HIV criminalization escalates

[klipsch]

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.   

[mecch]

Totally misread his post.  So oops!

[Matty the Damned]

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

[spacebarsux]

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.

[GSOgymrat]

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]

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)

[klipsch]

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...

[LM]

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.

[Buckmark]

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*).

[Matty the Damned]

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

[Hellraiser]

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?

[jkinatl2]

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.

[Miss Philicia]

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.

[Solo_LTSurvivor]

This could be easily solved by using branding irons on pozzies.

Or the next best thing

[Miss Philicia]

Or the next best thing

"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

[spacebarsux]

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]

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. 

[spacebarsux]

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.

[klipsch]

   

[Rev. Moon]

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. 

Fascinating.  Awlroight?

[Jeff G]

That's very disturbing ... you should never give prescription drugs to a cat before checking with your veterinarian .

[denb45]

@ klipsch are you sure your not gay 

[klipsch]

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. 

@ klipsch are you sure your not gay 

I just have a sick sense of humor... 

[spacebarsux]

I just have a sick sense of humor... 

The kind 'angry homos' wouldn't understand ?

[denb45]

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 

[spacebarsux]

Errumh ?  there's no angry homo's w/ the AIDS in this forum, why whatever do u mean 

denb, that's a question you should ask Klipsch (who used that term)- which got his post deleted by the mods.

[denb45]

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 

[Joe K]

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.

[Rev. Moon]

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.

[klipsch]

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... 

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.    I'm going to go and try to think of something I can post later, and see if I can end the war overseas" 

[Joe K]

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... 

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.    I'm going to go and try to think of something I can post later, and see if I can end the war overseas" 

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

[wolfter]

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

[Dachshund]

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.

[bocker3]

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

[klipsch]

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

[Matty the Damned]

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./

[klipsch]

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.

[Matty the Damned]

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

[bocker3]

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

[forrest]

Not to hijack the topic... please bare with the newbie... but what does the green "Watched" mean under Klipsch name? 

[Miss Philicia]

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.

[forrest]

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        Back to our regularly scheduled programming. 

[klipsch]

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.    I'm going to go and try to think of something I can post later, and see if I can end the war overseas" 

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...

[Joe K]

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.    I'm going to go and try to think of something I can post later, and see if I can end the war overseas" 

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

[Rev. Moon]

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.   

[spacebarsux]

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.    I'm going to go and try to think of something I can post later, and see if I can end the war overseas" 

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

[bocker3]

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

[spacebarsux]

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

[bocker3]

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

[spacebarsux]

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.