorum argued that his proposal could persuade single women to slow their sex lives, which, in turn, would lead to less out-of-wedlock parenting. "If Mom knows that she isn't gonna receive welfare if she doesn't tell us who Dad is, y'know maybe she'll be a little more careful, maybe," he said.
"Or maybe she gives us a list, say 'Well it could be one of five,'" Santorum went on. "I mean, y'know, I don't know what she's gonna do, but at some point we're gonna see her cooperate."
_____________
Say the above with a German accent.
You can't make this stuff up.
I think everyone's eyes are opening?
-
Am I equating transmitting HIV to shooting somebody? Yeah...I guess I am.
The two things are absolutely nothing alike.
Bullets can kill from yards/meters away. You can be killed by a bullet when you never even saw the shooter, much less knew them.
But hiv is up-close and personal. It cannot be transmitted from yards away - or inches away for that matter.
You have to be in extremely close contact with that person to the point where either a part of your body is INSIDE them or a part of their body is INSIDE you.
You HAVE to consent to either penetrating another person or allowing them to penetrate you. (Except in the case of rape, but we're not discussing rape here, we're discussing consensual sexual intercourse.)
If you're going to consent to putting a part of your body INSIDE someone else's, or allowing them to put a part of their body INSIDE you, it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT YOURSELF.
People do not consent to being shot. People do, however, consent to having unprotected intercourse.
Transmitting hiv is NOTHING like shooting a loaded gun at someone.
-
@Ann- I also can't recall the last time I developed a raging hard on to kill someone with a gun, unlike for sex.
One is a natural, primal act with NO ILL-INTENT. The other is premeditated murder.
Vastly different.
-
"If you're positive...you better fucking tell the person you're about to lay down with, so they can decide if they really want to or not". Why keep your status a secret, if your really ok with it? Actually...I'd be very interested to know what types of sexual situations dictate that it is not necessary to disclose ones status?
And with every bodies wit at trying to pick apart every other part of everything I've posted in this thread...not a single person answers this question for me. Or does the phrase "by the way...I'm HIV+" act like kryptonite to even the stiff dick without conscience? :o
I can only hope that these attitudes are restricted to a handful of people on an internet forum.
-
And with every bodies wit at trying to pick apart every other part of everything I've posted in this thread...not a single person answers this question for me. Or does the phrase "by the way...I'm HIV+" act like kryptonite to even the stiff dick without conscience? :o
I can only hope that these attitudes are restricted to a handful of people on an internet forum.
No one said not to disclose. The problem they had was with you shifting all of the responsibility for someone's infection onto the person who is positive. When two people agree to have sex it is precisely that, 2 people agreeing to have sex. That means that 2 people should be responsible for sexual safety not one.
-
Klipsch are you baiting us?
We got your opinion now, loud and clear. Most do not agree.
What the point of continuing this debate with Klipsch?
-
I'm not baiting anybody. I've attempted to express my opinion on the matter, and clarify that the only individuals that would be subject to trial should be those who act irresponsibly or in malice. Instead of an intelligent discussion about those like the person I know who feels that he doesn't need to tell anybody shit about his status...everybody has instead picked apart the wording or phrasing of my point of view.
But I'm done. I've made every attempt to clarify my view point...and everybody that's responded has done the same. We can agree to disagree... ;)
-
You equate non-disclosure (even if precautions are taken and in cases where there is no intent to transmit, nor does transmission occur) with being malicious and think that such a person should be sent to jail, and hold a totally different standard for all other infections (even if transmission takes place and the infectee dies as a result- eg. Hep B). How is that intelligent, reasonable or humane?
Because I am sure it smacks of inhumanity to most people on these boards.
-
klipsch....Who infected you w/ the AIDS..
who lied to you about thier status?
and lastly, who do you want to be thrown in jail...
it's apparent you have some kinda axe to grind here...
if you do, and someone did this to you, I'm sorry THIS happened to you...
so with that being said, you really need to move on and get on with your life
like everyone else has done in this forum w/ the AIDS ::)
-
I've attempted to express my opinion on the matter, and clarify that the only individuals that would be subject to trial should be those who act irresponsibly or in malice.
Wouldn't you agree that having unsafe sex with someone who you don't really know is pos or neg is irresponsible?? So -- shouldn't BOTH parties by subject to trial by your definition?
You say we aren't getting your point -- but I think we all do - it is YOU who is missing our point. It takes 2 to tango -- so if the poz guy is on trial, so should the neg guy be............. Of course, the general sense is that (in most cases) NEITHER should be.
Mike
-
I'm not baiting anybody. I've attempted to express my opinion on the matter, and clarify that the only individuals that would be subject to trial should be those who act irresponsibly or in malice. Instead of an intelligent discussion about those like the person I know who feels that he doesn't need to tell anybody shit about his status...everybody has instead picked apart the wording or phrasing of my point of view.
But I'm done. I've made every attempt to clarify my view point...and everybody that's responded has done the same. We can agree to disagree... ;)
..
But you are baiting everyone, because you refuse to admit that this issue is much more involved than what you present. I just finished reading this entire thread and with your every comment, it's apparent that you possess fear and loathing for being poz yourself. My guess would be that some form of deception was involved in your becoming poz, or at least that is what you believe and in doing so, you are looking for retribution or revenge against those who did you wrong.
You make comments degrading entire classes of people, such as "Society is ignorant" and the idea that if someone finds out your are poz, they wont' want to have anything to do with you. These are your "feelings" and not facts. However, you are allowing your feelings to color your views on what YOU BELIEVE should be laws concerning disclosure, because you are angry and seeking to place the blame for your being poz, with anyone but you.
Joe
-
klipsch....Who infected you w/ the AIDS..
Best answer I've been able to come up with is a woman that I can't find, and if she was positive, she didn't know it
who lied to you about thier status?
Nobody. I only know of others that are running around fucking anything that moves, that don't feel it necessary to disclose. My issue with that...safe sex or not...what happens if that person finds out that they slept with somebody that was positive later on? It's each persons responsibility to protect themselves...but the mind fuck of being infected or knowing that you exposed yourself to possibly becoming infected...in some ways can be as bad as, or worse (the stigma) than the actual physical condition.
and lastly, who do you want to be thrown in jail...
That's not my decision. That would be up to a jury of ones peers. Of course that may be one sided with the ignorance around HIV/AIDS. What I will try to clarify again is this. If TRANSMISSION carried a stricter sentence...the obvious (to me) defense is whether or not the person being charged disclosed their status. If the answer to that is YES...then the person charging them doesn't have a leg to stand on, because they knew without question that they were having sex with a person that was HIV+. If the answer is NO...then it gets more complicated. But...if the law mandated a stricter sentence..."maybe" that person would have thought to disclose so that they wouldn't be faced with bullshit of a "more complicated" trial.
Like I said...I'm just addressing the easiest way I see to avoid being involved in this type of trial at all. I'm not saying sentencing would be black or white...just how to avoid it nearly completely. If that simple act of disclosure could have a case thrown out of court as quick as a $5 hookers handjob...then why subject oneself to the possible bullshit?
it's apparent you have some kinda axe to grind here...
The only axe I have to grind is with a person that puts somebody's physical or mental health in jeopardy out of cowardliness to be honest with them. The girls that I know have been involved with this douche bag I've mentioned...will never really understand that the reason he tossed them aside was so that he didn't need to face the fact of eventually telling them that he's positive. And...he's made it very clear that he will NEVER admit to being positive if ever questioned. Be a fucking man already, and suck it up...
if you do, and someone did this to you, I'm sorry THIS happened to you...
I've dealt with the same feelings as everybody else who's been living with HIV/AIDS for any length of time. If I can see a way to help somebody else to not have to go through such feelings, I'll try to do so. That's all...
so with that being said, you really need to move on and get on with your life like everyone else has done in this forum w/ the AIDS ::)
Yeah...I'm still coming to terms with the fact that the world does not in fact revolve around me...lol
-
I'm sorry but I disagree, I don't want the State interfering in my consensual grown-up personal relationships, even if I make stupid decisions. There are circumstance where I would elect to have them involved eg domestic violence, but these are really (theoretical in my case) non-consensual situations.
If in sex I am hopeful/I fuck up I am adult enough to sort it out and get real about the choices I made, even if the risks were outside limit risks. Why are other people not? There are many ways besides HIV to make optimistic/bad choices in a relationship and come a cropper but happily these generally just leads to sadness, start again, not 25 years prison for some guy/girl.
If you are on the pull, like buying a car, the Romans had a great saying, caveat emptor.
- matt
-
If that simple act of disclosure could have a case thrown out of court as quick as a $5 hookers handjob...then why subject oneself to the possible bullshit?
The only axe I have to grind is with a person that puts somebody's physical or mental health in jeopardy out of cowardliness to be honest with them. The girls that I know have been involved with this douche bag I've mentioned...will never really understand that the reason he tossed them aside was so that he didn't need to face the fact of eventually telling them that he's positive. And...he's made it very clear that he will NEVER admit to being positive if ever questioned. Be a fucking man already, and suck it up...
If that is the case, and you are privy to this information regarding this chap, why don't you just call the authorities and leave an anonymous tip? After all, regarding your logic either he could try to prove he disclosed before fucking all those women and be absolved of any wrong doing or just be buried under the jail. Simple as that. Two choices. Case closed. Or even better, if you have some type of rapport with this person just fucking threaten him and tell him that you plan to report his ass and maybe he will be scared straight and start doing the right thing. Either man up or let karma do its job, because if this person is as abhorrent as you claim he is - he will get his due at some point.
I don't get why you're in such an uproar over his behavior, unless he happens to be closer to you than you are willing to let on, as sometimes people will talk about others (in some context) when in all actuality they are referring to themselves :o (Then again, he may be someone you share consanguinity with so that's why you're being protective?)
-
Nobody. I only know of others that are running around fucking anything that moves, that don't feel it necessary to disclose. My issue with that...safe sex or not...what happens if that person finds out that they slept with somebody that was positive later on? It's each persons responsibility to protect themselves...but the mind fuck of being infected or knowing that you exposed yourself to possibly becoming infected...in some ways can be as bad as, or worse (the stigma) than the actual physical condition.
The only axe I have to grind is with a person that puts somebody's physical or mental health in jeopardy out of cowardliness to be honest with them. The girls that I know have been involved with this douche bag I've mentioned...will never really understand that the reason he tossed them aside was so that he didn't need to face the fact of eventually telling them that he's positive. And...he's made it very clear that he will NEVER admit to being positive if ever questioned. Be a fucking man already, and suck it up...
Obviously this is very personal for you and the presumptions you make are mind numbing. How can you know all the thoughts and actions of another person, to make such accusations? And to claim that worrying about the status of who you slept with, is equal to actually being infected is incomprehensible. This is why your argument has no merit. You are unable to remove your personal feelings, from a discussion about disclosure/criminal acts. If you insist on seeing this as a "black OR white" issue, you will never understand the intent of the other posters here.
Regarding this guy you reference, you have already tried and convicted him and now you merely want the state to administer the punishment for you. Again, your personal feelings prevent you from acknowledging the reasonableness of the arguments made in this thread. You are not looking to save anyone from anything, you are looking for revenge, plain and simple.
Joe
-
You are not looking to save anyone from anything, you are looking for revenge, plain and simple.
Exactly. I don't see any reason in his argument, just anger. It's just ridiculous to try to impose one's morality on others.
If you feel like disclosing before sex is the way to go, good for you, no one will say otherwise. But if you want to send to jail those who don't think like you, that's just childish. It only contributes to the stigma of HIV.
As I see it, apparently, only people who have a lot of issues with having HIV that have these extreme opinions regarding disclosure, criminalization, etc. They try so much to be different from the other "trash" who have HIV that they turn into bigots. It's just sad.
-
Since I'm getting so much attention here and everybody seems to know me so well...let's get back to a previous post that everybody is still skirting around.
I'd be very interested to know what types of sexual situations dictate that it is not necessary to disclose ones status?
And with every bodies wit at trying to pick apart every other part of everything I've posted in this thread...not a single person answers this question for me. Or does the phrase "by the way...I'm HIV+" act like kryptonite to even the stiff dick without conscience? :o
I can only hope that these attitudes are restricted to a handful of people on an internet forum.
Everybody I associate with knows my status. Why is disclosure such a big issue for everybody that feels they need to chime in on my statements with ridiculous attempts to put the focus back on me instead of facing their own apparent denial? What is it that YOU'RE ashamed of?
Wait...I really don't give a fuck what you're reasoning is. I've said my peace and I'm done.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
-
Since I'm getting so much attention here and everybody seems to know me so well...let's get back to a previous post that everybody is still skirting around.
I'd be very interested to know what types of sexual situations dictate that it is not necessary to disclose ones status?
And with every bodies wit at trying to pick apart every other part of everything I've posted in this thread...not a single person answers this question for me. Or does the phrase "by the way...I'm HIV+" act like kryptonite to even the stiff dick without conscience? :o
I can only hope that these attitudes are restricted to a handful of people on an internet forum.
Everybody I associate with knows my status. Why is disclosure such a big issue for everybody that feels they need to chime in on my statements with ridiculous attempts to put the focus back on me instead of facing their own apparent denial? What is it that YOU'RE ashamed of?
Wait...I really don't give a fuck what you're reasoning is. I've said my peace and I'm done.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
OK I will take the bait. If I meet a guy and we are just hooking up for some mutual masturbation or I'm just giving oral sex and deep kissing, there is absolutely zero reason to disclose.
Am I a monster now? Or not monster enough?
-
Allow me to be the monster then. If I'm having safe sex with a trick, I don't disclose. Simple as that. I would disclose if there was the discussion for unprotected sex.
Regardless, the thread is about HIV criminalization, which we are against. Disclosure is another issue, and one should do what one feels is the best course to take. No one should dictate anything about that, especially not the government.
-
Since I'm getting so much attention here and everybody seems to know me so well...let's get back to a previous post that everybody is still skirting around.
I'd be very interested to know what types of sexual situations dictate that it is not necessary to disclose ones status?
And with every bodies wit at trying to pick apart every other part of everything I've posted in this thread...not a single person answers this question for me. Or does the phrase "by the way...I'm HIV+" act like kryptonite to even the stiff dick without conscience? :o
I can only hope that these attitudes are restricted to a handful of people on an internet forum.
Everybody I associate with knows my status. Why is disclosure such a big issue for everybody that feels they need to chime in on my statements with ridiculous attempts to put the focus back on me instead of facing their own apparent denial? What is it that YOU'RE ashamed of?
Wait...I really don't give a fuck what you're reasoning is. I've said my peace and I'm done.
I was wondering just how long it would take for you to play the "victim" card. Nobody here is ashamed of being poz, not so sure about you. Either way, you can't claim foul just because you have no foundation to your argument.
Joe
-
I'd be very interested to know what types of sexual situations dictate that it is not necessary to disclose ones status?
1. Where you might be subject to violence, summary illegal but effective eviction, economic disempowerment etc and/or perhaps there are other people to consider, eg children who depend on you?
2, Where the rules of engagement are disclosure is not on the cards (qv BJs and random parking lots).
Do these count?
- matt
-
Since I'm getting so much attention here and everybody seems to know me so well...let's get back to a previous post that everybody is still skirting around.
I'd be very interested to know what types of sexual situations dictate that it is not necessary to disclose ones status?
And with every bodies wit at trying to pick apart every other part of everything I've posted in this thread...not a single person answers this question for me. Or does the phrase "by the way...I'm HIV+" act like kryptonite to even the stiff dick without conscience? :o
I can only hope that these attitudes are restricted to a handful of people on an internet forum.
Everybody I associate with knows my status. Why is disclosure such a big issue for everybody that feels they need to chime in on my statements with ridiculous attempts to put the focus back on me instead of facing their own apparent denial? What is it that YOU'RE ashamed of?
Wait...I really don't give a fuck what you're reasoning is. I've said my peace and I'm done.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
Read the thread carefully. People have explained but its not computing in your head.
Your argument about 100% disclosure is moral. But you are trying to base it on a flawed assumption. You seem to think ANY and EVERY contact between an HIV+ and HIV- person is a risk for transmission. And involved a injury to the HIV- person if he/she is unaware of the status of the +.
Yet, safe sex between people presents no risk.
And you can double that (illogically, since its already no risk) if the + is undetectable.
People have explained some situations in which HIV+ people have sex without disclosing and they are willing, morally, to live with it, because there is NO RISK.
You need to acknowledge that otherwise your argument falls apart - its purely moral and emotional.
-
Great, another disclosure thread!
I'm relatively new in the game and I am still looking for the right disclosure strategy for me.
When I started having sex again after my diagnosis at first I disclosed to everybody before having sex. I felt it was a 'fair' thing to do. When I was still neg, I would have appreciated it (btw, nobody ever disclosed to me). But after having some poor reactions I see things differently now.
I'll never forget the reaction of one particular guy: "Congratulations, you are aware that you will be dead in 5 years from now."
Seriously, how does a person like this deserve my disclosure? The problem I see is that many people can't deal with that information properly, either because they are poorly educated or excessively scared beyond reason. Or they are just assholes.
I'll happily start disclosing to everybody when that changes.
And by the way, I don't lie about my status. My online profile says 'HIV status: Ask me' and if someone does ask me he gets to know that I am positive. But this has practically never happened. If the guys really care that much about about my status they can ask.
Do I also need to disclose any other things that my sex partner might potentially feel uncomfortable about?
-
People are not skirting your question -- we've said that disclosure and criminalization are different topics. I do disclose, but I don't feel I should go to jail if I didn't -- especially if I don't disclose and have safe sex.
What you have skirted is this:
Why should HIV be treated any differently than other, potentially, fatal disease?
I'll tell you why it is, not that it should be -- it is due to hysteria, homophobia and self-loathing. it is a virus, nothing more, nothing less -- many viruses have the potential to kill, yet this is the only one people get put into jail for.
Mike
-
I'm sorry to offend guys but people need to take responsibility for their own health. That and that alone will help HIV rates go down to undetectable status. Criminal laws only deter people from getting testing and treatment.
Disclosing your status to someone you don't even know is irresponsible. You don't know what people are going to do with your medical information. They could make your life miserable.
-
Read the thread carefully. People have explained but its not computing in your head.
Your argument about 100% disclosure is moral. But you are trying to base it on a flawed assumption. You seem to think ANY and EVERY contact between an HIV+ and HIV- person is a risk for transmission. And involved a injury to the HIV- person if he/she is unaware of the status of the +.
Yet, safe sex between people presents no risk.
And you can double that (illogically, since its already no risk) if the + is undetectable.
People have explained some situations in which HIV+ people have sex without disclosing and they are willing, morally, to live with it, because there is NO RISK.
You need to acknowledge that otherwise your argument falls apart - its purely moral and emotional.
It's not even a good moral argument. The moral argument is you are responsible for your own health. Taking personal responsibility for your own health is the moral thing to do.
I notice that people who are still blaming others for their HIV predicament on these forums are the ones who believe that someone else is responsible for their health. They caught HIV because they chose not to use protection and that's the bottom line. There is no one else to blame but yourself.
Everything that guy said was pure emotion. There was nothing rational in his posts. He'll learn soon enough or he won't learn and he'll continue blaming others for his problems.
-
Why it matters how I was infected...I don't understand. I'd say I fall into the category of transmission by somebody that probably had no idea she was positive.
Going back to the previous knowledge, non-disclosure qualifier...why wouldn't anybody stand behind a mandate that says "If you're positive...you better fucking tell the person you're about to lay down with, so they can decide if they really want to or not". Why keep your status a secret, if your really ok with it? Actually...I'd be very interested to know what types of sexual situations dictate that it is not necessary to disclose ones status?
You can't be this daft... You know the answer to your question is that people won't get tested and will unwittingly spread HIV....in the same way you say that you got it if forced to disclose by law. It's easier for everyone if people take responsibility for themselves. Think please.
-
I think this topic is a bit tricky. I agree it's someone's responsibility to protect themselves, but it almost seems like the posters are completely removing responsibility for their own actions just because they're positive.
I've read quite a few blogs and it makes me a bit miffed when I hear of someone who is positive who continues to have unprotected sex with people. Their rationale is that the person should protect themselves. I'm sorry but there needs to be some personal accountability for the person who is positive. Here's why:
1) They KNOW their status, therefore THEY can decrease the spread of HIV by not passing their strain onto someone who is negative.
2) By not insisting on condoms, they are putting themselves at risk for other STDS that the "negative" person might be carrying. These can cause many more unnecessary medical problems.
3) The positive person is giving their partner the ability to choose.
Here's why I think disclosure is important. There is a chance that the condom will break. So even if you practiced safe sex, you run the risk of being liable for the person you infected. Disclosure removes liability from you.
I can't believe some of the cold posts I've been reading. I might get a bit of flak for this, but it's almost like some poz people want to punish or teach those who are negative a lesson. That's not fair, I think everyone has the right to dignity and respect regardless of their status.
I'm in part in favor of criminalizing HIV because if someone knowingly transmits the virus, then they should be punished. That person is taking away someone else's right to good health and freedom. I think we need to be careful about oversimplifying HIV. I am so glad there have been so many advances made in medicine. At the same time though, we can't dismiss the fact that it is a SERIOUS virus that no one should ever contract. The message is getting distorted and downplayed. HIV is not at this point in time diabetes and needs to stop being viewed as such.
-
I think this topic is a bit tricky. I'm an HIV negative person who works for an organization that specifically focuses on HIV positive youth. I agree it's someone's responsibility to protect themselves, but it almost seems like the posters are completely removing responsibility for their own actions just because they're positive.
I've read quite a few blogs and it makes me a bit miffed when I hear of someone who is positive who continues to have unprotected sex with people. Their rationale is that the person should protect themselves. I'm sorry but there needs to be some personal accountability for the person who is positive. Here's why:
1) They KNOW their status, therefore THEY can decrease the spread of HIV by not passing their strain onto someone who is negative.
2) By not insisting on condoms, they are putting yourself at risk for other STDS that the "negative" person might be carrying. These can cause many more unnecessary medical problems.
3) The positive person is giving their partner the ability to choose.
Here's why I think disclosure is important. There is a chance that the condom will break. So even if you practiced safe sex, you run the risk of being liable for the person you infected. Disclosure removes liability from you.
I can't believe some of the cold posts I've been reading. I might get a bit of flak for this, but it's almost like some poz people want to punish or teach those who are negative a lesson. That's not fair, I think everyone has the right to dignity and respect regardless of their status.
With due respect, since you're HIV negative you can't possibly fully understand the 'disclosure dilemma' and your post reflects that.
Moreover, this is more about criminalization due to non-disclosure (even when protection is used and neither is transmission intended, nor does it occur) and not about poz people going around having unprotected sex (who are exceedingly rare).
Also, you might want to check if you're permitted to post in 'Living with HIV'- since you do not live with HIV.
Best
-
I'm in part in favor of criminalizing HIV because if someone knowingly transmits the virus, then they should be punished. That person is taking away someone else's right to good health and freedom. I think we need to be careful about oversimplifying HIV. I am so glad there have been so many advances made in medicine. At the same time though, we can't dismiss the fact that it is a SERIOUS virus that no one should ever contract. The message is getting distorted and downplayed. HIV is not at this point in time diabetes and needs to stop being viewed as such.
Fascinating. What does 'knowingly transmit' mean ?
If there is no clear and unequivocal intent to harm and pass on the infection , criminalization makes no sense and in fact only serves to fuel to epidemic by increasing stigma and prejudice and instilling fear in people to test themselves. It is horrific from a public health standpoint. (You should scroll up and read the UNAIDS article on criminalization of HIV transmission, linked earlier.)
Moreover, why are you singling out people with HIV? What about HPV, HBV, Syphilis that could also make people very sick and cause death. Millions of people get infected (via sexual intercourse) with HPV which causes cervical cancer. Do you propagate criminalization of that as well?
In this context, I am quoting something Sean Strub posted on the forums a while back:
"Perhaps the biggest contributor to stigma are these HIV criminalization statutes. There's no more extreme manifestation of stigma than when it is perpetrated by the government (think apartheid, Jim Crow laws, internment of Japanese, etc.) HIV criminalization is highly discriminatory and, in fact, we are creating a viral subclass that could be the very beginning of an effort to divide and manipulate society based on the viruses, or other pathogens, some of us carry.
There are other sexually transmitted diseases, including some acquired more easily than HIV, which can make a person very ill and result in death. 4,000 women in the US were killed last year by cervical cancer. More than 99% of them got the cancer from human papilloma virus: genital warts A huge percentage of the anal-genital cancers are caused by HPV, including almost all of the rectal cancers gay men get.
But people with HPV aren't prosecuted and there aren't HPV-specific statutes outlawing the failure to disclose. That's because HPV isn't associated with outlaw sexualities, injection drug users or minority groups. HIV is. HPV is also carried at one point by more than 65% of the sexually active adult population."
Lastly, with your regressive views, I think (and this is my opinion) maybe you should do us and yourself a favour and stop working in the field of HIV since you've evidently got your head stuck in the sand.
-
So, first of all, let me say I think it is a good idea to let negative people post here as long as they don't offend or disrupt.
There were a few threads here in the past where I (as a recently converted guy) got the impression that some pozzies here are living in some kind of bubble.
It's always helpful to get an outside view... as a kind of 'reality check'.
Back to topic, I do believe that criminalization of HIV is counterproductive in general. I also believe that someone's health is the responsibility of him/her in the first place.
But I also believe that this does not relieve us pozzies from any kind of responsibility. It's just too easy for us to say: they are solely responsible for their own health.
But it's a very complex situation because when it comes to responsibilities there is a huge difference between a neg bottom guy dropping his pants in a darkroom to get fucked bareback by a random stranger and thinking it's the other's guy's responsibility to keep him safe
or
someone being in a monogamous relationship/marriage and trusting their partner after they both got tested negative at the beginning of their relationship.
Sometimes in these forums I don't see any disambiguation between those situations. I think those are totally different though.
-
When I started having sex again after my diagnosis at first I disclosed to everybody before having sex. I felt it was a 'fair' thing to do. When I was still neg, I would have appreciated it (btw, nobody ever disclosed to me). But after having some poor reactions I see things differently now.
I'll never forget the reaction of one particular guy: "Congratulations, you are aware that you will be dead in 5 years from now."
Seriously, how does a person like this deserve my disclosure? The problem I see is that many people can't deal with that information properly, either because they are poorly educated or excessively scared beyond reason. Or they are just assholes.
That's happened to me. But there's a silver lining, right? The jerk doesn't deserve a disclosure, but also doesn't deserve sex with me. Its a bit bitter as a pre-coitus cocktail cause you never get to the coitus. But there are plenty more fish in sea.
-
So, first of all, let me say I think it is a good idea to let negative people post here as long as they don't offend or disrupt.
There were a few threads here in the past where I (as a recently converted guy) got the impression that some pozzies here are living in some kind of bubble.
It's always helpful to get an outside view... as a kind of 'reality check'.
Back to topic, I do believe that criminalization of HIV is counterproductive in general. I also believe that someone's health is the responsibility of him/her in the first place.
But I also believe that this does not relieve us pozzies from any kind of responsibility. It's just too easy for us to say: they are solely responsible for their own health.
But it's a very complex situation because when it comes to responsibilities there is a huge difference between a neg bottom guy dropping his pants in a darkroom to get fucked bareback by a random stranger and thinking it's the other's guy's responsibility to keep him safe
or
someone being in a monogamous relationship/marriage and trusting their partner after they both got tested negative at the beginning of their relationship.
Sometimes in these forums I don't see any disambiguation between those situations. I think those are totally different though.
Neg people CAN post in some other areas but not in "Lining with HIV" because they are NOT living with it inside them. They can not "give us a reality check" about our lives because they don't live with this virus.
Ont the rest of your post - this conversation is NOT ABOUT DISCLOSURE, it is about criminalizing nondisclosure, whether or not there was any real risk involved. It is about why HIV should be treated so differently in this regard, compared to other diseases.
Mike
-
I think this topic is a bit tricky. I agree it's someone's responsibility to protect themselves, but it almost seems like the posters are completely removing responsibility for their own actions just because they're positive.
I've read quite a few blogs and it makes me a bit miffed when I hear of someone who is positive who continues to have unprotected sex with people. Their rationale is that the person should protect themselves. I'm sorry but there needs to be some personal accountability for the person who is positive. Here's why:
1) They KNOW their status, therefore THEY can decrease the spread of HIV by not passing their strain onto someone who is negative.
2) By not insisting on condoms, they are putting themselves at risk for other STDS that the "negative" person might be carrying. These can cause many more unnecessary medical problems.
3) The positive person is giving their partner the ability to choose.
Here's why I think disclosure is important. There is a chance that the condom will break. So even if you practiced safe sex, you run the risk of being liable for the person you infected. Disclosure removes liability from you.
I can't believe some of the cold posts I've been reading. I might get a bit of flak for this, but it's almost like some poz people want to punish or teach those who are negative a lesson. That's not fair, I think everyone has the right to dignity and respect regardless of their status.
I'm in part in favor of criminalizing HIV because if someone knowingly transmits the virus, then they should be punished. That person is taking away someone else's right to good health and freedom. I think we need to be careful about oversimplifying HIV. I am so glad there have been so many advances made in medicine. At the same time though, we can't dismiss the fact that it is a SERIOUS virus that no one should ever contract. The message is getting distorted and downplayed. HIV is not at this point in time diabetes and needs to stop being viewed as such.
When I was first diagnosed my doctor flat out said diabetes is worse and that he had diabetes. I'm not pricking my fingers every day or measuring blood sugar.
No one is punishing anyone by not disclosing to someone they don't know.
Everyone has to take responsibility for their own health.
What does that mean? It means asking the people you sleep with about STDs on both sides. No one is being hostile. It comes down to responsibility for your own health. It actually works both ways. However, it begs the questions... Are they being honest about the answer? Do they even know the answer?
What we do know is that the gross majority of new infections happen between people who don't even know their status.
Even if you do disclose, the other person could say you didn't disclose. Then it's a he said she said that the court system now has to figure out....when everything could've been avoided simply by using a condom. This is why one wouldn't disclose HIV information soo soon after meeting someone. HIV information could be used against you. What part of that don't you understand?
When you find yourself in that situation you'll have a better understanding about when you should and shouldn't disclose. Most of the time you aren't going to know the person you are sleeping with very well before you have relations.
Before passing these laws they should have some HIV treatment people testifying about the actual risks rather than the perceived risks. They may learn something about how limited the HIV virus really is in terms of catching it.
-
I've read quite a few blogs and it makes me a bit miffed when I hear of someone who is positive who continues to have unprotected sex with people. Their rationale is that the person should protect themselves. I'm sorry but there needs to be some personal accountability for the person who is positive. Here's why:
1) They KNOW their status, therefore THEY can decrease the spread of HIV by not passing their strain onto someone who is negative.
2) By not insisting on condoms, they are putting themselves at risk for other STDS that the "negative" person might be carrying. These can cause many more unnecessary medical problems.
3) The positive person is giving their partner the ability to choose.
Why do people like you continue to insist on making the lives of millions of people (HIV+ people) more difficult and less EQUAL because of the actions of a few assholes???
If you are a social worker, its your job to educate HIV+ irresponsible youth to not be narcissistic pathological typhoid marys. Oh, and also to educate everyone to protect themselves, as well.
As for diabetes. A few years into being HIV+, my life is easier than that of diabetics, health wise.
-
I can't believe some of the cold posts I've been reading. I might get a bit of flak for this, but it's almost like some poz people want to punish or teach those who are negative a lesson. That's not fair, I think everyone has the right to dignity and respect regardless of their status.
No, poz people aren't trying to punish those who are not poz. It's the reverse we are talking about here in this thread. But you are right in one way: poz people *are* trying to teach those who are negative a lesson, but not the lesson you think. Re-read jkinatl2's post above, and you'll see that stated more eloquently than I can state, but here's the message:
The only was you can prevent yourself from becoming infected with HIV, or other STDs, is to take personal responsibility for your sexual health, and use a condom when you have sex. Relying on what someone does or should tell you will not prevent HIV infection.
From your other posts in the "I just tested positive" forum you appear to be quite a fan a prosecuting those with HIV who infect others.
I'm in part in favor of criminalizing HIV because if someone knowingly transmits the virus, then they should be punished. That person is taking away someone else's right to good health and freedom.
So, you are using laws to criminalize HIV to create a world where people have a right to a sex life that is free of responsibility or consequences? Talk about irresponsible and ineffective. Although that's a world I would love to live in, that is a fantasy world.
-
“I can’t imagine a person who would know that a person had AIDS and would sleep with them,” Wilson said of the reason to mandate disclosure
I'll never forget the reaction of one particular guy: "Congratulations, you are aware that you will be dead in 5 years from now."
Seriously, how does a person like this deserve my disclosure?
That's happened to me. But there's a silver lining, right? The jerk doesn't deserve a disclosure, but also doesn't deserve sex with me. Its a bit bitter as a pre-coitus cocktail cause you never get to the coitus. But there are plenty more fish in sea.
DING DING DING DING!!! We have a match...
Most HIV infected people contracted the virus through irresponsible sexual behavior. While I'm better understanding why criminalization may not be the best idea, after reading through the tread a few times...it's this type of thinking that has it being considered by some in the first place.
If you're HIV+ because of previous indiscriminate sexual behavior...Guess what? You don't get to be able to carry on with that same indiscriminate sexual behavior!!!
When I was first diagnosed...I thought about getting a Bio-Hazard or POZ tattoo...because I had seen some pictures of those who did in POZ magazine. 13+ years later I'm glad I didn't...but while strides are being made to reduce the stigma associated with HIV (fuck...I'm straight...so I even have the added stigma of being assumed gay), that doesn't mean that we don't need to make EVERY EFFORT not to potentially spread it. Giving a possible sexual partner the option to say NO...is part of that effort.
-
With due respect, since you're HIV negative you can't possibly fully understand the 'disclosure dilemma' and your post reflects that.
Moreover, this is more about criminalization due to non-disclosure (even when protection is used and neither is transmission intended, nor does it occur) and not about poz people going around having unprotected sex (who are exceedingly rare).
Also, you might want to check if you're permitted to post in 'Living with HIV'- since you do not live with HIV.
Best
Good catch, Space. You quoted his post before he edited out the reference to his negative hiv status.
His other two posts were also in a forum meant for hiv positive people only, and those posts were also only written to berate positive people. I asked him about his hiv status in that other thread, but he ignored me. Now I know why.
He's banned, so he won't be doing it again.
Ann
-
Does re-posting somebody else's thoughts myself...being positive 13+ years make this a valid statement? While I fully respect the forum rules...I also believe this was immediately discredited based on a "lowest common denominator" type premise. I appreciate that it wasn't removed entirely.
While I'm not debating forum rules by any means...non of my HIV docs or social workers are positive...but I respect their direction and advice with the utmost trust and respect. Please correct me if I'm wrong... ;)
I think this topic is a bit tricky. I agree it's someone's responsibility to protect themselves, but it almost seems like the posters are completely removing responsibility for their own actions just because they're positive.
I've read quite a few blogs and it makes me a bit miffed when I hear of someone who is positive who continues to have unprotected sex with people. Their rationale is that the person should protect themselves. I'm sorry but there needs to be some personal accountability for the person who is positive. Here's why:
1) They KNOW their status, therefore THEY can decrease the spread of HIV by not passing their strain onto someone who is negative.
2) By not insisting on condoms, they are putting themselves at risk for other STDS that the "negative" person might be carrying. These can cause many more unnecessary medical problems.
3) The positive person is giving their partner the ability to choose.
Here's why I think disclosure is important. There is a chance that the condom will break. So even if you practiced safe sex, you run the risk of being liable for the person you infected. Disclosure removes liability from you.
I can't believe some of the cold posts I've been reading. I might get a bit of flak for this, but it's almost like some poz people want to punish or teach those who are negative a lesson. That's not fair, I think everyone has the right to dignity and respect regardless of their status.
I'm in part in favor of criminalizing HIV because if someone knowingly transmits the virus, then they should be punished. That person is taking away someone else's right to good health and freedom. I think we need to be careful about oversimplifying HIV. I am so glad there have been so many advances made in medicine. At the same time though, we can't dismiss the fact that it is a SERIOUS virus that no one should ever contract. The message is getting distorted and downplayed. HIV is not at this point in time diabetes and needs to stop being viewed as such.
-
Does re-posting somebody else's thoughts myself...being positive 13+ years make this a valid statement? While I fully respect the forum rules...I also believe this was immediately discredited based on a "lowest common denominator" type premise. I appreciate that it wasn't removed entirely.
While I'm not debating forum rules by any means...non of my HIV docs or social workers are positive...but I respect their direction and advice with the utmost trust and respect. Please correct me if I'm wrong... ;)
These forums have sections where hiv negative people are not permitted to post - and for good reason.
He broke the rules of this forum and now he's gone. End of discussion (where he's concerned).
Ann
-
Most HIV infected people contracted the virus through irresponsible sexual behavior. .....If you're HIV+ because of previous indiscriminate sexual behavior...Guess what? You don't get to be able to carry on with that same indiscriminate sexual behavior!!!
^^^ And this mindset my friend, is the crux of YOUR angst.
HIV is spread through unprotected sex (among other routes).
Nearly every person on this planet has had/or will have unprotected sex in their lives. There could be people who've had multiple partners and dodged infection (because they wore a condom) and others who've got it the night they lost their virginity.
You are casting YOUR morals on a VIRUS.
By calling people 'irresponsible' or whatever (and what gives YOU the right anyway?) you are propping up a 'good AIDS', 'bad AIDS divide', and who the fuck is going to judge that?
Do remember, a virus has NO MORALS.
Which again goes back to what everyone here is banging on about: Wear a fucking condom.
Edited to add: By whinging about others being 'irresponsible' (according to you i.e.) you are eschewing your own responsibility of protecting yourself.
-
that doesn't mean that we don't need to make EVERY EFFORT not to potentially spread it. Giving a possible sexual partner the option to say NO...is part of that effort.
We make this effort. We use condoms. We would be potentially spreading it if we didn't.
Now, it would certainly make sense to give the sexual parter the option to say NO if the question was "Do ya wanna get teh AIDS?". But that's not the case.
I mean, just ask around: how many HIV+ people, knowing their status but not disclosing it, infected their partners while having safe sex?
-
We make this effort. We use condoms. We would be potentially spreading it if we didn't.
Now, it would certainly make sense to give the sexual parter the option to say NO if the question was "Do ya wanna get teh AIDS?". But that's not the case.
I mean, just ask around: how many HIV+ people, knowing their status but not disclosing it, infected their partners while having safe sex?
I hasten to add, before the inevitable "broken condom" argument flares up, that I have been answering questions in AM I INFECTED for about ten years, and ANN has been doing the same for longer than that. And we have never, ever seen a poster test positive over a condom break.
If you are using such an exceedingly rare event at impetus for criminalization, then it's obvious to me there's an agenda at play here.
And thanks, everyone who pointed out that there is a difference between "unprotected sex" and "irresponsible behavior."
I have, on occasion, driven when I should not have. That's irresponsible behavior. My mom and dad had unprotected sex, and I was the result of that. To equate the two is extremely telling.
-
klipsch..you say that you've come to terms with being infected 13+ yrs ago...
it sure doesn't seem like you have, have you considered speaking to therapist, or a Mental health care professional about your emotions, and issues about your AIDS
it just might help you out some, at the very least it will help you move pass this, and that is nothing to be ashamed about, especially here in these forums ;)
-
klipsch..you say that you've come to terms with being infected 13+ yrs ago...
it sure doesn't seem like you have, have you considered speaking to therapist, or a Mental health care professional about your emotions, and issues about your AIDS
it just might help you out some, at the very least it will help you move pass this, and that is nothing to be ashamed about, especially here in these forums ;)
Good points, Dennis.
I think (and I may be wrong) that some of klipsch's issues stem from his need to feel he has to distinguish that he did not contract teh aids via any of the transmission routes that many (uneducated) people think of. While I can be sympathetic to the fact that some heterosexual people feel as if they are lost in a system that appears to cater to the gay male population at large - but at the end of the day this virus does not discriminate and all the time I've been on this forum it has been my observation that there is no separationism being practiced.
After all, it has been emphasized in many of his posts that he feels the need to say that he is straight -- which makes it seem as if he would greatly benefit from (a) finding the need to not worry about people thinking that he became poz from gay sex, especially if he is as comfortable with being poz for 13 years and (b) realizing that the pissing contest is so 24 seconds ago because it does not make him any more of a man than the rest of us here who are living with this virus.
-
Good points, Dennis.
I think (and I may be wrong) that some of klipsch's issues stem from his need to feel he has to distinguish that he did not contract teh aids via any of the transmission routes that many (uneducated) people think of. While I can be sympathetic to the fact that some heterosexual people feel as if they are lost in a system that appears to cater to the gay male population at large - but at the end of the day this virus does not discriminate and all the time I've been on this forum it has been my observation that there is no separationism being practiced.
After all, it has been emphasized in many of his posts that he feels the need to say that he is straight -- which makes it seem as if he would greatly benefit from (a) finding the need to not worry about people thinking that he became poz from gay sex, especially if he is as comfortable with being poz for 13 years and (b) realizing that the pissing contest is so 24 seconds ago because it does not make him any more of a man than the rest of us here who are living with this virus.
I think the issue is much deeper than what we may think. I think he may believe that he is somehow diminished by being poz, so he's not worried about being a bigger man, he may be afraid that he is "not" man enough. We have all experienced the stigma of being poz and I can appreciate how difficult it can be to adjust with the added stigma of HIV being viewed as a "gay" disease. The stigma isn't right, but it can serve to cloud what you experience and how you view yourself.
Sorting out personal identity issues can be very complex, but as most of us have learned, you have to come to terms with being poz and accept that your own personal views influence how you see the world. I believe this may be the greatest challenge that all pozzies face. Reconciling what you want to believe, with reality. This adjustment is a process and some folks take longer than others to get through it. There's nothing wrong with any of it, until you try and use ONLY your own perceptions on how others should live their lives.
Joe
-
If you're HIV+ because of previous indiscriminate sexual behavior...Guess what? You don't get to be able to carry on with that same indiscriminate sexual behavior!!!
You judge some HIV+ people pretty harshly for "indiscriminate sexual behavior." Nobody else in this forum is even talking about that.
HIV has to do with a few risk factors. NONE of them are how many people you have had sex with. Its the way you had sex each time.
Your global view on the HIV+ crowd and how we got that way and how we should live, is quite narrow and pre-judged.
-
Most HIV infected people contracted the virus through irresponsible sexual behavior. ....
^^^ And this mindset my friend, is the crux of YOUR angst.
HIV is spread through unprotected sex (among other routes).
Nearly every person on this planet has had/or will have unprotected sex in their lives. There could be people who've had multiple partners and dodged infection (because they wore a condom) and others who've got it the night they lost their virginity.
You are casting YOUR morals on a VIRUS.
By calling people 'irresponsible' or whatever (and what gives YOU the right anyway?) you are propping up a 'good AIDS', 'bad AIDS divide', and who the fuck is going to judge that?
I'm actually casting myself into the same pool of irresponsibility by failing to protect myself years ago by not wearing condoms or even thinking that I could contract something like HIV in a purely hetero lifestyle (unless I picked it up from a dirty tattoo parlor). I was young and naive.
You judge some HIV+ people pretty harshly for "indiscriminate sexual behavior." Nobody else in this forum is even talking about that.
HIV has to do with a few risk factors. NONE of them are how many people you have had sex with. Its the way you had sex each time.
Your global view on the HIV+ crowd and how we got that way and how we should live, is quite narrow and pre-judged.
Well...you're certainly not doing anything to change anybody's narrow views including Delegate C.T. Wilson, a Democrat from Charles County, whom this thread was in response too with statements like the one below
The jerk doesn't deserve a disclosure, but also doesn't deserve sex with me. Its a bit bitter as a pre-coitus cocktail cause you never get to the coitus. But there are plenty more fish in sea.
How many other men and women with similar attitudes about disclosure do you think there are in the New York craigslist postings (http://newyork.craigslist.org/cas/) for today?
-
So, let me ask you again -- maybe you'll see fit to respond at some point.
Why should HIV be treated any differently from other, potentially fatal, diseases -- no other diseases will land you in jail. HIV laws will put you in jail even if there is no actual harm done to another person.
Rather than examining the actual issue of criminalization of HIV, you keep going back to people not disclosing their status, regardless if they are having safe or unsafe sex. Who gives a rat's ass about the New York Craigslist ads?
Bottomline -- if everyone used condoms for anal or vaginal sex, HIV would not spread -- whether or not anyone uttered a single word or not. Putting poz folks in jail will NOT stop the spread of HIV, another area that you seem to overlook while trying to legislate your moral view on the rest of the world.
Mike
-
I actually retracted my feelings on the criminalization somewhat a few posts back. Now it's just been disclosure vs non-disclosure. But I understand that what my practices are, have no correlation to what others feel is right or wrong. People will however still consider the criminalization of transmission due to non-disclosure and unsafe sex, as long as there is no clear understanding or acceptance of HIV as whatever they want to believe it is...
-
Most HIV infected people contracted the virus through irresponsible sexual behavior. ....
I'm actually casting myself into the same pool of irresponsibility by failing to protect myself years ago by not wearing condoms or even thinking that I could contract something like HIV in a purely hetero lifestyle (unless I picked it up from a dirty tattoo parlor). I was young and naive.
Well...you're certainly not doing anything to change anybody's narrow views including Delegate C.T. Wilson, a Democrat from Charles County, whom this thread was in response too with statements like the one below
How many other men and women with similar attitudes about disclosure do you think there are in the New York craigslist postings (http://newyork.craigslist.org/cas/) for today?
How sad you can't even discuss something without being deceitful. You just can't bring yourself to admit your bias about disclosure and your judgment of other people is very telling indeed. No matter what you believe, stopping HIV infections will remain the responsibility of BOTH sexual partners and no law can force anyone to always do what is in their best interests. You claim to be irresponsible in becoming poz, yet you judge others on how they should conduct their lives. You are unable to separate your personal feelings from this discussion and that's why there really is nothing more to say.
It's not an issue about being right or wrong, it's about being grounded in reality in what you believe and accepting that while others may not share those views, imposing your will on another is simply wrong. Just because we have the power to punish poz folks, doesn't mean that we have to, or that it would ever be right. Until you can understand that distinction, you will never understand what folks are trying to help you see.
Joe
-
You keep changing your words. First it was indiscriminate. Then irresponsible. whatever.
Your negative opinion about HIV+ people accumulatives across your posts. Seems like we are dirty dirty dirty. Pretty damn slutty. Liars. Criminals. The Boo Radley characters - the pathological diseases spreaders, preying on the innocent. The gay barebackers on Craigs list. blah blah blah blah blah.
I'm glad you're slowly seeing the bigger picture though! :D
I had a good 25 years of "indiscriminate" sexual encounters -- that waned hotter or colder depending on the year or couple of years -- and never got HIV and even had lovers who were HIV+. And the vast majority of first time casual lays nobody talked about HIV because nobody wanted to, we just had safe sex. Some of these even turned into relations and then we had the disease history discussions.
You really don't know jack squat about the gay world so stop trying to generalize.
I dont consider my sex life or choices irresponsible or indiscriminate or dirty or subject to your morals or anyone's, especially a government or judicial system. I don't berate myself for the anal warts I got, or UTIs or the clap or parasites. Medicine dealt with some, my immune system with others. It s a damn pity HIV is so nasty but at least a lot of people have hope with drugs and medical care.
HIV has a terrible bias and its built and mantained by people like you with your nonstop inability to detach disease and viruses and bacteria and parasites far away from your morality and psychological questions of punishment, dirtiness, crime, karma, redemption, salvation, absolutes, and whatever else you want to throw in the mix.
Basta! It seems to be a prison, your mind trap, and I pity you having to live there.
-
I find it interesting that you pretty much admit that your infection was due to risky sexual behavior, Klipsch. You seem to ignore the fact that other people who are negative are engaging in the same kind of behavior and should take the only truly preventative steps they can to stop from being infected. You put the onus of disclosure onto a positive partner (and we all do), but remove all responsibility from the negative partner (this is where we disagree).
I feel a responsibility to disclose to any sexual partner, but I can't say that if I were in what I consider a "no risk" situation I would feel the same way. I don't enjoy telling people I have this virus, but when it's necessitated I do. I think that a majority of this forum does as well, although I cannot vouch for them. The criminalization of viral infection is just overkill. Educate the public and make people responsible for their sexual health so that hopefully we can limit infections by any route. Prosecuting someone for a mistake whether they did it knowingly or not helps absolutely no one.
-
Prosecuting someone for a mistake whether they did it knowingly or not helps absolutely no one.
If they did it knowingly...then it wasn't a mistake, it was a poor decision. If some type of punishment for such a decision isn't in place, then there's no reason for those with lesser morals to disclose. If that were not the case, then it wouldn't be classed as a misdemeanor in some states as it is already. I don't know at what level of punishment it crosses from an appropriate to inappropriate judgement. But I do know that laws and punishment are all fear based.
I understand the difference between safe and unsafe situations, and so understand where somebody wouldn't feel it necessary to disclose. I do...but that's my personal decision, based on my potential lesser of two evils down the road. I would rather face the pain of rejection now...over the pain of explaining myself later if I had too. It has nothing to do with possible criminal punishment...it has to do with my having to live with whatever decisions I make. Somebody told me a long time ago, that "I can do whatever I want...as long as I'm willing to pay the price".
-
I tend to agree in principle with klipsch…
If I were to point a gun at a police officer pull the trigger and he dies, the fact that the officer knew the dangers of his profession and should have protected himself in no way shape or form excuses my pulling the trigger.
It’s just not the “either/or” proposition some are wanting to make it out to be… yes, people have a responsibility to protect themselves from contracting HIV, but people with HIV also have a responsibility to not put others at risk. Both statements are simultaneously true and neither statement negates the other.
But I also strongly agree with those who argue that HIV/AIDS should not be “singled out” for criminalization… the basic Constitutional and judicial principles of equality and universality demand that individuals living with HIV be treated in the exact same manner and no differently than persons with any other infectious disease would be.
The flu, for example, is far more contagious than HIV and kills far more people every day of every year than AIDS does, and yet we don’t see folks suggesting that we throw people in jail for showing up to work sick as a dog and putting others at risk.
Penalizing only those with HIV is equivalent to the significantly harsher penalties for possession of rock cocaine … the underlying reason for both is prejudice, not justice.
-
If I were to point a gun at a police officer pull the trigger and he dies, the fact that the officer knew the dangers of his profession and should have protected himself in no way shape or form excuses my pulling the trigger.
Having sex is different to shooting a police officer, having sex is consensual (we hope) and intimate, private, shooting a police officer is non-consensual and public.
In the UK we have no HIV specific laws, but oddly, bar 1 case of hepatitis transmission, it's only HIV folk who have been done. There was 1 prosecution for passing on herpes where the "victim" said "It was a death sentence" and ruined her life. Oddly for someone with a ruined life she has a new partner and a baby now. The person who got done, his case was chucked out by a more senior judge in the end, but not before his mugshot and name were all over the papers.
- matt
-
… yes, people have a responsibility to protect themselves from contracting HIV, but people with HIV also have a responsibility to not put others at risk. Both statements are simultaneously true and neither statement negates the other.
I can't believe I'm even commenting on this thread... I am not a debater.. but I totally agree with this statement. I'm not sure how I feel about this whole topic yet and can see different sides... but I do agree that people that are HIV+ do have a responsibility (or moral code) to at least not put others at risk. I am almost positive the way I got it was from a guy that in the course of things, took off his condom.. I didn't know about it..he was having issues keeping it up... was in and out... and at some point, took it off... without my permission!!!!! THAT totally pissed me off because that was not what I wanted because I insisted on a condom being used... and then he sneakily took it off. I didn't notice. I shouldn't have even put myself in that scenario... so I take responsibility. But he also shouldn't have taken it off without my permission and knowing it!
We all have a responsibility.
-
We all have a responsibility.
Correct!! Yet only the poz person faces jail time. So, legally, we ALL are NOT being held responsible for our actions. That is the point of this thread -- not whether or not one should disclose, or under what circumstances -- it's the legal position that is thrust ONLY ON ONE PARTY -- that being the positive one.
Mike
-
I tend to agree in principle with klipsch…
If I were to point a gun at a police officer pull the trigger and he dies, the fact that the officer knew the dangers of his profession and should have protected himself in no way shape or form excuses my pulling the trigger.
This has got to be one of the worst analogies that I've ever seen, more so within a "criminalization of HIV" thread ::). As Matt noted, there is nothing consensual about this encounter. Jeebus.
This thread has indeed become totally reductive.
-
Correct!! Yet only the poz person faces jail time. So, legally, we ALL are NOT being held responsible for our actions. That is the point of this thread -- not whether or not one should disclose, or under what circumstances -- it's the legal position that is thrust ONLY ON ONE PARTY -- that being the positive one.
Mike
The blatantly obvious distinction here is that an HIV- person is putting theirself at risk, while an HIV+ person is putting someone else at risk...
-
having sex is consensual
The legal definition of informed consent is: agreement to do something or to allow something to happen only after all the relevant facts are known.
The very term "nondisclosure" pretty much speaks for itself in this regard...
-
Ummm we don't know if the HIV- person isn't putting the HIV+ person at risk for something. We don't even know if the HIV- person isn't an HIV+ person. The bottom line is we don't know. When you don't know who is putting who at risk...it's best not to use the law to guess.
-
The legal definition of informed consent is: agreement to do something or to allow something to happen only after all the relevant facts are known.
The very term "nondisclosure" pretty much speaks for itself in this regard...
Not quite that cut and dry. You have to ask if you want to know. If you are afraid to ask, then you probably shouldn't be having the sex to begin with. No one is going to volunteer information to someone they don't know very well. Nor should they be expected to. Why don't we wear a big fat + sign on our foreheads? It's easier. Secondly, the HIV question is rendered irrelevant as soon as there is a condom put on.
Again we don't know who is at risk because we don't know who is positive or not at any given point in time. This is why they say even if the person is negative treat them as though they are positive and use a condom regardless. Blood tests only measure one point in time.
-
The legal definition of informed consent is: agreement to do something or to allow something to happen only after all the relevant facts are known.
The very term "nondisclosure" pretty much speaks for itself in this regard...
I think this day in age the relevant facts are that if you have unsafe sex you may get an std including HIV so I really don't understand your logic .
-
The legal definition of informed consent is: agreement to do something or to allow something to happen only after all the relevant facts are known.
The very term "nondisclosure" pretty much speaks for itself in this regard...
So I don't disclose, but no transmission occurs either because we correctly use condoms OR we engage in activities that do not transmit HIV, then should I still go to jail? Because in many/most states with HIV laws, I can.
What if the reverse happens? WHat if I disclose my HIV status yet my partner does not disclose his syphilis chancre? And what if, thanks to my HIV disease, that syphilis progresses to irreversable blindness within months (before, say, a routine six month STD panel?) Should that other person be put into jail?
Have you even read the postings made on this topic? Have you even thought this through?
I refuse to rehash my old posts. You've simply wondered in with a bucket of uninformed, ill-considered bullshit that only reinforces the stigma that - newsflash- you not only face, but cause.
I get irritated when people refuse to put forth a rational discussion.
-
Especially when informed consent is only applicable in tort law, which specifically only deals with civil cases ::)
-
I can see neg people being supportive of HIV criminalization laws, in their stupidity, but poz people defending them? That's just sad.
-
It seems as though the pro-criminalization bandwagon elects to revel in blithe oblivion of the intense stigma that makes it so awfully difficult for people to disclose. And how ironic that these HIV specific criminalization statutes are perhaps the most major drivers of stigma. ::)
No one is saying that disclosure should not be encouraged.
What we are saying however, is that if someone prior to engaging in sexual intercourse, for whatever reason, doesn’t disclose but does take ALL precautions (i.e. wears a condom and/or engages in ‘no-risk activities’), and most crucially, neither is transmission intended, nor does it occur, then how or why is it rational or just to single out and punish such a person, particularly since no law anywhere would punish people transmitting any other infection notwithstanding if malicious intent is the driving factor or whether the infectee dies as a result of transmission (e.g- liver damage due to Hep B or C, Cancer due to HPV) ?
What about a case where a poz person and someone with syphilis hook up and neither discloses but they engage in protected sex, however the poz person contracts syphilis via oral sex and dies as a result. Why is the syphilis guy permitted to fuck with impunity while the laws specifically prescribe punitive measures for the poz person in spite of the fact that he presented no risk to the other party at all (since he correctly used a condom)?
Criminalization of transmission sends out a deeply prejudiced and lopsided signal that implicitly sanctions people eschewing their personal responsibility to protect themselves at the cost of elbowing ALL poz people even further at the margins of society.
A message that promotes and even seeks to defend a mindset where people would/could be led to place more importance on ‘the other person disclosing’ than on protecting themselves by simply wearing a condom.<----This not only sharpens stigma against ALL poz folk, as it labels us as predators/ disease spreading monsters in the eyes of the public (which couldn’t be further from reality as the overwhelming vast majority of us are responsible who take all practicable measures to ensure the virus doesn’t leave our bodily confines) but also severely detracts from some hard truths:
-HIV is a human disease and does not discriminate between a whore and a housewife (pardon the crassness).
-Monogamy doesn’t always inoculate one from HIV infection and promiscuity (together with responsibility and prudence) can and does offer protection from infection.
-Infection can easily be avoided by wrapping up.
People, in pandering to these exceedingly hypocritical laws (that keep fear mongering & prejudices alive), are complicit in propping up a smokescreen over the real issue (i.e. HIV is a human disease and can affect anyone) that sedates the majority, rather perversely, into a comfortable bubble of self-righteous denial from which they can hurl their sanctimonious stones on a viral subclass of humans that they’ve helped create, a group they may sadly join one day owing to their ignorance.
Edited typo
-
I can see neg people being supportive of HIV criminalization laws, in their stupidity, but poz people defending them? That's just sad.
For the pozzies who support criminalization, I think they take some false comfort -- and sometimes high moral ground -- in thinking that if the person who infected them with HIV had disclosed, they wouldn't have become infected in the first place. It's not their sexual partner's disclosure or lack thereof that caused their infection, rather it is their sexual behavior which caused it -- sex without a condom. They may not have made that choice if their partner has told them they were HIV+. But if they keep having sex without a condom, sooner or later they will have a sexual encounter with someone unaware of being HIV+, and they will become infected.
Many of us have beaten ourselves up after having unprotected sex, perhaps thinking (or praying) we dodged a bullet, and pleading with ourselves or bargaining with God that we will stop. Yet no matter how disgusted we may have been with ourselves, or simply that we should have known better, for whatever reason we were unable to resist engaging in that behavior again, and ultimately became infected. So it's not just the HIV that's the issue here, but the sexual behavior behind it, and all those associated moral judgements.
Ultimately I think it is self-loathing that's behind pozzie's support of criminalization. Loathing of their sexual behaviors, and their inability to stop engaging in them. And ultimately loathing themselves for becoming HIV+. It's a convenient coping mechanism for pozzie's to support criminalization, because they can see themselves as an "innocent victim". They are a "good pozzie", not one of those bad promiscuous pozzies who deserves being HIV+, and deserves being punished as a criminal. But I know more than a few promiscuous guys -- sluts, if you will -- who are neggies because they use a condom every single time.
At the end of the day, we still became infected with HIV+ because of our sexual behavior. There are a lot of moral judgements that will be thrown at us because of that. What these pozzie criminalization advocates don't realize is that by supporting criminalization, they are not only perpetuating those moral judgements, but participating in them. Self-loathing, indeed. To break out of that cycle, you need to start by changing your view of yourself, not how others view you.
Regards,
Henry
-
Good post
I note it's always the LAST person to acquire the virus who gets the police et al on their side, the boys and girls in blue and blokes and women in gowns and wigs never say to the accused, erm, yes I know we are doing you, but would you like us to get the person who gave you HIV? << as infinitum, ad nauseum
As one UK law enforcer said to me, (more or less) "You can't get the queers and blacks anymore for being queer and black, but many people I work with would like to have a go at them so there's always HIV." qv: stupid "exposure" laws eg spitting.
Of course there's the the druggies (and I guess that included me once) you can always get them. And, eg in Russia, get away with not treating them.
And in some countries, HIV+ mothers ARVs or no ARVs in pregnancy...
Whatever the moral ins and outs of disclosure in sex (HIV, being married, other things), the criminal law for unintentional transmission, it's a witch hunt.
I salute JK for raising the two way thing about sex and harm. My HIV-positive mate got syphilis off a neg guy he shagged, his CD4 crashed and has never come back up, got real ill; the neg guy is still neg and just had to have a shot (there were condoms).
- matt
-
criminalization will lead to fear to people not testing themselves, and when aids finally hits them, maybe the stigma and depression would not let them go to treatment.
But I don't think that pro-criminalization supporters of this thread will understand something that simple.
-
Thoughts on this dude...?
http://www.newson6.com/story/17171823/seven-felony-charges-filed-against-grady-county-man (http://www.newson6.com/story/17171823/seven-felony-charges-filed-against-grady-county-man)
-
Thoughts on this dude...?
http://www.newson6.com/story/17171823/seven-felony-charges-filed-against-grady-county-man (http://www.newson6.com/story/17171823/seven-felony-charges-filed-against-grady-county-man)
The first thought that comes to mind is that he had a crappy marriage with his wife. With examples like this, it's hard to imagine why straight people fight to keep marriage all for themselves. The sanctity of marriage, indeed. ::)
The second thought that comes to mind is: where are the examples of people being charged for crimes of spreading diseases other than HIV? No one ever seems to respond to this question no matter how many times I (or other here) have posed it. Where's the outrage when it comes to spreading diseases other than HIV / AIDS?
-
He's an asshole, sure. But why did the women have unprotected sex with him? He did not force it on them, as far as the story goes. They were stupid. If there wasn't so much stigma about HIV, maybe he wouldn't hide, and maybe they wouldn't be stupid enough to think that he was "clean" because of his looks, or that it's not right to ask a sexual partner to test for STDs before dropping the condom. Criminalization doesn't solve this issue, it only makes it worse.
-
Thoughts on this dude...?
http://www.newson6.com/story/17171823/seven-felony-charges-filed-against-grady-county-man (http://www.newson6.com/story/17171823/seven-felony-charges-filed-against-grady-county-man)
Flamebait link and run! Nice. The Gipper approves. ^.^
(http://i1155.photobucket.com/albums/p550/nestordykes/reagan-thumbs-up.jpg)
But taking a little look at the article I noticed:
He's also charged with having sex with a 14-year-old girl.
The defendant, not President Reagan and I'm thinking it's not the HIV which makes this fellow dangerous.
MtD
-
Not trying to re-open discussion on criminalization...but I think this guy certainly fits the bill. It had me thinking about "why would somebodies wife (or husband) feel the need to use protection?"... but the article stated they were just married last October, so what about before that? I didn't read or hear anything in the video to prove that he "intentionally" gave his wife and the previous girlfriend and child HIV.
-
I didn't read or hear anything in the video to prove that he "intentionally" gave his wife and the previous girlfriend and child HIV.
Glad you noticed. Nuff said.
-
I must say I see two distinct legal issues in this discussion.
In New South Wales, failing to disclose one's HIV positive status to a sexual partner beforehand is a specific offence under the Public Health Act 1991 and carries specific penalties. No other disease is so proscribed in our statute law.
But, to my knowledge, prosecutions are rarely carried out under that particular code.
Rather when prosecutions of this kind are brought in NSW the charge is usually "inflicting grevious bodily disease" which I believe (but I may be wrong) is an offence under the common law and is not necessarily limited to HIV. Presumably other notifiable infections such as syphilis, tuberculosis, and the dreaded McWhirter's scuppity itch can also leave a person open to such an action.
I am not necessarily convinced that the latter approach is always unreasonable. There may be times when persons who, whether knowingly or through reckless indifference, cause egregious harm to others should be hauled before the beak and given the opportunity to account for themselves.
MtD
-
A bad law is bad but can, nevertheless, punish one immoral person.
Its still a bad law, for other reasons, multiplied by millions of people.
-
A bad law is bad but can, nevertheless, punish one immoral person.
Its still a bad law, for other reasons, multiplied by millions of people.
Heidi,
This has gotta be bullshit, even by your standards. ::)
MtD
-
I must say I see two distinct legal issues in this discussion.
In New South Wales, failing to disclose one's HIV positive status to a sexual partner beforehand is a specific offence under the Public Health Act 1991 and carries specific penalties. No other disease is so proscribed in our statute law.
But, to my knowledge, prosecutions are rarely carried out under that particular code.
Rather when prosecutions of this kind are brought in NSW the charge is usually "inflicting grevious bodily disease" which I believe (but I may be wrong) is an offence under the common law and is not necessarily limited to HIV. Presumably other notifiable infections such as syphilis, tuberculosis, and the dreaded McWhirter's scuppity itch can also leave a person open to such an action.
I am not necessarily convinced that the latter approach is always unreasonable. There may be times when persons who, whether knowingly or through reckless indifference, cause egregious harm to others should be hauled before the beak and given the opportunity to account for themselves.
MtD
I think there is a difference between a negligent/ reckless poz person who exposes someone else due to slipping up in an inebriated stupor where his/her raging hormones prevent him/her from thinking rationally/reasonably and someone who with a clear and conscious mind acts with the malicious intent to cause harm by transmitting the virus and does in fact transmit it.
There are many shades of grey when it comes to these issues, I think. For example:
1. Woman is in an abusive relationship with a man. Starts having an affair with someone else. Contracts HIV. Terrified of consequences if she discloses to her husband and is no position to dictate to him about wrapping up. She exposes him to HIV. Transmission results.
2. Man hooks up for a one night stand on an internet site. He usually doesn’t disclose but always wears condoms. Then one night he slips up in a state of intoxication and truly forgets to wrap up or whatever. Exposes someone to the virus and transmission takes place.
3. Man hooks up for sex often. He never discloses but always (without exception) wears a condom. Then, one night, during a particularly rough sex session, the condom breaks but he realises it after the act is concluded. He is terrified to disclose, so he doesn’t. Transmission occurs.
4. A and B are two people in a relationship. B gets diagnosed with HIV. B does not tell A as he does not want to lose him and wants to take time to come to terms with everything. They always practice safe sex and continue to do so.
A year down the line, B finds out A is cheating on him. B is infuriated and wants A to pay. B suggests that they dispense with condoms with the clear intention of causing harm. B knowingly, with a conscious mind, has unprotected sex with A on several occasions with the sole purpose of infecting him (as opposed to it being a one time thing). When B is the active partner in intercourse, he makes sure he ejaculates in A- many times. Transmission results.
I think it is justifiable for the criminal justice system to get involved in scenario 4. However, the ‘burden of proof’ should always rest with the prosecution to prove that the ‘intention of causing harm’ was unequivocally and unambiguously present – to a degree that is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ (as in all criminal cases).
I think the courts have no business at all in entertaining cases that resemble scenarios 1, 2 or 3. There is a clear ‘intent to harm’ (mens rea) in scenario 4 that is lacking in the other cases- which is ‘essential’ and ‘key’ before sentencing anyone.
The guy in scenario 4 is no different to someone assaulting and causing ‘bodily harm’ and thus he should be charged under the ‘general criminal provisions’ and not under the label of ‘grievous bodily disease’, much less a specific and special HIV law. It is wholly contrary to the principles of natural justice and equality to have laws that create a viral subclass of humans. I think the term 'grievous bodily harm' is much more prevalent (in common law countries) as well as more suitable than grievous bodily disease--> (what does that mean anyway? Does it include Cervical cancer caused by HPV? -I bet it doesn't why? Because HPV isn't associated with outlaw sexual minorities, HIV is).
I imagine such a case deserves (scenario 4) the title of ‘rarest of the rare’- and quite frankly I find it risible to think the offender should walk scot free - or that any court would let him/her.
The real problem then becomes with how much finesse and accuracy the legislators and the courts make this distinction- especially since there is the very real possibility of miscarriages of justice resulting if the courts start including negligent/ reckless behaviour (such as in scenario 1, 2, 3) as ‘reckless enough to warrant the malicious label’. I find that totally wrong and something to be avoided at all costs.
As the saying goes (applicable to all common law countries) “better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”.
-
I think there is a difference between a negligent/ reckless poz person who exposes someone else due to slipping up in an inebriated stupor where his/her raging hormones prevent him/her from thinking rationally/reasonably and someone who with a clear and conscious mind acts with the malicious intent to cause harm by transmitting the virus and does in fact transmit it.
There are many shades of grey when it comes to these issues, I think. For example:
1. Woman is in an abusive relationship with a man. Starts having an affair with someone else. Contracts HIV. Terrified of consequences if she discloses to her husband and is no position to dictate to him about wrapping up. She exposes him to HIV. Transmission results.
2. Man hooks up for a one night stand on an internet site. He usually doesn’t disclose but always wears condoms. Then one night he slips up in a state of intoxication and truly forgets to wrap up or whatever. Exposes someone to the virus and transmission takes place.
3. Man hooks up for sex often. He never discloses but always (without exception) wears a condom. Then, one night, during a particularly rough sex session, the condom breaks but he realises it after the act is concluded. He is terrified to disclose, so he doesn’t. Transmission occurs.
4. A and B are two people in a relationship. B gets diagnosed with HIV. B does not tell A as he does not want to lose him and wants to take time to come to terms with everything. They always practice safe sex and continue to do so.
A year down the line, B finds out A is cheating on him. B is infuriated and wants A to pay. B suggests that they dispense with condoms with the clear intention of causing harm. B knowingly, with a conscious mind, has unprotected sex with A on several occasions with the sole purpose of infecting him (as opposed to it being a one time thing). When B is the active partner in intercourse, he makes sure he ejaculates in A- many times. Transmission results.
I think it is justifiable for the criminal justice system to get involved in scenario 4. However, the ‘burden of proof’ should always rest with the prosecution to prove that the ‘intention of causing harm’ was unequivocally and unambiguously present – to a degree that is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ (as in all criminal cases).
I think the courts have no business at all in entertaining cases that resemble scenarios 1, 2 or 3. There is a clear ‘intent to harm’ (mens rea) in scenario 4 that is lacking in the other cases- which is ‘essential’ and ‘key’ before sentencing anyone.
The guy in scenario 4 is no different to someone assaulting and causing ‘bodily harm’ and thus he should be charged under the ‘general criminal provisions’ and not under the label of ‘grievous bodily disease’, much less a specific and special HIV law. It is wholly contrary to the principles of natural justice and equality to have laws that create a viral subclass of humans. I think the term 'grievous bodily harm' is much more prevalent (in common law countries) as well as more suitable than grievous bodily disease--> (what does that mean anyway? Does it include Cervical cancer caused by HPV? -I bet it doesn't why? Because HPV isn't associated with outlaw sexual minorities, HIV is).
I imagine such a case deserves (scenario 4) the title of ‘rarest of the rare’- and quite frankly I find it risible to think the offender should walk scot free - or that any court would let him/her.
The real problem then becomes with how much finesse and accuracy the legislators and the courts make this distinction- especially since there is the very real possibility of miscarriages of justice resulting if the courts start including negligent/ reckless behaviour (such as in scenario 1, 2, 3) as ‘reckless enough to warrant the malicious label’. I find that totally wrong and something to be avoided at all costs.
As the saying goes (applicable to all common law countries) “better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”.
And this is what I mean. :)
In common law, the point can be argued based on centuries of precedent. Taking into account all manner of permutations. The cold remove of the jurisprudence operating to the fore.
Judicial officers have a freer hand to deal with such things.
Statute law is confected by politicians in response to popular whim, designed to satisfy contemporary populist appetites rather than weighing lawful arguments.
MtD
-
oops
-
oops
I saw what you did there, Gretchen. ;)
MtD
-
Example #1...Woman's Responsible. Full knowledge of possible transmission. Get out of the relationship or report rape by husband if that's possible. To stay married for any length of time after the fact, without taking some type of measures to prevent possible transmission will bite her in the ass. This is a similar scenario to the kid being brought up on felony charges....without the abuse part.
Example #2...Guy's responsible
Example #3...Guys Responsible
Example #4...Guy's Responsible...Try to prove it in court.
Please note that I'm not saying that any of these people should clearly be thrown in jail without question. But the poz person in all of these examples is ultimately responsible for the transmission to the another person. That person has to live with the fact that somebody else has to deal with HIV for the rest of their life due to their negligence...whether they want to try and justify it or not.
Imagine if out of all of the examples...everybody contracts HIV except the partner in Example #4. Take everybody's good or bad intentions out of the equation...and the result is still the same. Disclosure in any one of the examples...MAY have ended with a different result.
Please note that I've stated my preference to disclose based on having to live with my own decisions...not out of fear of criminal prosecution. ;)
-
Totally misread his post. ;D So oops!
-
Example #1...Woman's Responsible. Full knowledge of possible transmission. Get out of the relationship or report rape by husband if that's possible. To stay married for any length of time after the fact, without taking some type of measures to prevent possible transmission will bite her in the ass. This is a similar scenario to the kid being brought up on felony charges....without the abuse part.
Example #2...Guy's responsible
Example #3...Guys Responsible
Example #4...Guy's Responsible...Try to prove it in court.
Please note that I'm not saying that any of these people should clearly be thrown in jail without question. But the poz person in all of these examples is ultimately responsible for the transmission to the another person. That person has to live with the fact that somebody else has to deal with HIV for the rest of their life due to their negligence...whether they want to try and justify it or not.
Imagine if out of all of the examples...everybody contracts HIV except the partner in Example #4. Take everybody's good or bad intentions out of the equation...and the result is still the same. Disclosure in any one of the examples...MAY have ended with a different result.
Please note that I've stated my preference to disclose based on having to live with my own decisions...not out of fear of criminal prosecution. ;)
Finally something on which we can agree. Those womens, they is just dreadful lying wenches.
Since you've already got the bum-flu, why not just take up sodomy and be done with it?
MtD
-
Example #1...Woman's Responsible. Full knowledge of possible transmission. Get out of the relationship or report rape by husband if that's possible. To stay married for any length of time after the fact, without taking some type of measures to prevent possible transmission will bite her in the ass. This is a similar scenario to the kid being brought up on felony charges....without the abuse part.
Example #2...Guy's responsible
Example #3...Guys Responsible
Example #4...Guy's Responsible...Try to prove it in court.
Please note that I'm not saying that any of these people should clearly be thrown in jail without question. But the poz person in all of these examples is ultimately responsible for the transmission to the another person. That person has to live with the fact that somebody else has to deal with HIV for the rest of their life due to their negligence...whether they want to try and justify it or not.
Imagine if out of all of the examples...everybody contracts HIV except the partner in Example #4. Take everybody's good or bad intentions out of the equation...and the result is still the same. Disclosure in any one of the examples...MAY have ended with a different result.
Please note that I've stated my preference to disclose based on having to live with my own decisions...not out of fear of criminal prosecution. ;)
Oh well, since you believe your views to be morally impenetrable because you’d ALWAYS disclose, I hope you’d remain steadfast to your beliefs and hold yourself just as unflinchingly ‘responsible and accountable’ should you inadvertently infect anyone (and I sincerely hope that never happens) disclosure notwithstanding, as ‘the end-result is the same’.
Disclosure or non-disclosure has no bearing on condom efficacy and/or other situations which can be beyond personal control.
By the way, your take on the examples (particularly example 1) uncovered a huge block of ice in your heart, me thinks.
-
Spacebarsux, I largely agree with your points. How do you feel about civil suits? In example 4, should "A" be able to sue "B" for monetary compensation for pain and suffering?
-
Spacebarsux, I largely agree with your points. How do you feel about civil suits? In example 4, should "A" be able to sue "B" for monetary compensation for pain and suffering?
4. A and B are two people in a relationship. B gets diagnosed with HIV. B does not tell A as he does not want to lose him and wants to take time to come to terms with everything. They always practice safe sex and continue to do so.
A year down the line, B finds out A is cheating on him. B is infuriated and wants A to pay. B suggests that they dispense with condoms with the clear intention of causing harm. B knowingly, with a conscious mind, has unprotected sex with A on several occasions with the sole purpose of infecting him (as opposed to it being a one time thing). When B is the active partner in intercourse, he makes sure he ejaculates in A- many times. Transmission results.
I think it is justifiable for the criminal justice system to get involved in scenario 4. However, the ‘burden of proof’ should always rest with the prosecution to prove that the ‘intention of causing harm’ was unequivocally and unambiguously present – to a degree that is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ (as in all criminal cases).
I think the courts have no business at all in entertaining cases that resemble scenarios 1, 2 or 3. There is a clear ‘intent to harm’ (mens rea) in scenario 4 that is lacking in the other cases- which is ‘essential’ and ‘key’ before sentencing anyone.
The guy in scenario 4 is no different to someone assaulting and causing ‘bodily harm’ and thus he should be charged under the ‘general criminal provisions’ and not under the label of ‘grievous bodily disease’, much less a specific and special HIV law. It is wholly contrary to the principles of natural justice and equality to have laws that create a viral subclass of humans. I think the term 'grievous bodily harm' is much more prevalent (in common law countries) as well as more suitable than grievous bodily disease--> (what does that mean anyway? Does it include Cervical cancer caused by HPV? -I bet it doesn't why? Because HPV isn't associated with outlaw sexual minorities, HIV is).
I imagine such a case deserves (scenario 4) the title of ‘rarest of the rare’- and quite frankly I find it risible to think the offender should walk scot free - or that any court would let him/her.
The real problem then becomes with how much finesse and accuracy the legislators and the courts make this distinction- especially since there is the very real possibility of miscarriages of justice resulting if the courts start including negligent/ reckless behaviour (such as in scenario 1, 2, 3) as ‘reckless enough to warrant the malicious label’. I find that totally wrong and something to be avoided at all costs.
As the saying goes (applicable to all common law countries) “better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”.
Ford, as I said before, if "A" wanted to press charges (in example 4), I think it may be justifiable for the criminal justice system to get involved (because here 'malicious intent' was the driving factor). Put another way, sex was a means of inflicting harm on the other person whereas in the other cases there was no malicious intent and the infection was a combination of unfortunate events/ it was the byproduct of a sexual act gone wrong.
My main concern then is, the criminal justice system will start including guys in scenarios 1,2 and 3 within the same ambit as example 4 due to the reasons Klipsch alluded. That is something, I feel, that should be avoided at all costs- it is getting on a very slippery slope. My fears are confirmed in the fact that the laws (as well as convictions) in many places don't make these fine distinctions (which are essential) and then one ends up arriving at a reductive conclusion: 'disclose or throw them in jail'. ::)
An effort must be made to accommodate reality (that presents myriad factors) in the criminal justice system so that unfortunate/ inadvertent cases where there was no intent can be weeded out.
As Matty said these laws are designed to cater to populist appetites rather than lawful arguments that deliver justice. No other illness evokes the same amount of hysteria as HIV- pathogens which can also cause fatalities and are much more easily transmitted. Neither is the much more optimistic prognosis today taken into consideration in these highly discriminatory laws.
Civil suit is an option worth seriously considering, but I feel it may not be very feasible in all circumstances because:
1. In cases where intentional transmission is alleged (like example 4) the criminal justice system will get involved regardless- and that again throws up all the same difficulties of proof, hearsay etc.
2. Since a civil suit usually sues for monetary damages, how would you punish a person who's dirt poor? How would the damages be quantified?
I think the solution lies in repealing these "affliction-apartheid" laws and then examining cases where intentional transmission is alleged on a case-by-case basis taking into account all factors (including things like whether disclosure by the infected person could have precipitated violence - such as example 1)
-
Oh well, since you believe your views to be morally impenetrable because you’d ALWAYS disclose, I hope you’d remain steadfast to your beliefs and hold yourself just as unflinchingly ‘responsible and accountable’ should you inadvertently infect anyone (and I sincerely hope that never happens) disclosure notwithstanding, as ‘the end-result is the same’.
Disclosure or non-disclosure has no bearing on condom efficacy and/or other situations which can be beyond personal control.
By the way, your take on the examples (particularly example 1) uncovered a huge block of ice in your heart, me thinks.
I'm not sure exactly what the comment above means...and I'm going to chalk it up to the interwebs inability to convey expressions properly. I'll throw it right out there without getting into my past...and I hope that all will respect that. In part...to dealing with the social ignorance that's associated with HIV/AIDS...and realizing that I'm pissing against the wind with trying to educate some people as to whats true and not true about infection and transmission (that had already condemned me for being poz)...I've conditioned myself to not feel anything anymore. I'm not proud of the fact...it's a survival mechanism. Yes...I do cry, that I feel I've needed to desensitize myself to everything a human being was put on this earth to feel...and I've got tears pouring onto the table as I'm even typing this out to an anonymous audience. I hate that somebody could judge me on something that I can't change...so I disclose as soon I feel it's necessary to potentially lessen the pain of rejection. So to survive...I make things associated with HIV as black and white as possible I guess. No need to suggest counseling...been there since 2003. I'm not angry at anybody for my becoming infected. But I guess I still haven't forgiven myself for letting it happen...
That's as honest as I can get...
-
I'm not sure exactly what the comment above means...and I'm going to chalk it up to the interwebs inability to convey expressions properly. I'll throw it right out there without getting into my past...and I hope that all will respect that. In part...to dealing with the social ignorance that's associated with HIV/AIDS...and realizing that I'm pissing against the wind with trying to educate some people as to whats true and not true about infection and transmission (that had already condemned me for being poz)...I've conditioned myself to not feel anything anymore. I'm not proud of the fact...it's a survival mechanism. Yes...I do cry, that I feel I've needed to desensitize myself to everything a human being was put on this earth to feel...and I've got tears pouring onto the table as I'm even typing this out to an anonymous audience. I hate that somebody could judge me on something that I can't change...so I disclose as soon I feel it's necessary to potentially lessen the pain of rejection. So to survive...I make things associated with HIV as black and white as possible I guess. No need to suggest counseling...been there since 2003. I'm not angry at anybody for my becoming infected. But I guess I still haven't forgiven myself for letting it happen...
That's as honest as I can get...
It's nice of you to open up, klipsch. And we understand you. We may be sort of an anonymous audience, but we're all people here.
You're not the first here who appeared saying similar things. Some people can't accept the fact that they were infected, because they were good people, because they didn't sleep around, because they trusted someone, etc, and they try too hard to be different from the "monsters" society depicts HIV+ people to be.
That sentence I highlighted is very important. It defines prejudice. Now you know how many other people have felt for being black, for being gay, and for many other reasons for which people have suffered with discrimination, before and now. It's a terrible thing indeed, and that's why it's an evil that needs to be fought against all the time, even when it doesn't affect you directly.
So one thing you need to accept is that many people are ignorant and are happy to be so. They won't change their way of thinking if it's not their interest to. It doesn't matter how much you try to educate them or show them you're different, if it makes them happy to think people with HIV are monsters, they won't change their mind and that's it. That is, unless he/she becomes positive, or someone very close to them, and sometimes not even then.
My shrink said something very interesting to me: "certainty is soothing; doubt is agonizing". People don't want to doubt the things they are already sure of, especially things related to their fears, such as HIV. That's why prejudice is so difficult to change.
So I guess you have to accept society is like this, and that you only need to be accepted by those who are important to you, who care for you and at least try to understand you without judgments. Even then some will fail at that, but you have to look for those people, not everyone. That's impossible.
Finally, you're not alone. You're not the only "victim". We can all do our part against prejudice and discrimination, but you can't do it by trying to prove you're different from what society labels you to be. You're part of something bigger, you're joined by other people who are neither better nor worse than you, and when you speak out for yourself, you speak out for them. Ignorance is our enemy, not the others who are standed in the same boat as you.
-
I'm not angry at anybody for my becoming infected. But I guess I still haven't forgiven myself for letting it happen...
LM, your post is thoughtful and spot on *(*hats off*).
-
I'm not sure exactly what the comment above means...and I'm going to chalk it up to the interwebs inability to convey expressions properly. I'll throw it right out there without getting into my past...and I hope that all will respect that. In part...to dealing with the social ignorance that's associated with HIV/AIDS
But can you not see how your attitudes towards criminalising HIV are precisely what produce the social ignorance you decry?
MtD
-
If someone is raped but infects the rapist with HIV, are they supposed to both go to jail, one for rape and the other for not disclosing while being raped?
-
If someone is raped but infects the rapist with HIV, are they supposed to both go to jail, one for rape and the other for not disclosing while being raped?
Surely you have heard of burglars who sue their victims when they are injured in the commission of the crime. Can't imagine a rapist would do any less. Of course, that's a civil action, not a criminal one. But often, rape-shield laws do not apply to those cases, so a rape victim could be publicly outed as positive.
-
If someone is raped but infects the rapist with HIV, are they supposed to both go to jail, one for rape and the other for not disclosing while being raped?
This could be easily solved by using branding irons on pozzies.
-
This could be easily solved by using branding irons on pozzies.
Or the next best thing (http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/08/10/hiv.tattoos/index.html)
-
Or the next best thing (http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/08/10/hiv.tattoos/index.html)
"Everyone detected with AIDS should be tattooed in the upper forearm, to protect common-needle users, and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other homosexuals."
William F. Buckley, 1986, a good and decent man not to mention horribly prescient
-
I'm not sure exactly what the comment above means...and I'm going to chalk it up to the interwebs inability to convey expressions properly. I'll throw it right out there without getting into my past...and I hope that all will respect that. In part...to dealing with the social ignorance that's associated with HIV/AIDS...and realizing that I'm pissing against the wind with trying to educate some people as to whats true and not true about infection and transmission (that had already condemned me for being poz)...I've conditioned myself to not feel anything anymore. I'm not proud of the fact...it's a survival mechanism. Yes...I do cry, that I feel I've needed to desensitize myself to everything a human being was put on this earth to feel...and I've got tears pouring onto the table as I'm even typing this out to an anonymous audience. I hate that somebody could judge me on something that I can't change...so I disclose as soon I feel it's necessary to potentially lessen the pain of rejection. So to survive...I make things associated with HIV as black and white as possible I guess. No need to suggest counseling...been there since 2003. I'm not angry at anybody for my becoming infected. But I guess I still haven't forgiven myself for letting it happen...
That's as honest as I can get...
Klipsch, I didn’t mean to attack you.
The feelings you describe are something virtually all of us have experienced at some point.
However, my comment was borne out of your thoughts on the examples, your pro-criminalization stance (which you now seem ambivalent about, it seems), the ostensibly self-righteous high ground you occupy on how other pozzers ought to conduct their sex-lives, the outright judgment if people’s views/actions deviate from your black-&-white notions of right and wrong, and your obstinate demeanour, clinging to your simplistic beliefs as they only reinforce your self-perception as the unfortunate good soul who’s now forever been tarnished, your fate forever sealed alongside the depraved sexual deviants. And that did come across as insensitive, grossly judgmental and even offensive to me. I found that cold hearted, so I said so.
Like I said before, HIV doesn’t differentiate between a whore and a housewife. In moralising/ emotionalising a viral infection you’re complicit in creating a ‘good AIDS’/ ‘bad AIDS’ divide, and that in my mind, is the biggest disservice to yourself and to every person living with the virus. Instead of reducing the ignorance around HIV/AIDS you’re exacerbating it.
It seems to me that you think HIV positive people can easily be divided into definitions of "guilty" (people who 'bring HIV upon themselves' and recklessly give it to others) and "innocent" (victims who were infected through no fault of their own, and would never put anyone else at risk). This is how I (and most others on this thread) think: “What should ultimately be remembered is that HIV is an infectious disease - every single person who is accused of sexually transmitting the virus by whatever means, will at some point have been the victim of a 'transmitter' themselves. Replication and infection is the primary objective of any virus. The real criminal is perhaps not the human host therefore, but HIV itself.” (Words from avert.org)
The saddest and frustrating part is that I think your intelligent and discerning enough to understand everything people are saying to you in this thread but you choose not to.
Best
-
Klipsch, I didn’t mean to attack you.
The feelings you describe are something virtually all of us have experienced at some point.
However, my comment was borne out of your thoughts on the examples, your pro-criminalization stance (which you now seem ambivalent about, it seems), the ostensibly self-righteous high ground you occupy on how other pozzers ought to conduct their sex-lives, the outright judgment if people’s views/actions deviate from your black-&-white notions of right and wrong, and your obstinate demeanour, clinging to your simplistic beliefs as they only reinforce your self-perception as the unfortunate good soul who’s now forever been tarnished, your fate forever sealed alongside the depraved sexual deviants. And that did come across as insensitive, grossly judgmental and even offensive to me. I found that cold hearted, so I said so.
Like I said before, HIV doesn’t differentiate between a whore and a housewife. In moralising/ emotionalising a viral infection you’re complicit in creating a ‘good AIDS’/ ‘bad AIDS’ divide, and that in my mind, is the biggest disservice to yourself and to every person living with the virus. Instead of reducing the ignorance around HIV/AIDS you’re exacerbating it.
It seems to me that you think HIV positive people can easily be divided into definitions of "guilty" (people who 'bring HIV upon themselves' and recklessly give it to others) and "innocent" (victims who were infected through no fault of their own, and would never put anyone else at risk). This is how I (and most others on this thread) think: “What should ultimately be remembered is that HIV is an infectious disease - every single person who is accused of sexually transmitting the virus by whatever means, will at some point have been the victim of a 'transmitter' themselves. Replication and infection is the primary objective of any virus. The real criminal is perhaps not the human host therefore, but HIV itself.” (Words from avert.org)
The saddest and frustrating part is that I think your intelligent and discerning enough to understand everything people are saying to you in this thread but you choose not to.
Best
I'm not ambivalent about my earlier statements. In fact...I still feel that something needs to be in place as a deterrent to the "assholes" out there. I don't know what that is, or if it's even possible without adding more to the stigma surrounding the virus and those infected with it. The choices I make are my own. They are black in white because I needed to break it down to a 3rd grade level so that they're easily understood by me, under whatever circumstance. At this moment...I'm not very concerned about what might happen in a drunken stupor, because drugs and alcohol are part of my past for the last 8+ years now. Having just finished that sentence...I do understand what happens with a stiff dick and a good buzz, and accredit my contracting the virus most likely under those circumstances. Did I just contradict myself??? (lol).
Our lifestyles may differ somewhat. Please do me a favor since you hint that I may have some level of intelligence, but I'm just not getting it (my words not yours). You're almost preaching that I be damned for handling my life situation in the most simplistic decision making manner I can, voicing my own opinion and suggesting that others might benefit from these actions based on only my own belief system (I can do whatever I want as long as I'm willing to pay the price...). I'm an asshole because I don't understand and you don't like, respect or even tolerate my views. The fact is...that you and others are upset with me because I don't particularly share yours.
You might be surprised to learn that I regularly jam a couple of fish oil caps up my ass, and have one of my cats lick the oil out of my sphincter, while I'm hitting his brother in the poop shoot. 8)
-
Our lifestyles may differ somewhat. Please do me a favor since you hint that I may have some level of intelligence, but I'm just not getting it (my words not yours). You're almost preaching that I be damned for handling my life situation in the most simplistic decision making manner I can, voicing my own opinion and suggesting that others might benefit from these actions based on only my own belief system (I can do whatever I want as long as I'm willing to pay the price...). I'm an asshole because I don't understand and you don't like, respect or even tolerate my views. The fact is...that you and others are upset with me because I don't particularly share yours.
No, it's because you don't realise (or don't want to realise) how your views only serve to sharpen the stigma/prejudice/ignorance against the entire poz community- male or female, straight or gay, slut or saint, diagnosed or undiagnosed.
-Because your views make all our collective lives less equal and more difficult.
-Because it is also a disservice to the population at large since instead of sending out the right message (i.e. to protect yourself) people will want to blame someone else for their own mistake (just as you seem to be doing) not to mention that people will be too scared to get tested or even get treatment due to the stigma.
-Because you don't limit your views on how to conduct your own life but seek to impose them on all other poz people (who may have vastly different circumstances etc.)
And no, I am not saying that you should be 'damned' or anything of the sort. What I was saying is that by playing the good innocent guy card you're undermining the experience of all other pozzies.
I'm not going to waste my breath anymore. Everything I felt needed to be said, I've said. Repetitively.
-
::)
-
You might be surprised to learn that I regularly jam a couple of fish oil caps up my ass, and have one of my cats lick the oil out of my sphincter, while I'm hitting his brother in the poop shoot. 8)
Fascinating. Awlroight?
-
That's very disturbing ... you should never give prescription drugs to a cat before checking with your veterinarian .
-
@ klipsch are you sure your not gay ;D
-
That's very disturbing ... you should never give prescription drugs to a cat before checking with your veterinarian .
Fish Oil is over the counter and it's gives their fur a nice sheen. I just can't buy the cheap stuff because it's God awful if they burp in my face. :o
@ klipsch are you sure your not gay ;D
I just have a sick sense of humor... ;D
-
I just have a sick sense of humor... ;D
The kind 'angry homos' wouldn't understand ? ::)
-
The kind 'angry homos' wouldn't understand ? ::)
Errumh ? there's no angry homo's w/ the AIDS in this forum, why whatever do u mean ;D
-
Errumh ? there's no angry homo's w/ the AIDS in this forum, why whatever do u mean ;D
denb, that's a question you should ask Klipsch (who used that term)- which got his post deleted by the mods.
-
denb, that's a question you should ask Klipsch (who used that term)- which got his post deleted by the mods.
Well then, if it got deleted by the mods that would explain why I didn't see it ;)
-
denb, that's a question you should ask Klipsch (who used that term)- which got his post deleted by the mods.
Is that what the bright green watched symbol means under his name?
Other than that, this discussion has hit bottom. You cannot debate an issue when one party refuses to admit to using false equivalencies. Klipsch has no desire to "understand" this issue, because he has decided that only he is correct in his views and now he's starting to play the victim card. As if we haven't seen this here before.
Joe
One more comment. I don't think the mods removed his post, or their stamp would show as being the source of the edit. I think a few choice words may have been shared with Klip that "encouraged" him to remove his post.
-
denb, that's a question you should ask Klipsch (who used that term)- which got his post deleted by the mods.
That kinda reminds me of a certain individual who dubbed some of us the "7 bitter queens" that run this forum or something like that. I forgot who it was; he was quite the pleasant character.
(http://i812.photobucket.com/albums/zz42/livebythemoon/6ad5ae89.jpg)
-
The kind 'angry homos' wouldn't understand ? ::)
Actually...I thought that everybody would have gotten a kick out of that...seriously. I've bounced around this forum for some time now, and I appreciate everybody busting each others asses (calm down...that's an expression...lol). I was kind of getting the impression that some of us were moving past some of my earlier comments. I've spoken to individuals in the community about the topic and I better understand how volatile of a subject this is. You're continuing to attack me. There used to be a BLOCK or IGNORE option here, and believe me...I've looked for it over the past week or so. Block me...Ignore me or whatever you want to do. I'm entitled to my opinion...I'm consciously making an effort to better educate myself on the consequences of whatever happens legally, morally, physically, mentally, emotionally...etc...etc...etc. I'm not going anywhere. I'm HIV+ like the rest of the folks contributing in this section...and I have a right to say what I feel necessary...AND...I'm open to listening and possibly even accepting others views and experience.
I'm asking nicely...can we all chill out here? I'm not the good guy pozzie...I'm just another pozzie. You don't even want to know how I use cashews to lure the squirrels in close enough to bury their furry little fucking faces in the dirt while I slam it home... :D
LATE EDIT: Yes I've been warned, and the mods deleted that post. It was phrased..."I'd tell you to stop acting like a ____________ but every time I try to interject some humor, you just play me to be the bad guy. OK...I'm the bad guy. I wasn't aware that my thoughts had such a global impact. :o I'm going to go and try to think of something I can post later, and see if I can end the war overseas" :D
-
Actually...I thought that everybody would have gotten a kick out of that...seriously. I've bounced around this forum for some time now, and I appreciate everybody busting each others asses (calm down...that's an expression...lol). I was kind of getting the impression that some of us were moving past some of my earlier comments. I've spoken to individuals in the community about the topic and I better understand how volatile of a subject this is. You're continuing to attack me. There used to be a BLOCK or IGNORE option here, and believe me...I've looked for it over the past week or so. Block me...Ignore me or whatever you want to do. I'm entitled to my opinion...I'm consciously making an effort to better educate myself on the consequences of whatever happens legally, morally, physically, mentally, emotionally...etc...etc...etc. I'm not going anywhere. I'm HIV+ like the rest of the folks contributing in this section...and I have a right to say what I feel necessary...AND...I'm open to listening and possibly even accepting others views and experience.
I'm asking nicely...can we all chill out here? I'm not the good guy pozzie...I'm just another pozzie. You don't even want to know how I use cashews to lure the squirrels in close enough to bury their furry little fucking faces in the dirt while I slam it home... :D
LATE EDIT: Yes I've been warned, and the mods deleted that post. It was phrased..."I'd tell you to stop acting like a ____________ but every time I try to interject some humor, you just play me to be the bad guy. OK...I'm the bad guy. I wasn't aware that my thoughts had such a global impact. :o I'm going to go and try to think of something I can post later, and see if I can end the war overseas" :D
Right on the mark with the victim post and it's obvious you still don't get it. Nobody is attacking you, we are trying to enlighten you on how damaging your views and others like you, are to the poz community. I've been poz for 27 years and I know how dreadful society as a whole can be to pozzies. Many of us lived the early days of AIDS, when being poz could lose you your job, your family and friends and even your home. We have all faced the stigma of HIV and your only intent seems to belittle our goals of limiting the use of the law against us.
You seem to think that your absolute position somehow will shield you and I believe you are wrong. I fear people like you, poz or not, who would use the law against anyone who is poz, simply for being poz. The laws we are against are those that do not require quantitative proof of guilt, or those that criminalize normal sexual behavior, even when no infection results.
Why you would believe that humor would somehow distract us from your Draconian views is beyond me. Your comments about killing squirrels makes my skin crawl. And no matter how I read your replies, one thing is very evident to me: you believe that you are morally superior to some of us here. Whatever!
Joe
-
I think he indicated that he is willing and open to hearing other viewpoints and maybe even adapting his. Isn't that exactly what we're trying to accomplish with society?
Wolfie
-
There used to be a BLOCK or IGNORE option here, and believe me...I've looked for it over the past week or so. Block me...Ignore me or whatever you want to do. I'm entitled to my opinion
It's a chat forum doll. If you don't want responses to your "opinion", don't post one.
-
Hey Klipsch,
I have never had a problem with how you choose to conduct your business. You said that you always disclose and that you need to keep things very black and white in your life. That is fine -- you have a right to do that and you have a right to speak your opinion in that regards. What got me a bit riled, and others most likely, was your stance that OTHERS should conduct themselves in that same way. That it is the MORAL thing to do, etc. That was the problem -- opining that your way was THE way that all should live. Live your life as you see fit, but don't assume that this is the way everyone should live.
Additionally, you were, initially, pretty strident in your agreement about criminalizing non-disclosure of HIV. You have since begun to waffle a bit on that, which tells me that you seem to hearing other sides. As Wolfie pointed out, this is exactly what a debate like this should do -- help folks see things from a different angle.
Hopefully that helps you understand why this isn't ending.....
Mike
-
I just had a post typed out and lost it. So let me try this simpler. I was wrong in my original presumption that criminalization seemed like a simple enough way to limit intentional or unintentional transmission through disclosure. I admit that I have absolutely no clue how targeting HIV transmission as a stand alone STD for adjudication would effect the community. I was stupid to think I could have any kind of valid discussion, with no real knowledge on the ramifications pertaining to the criminalization of intentional transmission of HIV. I only want to see fewer new infections.
I'm wide open to listen to what others have to say to educate me about the "why's" some things would and some things wouldn't work. Telling me that I'm narrow minded, or closed minded, or a moral bigot...may be true, but it's based on my own personal knowledge and exposure which is limited to about 6-8 partners (or potential partners) over the last 13 years. Accusing me of feeding into the problem, means absolutely nothing to me, because I'm not even aware of what problems are being refereed too ???
Can we start from there?
Less I forget...my "outside help" looked at me like she wanted to tear my head off when I brought up the criminalization topic. So I'm getting it from all angles...though I didn't get into any depth with her on the subject...I obviously have other issues...lol
-
I just had a post typed out and lost it. So let me try this simpler. I was wrong in my original presumption that criminalization seemed like a simple enough way to limit intentional or unintentional transmission through disclosure. I admit that I have absolutely no clue how targeting HIV transmission as a stand alone STD for adjudication would effect the community. I was stupid to think I could have any kind of valid discussion, with no real knowledge on the ramifications pertaining to the criminalization of intentional transmission of HIV. I only want to see fewer new infections.
I'm wide open to listen to what others have to say to educate me about the "why's" some things would and some things wouldn't work. Telling me that I'm narrow minded, or closed minded, or a moral bigot...may be true, but it's based on my own personal knowledge and exposure which is limited to about 6-8 partners (or potential partners) over the last 13 years. Accusing me of feeding into the problem, means absolutely nothing to me, because I'm not even aware of what problems are being refereed too ???
Can we start from there?
Less I forget...my "outside help" looked at me like she wanted to tear my head off when I brought up the criminalization topic. So I'm getting it from all angles...though I didn't get into any depth with her on the subject...I obviously have other issues...lol
Sure. Everyone is entitled to a clean start.
More than a few of us have made the point though that preventing the transmission of HIV is the responsibility of individuals and not just positive individuals.
If HIV negative individuals really took responsibility for protecting themselves, the virus would be stopped dead in it's tracks. It's not an easy virus to transmit. Don't have anal or vaginal sex without using condoms, if you're an injection drug user don't share weapons, and if you're an HIV positive mother follow the infection control protocols relevant to your circumstances.
What we need to do is get HIV negative people thinking this way. My sexual health is my responsibility. If I entrust it to someone else I may well be bitterly disappointed.
MtD
/edit: I left out a word. I cannot brain, I haz teh dumb./
-
OK...is it equal responsibility on both parties if one is already aware that they're positive? Is it wrong for me to think that I should go an extra measure of responsibility? Say 13 wraps instead of one lambskin? Yes...I jest...lambskins aren't an effective barrier...I know. ;) But what about the extra measure? I"m leaving the "D" word out of the conversation just so that I have a broader view.
-
OK...is it equal responsibility on both parties if one is already aware that they're positive? Is it wrong for me to think that I should go an extra measure of responsibility? Say 13 wraps instead of one lambskin? Yes...I jest...lambskins aren't an effective barrier...I know. ;) But what about the extra measure? I"m leaving the "D" word out of the conversation just so that I have a broader view.
Well I think you conflate a couple of differing ideas here. An obligation to be honest with people you're intimate with isn't the same as preventing the spread of AIDS.
The idea that HIV negative people should always insist on safer sex neutralises at least the potentially negative sexual heatlh ramifications of non-disclosure on the part of the positive person.
Now that doesn't mean that HIV positive people shouldn't disclose. If you're entering into some sort of intimate relationship with another one, withholding important stuff about yourself isn't a great way to kick things off.
See where this goes? Sure he might be a lying fucker. He might drink cappuccino with his steak dinner, vote libertarian, kick puppies and wear white after Labor Day, but if she insists on condoms when they fuck at least he won't give her AIDS.
MtD
-
OK...is it equal responsibility on both parties if one is already aware that they're positive? Is it wrong for me to think that I should go an extra measure of responsibility? Say 13 wraps instead of one lambskin? Yes...I jest...lambskins aren't an effective barrier...I know. ;) But what about the extra measure? I"m leaving the "D" word out of the conversation just so that I have a broader view.
I don't get what you mean by "extra measure of responsibility"?
I feel that I am responsible to have my virus stop with me. That means condoms for anal sex (my vaginal sex days are waaaayyyy behind me).
A neg person has the SAME responsibility -- condoms for anal or vaginal sex. No extra measures required by you -- just consistent ones.
See -- it's a simple concept that is, unfortunately, a bitch to have consistently done by all. I made it a good long time with always using condoms -- then I got careless -- then I got HIV.
So..... keep it simple is a pretty good motto to follow.
Mike
-
Not to hijack the topic... please bare with the newbie... but what does the green "Watched" mean under Klipsch name? :-[
-
Not to hijack the topic... please bare with the newbie... but what does the green "Watched" mean under Klipsch name? :-[
It means he got an official warning from a moderator for using inflammatory language towards another forum member.
-
Thank you! I feel stupid though... I thought I had caught up on this thread... but a lot had been said... didn't scroll far enough up... if I had, I would have found out what it meant... but thanks for letting me know anyway instead of treating me like the dumbass I was :-\ :P Back to our regularly scheduled programming. :D
-
It means he got an official warning from a moderator for using inflammatory language towards another forum member.
SAID INFLAMMATORY COMMENT..."I'd tell you to stop acting like a ____________ but every time I try to interject some humor, you just play me to be the bad guy. OK...I'm the bad guy. I wasn't aware that my thoughts had such a global impact. :o I'm going to go and try to think of something I can post later, and see if I can end the war overseas" :D
This morning I had an epiphany when I was getting out of the shower and I thought about this thread topic. If I had just been diagnosed poz and it was well known that "intentional transmission" was a criminal offence...I probably would have been more prone to commit suicide than I was when I was diagnosed in 98. So I clearly understand now why I got the responses I did in regards to suggested criminalization.
Matty and bocker...thanks you for calmly taking a moment to explain the responsibility end to me after I've obviously pissed off so many. Sometimes it takes me some time to process the information I have already before being able to understand what's being thrown at me in the present. I apologize if I crossed any type of lines morally for anybody else. That honestly wasn't my intention, but knowing what I've said to this point...I understand where I've clearly ruffled some feathers. I promise not to comment anymore on this because I realize now that there is absolutely nothing I can say, and remain genuine...without unintentionally offending somebody. I didn't understand what others were attempting to convey to me. But moving forward...I promise to try.
I appreciate everything I've learned here, and I'm bowing out with the utmost respect to all...
-
SAID INFLAMMATORY COMMENT..."I'd tell you to stop acting like a ____________ but every time I try to interject some humor, you just play me to be the bad guy. OK...I'm the bad guy. I wasn't aware that my thoughts had such a global impact. :o I'm going to go and try to think of something I can post later, and see if I can end the war overseas" :D
This morning I had an epiphany when I was getting out of the shower and I thought about this thread topic. If I had just been diagnosed poz and it was well known that "intentional transmission" was a criminal offence...I probably would have been more prone to commit suicide than I was when I was diagnosed in 98. So I clearly understand now why I got the responses I did in regards to suggested criminalization.
Matty and bocker...thanks you for calmly taking a moment to explain the responsibility end to me after I've obviously pissed off so many. Sometimes it takes me some time to process the information I have already before being able to understand what's being thrown at me in the present. I apologize if I crossed any type of lines morally for anybody else. That honestly wasn't my intention, but knowing what I've said to this point...I understand where I've clearly ruffled some feathers. I promise not to comment anymore on this because I realize now that there is absolutely nothing I can say, and remain genuine...without unintentionally offending somebody. I didn't understand what others were attempting to convey to me. But moving forward...I promise to try.
I appreciate everything I've learned here, and I'm bowing out with the utmost respect to all...
Klipsch,
Thank you for a very generous and heart-felt reply. While I found some of your comments to be very disturbing, my main issue was your inability to try and see other views on this subject. Sometimes discussions can become very heated, especially involving areas that have proven to be detrimental to the poz community. It's not uncommon for feelings to get hurt, whether intentional or not and I think we all understand the limitations of the written word. That being said, I hope you won't limit your participation for fear of inadvertently offending someone, because it happens and we move on.
Joe
-
I believe Klipsch is only saying that he's bowing out of this thread. I hope and expect (especially now that he's shown the ability to see and accept other viewpoints) that he will continue to participate.
-
SAID INFLAMMATORY COMMENT..."I'd tell you to stop acting like a ____________ but every time I try to interject some humor, you just play me to be the bad guy. OK...I'm the bad guy. I wasn't aware that my thoughts had such a global impact. :o I'm going to go and try to think of something I can post later, and see if I can end the war overseas" :D
This morning I had an epiphany when I was getting out of the shower and I thought about this thread topic. If I had just been diagnosed poz and it was well known that "intentional transmission" was a criminal offence...I probably would have been more prone to commit suicide than I was when I was diagnosed in 98. So I clearly understand now why I got the responses I did in regards to suggested criminalization.
Matty and bocker...thanks you for calmly taking a moment to explain the responsibility end to me after I've obviously pissed off so many. Sometimes it takes me some time to process the information I have already before being able to understand what's being thrown at me in the present. I apologize if I crossed any type of lines morally for anybody else. That honestly wasn't my intention, but knowing what I've said to this point...I understand where I've clearly ruffled some feathers. I promise not to comment anymore on this because I realize now that there is absolutely nothing I can say, and remain genuine...without unintentionally offending somebody. I didn't understand what others were attempting to convey to me. But moving forward...I promise to try.
I appreciate everything I've learned here, and I'm bowing out with the utmost respect to all...
Klipsch, I figured I should respond as I was the person at whom your comment was directed.
Thanks for your reply. Appreciate it.
I wasn’t personally offended at all (I’ve got pretty thick skin ;) ), but I did feel frustrated by your inexorable posture.
My responses weren't rooted in emotion as much in hard reason, the way I see it.
Since you’ve relented a bit, I’ll take one last shot ;):
Criminalization of HIV---> ^^stigma, prejudice against ALL tested/untested poz people (overwhelming vast majority of tested poz people DO TAKE all necessary precautions – (whether they disclose or not) through abstinence, proper condom use, sero-sorting, no-risk activities, medication reducing viral load to UD etc. The reckless/ intentional types are a minuscule minuscule fraction)---> I am untested and PETRIFIED to get tested due to ^^stigma, prejudice, ignorance---> I don’t want to be ‘one of them’---> i.e. That lowly viral subclass of people. Besides I don’t sleep with those sort of people anyway and/or I convince myself that I’m better off not knowing and live in denial---> I infect someone else who’s also scared to get tested for the same reason or lives in ignorance---> Onward infection---> Spread of HIV.
Isn’t this how you and I got infected? This is why I think criminalization of transmission is counterproductive, it only exacerbates the problem. It demonises the wrong demographic (those who KNOW their status, are responsible and take measures to halt onward infection) and in effect facilitates the spread of the virus by those who are untested.
The solution isn’t maligning people with the virus, but launching a cohesive attack on the virus itself. And we all know there's only one effective way that's been proven to work.
I sincerely hope you stick around these forums.
Best
Edited for clarity
-
Criminalization of HIV---> ^^stigma, prejudice against ALL tested/untested poz people (overwhelming vast majority of tested poz people DO TAKE all necessary precautions – (whether they disclose or not) through abstinence, proper condom use, sero-sorting, no-risk activities, medication reducing viral load to UD etc. The reckless/ intentional types are a minuscule minuscule fraction)---> I am untested and PETRIFIED to get tested due to ^^stigma, prejudice, ignorance---> I don’t want to be ‘one of them’---> i.e. That lowly viral subclass of people. Besides I don’t sleep with those sort of people anyway and/or I convince myself that I’m better off not knowing and live in denial---> I infect someone else who’s also scared to get tested for the same reason or lives in ignorance---> Onward infection---> Spread of HIV.
Isn’t this how you and I got infected? This is why I think criminalization of transmission is counterproductive, it only exacerbates the problem. It demonises the wrong demographic (those who KNOW their status, are responsible and take measures to halt onward infection) and in effect facilitates the spread of the virus by those who are untested.
The solution isn’t maligning people with the virus, but launching a cohesive attack on the virus itself. And we all know there's only one effective way that's been proven to work.
Edited for clarity
I have to say that I find this argument the least relevant, from a legal standpoint, as to why criminializing HIV is wrong (and I do believe that it is wrong).
Of course, criminalizing anything adds to its stigma -- that is part of the point of it.
Criminalizing HIV is wrong simply because it holds this particular disease to a different standard than others, with no rational reason to do so.
Now -- your stigma argument works well if you are argueing that criminalization will not have the impact to infection rates that some would like to suggest -- but, IMO, it holds little water as a reason to not criminalize it.
Mike
-
I have to say that I find this argument the least relevant, from a legal standpoint, as to why criminializing HIV is wrong (and I do believe that it is wrong).
Of course, criminalizing anything adds to its stigma -- that is part of the point of it.
Criminalizing HIV is wrong simply because it holds this particular disease to a different standard than others, with no rational reason to do so.
Now -- your stigma argument works well if you are argueing that criminalization will not have the impact to infection rates that some would like to suggest -- but, IMO, it holds little water as a reason to not criminalize it.
Mike
Perhaps not, strictly speaking, a ‘legal point’ but a very pertinent issue from a public health policy standpoint, which would carry some weight in a court of law, or if not in directly in court, certainly does so in framing legislation.
There are no data demonstrating that the threat of criminal sanctions significantly changes or deters the complex sexual and drug-using behaviours which may result in HIV transmission. Available data show no difference in behaviour between places where laws criminalizing HIV transmission exist and where they do not. Furthermore, using criminal law beyond cases of intentional transmission could actually undermine effective HIV prevention efforts:
-It could discourage HIV testing, since ignorance of one’s status might be perceived as the best defence in a criminal law suit. This would obstruct efforts to increase the number of people accessing testing and being referred to HIV treatment, care and support. HIV testing and treatment are vital for HIV prevention because people who receive a positive diagnosis usually change their behaviour to avoid transmitting HIV and because taking antiretroviral therapy reduces infectiousness and the likelihood of onward HIV transmission.
-It places legal responsibility for HIV prevention exclusively on those already living with HIV and dilutes the public health message of shared responsibility for sexual health between sexual partners. People may (wrongly) assume their partners are HIV negative because they have not disclosed, and thus not use protective measures.
Source is UNAIDS article. Link: http://data.unaids.org/pub/basedocument/2008/20080731_jc1513_policy_criminalization_en.pdf
-
Perhaps not, strictly speaking, a ‘legal point’ but a very pertinent issue from a public health policy standpoint, which would carry some weight in a court of law, or if not in directly in court, certainly does so in framing legislation.
There are no data demonstrating that the threat of criminal sanctions significantly changes or deters the complex sexual and drug-using behaviours which may result in HIV transmission. Available data show no difference in behaviour between places where laws criminalizing HIV transmission exist and where they do not. Furthermore, using criminal law beyond cases of intentional transmission could actually undermine effective HIV prevention efforts:
-It could discourage HIV testing, since ignorance of one’s status might be perceived as the best defence in a criminal law suit. This would obstruct efforts to increase the number of people accessing testing and being referred to HIV treatment, care and support. HIV testing and treatment are vital for HIV prevention because people who receive a positive diagnosis usually change their behaviour to avoid transmitting HIV and because taking antiretroviral therapy reduces infectiousness and the likelihood of onward HIV transmission.
-It places legal responsibility for HIV prevention exclusively on those already living with HIV and dilutes the public health message of shared responsibility for sexual health between sexual partners. People may (wrongly) assume their partners are HIV negative because they have not disclosed, and thus not use protective measures.
Source is UNAIDS article. Link: http://data.unaids.org/pub/basedocument/2008/20080731_jc1513_policy_criminalization_en.pdf
So, you agree with me then? You said, pretty much what I did. This argument doesn't work legally. Making something a criminal offense is MEANT to increase stigma. However, increasing stigma is bad from a public health perspective.
Bottomline -- this argument is far less persuasive outside our population -- but trying to get others to see that there is no reason to treat this disease differently just might work (or at least that is wrong to do so). Why? because for some, it's not about decreasing infections, it's about punishing "those dirty perverts"for trying to infect "innocent" folks.
Anyway -- it sounds like we agree.
M
-
So, you agree with me then? You said, pretty much what I did. This argument doesn't work legally. Making something a criminal offense is MEANT to increase stigma. However, increasing stigma is bad from a public health perspective.
Bottomline -- this argument is far less persuasive outside our population -- but trying to get others to see that there is no reason to treat this disease differently just might work (or at least that is wrong to do so). Why? because for some, it's not about decreasing infections, it's about punishing "those dirty perverts"for trying to infect "innocent" folks.
Anyway -- it sounds like we agree.
M
Mike, I don't think it matters whether I agree on this 'technicality' of legal point or not, actually. What is considered strictly legal or not is another debate altogether. I was getting more at the macro picture as to why these discriminatory laws are counterproductive.
Moreover, I think this unnecessary hairsplitting of arguments into legal/public health policy etc only detracts from the real point:
HIV transmission criminalization makes no sense due to a host of reasons.
As long as we agree on that, all's cool. :)
Edited to add: 1. At a micro-level, Criminalizing HIV and not other diseases highlights the inherent inequality in how the criminal justice system treats people with different infectious diseases.
2. At a macro-level, the overarching objective of enacting Laws Criminalizing HIV was/is to minimize new infections and curtail the spread of the virus- something they have not been effective in achieving. In fact the evidence indicates that it worsens the problem.
1 + 2 is a two-pronged rejoinder to the same problem.