Damn, does he ever look healthy!
[quoteThat Australian guy is hot, but he should have used a condom. :)
wrong pronoun....THEY should have used a condom
QuoteThat Australian guy is hot, but he should have used a condom. :)
wrong pronoun....THEY should have used a condom
He's hot, so what? Never been to a big gay party? There are a lot of beautiful HIV+ guys!
Pity, he could have been a positive image for HIV+ people.
He didn't disclose and didn't use protection. He's an asshole.
wrong pronoun....THEY should have used a condom
But I am afraid most of his victims took one look at that killer smile and body and decided that nothing else mattered and they wanna have his babies.
Maybe you got invited to a lot of porn video launching parties (better if they were after parties..).
He could still be a positive role model.. at least as a warning to those who think they can judge by looks or HIV would never affect them. But of cos it's not going to be - he will just be another reminder to the public that we - the infected - are all evil and out there to ruin other lives.
he's charged with grievous bodily harm which is a felony under the OZ Crimes Act. what if he's spreading syphilis or Hep B? would he get charged?
I still remember the Johnson Aziga case -- he's charged with 1st-degree murder by spreading HIV and 2 of his partners were dead of HIV-related cancers.
HIV is not a chronic and manageable disease.
Oh don't get me wrong the women in this scenario aren't innocent,
See what I mean, you're halfway there- How can two people be guilty of something and only one be charged?
HIV is not a chronic and manageable disease.
For those who've been following HIV news for years, is this something new that seems to be happening on a weekly basis? Or, have these prosecutions been going on since the beginning?Hi T,
Hi T,
it's not sth new.
Knowingly spreading HIV, if contracted, leads to mental baggage, physical anguish, and ... eventual death, that's why so many states (>30) criminalize intentional passing on the virus.
I know we are getting support from each other here. But HIV really leads to reduced quality of life. neggies dont have to deal with the mental baggage shit.
Hi T,
it's not sth new.
Knowingly spreading HIV, if contracted, leads to mental baggage, physical anguish, and ... eventual death, that's why so many states (>30) criminalize intentional passing on the virus.
I know we are getting support from each other here. But HIV really leads to reduced quality of life. neggies dont have to deal with the mental baggage shit.
I don't think he should be criminally liable, I just said he was an asshole.
Hi T,
it's not sth new.
Knowingly spreading HIV, if contracted, leads to mental baggage, physical anguish, and ... eventual death, that's why so many states (>30) criminalize intentional passing on the virus.
I know we are getting support from each other here. But HIV really leads to reduced quality of life. neggies dont have to deal with the mental baggage shit.
Knowingly spreading HIV, ...
He's not Australian. 8)
Yes it is. The accused criminal acrobat case in point. 13 years and functioning fine. He's either a LTNP or he's on HAART, I would guess.
Actually the key (legal) word here is "recklessly", which of cos is not mentioned once in any media reports. I don't have a comprehensive list of cases but I think I can safely say that, at most, like almost all similar cases that involved consensual sex, this man is charged under "recklessly" causing GBH. There is another offense in Australia on inflicting GBH with "intent".Thanks for the clarification. Is this a landmark case in Australia?
Just wanna clarify..
But he is an Australian citizen.
He didn't disclose and didn't use protection. He's an asshole.
Thanks for the clarification. Is this a landmark case in Australia?
In Pennsylvania, HIV+ spitting at another person is a 2nd degree felony. Law/sentence like this or that will just add to the stigma of HIV as a death sentence.
Damn, does he ever look healthy! I'd do him!It's Dannii Minogue, my favorite singer. ;D
I bet that woman judge in Australia's Got Talent wanted to do him too.
But not an Australian man. He's not even an Australian acrobat....
As Ann notes, he is in fact an Australian citizen who was born in Zimbabwe. This makes him an Australian. Australia is ethnically diverse. No one group can lay exclusive claim to being "Australian" - though White Australia has a tendency to try.
He's not being prosecuted under the "Australian" Crimes Act - rather he's been extradited to the state of Queensland to face charges under the relevant criminal statutes there. It is conceivable that he could face similar prosecutions in New South Wales and Victoria. I believe the Australian Federal Police were involved in effecting his extradition.
Has he done an (allegedly) bad thing? Probably. But once again responsibility is not being apportioned properly. The women in this case are being cast as complete victims. The Sharkdiver alludes to it above - why didn't the women involved use condoms? There is no suggestion that this wretched fellow raped them.
To paraphrase her Annship - to agree to unprotected sexual intercourse is to consent to the possibility of being infected with an STI.
There is nothing particularly novel in legal terms about this case. Such prosecutions have happened before and almost always involve heterosexuals, with the male as the offender.
The HIV/AIDS Legal Centre has a useful set of resources availble for download here. (http://www.halc.org.au/transmission.html) Whilst somewhat NSW centric, they give excellent information on how HIV and the law works in Australia.
I would add that those documents are written by lawyers and reflect how the law sees HIV. Do not presume the information contained therein reflects accurately the position of HIV science.
MtD
What on earth is the difference between an "Australian man" and an "Australian citizen"? hmm?
The two cases I know of were related to Pennsylvania Statute 270 and is specifically limited to a person in jail. Still stupid, but your statement isn't entirely accurate unless I've missed another case(s).
Women are complete victims. There is no other way to put it. Appropriating the blame on the women involved is tantamount to blaming rape victims for wearing provocative clothing.
This is probably a classic 1st year law school case where they explain how the same act committed with different intent would be subject to different legal treatment. He KNEW he has HIV, they didn't.
Yes "assault by prisoner" and "assault by life prisoner".
How about the Louisiana Code RS 14:43.5? No person shall intentionally expose another to any acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) virus through any means or contact without the knowing and lawful consent of the victim. Whoever commits the crime of intentional exposure to AIDS virus shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than ten years, or both. "Means or contact" is defined as spitting, biting, stabbing with an AIDS contaminated object, or throwing of blood or other bodily substances.
In Louisiana, such penalty is not specifically limited to prisoners.
I live in Pennsylvania. I don't care what happens in Louisiana.
If the guy did not know his status the blame could be shared. Since he did know and infected them - they are victims. How is this demeaning?
To agree to have unprotected intercourse is to agree to the possibility of acquiring a sexually transmitted disease, including HIV.
Unless the women were intellectually and/or emotionally challenged.
I totally agree with that, but now we're entering the relms of speculation as to the details not reported.
At the end of the day it's journalists on their current run of the "big bad man wiv teh AIDS", putting fuel on the fire and keeping stigma alive
John
Women are complete victims. There is no other way to put it. Appropriating the blame on the women involved is tantamount to blaming rape victims for wearing provocative clothing.
If the guy did not know his status the blame could be shared. Since he did know and infected them - they are victims. How is this demeaning?
Well, yes - I am talking about the women who slept with him. If they get sick, he's 100% to blame.
It's like getting into an accident when driven by a drunk driver. One may not have worn a seatbelt (ie increasing the risk of trauma in case of a car crash) but it's the drunk driver that is responsible for the accident in the first place.
Excuse me, but fuck you.
It's demeaning on your part because you are assuming that women don't have minds of their own - minds that are capable of saying - "put a damned condom on that prick!"
WRONG! He's 50% to blame. No more, no less. And someone who doesn't put their seat-belt on has a part in creating their injuries when in a crash.
Contracting HIV is like tango, it takes two people to make it happen. Anyone who is negative and doesn't tell their partner "hey put a fucking rubber on" is opening the door to whatever comes their way.
Never have five words made me laugh so loudly.
You are completely right, but you would think this guy would at least have the decency to use a condom since he was knowingly positive.
Wow that was weird, I am not being cocky but that guy looks like me... but it's not I am not acrobat , flexible but american.;)
He didn't disclose and didn't use protection. He's an asshole.
He's not Australian. 8)
Komenas - i think you will find the laws vary from State to State in Aus. And, you can only be prosecuted under one jurisdiction - hence him being extradited from NSW to QLD.
First of all, I do not appreciate the language. We may have a difference of opinion, but keeping it civil is incumbent on everybody.
Now - stripping the gender of the victims aside (which is irrelevant) - I still maintain that an HIV+ person has the RESPONSIBILITY to inform of status / insist on using a condom. HIV- person doing so is only being prudent.
If they're going to prosecute positive people for not wearing condoms, they should prosecute negative people as well.The most sane and common sense thing I have read on this site in years!! Thanks Ann. You are a gem.
Responsibility is something we all must shoulder.
I thought he was innocent until proven guilty. He has only been charged, there are no findings of fact.
He's 30 right? I mean this is the sort of level of maturity I expect from a teenager not a grown man.
You obviously haven't been reading these forums for too long. ;)
First of all, I do not appreciate the language. We may have a difference of opinion, but keeping it civil is incumbent on everybody.
Now - stripping the gender of the victims aside (which is irrelevant) - I still maintain that an HIV+ person has the RESPONSIBILITY to inform of status / insist on using a condom. HIV- person doing so is only being prudent.
When I was in college in the early 80's and bi, all the girls were on the pill or had diaphrams. I can't remember ever using a condom with girls. Maybe I did, but it was so insignificant a fact that I dont remember. Are women on the pill still having unprotected sex willy nilly?? Or with diaphrams????
Of this you are proud?? What a declaration of idiocy you have given us, and you wonder why the plague marches on.
What she did was negligent but what he was doing was worse.
I'm actually very curious to know what the prevalence of condom use for heterosexuals is. There must be surveys done on this.
23 per cent of women required their male partners to use condoms during anal sex, compared with 61 per cent of gay or bisexual men.
According to the department, an estimated 100,000 New York City women have anal sex every year.
Women who did not use condoms were also far less likely to get tested for sexually transmitted diseases.
While 63 per cent of those who use always condoms get tested regularly, only 35 per cent of those who bareback do.
She said - "You can't have unprotected sex with people anymore. If you do, you stand a chance of being persecuted. I am supposed to tell you this by law and write it down that you've been informed".
The bad thing is that if you unknowingly spread the virus you're not chargeable.
It follows that one cannot be charged for transmitting a virus they didn't know they had and this is a good thing.
MtD
It's not a good thing because it induces people to not get tested for the fear to carry responsibilties and for beeing prosecuted. If there is the potential risk of spreading a disease, knowinlgy or unknowingly, the responsibilities should be equal for everyone. It is in the public interest to stop the epidemic and not only a responsibility of the infected population. This common law forms might be good in general but if your mission is to control the spread of HIV you need to change them.
I think we might be at crossed purposes here.
Do you mean that the being able to charge people with an offence they had no idea they were committing (and in fact did not commit) will result in an increase in the number of people being tested for HIV?
MtD
You're missing the point. Sexual active people must consider that until they're tested negative they are a possible vector for new infections and so a potential threat to public health. If we always delegate the responsibilities to others we will never win this battle. It's a very simple and practical logic. HIV testing should be mandatory or at least incentivated by not letting people think that keeping an unknown status would not put them on responsibilities. Once infection is confirmed, which of course needs to remain confidential, the possibility is to put infected people on treatment to drastically lower transmission rates. Estimates are that controlled HIV infection would lower transmission risks by 80%. Since we can't control the epidemic relying on the use of condoms alone (20 years of prevention progams based on this logic failed consistently) this is only reasonable and effective approach until a vaccine or cure is found.
I could be wrong, but it seems like its much less likely for gay men to get prosecuted. Seems like an assumption (from others and ourselves) that we should have known better. But I could be wrong.
I agree with everything borzel says.OK so it's everyone's decision to use a condom or not but knowingly passing on hiv is a freakin shitty thing to do. The guy who infected me knew his status and didn't tell me. Shit ! how can someone be having sex and knowing they are passing the virus on ? The mind boggles. At least tell your partner and let them decide if they want to have sex with you or not, it would be nice to be informed of the situation, barring that at least the infected person should use a condom out of respect for his partner. I can't understand why Anne always defends the givers !!
I agree with everything borzel says.OK so it's everyone's decision to use a condom or not but knowingly passing on hiv is a freakin shitty thing to do. The guy who infected me knew his status and didn't tell me. Shit ! how can someone be having sex and knowing they are passing the virus on ? The mind boggles. At least tell your partner and let them decide if they want to have sex with you or not, it would be nice to be informed of the situation, barring that at least the infected person should use a condom out of respect for his partner. I can't understand why Anne always defends the givers !!
I agree with everything borzel says.OK so it's everyone's decision to use a condom or not but knowingly passing on hiv is a freakin shitty thing to do. The guy who infected me knew his status and didn't tell me. Shit ! how can someone be having sex and knowing they are passing the virus on ? The mind boggles. At least tell your partner and let them decide if they want to have sex with you or not, it would be nice to be informed of the situation, barring that at least the infected person should use a condom out of respect for his partner. I can't understand why Anne always defends the givers !!
MtD - why are you trying so hard to excuse the bastards who go around knowingly spreading HIV? What is your angle? (in the process being pretty hard on jay195).
Is it some sort of crying-heart-liberal thing that excuses all kinds of antisocial behavior and turns victim into an accomplice? Is it about self-empowerment (I MEANT to get HIV!)? The law and court of public opinion is pretty clear on the other side.
MtD - why are you trying so hard to excuse the bastards who go around knowingly spreading HIV? What is your angle? (in the process being pretty hard on jay195).
Is it some sort of crying-heart-liberal thing that excuses all kinds of antisocial behavior and turns victim into an accomplice? Is it about self-empowerment (I MEANT to get HIV!)? The law and court of public opinion is pretty clear on the other side.
Mtd - So you are advocating this as part of the acceptance stage? Ie that concentrating on the victimhood aspect prevents one from moving on with their life? That may be true - but I also think it's important to not lose sight of the responsibility HiV+ people have toward the HIV-. Playing Russian roulette with lives of others is indefensible.
Oh - just to clear up - I have absolutely no personal involvement in this issue.
Jkin - well if one says that the blame is 50-50 than it removes half of the responsibility from the offender. That sounds like partly excusing or at least removing culpability.
Playing Russian roulette with lives of others is indefensible..
I see your point how one should take responsibility for his actions. And having unprotected sex can lead to a virus. BUT - that would be true in case of your partner not knowing (as it happened to me). If the partner knows and knowingly infects you - I think that changes the equation.
What would you say to someone who is HIV+ and donates blood? Let's say somehow his blood enters the blood bank (test didn't work).
"I'm advocating it as common fucking sense. But yes, coming to terms with an HIV diagnosis is much easier if one avoids the all too tempting desire to blame others for what is really one's own failing.
Looking for someone to blame is ultimately pointless. There are better more constructive ways to expend such personal energy."
Then we are talking about different things. I was talking about the acrobat who infected Australian women. You veered into one's personal journey of living with the disease. It may have been my fault for recognizing that earlier.
"I suspect that this is not true."
Not sure how. If you are implying that I'm blaming someone else for my getting sick - I am not.
I was infected by someone who knew they had the virus. I take responsibility for my infection, however, because
I CONSENTED TO UNPROTECTED SEX
Assuming responsibility for my infection was the first step towards accepting my role in treating it.
Ann (not Anne) does not "always defend the "givers") Ann (not Anne) promoted mutual responsibility for adults involved in a consensual act.
Was I naive? Yep. Did I trust the wrong guy? You betcha. Was I a victim? NO. I refused that term. And by NOT being a victim, I found the strength to stay alive for almost twenty years, back when HIV really WAY a death sentence.
It is a strategy I highly recommend.
In psychology, Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors that appear irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims.[1][2] The FBI?s Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.[3] The syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28, 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, and even defended them after they were freed from their six-day ordeal. The term "Stockholm Syndrome" was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot, who assisted the police during the robbery, and referred to the syndrome in a news broadcast.[4] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[5]
Perhaps I'm missing something but what's that got to do with anything??
John
I agree it may not help the HIV+ person to wear victim on his sleeve. I'm seeing that the pariah status and death sentence of an HIV diagnosis are constructions you need not accept, so "victim" of what. A person raped is actually a victim of violence. HIV is a nasty bonus. A person who is betrayed so horribly in a relationship is a victim of a horrible relationship.
Humans are complex creatures. I don't think it helps at all to go around saying ALL HIV+ people "deserve" or are responsible for what they got" for one reason or another.
In psychology, Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors that appear irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims.[1][2] The FBI?s Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.[3] The syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28, 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, and even defended them after they were freed from their six-day ordeal. The term "Stockholm Syndrome" was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot, who assisted the police during the robbery, and referred to the syndrome in a news broadcast.[4] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
Love the avatar though :)
Maybe he's trying to tell us we are all secretly in love with our infector. ??? Dunno though..
Rev, I was referring to the argument in general. The you was not you, the you was one.
I dont have a problem with your point Rev. I have a problem when the general argument among HIV+ people is that all HIV+ are responsible for their infection. Its far too much moralising and conjecture than is called for. We don't know shit about other peoples experiences. We dont know shit about what happened between this guy and the women "he" "infected".
I am all for anyone assuming their current situation and making the best of it.
Mecch so your saying we're not responsible for ourselves, actions and consequences??
Obviously not, EVERY PERSON is not ALWAYS "responsible" for events and consequences in this world. In the case of HIV, its not so easy to prove intent to harm, nor would it be easy to prove someone's state of "victimness". Some states write it all out and its often ridiculous definitions. Not always though.
That's why Ann mentioned the rape victims being excluded from responsibility. If that's not what you meant, who cares what the other person's intentions are, the fact still falls on personal responsibility to protect oneself. You bring up a good point though,
"There are evil and sick people around who will do othes wrong."
And this is all the more reason why people should protect themselves.
Thanks Skeebs,
was looking through this ans realised you had already said what i was about to post.
I second this
i didn't think you could get any further south than you ??? ;)
I cannot honestly believe that any member here could possibly advocate the criminalization of having HIV. But I guess if you live long enough, anything's possible.
Send these people to a deserted island to live with each other.
Or there is always William F. Buckley's old 80's proposal, tattoo HIV+ on them.
What, if any, consequences do you feel there should be for people who know they are HIV+, lie about their status and refuse to use condoms?
Well New York state is looking to lock such a person up for good.
BUFFALO, N.Y. ? A former drug dealer who infected at least 13 women with the AIDS virus should stand trial on New York state's efforts to have him committed indefinitely as a dangerous sex offender, a judge ruled Thursday.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i-5H5nnJGLcu7t7RL-EhRD7x7IBgD9FHJ0B81
And the result: People won't get tested in case they're found guilty
Please try that again with more words or better grammar?I'm as commmon as muck and proud of it, ;D
well did you mean "in case" or "unless"??
cant he just use both and put a comma in the middle? ;D :D
scholl:o ::) :o ::)
What, if any, consequences do you feel there should be for people who know they are HIV+, lie about their status and refuse to use condoms?
If an (allegedly) negative person is interested in fucking a person who refuses to use condoms (regardless of what that person claims about their hiv status), then the (allegedly) negative person should REFUSE to fuck them. Then there are no consequences. See how that works?
I'm seriously amazed that this forum's members can't grasp this.
If an (allegedly) negative person is interested in fucking a person who refuses to use condoms (regardless of what that person claims about their hiv status), then the (allegedly) negative person should REFUSE to fuck them. Then there are no consequences. See how that works?
If the poz person refuses to take no for an answer and rapes the (allegedly) negative person, then the poz person should be tried for rape, with a more severe sentence being handed down if the person is judged guilty of not only rape, but also hiv transmission.
Your idea is predicated on assumption that nobody can be trusted - that's just not how things work.
Your idea is predicated on assumption that nobody can be trusted - that's just not how things work.
If an (allegedly) negative person is interested in fucking a person who refuses to use condoms (regardless of what that person claims about their hiv status), then the (allegedly) negative person should REFUSE to fuck them. Then there are no consequences. See how that works?
If the poz person refuses to take no for an answer and rapes the (allegedly) negative person, then the poz person should be tried for rape, with a more severe sentence being handed down if the person is judged guilty of not only rape, but also hiv transmission.
If an (allegedly) negative person is interested in fucking a person who refuses to use condoms (regardless of what that person claims about their hiv status), then the (allegedly) negative person should REFUSE to fuck them. Then there are no consequences. See how that works?
If the poz person refuses to take no for an answer and rapes the (allegedly) negative person, then the poz person should be tried for rape, with a more severe sentence being handed down if the person is judged guilty of not only rape, but also hiv transmission.
I think we are overcomplicating it. The issue in question (as per the article) is someone in 2010 having unprotected sex while knowing their HIV+ status.
This is both immoral and illegal. Full stop. People doing so should be condemned and not excused. Courts should figure out most effective way of stopping them from continuing to be a health danger to public at large.
I don't see why this has to transmute into a discussion of how someone who already has been infected (ie all of us) should deal with their disease/accept self responsibility/etc.
Exactly.. much the same as the drug dealer that's charged even though he's sold to people that know exactly what drugs can do to them.
I hope that you're being sarcastic, Lees :)
Immoral? like suggesting HIV drug trials on death row inmates?
geesh, unbelievable
Immoral? like suggesting HIV drug trials on death row inmates?
geesh, unbelievable
Exactly.. much the same as the drug dealer that's charged even though he's sold to people that know exactly what drugs can do to them.
Thank you!
Borz, at some point you and your ideologies will have to coem to terms with the fact that, at the moment of your diagnosis, you stopped being one of "them" and started being one of "us."
If you want to believe in stark black and white, then there should be no derivation in HIV progression or reaction to the medication. Yet there are. Once you begin to see that each situation is unique, maybe you will begin to understand that your way of thinking is part of the problem, not the solution to the AIDS crisis.
Trust me, in many circles, your HIV status has already branded you as a dangerous animal. You are already outside the loop, whether or not you can accept that fact now.
And that stark, absolute way of thinking is a good shortcut to isolation, illness, and death insofar as HIV is concerned. I have seen it happen literally hundreds of times.
Thank you!
Borz, at some point you and your ideologies will have to coem to terms with the fact that, at the moment of your diagnosis, you stopped being one of "them" and started being one of "us."
If you want to believe in stark black and white, then there should be no derivation in HIV progression or reaction to the medication. Yet there are. Once you begin to see that each situation is unique, maybe you will begin to understand that your way of thinking is part of the problem, not the solution to the AIDS crisis.
Trust me, in many circles, your HIV status has already branded you as a dangerous animal. You are already outside the loop, whether or not you can accept that fact now.
And that stark, absolute way of thinking is a good shortcut to isolation, illness, and death insofar as HIV is concerned. I have seen it happen literally hundreds of times.
I am against HIV+ individuals engaging in condom-less sex with unknowing participants. It's black and white; I don't intend to do it. The point is not being HIV+ - which of course we all are, but the behaviour one engages in. 99.9% of positive people probably don't engage in this, don't understand why this is such a hot topic for all.
And still no information on whether the "HIV+ fiend" is on HAART. Because surely he must not be, he must have a spectacular viral load. AND must have spectacular charm and be unbelievably seductive with an enormous gorgeous penis no one could ever refuse to have so roundly infected hundreds across the nation.
Puleese, this is some freaking hysteria!
Actually I'm sure thats the guy who infected me.
Ah, the drug dealer. I assume you include cannabis in that? Because it is, after all, illegal.
If we're going to charge the positive person with a crime, the other person should be charged too. The penalties wouldn't have to be the same, but if there are penalties for one, there should be penalties for both.
To take the example of drug dealing that Leese brought up, the drug dealer is charged with trafficking or possession with intent to supply - and the buyer is charged with possession. Two related crimes, two different penalties. See how that works?
edited to add (unproven) for clarity
For the record - I don't think the drug sales analogy works very well because people consume drugs with full knowledge of the damage it may do to them. In this instance it's unknown.
2) Knowledge confers responsibility.
1) Law is meant to prevent people from harming others. There is no penalty for (failed) suicide but there are severe penalties for harming or killing others.
I simply fail to see the offense that you would charge the infected with (vs infector). I realize there is no current law on the books - but what existing law do you find similar?
With hiv, either both should be charged or neither should be charged. As it stands, it's like busting a dealer with heroin and letting the guy who just bought five dime-bags off him to walk away scot-free.
You really don't see the distinction? Purchaser of heroin bought HEROIN. The dealer sold HEROIN. The said drug is meant to induce certain effects in the user.
Here it's like a customer goes to a pharmacy for Tylenol and gets heroin. Turns out the pharmacist is a crook. The purchase of heroin was predicated on a lie and subterfuge.
I do agree that wearing condoms is similar to a seatbelt law. However infecting someone is like aggravated assault with a moving vehicle. First is a $50 fine, the other years in prison. They are just different levels of magnitude.
Here it's like a customer goes to a pharmacy for Tylenol and gets heroin. Turns out the pharmacist is a crook. The purchase of heroin was predicated on a lie and subterfuge.
You fail to recognize that the consensus was given to sex on the premise of a lie. Since he lied the act was not consensual.
You fail to recognize that the consensus was given to sex on the premise of a lie. Since he lied the act was not consensual.
What you and most share your views is dong is to continue to refuse to engage in a discussion on whether one, knowing full well, constructively or otherwise, the risk of a HIV should share the responsibility of protecting oneself. If your answer is obvious no, then there's really little point to continue.
I agree that people should share responsibility for protecting self ... Your logic implies that a person would think - "I know the person I am about to have sex with would not knowingly infect me because were he to do so, I would report him to the police and he'll go to jail". I think that plays a very small part - most people would think "He looks healthy and said that he's negative. I don't think he is such a bastard as to knowingly do this to me".
...
I happen to side with the court.
No one has the right to transmit HIV, but it is only through creating and implementing law that
fosters honesty within the HIV positive community, that the spread of HIV can be prevented.
Good, in that case you can choose to agree to laws and policies that help perpetuate the stigma that you so dread.
You said a mouthful, Shaun. It is often (not always) the case here that the people who are the most fearful of and do the most hand-wringing over stigma and discrimination are the self-same people who vociferously and ferociously support the draconian hiv laws - laws that only perpetuate stigma. It doesn't make any sense.
edited because part of a sentence mysteriously disappeared.
It doesn't make any sense.
Good, in that case you can choose to agree to laws and policies that help perpetuate the stigma that you so dread.
And no, I don't think most participants here who are HIV+ would agree with using criminal punishment to help stop the spreading of AIDS. With that I will just quote a paper published by HIV/AIDS Legal Centre in Australia:
"Criminal trials for the transmission of HIV arouse considerable community interest, which
is often manifested in the form of fear, panic and outrage. Overwhelmingly, the community
response comes in the form of calls for unmitigated, punitive justice. However, the law must be
implemented in such a way that supports public health initiatives and which has the ultimate aim of
preventing the spread of HIV.
The objectives of criminalization include incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution and deterrence.
These are fundamentally ill-suited to achieving positive health outcomes. No studies to date have
shown that applying the criminal law to HIV transmission has prevented HIV transmission. There
is a serious risk that harsh punitive justice will reinforce the HIV/AIDS related stigma, spread
misinformation about HIV/AIDS and create a disincentive to HIV testing, as people fear a threat of
incurring criminal liability. Furthermore, application of criminal sanctions may in fact hinder access
to counselling and support, by discouraging honest disclosure to medical staff and creating a false
sense of security that the criminal law can protect a person from contracting HIV.
No one has the right to transmit HIV, but it is only through creating and implementing law that
fosters honesty within the HIV positive community, that the spread of HIV can be prevented. With
the exception of cases where individuals actually intend to do harm, criminalising HIV transmission
does not empower people to avoid HIV infection, and in fact may make it more difficult for them
to do so, endangering both public health and human rights. Therefore, the implementation and use
of the criminal law in the context of HIV transmission must be done with consideration for human
rights and one central objective, to prevent the infection of individuals and the spread of HIV within
the community."
LOL i don't share the same opinion as you so now I hate myself... You just all carry on patting each other on the back. Scratched record comes to mind, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
1. The stigma is spread not by the laws but by individuals who knowingly infect others. The laws are meant to stop them being a hazard to society.
2. I don't identify myself with said individuals. I am said to observe that most individuals taking the other side in this debate choose to do so. My status does not make my identity, I can still think for myself.
3. I don't think these laws are meant as a form of public policy to stem HIV spread. That can only be achieved by sex education, HAART, etc. They are rather an exception. I haven't heard of more than a handful individuals prosecuted. Please show me examples where this policy was misued and the law was misapplied.
The original story of this thread is a perfect example of why they are needed - this guy has slept with hundreds of women. He needs to be stopped.
OK 12 too many, if these women had insisted on a condom that would have been 0.
By the way - the MEDIA is now saying hes the Typhoid Mary of AIDS. AKA - hundreds of "victims". Its an hysteria. We dont know its true. Time will tell. When it finally turns out 1 or 2 transmissions can be linked to him, the story will no longer be interesting to the Media because the only reason its a big story is that it an outlet for people's fears and prejudices.
Where are you getting these abitrary numbers from?
He himself said 12
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/25/2908964.htm
Awesome logic! That's a keeper.
3) Many examples of people who are prosecuted on laws that say nondisclosure, alone, is a crime. Meaning non disclosure WITH NO TRANSMISSION. Bad law, regretful results. People suffer.That's a different topic. So far we've been discussing proper way to deal with a fact of transmission.
No, I came to my conclusions based on the posting history of the majority of folks who believe in HIV criminalization - not only in this thread, but in my tenure at AM.
We are, of course, free to agree to disagree.
You can analyse this as much as you want, but it doesn't change waht I said!!
Not really. I thought we were discussing messy laws that don't add up to shit when it comes to morality, justice, or HIV prevention.
It certainly sounds like it
leese43
Show me just one post that I've written that would make you think that.
(in other words I don't need to be told that many people use it for therapautic reasons ...yada yada)
It is absolutely fair to say that the person referenced in the original article likely lied, overtly or through omission. But it is also of note that the women who CONSENTED to unprotected intercourse with what appears to be a near-perfect stranger, now claim victim status. I dispute their claim, and am aghast that anyone who believes in the empowerment of women would insinuate that these people are somehow less able to make a conscious choice with their bodies.
3. These stories are actually not such a bad thing, from the public at large perspective. They highlight the risk of transmission for heterosexuals and will make people think twice before engaging in unprotected sex with African acrobats.
I haven't heard of more than a handful individuals prosecuted. Please show me examples where this policy was misued and the law was misapplied.
Rubbish!! most people will read these stories, panick about the big bad man, and continue stigmatising people PLWHIV.
But it won't prevent them from fucking around raw.
There are many more than "a handful" of poz people who have been prosecuted because of their virus. Check out the Criminal HIV Transmission (http://criminalhivtransmission.blogspot.com/) blog. Read it and weep. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.
All hypothetical arguments aside being discussed here I am left to wonder straight up or down if all of you think a person should be prosecuted for knowingly transmitting HIV .
I'm not expecting an answer but I wonder .
Apparently most people on here think knowing you are HIV+, not disclosing or lying about your status, and having unprotected sex with someone is a bad thing. The question then becomes what, if anything, do we as a society or community do about it. Some people feel that the legal system should not be used in any capacity regarding HIV transmission.
My feeling is if you have someone who is HIV+ who is not disclosing and having unprotected sex the community needs to become involved. I think each case would need to be handled individually but that the legal system should be utilized if necessary. For example, where I live we have a mental health court for people who who have legal charges stemming from mental health issues. It is a special type of court that links eligible offenders with community support and other services to help them better manage their mental illness. The court does not focus entirely on the offenders' criminal behavior but rather strives to help stabilize the individual to eliminate their future presence in the criminal justice system. I'm not saying someone who doesn't use protection is mentally ill. What I am suggesting is that for someone who is refusing to disclose and refusing to use protection, this would be an appropriate intervention. Having a judge mandate counseling, HIV education and community support seems the most appropriate method of preventing such a person from continuing to infect others.
I don't think people should be sued for HIV transmission or herpes or other form of disease. I also don't think the motivation behind using legal intervention should be punitive. However for the small percentage of people who, for whatever reason, are not being responsible with their HIV infection something needs to be done and legal intervention to mandate counseling and support should be considered.
For example, where I live we have a mental health court for people who who have legal charges stemming from mental health issues. It is a special type of court that links eligible offenders with community support and other services to help them better manage their mental illness. The court does not focus entirely on the offenders' criminal behavior but rather strives to help stabilize the individual to eliminate their future presence in the criminal justice system.
Every scenario different. Personally I don't even think disclosure is necessary in every situation. For example, I think if you are at a gay sex club you need to assume the patrons are HIV+ and take that into consideration, because even the "negatives" probably don't really know their current status.
I am not disagreeing with your view (if anything I think we are very close), but I have to note that with the case of mental illness the assumption is that a person "doesn't know what they are doing". Ie they do not have the capacity to apprehend the consequences of their actions or don't have the ability to control themselves.
The premise of our legal system is that people should be responsible for their actions. Someone who is mentally ill may not have the capacity to answer for themselves. Someone who is HIV+ and infects others is probably fully aware of what they are doing.
My point is not to say - lock them all up, but rather to highlight the legal difference between the two cases.
I just used the mental health court as an example because I am familiar with it. People are mandated to attend anger management classes, parenting classes, substance abuse classes, etc and they don't lack capacity. To me the goal is to minimize infections, not punishment. I can envision situations where someone uses HIV as a weapon, which might call for punishment.
Personally I don't even think disclosure is necessary in every situation. For example, I think if you are at a gay sex club you need to assume the patrons are HIV+ and take that into consideration, because even the "negatives" probably don't really know their current status.
What's the gay sex club have to do with disclosure?
However, I still think that we as a community have an obligation to the public at large. And that individuals who actually caused a transmission due to unprotected sex without disclosure must be held accountable.
Of course, difference of opinion can only be ascribed to stupidity.
However, I still think that we as a community have an obligation to the public at large. And that individuals who actually caused a transmission due to unprotected sex without disclosure must be held accountable.
As far as my personal opinion on the matter - I am entitled to one. I am respectful of others and appreciate that a lot of work has been done before my time by many dedicated individuals to advance the HIV cause. That, however, does not mean that I (or anybody else who may share this sentiment) should one throw away personal convictions because they don't coincide with the popular view.
(see original post). The press nearly always make it a matter of intention (ie adding "knowingly"). ... It is important because it ascribe malice and forethought as a state of mind, when more likely, on both parties, lust and stardust were more to the forebrain on the night in question.Acting Queensland Deputy Police Commissioner Col McCallum says Zaburoni, who has been HIV positive since 1997, has given authorities the names of 12 women with whom he has had unprotected sex.
However, I still think that if an individual (as per OP) causes willful transmission he or she should be accountable.
I've made it very clear that it's reckless transmission that I feel can not be left unaccounted. All the stupid laws that result in someone gets 35yrs for spitting are unequivocally wrong... I've come to accept the position held by many here that they share some responsibility since they agreed to have unprotected sex which carries a certain risk of acquiring STD.
For the sake of clarity, Mr Zaburoni is not charged with intentionally using HIV as a weapon but causing serious injury (see original post). The press nearly always make it a matter of intention (ie adding "knowingly"). Even the BBC do it, tho, luckily, tis easy to put them right on this important matter of fact with a few emails. It is important because it ascribe malice and forethought as a state of mind, when more likely, on both parties, lust and stardust were more to the forebrain on the night in question.
Actually the key (legal) word here is "recklessly", which of cos is not mentioned once in any media reports. I don't have a comprehensive list of cases but I think I can safely say that, at most, like almost all similar cases that involved consensual sex, this man is charged under "recklessly" causing GBH. There is another offense in Australia on inflicting GBH with "intent".
Just wanna clarify..
Isn't "deliberately injecting someone (not with an erect penis! ::) ) with HIV infected blood" a whole different topic ?
What I find most perplexing is that you and (allegedly) most that share your views seem to use the word "responsibility" so interchangeably. What is missing the whole time is an adjective before it. Are you talking about "moral" responsibility, or even "social" responsibility? However the question all along is should there be a "criminal" responsibility, which is something we've been objecting to from the start.Sure, thank you for bringing it up. It is something we should have addressed long ago as it highlights where our difference of opinion lies.
So what "responsibility" you think those who have consented to unprotected sex and get infected should "share"?
Assuming your answer is that they, the infected party, should not "share" a criminal responsibility, what makes their "responsibility" lesser (or that the infected party greater) that attracting criminal responsibility to this consensual act to another party is justified/justifiable?
To jump from a moral responsibility to legal/criminal responsibility in a consensual interaction requires additional justification, especially when the subsequently "injured" party was in full capacity and power to prevent it from happening to him/herself. That additional justification was and still is never present; and as repeated here and previous threads numerous time the "social justification" (reducing the number of infection, e.g.) has proved to be false; and it serves no purpose at all except to perpetuate discrimination, give the general public a false sense of security and promote a needlessly vindictive false social justice.
What you have never addressed though is - if you think the criminal responsibility, which comes from a moral responsibility - is greater on the part of the HIV+ party then the HIV- party, why the latter, who has and should have full knowledge of the risk of acquiring any number of STDs and chosen to ignore this risk for his/her "sexual glorification", should not share the "criminal" responsibility?
And by the way, you still have not ridden of that notice of victimhood really - otherwise why would you think that being HIV+ is already the consequence of "sharing" responsibility as compare to others being put behind bars. I am HIV+ and I don't see myself as "sharing" a moral responsibility with the person that infected me - whether he knew he was HIV+ or not when he fucked me without a condom. I asked for it and I should have stopped me. If there's any "responsibility" on my part, it's just a responsibility to myself and my health.I probably did not make myself clear, or just misspoke. I don't see a moral responsibility in the person who was infected. I see a practical responsibility - he or she will have to live with the virus because they took a certain risk and it misfired.
First I'd like to thank you for raising the level of the debate to a higher standard on numerous levels.
If we use current example - there are 23,000 HIV males in Australia. Assuming half of them are homosexual, that leaves 11,500. There are approximately 4.25mil men aged 20-50. So a random heterosexual man is 11,500/4,250,000 = 0.0027. That is 1:400. Versus 1:1 as known by the HIV+ partner. To me this ratio is a benchmark for how I perceive difference in responsibility. The actual numbers don't have to be precise - I am only illustrating my thought process.
"Heh, because you've been such an edifying influence. "
My evil plan to offend MtD has worked :)
Personal remarks aside,
1. Number of HIV men in Australia: 23,133 http://www.avert.org/aids-hiv-australia.htm
2. "In 2005, over half of new HIV infections diagnosed in the US were among gay men, and up to one in five gay men living in cities is thought to be HIV positive."
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_account/different_hiv_rates_among_homosexuals_and_heterosexuals_ignores_risky_behavior_data
I assumed similar dynamic between Australia and US in this regard. If anything, the cumulative population percentage is probably skewed toward gays because in the early stage of the disease they were a higher % of new infections.
3. Population by Age in Australia: http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3201.0
I am not claiming precision - but the overall ballpark I believe is there.
Sorry, what is your point?
I'm just a guy with access to common sense and google.
I am yet to see one cogent explanation why in this case the Australian acrobat should not be held accountable.
But not necessarily an understanding of statistics?
MtD
Sure. My logic rests on the asymetry of knowledge between the two parties. HIV+ person knows with certainty that there is a significant risk to the HIV- to become infected, while the HIV- person is facing a much smaller hypothetical risk. The ratio can be expressed as the ratio of HIV+ people in the subset of population.
If we use current example - there are 23,000 HIV males in Australia. Assuming half of them are homosexual, that leaves 11,500. There are approximately 4.25mil men aged 20-50. So a random heterosexual man is 11,500/4,250,000 = 0.0027. That is 1:400. Versus 1:1 as known by the HIV+ partner. To me this ratio is a benchmark for how I perceive difference in responsibility. The actual numbers don't have to be precise - I am only illustrating my thought process.
The majority of people crave love and acceptance and physical intimacy. This impulse, this need, is one of the strongest amongst the human race. This drive - this need - can be so strong that it not only causes people to neglect to protect themselves, but it also causes people to neglect to protect others. Starving people will lie, cheat and steal to obtain food. People who are starving for love will do the same. We all need love. We all need physical intimacy.
I'm not talking horny; I'm not talking sexual gratification. I'm talking about the drive behind it all. As a species, we are driven to seek out physical intimacy, love, and affection.
To criminalize hiv (whether or not transmission occurs) in a consensual sex act is to criminalize a fundamental part of human nature.
And no, I'm not talking about rapists or the rare person who INTENDS - who WANTS - to infect others with hiv. I'm talking about the majority who are trying to answer a hunger, a thirst that is just as real and just as important as the hunger for food or thirst for water.
How can we - morally - justify criminalising a consensual sex act between two people who agree to answer nature's call together?
The law in England hinges upon a nuanced discussion of consent and what is a general risk in sex. Eg, pregnancy being considered a well-known general risk and HIV an exceptional one, therefore you consent in all cases to the risk of pregnancy but not HIV unless it is explicitly discussed.
As Newt points out, we're talking about two people in a consensual act.
What ever a person tells you before a sex act regarding their hiv status should not be the deciding factor when it comes to negotiating condom use. The person from whom I acquired my virus told me he was hiv negative - he had to test every three months for the work he was doing in Africa with the UN - but he didn't have the skinny on the window period and honestly thought he was hiv negative. He wasn't. Did he lie? Did he bollocks. He just didn't know.
Because of the intense (even if only perceived) stigma surrounding hiv, many people find it exceedingly difficult to disclose.
The majority of people crave love and acceptance and physical intimacy. This impulse, this need, is one of the strongest amongst the human race. This drive - this need - can be so strong that it not only causes people to neglect to protect themselves, but it also causes people to neglect to protect others. Starving people will lie, cheat and steal to obtain food. People who are starving for love will do the same. We all need love. We all need physical intimacy.
I'm not talking horny; I'm not talking sexual gratification. I'm talking about the drive behind it all. As a species, we are driven to seek out physical intimacy, love, and affection.
To criminalize hiv (whether or not transmission occurs) in a consensual sex act is to criminalize a fundamental part of human nature.
And no, I'm not talking about rapists or the rare person who INTENDS - who WANTS - to infect others with hiv. I'm talking about the majority who are trying to answer a hunger, a thirst that is just as real and just as important as the hunger for food or thirst for water.
How can we - morally - justify criminalising a consensual sex act between two people who agree to answer nature's call together?
Unless I've completely misunderstood what you've written, you seem to be conflating two separate issues: risk to neggies versus incidence of HIV in a population. Certainly the two are related, but the risk to a negative person of having unprotected sex with someone whose status is unknown is not the same as the incidence of HIV in the population: with another negative person, the risk is zero whereas it's a lot higher with a positive person. To base sexual health habits on the basis of the above is reckless (and shows an ignorance of conditional probability! :p).
For what it's worth, I think that HIV+ person has the right to NOT disclose his status if he can demonstrate having taking reasonable precautions to protect the HIV- from getting infected. Such as insisting on a condom or being on HAART and UD.
So I can go bareback at the bath house and not feel guilty?
As far as I know there has never been a case where an UD individual has transmitted. (I actually don't think it's physically possible for virus to infect if it's below a certain threshold). If one can be certain that he is UD, I see the risk of transmission as lower than using a condom with a positive VL.
My logic rests on the asymetry of knowledge between the two parties.
I would be happy to learn where I made the mistake.
I will not even bother going further as I'm not sure what point if any, you were trying to make.
If we had just maintained the white Australia policy we would have never ended up in this mess.
Yes, but there still has not been a single recorded case of transmission.
Case report of sexual transmission when viral load suppressed to <50 copies/mL
http://i-base.info/htb/130
I'm curious to know whether he was the insertive or receptive partner.
If we had just maintained the white Australia policy we would have never ended up in this mess.
HOLY FUCK. People's cards are on the table now.
This thread was heading to hell. Two pages ago I could only read the longer posts attempting to discuss with real facts and laws, and in a general sense, and not the personal bickering posts.
I don't know if you are saying this ironically or stupidly or if you are really a racist but I do know you would fail the high school debating lesson, because that is one lazy ass lame stink bomb to throw into a debate.
Hey! An HIV criminalization thread! It must be Tuesday! :P
Criminalizing consensual sex HIV transmission is a danger for public health.
There is only one way a negative person can have sex without risk of hiv: using a condom.
The rest are excuses.
Don't have the time/inclination to fight windmills anymore.
Those of you who want to live in lala-land and think that the law is wrong - please continue to do so. I'm sure there are people who think that much worse transgressions should not be criminally punished, our free society is meant to allow freedom of thought.
The rest of the population actually has common sense to appreciate that the information is relevant and that the carrier of a deadly disease has responsibility to contain it.
Kom, deliberate personal attacks are uncool. You should be catty and use your wit to make your foes tremble at your every concealed comment. Anyway, in any discussion there is a difference of opinion and even though you disagree with Borzel you shouldn't be so upset with his comments that you level an attack at him.
Moderators are not the only contributers who can take a thread to the meta level to discuss how the argument is going in the abstract.
Sadly yes but there are concomitant advantages - I just got tenure! yeah me. ;D
FUCK YOU!
*snicker* This is like the movie Groundhog Day. No matter how much progress I think we make, all of the sudden we are back on page 2 again.
-W
I'm sorry but I don't think you quite understand conditional probability. You are confusing ex-ante and ex-post probabilities.
Thank you for clarifying that he did not in fact mean to transmit HIV, you're absolutely right. It was reckless.thehiv=was my best friend ,he has recently passed away
A few individuals have actually were prosecuted for willful transmission, found while researching the topic: http://www.avert.org/criminal-transmission.htm
Dr Richard J. Schmidt, 19985,6: Richard Schmidt was a doctor from Louisiana, USA, who was accused of infecting his lover, a nurse called Janice Trahan, by injecting her with HIV infected blood. Trahan alleged that Schmidt had injected her with the blood of one of his positive patients in an act of vengeance after she tried to end their relationship. DNA samples of the virus in Trahan's blood and that of the positive patient in question were found to be very similar, but Schmidt's defence team insisted that 'very similar' was not scientifically accurate enough. HIV rapidly mutates and changes its DNA structure once it enters another person's body meaning comparisons can be difficult. However, using a new technique called ' phylogenetics' (or 'evolutionary analysis'), scientists were able to determine that Schmidt's patient was extremely likely to have been the source of the virus found in Trahan. Schmidt was found guilty and sentenced to 50 years.
Brian Stewart, December 19987: Stewart was a medical technician from Illinois who was sentenced to life in prison after deliberately injecting his son with HIV infected blood, allegedly in an effort to kill him and avoid paying child support. He was found guilty after all other suggested sources for the boy's infection were ruled out. On one occasion Stewart allegedly told the boy's mother not to bother seeking child support because the child would not live beyond the age of five. On another, he told colleagues that he had "the power to destroy the world? I would inject them with something and they would never know what hit them."
He kinda reminds me of the guy in the wheelchair on the HBO Show, "OZ". He's better looking though.
I'm late on this debate
Criminalisation misplaces the moral onus of self-protection and shifts the burden of preventing transmission to one person instead of recognising it as shared by two. This is a hard but necessary thing to say. HIV has been around for three decades, during which the universal public health message has been that no one is exempt from it. So the risk of getting HIV must now be seen as an inescapable fact of having unprotected sex... We cannot pretend that the risk is introduced into an otherwise safe encounter by the person who knows or should know he has HIV. The risk is part of the environment, and practical responsibility for safer sex habits rests on everyone who is able to exercise autonomy in deciding to have sex with another.
Justice Edwin Cameron, South Africa Constitutional Court, 2008.
Just about sums it up.
I also found this extremely useful:
http://www.aidsmap.com/page/1410517/ (http://www.aidsmap.com/page/1410517/)
http://www.aidsmap.com/page/1441686/ (http://www.aidsmap.com/page/1441686/)
Justice Edward Cameron is gay and HAS HIV. He sounds more like a lefty activist - which is his right, but let's not pretend that this is some sort of an independent legal view of a dispassionate scholar.
So, you're saying he's only espousing that extremely logical kind of thinking because he's gay and has HIV? Does that mean what he said only means something if it comes from someone who's HIV-, and not gay? Come on.
So the risk of getting HIV must now be seen as an inescapable fact of having unprotected sex... We cannot pretend that the risk is introduced into an otherwise safe encounter by the person who knows or should know he has HIV. The risk is part of the environment, and practical responsibility for safer sex habits rests on everyone who is able to exercise autonomy in deciding to have sex with another.
First of all, I'm not the original quoter. Secondly, what I've bolded is the honest, cold truth.
Justice Cameron gets his point across in very well done language, whether or not he's +. What gets you so rattled about it? Is it because of the way you got your infection?
knowledge that one has HIV places the onus of responsibility on them.
Saying that the HIV+ and HIV- share equal responsibility because 'you never know' is just plain stupid.
On the issue at hand - I've written at length as to why the judge is wrong, regardless of his language skills. It's his logic that's faulty - knowledge that one has HIV places the onus of responsibility on them. They must either disclose or insist on protection. Saying that the HIV+ and HIV- share equal responsibility because 'you never know' is just plain stupid. He's not stupid - so I think he has another agenda - namely advocating the rights of HIV+.
My point is that you quoted him without referencing that he is an LGBT/HIV activist. Therefore his opinion on this is not one of a legal scholar but an interested party. Therefore he's more likely to espouse views beneficial to his cause.
First of all - let's stop the 'analyze the opponent' practice often practiced on this forum. How I got my infection is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the discussion.
Unless the women were intellectually and/or emotionally challenged.
You do know that women are reading this right?
This quote very well exemplifies the hypocrisy of this debate - Justice Edward Cameron is gay and HAS HIV. He sounds more like a lefty activist - which is his right, but let's not pretend that this is some sort of an independent legal view of a dispassionate scholar.
On the issue at hand - I've written at length as to why the judge is wrong, regardless of his language skills. It's his logic that's faulty - knowledge that one has HIV places the onus of responsibility on them. They must either disclose or insist on protection. Saying that the HIV+ and HIV- share equal responsibility because 'you never know' is just plain stupid. He's not stupid - so I think he has another agenda - namely advocating the rights of HIV+.
How can you insinuate I need better emotional health and physical health?
Really? I find that offensive.
My point is that being infected is not always black and white. If, like you say, I was emotionally challenged because I was in abusive relationship, how did I have the option of choosing to have unprotected sex?
I was a victim only until I realized what he was doing, then I was a participant? Am I reading this right? Next time I'll try to "participate" with someone that doesn't outweigh me by a 100 lbs and have 6 inches on me.
You were where too? Then you know trying to get away from your abuser often results in either more abuse or murder.
How did calling you out on your women comment perpetuate the stigma?
You do know that women are reading this right?
Before I slept with the guy that infected me I asked if he had tested for HIV and he lied. He was and still is a master manipulator on top of being physically abusive. When I got pregnant with my son he told me "He decided to get me pregnant and slipped off the condom." He used to threaten to tell my job and what little family I have about my status to scare me into doing whatever he wanted. One of the times I almost got away he caught me near the door, picked me up by the hair and slammed me head first into a wall of electric meters, dragged me back to my apartment and almost choked me to death. I guess that would make me physcially challenged too.
I have been dealing with this shit and his dumbass since 94 and I am tired of people saying that criminalization is wrong and is going to make the stigma worse. If I could have pressed charges back then, there is no doubt in my mind that there would be quite a few less intellectually and emotionally challenged women here in my state. The stigma doesn't come close to touching the fear and hurt I have to deal with knowing he could at anytime take me back to court because he happened to donate some sperm to me without my knowledge. I survived the abuse but whose to say that my son would. I recently found out that when his daughter was a little older than my son now, 9th grade, I think, he would touch her after she came home from school to make sure she wasn't having sex. If he happened to take it all the way and his own daughter couldn't get him to put on a condom would that make her intellectually and emotionally challenged too?
I really wished I lived in a world that without a doubt I had the option to wear a condom each and everytime I had sex. I guess in my next life I will come back as a man.
You do know that women are reading this right?
Agreed, but there are still some exceptions to this. I was in what I believed to be a monogomous relationship and we were both tested prior to un-protected sex - he told me his test had come back negative. I later realised this was a lie when 4 weeks later I seroconverted. I took all necessary precautions to stay safe but was lied to.
It comes to something when you can't even believe what your partner tells you about an hiv test doesn't it?
Agreed, but there are still some exceptions to this. I was in what I believed to be a monogomous relationship and we were both tested prior to un-protected sex - he told me his test had come back negative. I later realised this was a lie when 4 weeks later I seroconverted. I took all necessary precautions to stay safe but was lied to.
It comes to something when you can't even believe what your partner tells you about an hiv test doesn't it?
he told me his test had come back negative.
When I got pregnant with my son he told me "He decided to get me pregnant and slipped off the condom."
Taboo didn't just take him at his word, it would seem she still insisted on condoms, but he took it off - without her knowing - to get her pregnant. How is this her fault?
Ann
Taboo didn't just take him at his word, it would seem she still insisted on condoms, but he took it off - without her knowing - to get her pregnant. How is this her fault?
Ann
That was snowangel you quoted
This quote very well exemplifies the hypocrisy of this debate - Justice Edward Cameron is gay and HAS HIV. He sounds more like a lefty activist - which is his right, but let's not pretend that this is some sort of an independent legal view of a dispassionate scholar.
Snow didn't just take him at his word, it would seem she still insisted on condoms, but he took it off - without her knowing - to get her pregnant. How is this her fault?
Ann
This may come off harsh but it isn't meant to be, so I'm going to apologize ahead of time (I'm sorry!).
The fact that you trusted someone else, even in the confines of a supposedly monogamous relationship, means that you allowed them to take your life in their hands. Any time you have sex with someone without a condom you take a risk of contracting some form of STI and in your case it was unfortunately HIV. Ultimately the responsibility lies with you for trusting him. He was not right to lie to you nor was he in the right when he cheated on you, but at the end of the day you trusted him and seroconverted as a result of it. This means the responsibility lies with you.
Naive I know but I never even knew anyone with hiv before.
but let's not pretend that this is some sort of an independent legal view of a dispassionate scholar.
Nobody said it did, my inference was it summed up my own position and view. The words were more eloquent than my own but the sentiment was the same. Like any good researcher, Boze (you being the expert), I simply quoted my source. I do not hold this man's opinion (who I had never heard of before) in any higher regard than anyone else's; it simply supports my own view. (But obviously as we now know from you, as a gay HIV+ male I am not entitled to this view).
You make reference to the original quote as only being in place to further the individual's "cause" who made it. The view expressed in the quote matches my own and I, certainly, am not here to further a "cause". An individual does not have to hold an opinion simply to further a "cause". My own opinions on HIV and on all other matters discussed in these forums are not formed to further my "cause", they are formed because I choose to come here and elsewhere to discuss, listen and learn. I am not here to espouse every right and virtue of the HIV+ community.
You will also note that I provided links to further reading and ethical debate. I, like any good researcher, can present and criticise both sides of the argument. It appears you cannot (despite your desire to be the forum's research methods and statistical expert). It is disappointing that in a forum and community of free and independent opinion making there are always a small number who seek to damage that. I do not have a problem with differences of opinion but I do have a problem with people who simply cannot accept that differences exist and are unable to rationalise that concept.
The ethics of responsibility is an argument that will always divide thought and opinion in all manner of applications, not just in the context of this thread.
You purport that HIV- individuals simply do not accept the ethical view of individual responsibility. Please don't forget that we were all HIV- before we were HIV+, and if your statement were correct surely we would all be prosecuting those who may have transmitted the virus to us and that the vast majority of us who are now HIV+ would accept no responsibility for ourselves. Yet the majority of HIV- people who become HIV+ do not prosecute and certainly, in a large number of cases, do accept responsibility for themselves - as I do in this and all other situations.
And by the way, Boze, saying that someone who is HIV+ and gay is a hypocrite for stating an opinion that does not match your own when discussing issues which are borne from HIV is deeply saddening. In this you not only question the integrity of individuals but of any gay and HIV+ individual who has chosen to provide opinion in any part of this forum on any matter.
This does not mean that those people who intentionally infect others, should not be prosecuted, however, there are plenty of laws on the books to cover such crimes.
I criticise the view that I find to be a) wrong b) self-serving.
To my mind someone who knows they have HIV, is not medicated (ie a sizeable VL) and has unprotected sex that results in transmission has, for all intents and purposes, done so intentionally. Ie he has omitted a number of steps that might indicate his intention to NOT transmit.
MENZRAY u say?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acUFdP7N1vw
Boze, before you discuss intention further you might like to review and digest this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
- matt
Why argue with Boze -- his mind is made up. He clearly is more intelligent and knowing than anyone else. Quite frankly I think he's getting off on offending others. When people call him on it, he claims victimhood -- to much political correctness, you see. It's not about anyone else -- it's simply him striking out because of all the wrong done to him. I say -- stop feeding him.
Matt, thank you for the link. You are right - according to law someone who just wants to have sex may not necessarily intend to transmit. However another aspect applies - endangering the life of another that results in transmission. Ie i see the analogy to homicide - if a person kills another (without actually intending to kill him but as result of actions that he knew might result in death) - he is liable for homicide.
In this paragraph we can replace words 'death' and 'transmission' to arrive at what I find logical.
Realist - I did not mean to say that YOUR particular view on the subject is self-serving, I apologize if you took my comment in that light. I meant it more as a general comment on the attitude of the OVERALL HIV+ community members who think that there should be no criminal redress for knowing spread of HIV.
The issue here is slightly different that enfranchisement you brought up. When women were asking to vote the situation was not zero-sum. The votes were not going to be taken away from men. In the current situation I believe that justice is sort of zero-sum. The 'victim' (I put it in quotes because some people disagree with such designation) either has a legal claim to his/her transmitter or does not. I happen to believe that she should - ie I see her right to justice as paramount. If one believes that there shoul be NO way to address this - then the right of the transmitter is seen as more important.
Let's also point out that HIV isn't killing anyone. The virus itself is never the direct cause of death, unlike say Influenza or Tuberculosis, which are much more easily spread and without the willing participation of the "victim". Boze you're just wrong again, but I'm sure you'll think that my opinion is biased toward hiv+ folks.
This "HIV never killed anyone" crud is so disingenuous.
Sure kidney failure killed Kate, but it couldn't have happened if she wasn't HIV positive.
Valley fever wouldn't have taken Daddy Tim if his immune system hadn't been fucked to death by HIV.
Christine's life was cut short because she had HIV infection.
I could go on but I won't belabour the point except to say that the thing what brings us together is the thing what kills us.
MtD
It was really just to get to the next point which is the timeline for HIV, considering the new drugs, is lengthy in comparison to the other two mentioned. There are no laws on the books for the prosecution of manslaughter via influenza however.
Let's also point out that HIV isn't killing anyone.
That takes the cake! Wow. Stupid!
That takes the cake! Wow. Stupid!
Heckraiser is far from stupid ... if a bad analogy makes one stupid we are all guilty sometime ;D
^ we've argued the semantics of the point before, there's no reason to stir the pot again. The intent of my post was to point out to Boze that the criminalization of one virus over all others is not a good idea. If you read the series of posts for context you would see that.
Lastly - to all the nice folks who accused me of homophobia - puh-lease. All I do is state facts. If you find them offensive - you can call me a homophobe but it won't change the reality. I find it very popular in America today - labeling the ideological opponent a racist or homophobe or antisemite just because they hold a view that's different to one's own. To me it's a sign of a weak argument - when you can't argue with a position, label the person a 'hater'.
The analogy however ends there: an homicide does not require per se any cooperation of the victim, while the only kind of sex that may result in transmission and does not require the cooperation of both (or more!) people is rape.
And you must remember, that those who consent to unprotected sex also know that it may result in acquiring an STD.
Variations of consensual sex transmission are endless, of course, but I don't think even the most grievous ones can be rightfully compared to homicide.
THE BOZE
(http://i892.photobucket.com/albums/ac127/skeebo1969/959135.jpg)
Ok - What is rape? Rape is sex without consent. To me someone who is HIV+ and doesn't disclose (or likely activel lies about it) it is engaging in a form of rape - since the victim has not given consent to the aforementioned act. Hence I don't consider the act to be a form of consentual act between two adults. Just like a woman can claim rape if she was given date drugs.
Believe you me - most of the population at large completely agrees with me - sorry for being the messenger.
Realist - you used up your whole reply to call me an idiot in five different ways. It was duly noted, but I don't see a point in replying line-by-line.
Ok - What is rape? Rape is sex without consent. To me someone who is HIV+ and doesn't disclose (or likely activel lies about it) it is engaging in a form of rape - since the victim has not given consent to the aforementioned act. Hence I don't consider the act to be a form of consentual act between two adults. Just like a woman can claim rape if she was given date drugs.
Boze - the act is RAPE. The act is not date drugs. The act is consensual sex. The act is not nondisclosure. Repeat to yourself.... the act is RAPE..... not date drugs.... the act is consensual sex. The act is not nondisclosure.
Ok - What is rape? Rape is sex without consent. To me someone who is HIV+ and doesn't disclose (or likely activel lies about it) it is engaging in a form of rape - since the victim has not given consent to the aforementioned act. Hence I don't consider the act to be a form of consentual act between two adults. Just like a woman can claim rape if she was given date drugs.
I feel like some Alice in Wonderland - having to explain the most basic things to people who live in an alternate universe. Believe you me - most of the population at large completely agrees with me - sorry for being the messenger.
Ok - What is rape? Rape is sex without consent. To me someone who is HIV+ and doesn't disclose (or likely activel lies about it) it is engaging in a form of rape - since the victim has not given consent to the aforementioned act. Hence I don't consider the act to be a form of consentual act between two adults. Just like a woman can claim rape if she was given date drugs.
You are right about feeling like someone in Alice in Wonderland
I appreciate the intellectual rigor of Boze.
I appreciate the intellectual rigor of Boze.
I feel like some Alice in Wonderland - having to explain the most basic things to people who live in an alternate universe. Believe you me - most of the population at large completely agrees with me - sorry for being the messenger.
And that's why some of the population gets to join us in this wonderful world of Alice. If you're the messenger then I guess you should be shot, because it's this very same message that causes people to join our ranks everyday.
Whether you realize it or not, we pretty much frown on members who have posted about having sex without disclosing, and just the same, we frown on people who are not smart enough to protect themselves or place their negative status in the hands of someone else.
It's all about personal responsibility and until the population at large understands this we can continue to welcome our new members in I just Tested Poz.
I feel the same dam way having sex with someone and not telling them u have HIV is WRONG!!!
(now i f u dont know then that just sucks) but i feel anyone that has unprotected sex with someone and doesnt tell the other person should go to jail!
now if they tell the person and the person dont care then thats on the other person and i dont feel they should go to jail!
I've tried so hard to stay away from this thread but can't keep my mouth shut any longer.
Some people who I regarded as friends who I thought were supportive of my situation have now left me to believe they were obviously full of shit...
Ann - You said that even if your partner had known his HIV status that it would still had been your fault that you'd been infected. So, despite everything you have said to me (online/on the phone/in person) that it is in fact what you think of me and my situation???
Matty - I really thought you were my friend.
I sit here totally flabbergasted, yet totally unsurprised at the utter hypocrisy I see abundant in this thread.
Debra
PS: Those of you who know me know my situation. Those of you who don't can research my past posts/the archives.
I've tried so hard to stay away from this thread but can't keep my mouth shut any longer.
Some people who I regarded as friends who I thought were supportive of my situation have now left me to believe they were obviously full of shit...
Ann - You said that even if your partner had known his HIV status that it would still had been your fault that you'd been infected. So, despite everything you have said to me (online/on the phone/in person) that it is in fact what you think of me and my situation???
Matty - I really thought you were my friend.
I sit here totally flabbergasted, yet totally unsurprised at the utter hypocrisy I see abundant in this thread.
Debra
PS: Those of you who know me know my situation. Those of you who don't can research my past posts/the archives.
I fail to see how the message gets so easily twisted. Are we saying it wrong?
Telling the negative populous to take responsibility for their health by no means admonishes responsibility of those who are positive. Telling a newly infected person not to dwell on the person who possibly knowingly infected them and to take responsibility for failing to protect themselves also doesn't wipe away responsibility for those who are positive. We give this message where it serves purpose.
Until I see someone who is positive come onto the forums and say, "Hey everyone I purposely set out to infect people" my focus will remain on those who are having difficulty accepting their own diagnosis and perhaps those that had a close call and remain negative.
As a group we have to deal with the audience available. I have yet to see the other party (people who knowingly infect) come onto these forums and share such... and until that time comes there's really no way to address them.
I get what you're saying but you can't say that people have equally responsibility...you just can't think that...if someone KNOWS they are positive then they have MORE responsibility, and if someone is deceived into thinking that the person they are engaging in un-protected sex with is negative then how are they equally responsible? That means that no-one would ever have un-protected sex ever again, because they 'might' be being deceived....they 'might' be being lied to....
^ we've argued the semantics of the point before, there's no reason to stir the pot again.My intent was not to stir the pot, and perhaps the word was a bit harsh, however you can not think that you can say something like that and not be called on it. And yes, I have read the contents of this thread. Clearly we both need to thank before we write.
I get what you're saying but you can't say that people have equally responsibility...you just can't think that...if someone KNOWS they are positive then they have MORE responsibility, and if someone is deceived into thinking that the person they are engaging in un-protected sex with is negative then how are they equally responsible? That means that no-one would ever have un-protected sex ever again, because they 'might' be being deceived....they 'might' be being lied to....I'm confused by this thread now.
I get what you're saying but you can't say that people have equally responsibility...you just can't think that...if someone KNOWS they are positive then they have MORE responsibility, and if someone is deceived into thinking that the person they are engaging in un-protected sex with is negative then how are they equally responsible? That means that no-one would ever have un-protected sex ever again, because they 'might' be being deceived....they 'might' be being lied to....I'm confused by this thread now.
Thus use condoms every time and you won't pick up anything.
Personally I believe if you know you are HIV positive then you should be doing your utmost to ensure your infection stays with you. And in my eyes honesty is always the best policy even if it means that you may face a ton of rejection, rather that than put someone in the position that someone has put you in i.e. infected (assuming that your infection was from a sexual relationship).
A brief interlude...
HIV stops with me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_EZ-VYJUUY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDtuG2Oh-F4&feature=related
Taboo and Sweet, that is the point. You cannot trust anyone else with your health. The only surefire way to not get any sort of STI is to assume that your partner is potentially carrying all of them. Thus use condoms every time and you won't pick up anything.
And where did we say positive people should not disclose? Have you ever thought about what makes you assume this?
Huh? I never said anything about that...? Perhaps I gave that impression because of my own situation but I didn't intend to assume that was the general concensus here, my apologies if it came accross that way.
Oh nice one, Bozy... loved that subtle working in of xenophobia. Good one.
Nah - not at all. I just looked up laws for criminal hiv transmission and it appears that
"In many English-speaking countries and in most of the states who have signed the European Convention of Human Rights, knowingly infecting others with HIV can lead to criminal prosecution."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV#Legal_definition
I've tried so hard to stay away from this thread but can't keep my mouth shut any longer.
Some people who I regarded as friends who I thought were supportive of my situation have now left me to believe they were obviously full of shit...
Ann - You said that even if your partner had known his HIV status that it would still had been your fault that you'd been infected. So, despite everything you have said to me (online/on the phone/in person) that it is in fact what you think of me and my situation???
Matty - I really thought you were my friend.
I sit here totally flabbergasted, yet totally unsurprised at the utter hypocrisy I see abundant in this thread.
Debra
PS: Those of you who know me know my situation. Those of you who don't can research my past posts/the archives.
No law would have protected you from being infected. Yeah your situation is a nasty one. He lied to you and infected you knowingly. You didn't find out until he was laid up in some hospital rotting away from AIDS.
Whatever. You, a consenting adult, elected to trust him. That's what really matters.
To consent to unprotected sex is to consent to the possibility of being infected with a sexually transmissible infection.
That applies to you as much as anyone else.
Bad things happen to good people. The fact that you're still pissing on about it all these years later, well that's what make me feel sorry for you. Change the fucking record already.
Moreover the idea that your predicament is the fulcrum upon which major issues of HIV and public policy must shift is just fucking risible.
You have some fucking front turning up here after all this time snivelling about friendship. I remember when you fluttered out of this place. You said something to the effect that you'd gotten as much out of this community as you could and bid us a fond farewell.
Gone for more than two years and now you play the fucking friendship card on me? Fuck that shit, sister. I've not heard from you in all that time. Not a single email, PM, SMS. how-are-ya, kiss-me-arse or anything.
Friendship is and always has been a one fucking way street with you.
MtD
And so here it is, the cleverly worded vindictive response I half-expected.
For your information, I did email you and I did text you but I heard nothing back from you. Quel surprise. No longer part of the Aidsmeds clique eh, so out of sight out of mind…talk about one-way friendships. You haven't the first clue what friendship is.
Well haven’t you changed your tune? Need I remind you that you and Ann and others openly supported me and my situation on the old forums? Those were the "full of shit" and "hypocrisy" referrals I made in my other post. But of course those archives can’t be accessed now, so I guess it’s a moot point. Just my word against yours.
And one of reasons I’d been away from the forums for so long – not that you’ll care, as you’re obviously such a self-centred self-serving two-faced excuse for a human being – is that my dad died last year.
As for what happened to me, I have my reasons for still "pissing on about it all these years later" as you so eloquently put it. But you wouldn’t give a shit about that because all you give a shit about is you, having your obnoxious voice heard and getting the last cutting word in to make someone else feel bad.
You might be knowledgeable Matty, but you’ll never truly be liked or loved. Bullies never are.
MattyTheDamned and his clever words and wicked tongue.
Took you all day to come up with that, eh? Well, don’t give up your day job, sister!
Adios and fuck you.
Debra
Opinions, as they are, are as varied as the number of people taking part in whatever argument. and as truth is what the majority agrees,
consider, for a moment, that you're walking down the street. you trust the guy driving a car down the road is not gonna veer and run you over. you don't expect the woman walking next to you to suddenly stab you. ...
our civilisation stands only because we put our lives, everyday, in every way, in the hands of others with the trust that that they put the same price on it as they put on theirs. this is the same logic people approach everything, including sex.
For example, if I get on a bus should I breathalise the driver everytime just in case one time he is drunk and crashes? Am I therefore equally responsible because I trusted the bus-driver and he abused that trust?
You might be knowledgeable Matty, but you’ll never truly be liked or loved. Bullies never are.
So if the majority of your country decides to put to you and all other HIVers in camp and lock you up you'd happily submit? It's called argumentum ad populm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum).
Do you even read what others' arguments? When you walk down the street, you can't expect and don't consent to be stabbed or veer down. But when you consent to have unprotected sex, you can both expect and consent to all likely consequences, including STD.
You do know that if that is the case you won't even need any laws?
You just keep using false analogies - once you get inside a bus and let the other drive, you have no control over the vehicle. But while having consented to sex, you can still stop before unprotected sex is about to happen. And if you don't see the difference, I don't really see the point of this "discussion" as many of us have presented you with the distinctions, while all you offer is nothing but this nonsensual analogizing.
I've tried so hard to stay away from this thread but can't keep my mouth shut any longer.
Some people who I regarded as friends who I thought were supportive of my situation have now left me to believe they were obviously full of shit...
Ann - You said that even if your partner had known his HIV status that it would still had been your fault that you'd been infected. So, despite everything you have said to me (online/on the phone/in person) that it is in fact what you think of me and my situation???
Matty - I really thought you were my friend.
I sit here totally flabbergasted, yet totally unsurprised at the utter hypocrisy I see abundant in this thread.
Debra
PS: Those of you who know me know my situation. Those of you who don't can research my past posts/the archives.
You cannot expect a woman to use a condom throughout her entire relationship 'just in case' she is being lied to, cheated on or deceived. It's not realistic and like I said, we would see a rapid decline in the species as there would be no pregnancies. And the same for men too.
No, it has not declined into semantics. You and many continue to confuse or willingly refuse to address our case of rejecting criminal responsibility, equating it to a wholesale rejection of any sort of responsibility, be it "social" or "moral" as you care to add in front of the word.
Deadly STDs have accompanied humanity since the dawn of civilization and yet we continue to procreate. We constantly talk about a responsibility to stop the virus with us; what we're against is a highly stigmatized criminalization of this responsibility because it serves no purpose at all but a further victimization of the infected, you included.
If you fail to think of any good line of reasoning to rebuke our arguments, just admit it.
You just keep using false analogies - once you get inside a bus and let the other drive, you have no control over the vehicle. But while having consented to sex, you can still stop before unprotected sex is about to happen. And if you don't see the difference, I don't really see the point of this "discussion" as many of us have presented you with the distinctions, while all you offer is nothing but this nonsensual analogizing.
And what penalty does "sleeping with someone whose hiv status you are unaware of" carry?
.., just wanted to point out that you are using a fairly cheap trick - when one presents you with an analogy, you claim that the analogy isn't actually correct since it contains a number of differences with the subject at hand. Well - that's how analogies work. They are not meant to be replicas of the situation - but rather highlight important similarities.
Same one as for being victim of a Ponzi scheme or any other mishap where the victim 'should have known better'.
I would also note one more thing - that this debate is (largely) split along sexuality lines. This is normal - as we come to have different expectations of risk based on the types of sexual lives we lead. (Forewarning for those who are falling out of their chairs aghast at how I have the nerve to point out the obvious - please spare the cries of X-phobias). So those who have sex that carries a 30-40% risk of transmission have a different outlook than those who have .01% risk (these are rough estimates, feel free to change them as you see fit). Hence the former have every reasonable right to ALWAYS expect the worst while the latter do not.
Boze, I almost think I have interpreted what you wrote here correctly... but could you clarify exactly what you are saying. Please.
'I would also note one more thing - that this debate is (largely) split along sexuality lines. This is normal - as we come to have different expectations of risk based on the types of sexual lives we lead. (Forewarning for those who are falling out of their chairs aghast at how I have the nerve to point out the obvious - please spare the cries of X-phobias). So those who have sex that carries a 30-40% risk of transmission have a different outlook than those who have .01% risk (these are rough estimates, feel free to change them as you see fit). Hence the former have every reasonable right to ALWAYS expect the worst while the latter do not.'
(apologies I did not read the splab aboput how to cut and paste from a previous post - will go do my homework now)
The only true risk group is that group of people who have unprotected anal or vaginal intercourse with people of positive or unknown hiv status and it doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, or somewhere in between.
Oh, it's bullcrap anyway -- where I live the statistics are that 33% of new infections are from heterosexual sex. *Hello* that's not an insignificant number.
It amazes me that folks still come on here and scream about being a straight male victim of gay ass fairy flu.
What I find so disappointing, about some of the comments here, is how some posters want to criminalize the transmission of HIV, rather than taking personal responsibility for their infection. Some of you seem to want that "criminalization" status, as a way of absolving yourself, so you can continue to play the victim. So go ahead and play the victim, but don't expect the majority of us, to agree with you. A failing on your part, does not always equal a failing on the part of another.
As far as 'the majority of you to agree with me'- let's not forget where the real majority is and how they view this issue. I was just trying to bridge the gap.
As far as 'the majority of you to agree with me'- let's not forget where the real majority is and how they view this issue. I was just trying to bridge the gap.
This is why I find you so frustrating, your blanket statements of facts (your own) are presented as if they had some validity and they do not. You have no idea what a majority of people think and when you state your biased views as fact, well how can anyone discuss anything, when you get to invent all the proof?
This is why I find you so frustrating, your blanket statements of facts (your own) are presented as if they had some validity and they do not. You have no idea what a majority of people think and when you state your biased views as fact, well how can anyone discuss anything, when you get to invent all the proof?
Would this be the same real majority that posts over in Am I Infected with bogus fears from stuff like pussybeer?
Ok - reality check:Thank you for proving my point. To link a reader survey, as some sound rationale for your views is laughable. The survey proves nothing, other than what a certain group of readers think. You cannot extrapolate that into anything, no matter how hard you try. I could conduct a survey and predefine the results, based on the questions and how I worded them. When you find the links for real peer reviewed scientific studies, that support your gross generalizations and distortions, let us know.
"Poll in the Pink Paper that revealed 57 per cent of gay readers supported criminal prosecutions for passing on HIV". http://www.positivenation.co.uk/issue128/regulars/news/news128.htm
I would expect straight population to have a much higher support for this, around 75-80%. But that's only a guess.
Until then, Newt is right, time for this thread to die.
Better yet, I vote to lock it down.
Ray