I’m…kind of “meh” about it. I don’t really have any strong feelings that it should be illegal, mostly because you should be treating any and every encounter in which HIV transmission is likely as if the other person were HIV+ anyway, but I think I’m biased in that because from this side of the gay/straight fence, we’ve been taught that for decades now. I think not so much for the straight side.
The standard for safer sex has been, for decades, that all casual or semi-casual encounters should be done with latex, gay or straight. You don’t go bare unless you are in a (supposedly) monogamous relationship with someone who has been tested and came out HIV-. (I only put the supposedly in because there’s never absolute certainty about that aspect, sadly)
The standard is use protection JUST IN CASE, not BECAUSE ITS A SURE THING.
Lets put it this way. The proverbial you wants to bump nasties in a one night stand. The prudent you plans on using protection, just in case. Then, you find out the other person is HIV positive.
What percentage of folks are going to say “fuck it, I am protected, I aint scared of no HIV”
bull fracking shit. IMO most people are going to say hell no and for good reason. And everybody DESERVES to know about shit like that in situations like that.
This “HIV is private and you takes your chances when it comes to sex” is just crap the fuck around a lot crowd uses to justify their lifestyle.
And yet the rate of HIV notifications among gay men declined about 5% per year from 1996-2000, and thereafter began to increase: 3.3% per year from 2000-2005.
So I’m not as sanguine as you are that the gay community is shielded from this risk.
Okay, that’s a personal choice. Both myself and pretty much any person I’m likely to partner with for that one-night stand are going to be in a high-risk group (gay men). If I found myself with a self-outed HIV+ partner, and I found him attractive enough to do the deed in the first place, I would still have sex with him. It would probably not be the high-risk kind of sex, but it would probably still happen.
And, frankly, I don’t see where you have any right to be criticizing someone else’s lifestyle if they’re not pulling you into bed against your will, “fuck around a lot” or not. If you’re in a position where you’re going to be coming into contact with someone you’re planning on having a one-night stand with, especially. Pot, kettle, etc.
I never said it was shielded from this risk. It’s not that condoms are breaking, it’s that people are seeing HIV+ people living 30 years with the disease and no longer thinking that it’s a death sentence. It’s wrongheaded, and you won’t find me arguing against that verdict. That doesn’t mean that gay men need to throw the whole “Every Time” standard out the window and become monks who demand full medical histories before they mutually masturbate.
Do you make room for the possibility that someone else in your situation might say, at the very least, “I’d want to know about his HIV status before deciding whether to do the deed?”
OK. How about penetrative sex? Does that change your opinion, or do you still think a person is entitled only to know what his erstwhile partner feels like disclosing?
Good point. If burglers can sue homeowners for accidents in their victims house and car theives can sue the owners because the car’s brakes didn’t work & they crashed (that actually happened to my mother), why wouldn’t a rapist be able to sue his victim for giving him an STD?
I’m entirely a personal-responsibility type person when it comes to sex. It’s your job to ensure your own health. If you want to take a stranger’s word for whether they’re HIV+ or not, then that’s on you. There are ways to prevent transmission. If you don’t feel you can trust the person to disclose, then get them to wrap it, as a precaution.
There are more reasons than HIV to treat every encounter as a + one, too. Hepatitis, any number of semen-borne STDs, etc. This is one area where this liberal doesn’t think government intervention is going to do much. If (general) you are slutting it up without protection, in an age when safer sex information is basically ubiquitous for adults, you’re taking huge risks, and they’re not esoteric risks that only trained physicians have any idea about.
And no, I’m not necessarily in the “They deserved it” school of thought on AIDS or any other STD, but I am in the “Don’t be stupid” school.
And note that I’m not saying that PP is right about this. I’m just saying that, for myself, I don’t really care if they’re right or wrong, because I take full responsibility for my health in this context. An attractive liar isn’t going to get me to do it raw because I DO NOT do it raw. Period.
Ah, a different question. villa asked about criminal liability – could a rape victim be prosecuted for failing to inform? You ask about civil liability – could a rape victim be sued for failing to disclose HIV-positive status to an attacker?
I’m not an expert in the civil world, but I’d guess “assumption of the risk” comes into play here. A trespasser, a criminal, is still owed a minimal duty of care because the same dangerous situation that caused him injury would also be dangerous to other, more legitimate invitees. But a rapist doesn’t quite fit that model, since you cannot “cure” the dangerous condition. From a purely practical stance, you could escape liability by claiming to have been terrified that disclosing the fact would have caused the rapist to physically harm you.
So… I think there’s little danger of that, either.
Because I don’t believe in either lying to someone (even by ommision) or doing some sort of HIV “don’t ask, don’t tell, lets just fuck and hope things don’t go wrong” romance dance.
This whole “they didnt ASK me if I had HIV” or “It was none of their business” when it comes to who you fuck/fucked is the biggest crock of cock IMO.
Thats the MOST important one that “they” love to sweep under the carpet.
I’ll say it again. A decent fraction, if not the actual majority of people, have little interest in sleeping with somebody with HIV. And EVEN for the ones that DO, I’d imagine they would STILL want to know and make an INFORMED decision before doing so.
Maybe somebody should do a poll? But, please do a pre poll thread so we don’t have to choose between a couple of half baked crappy choices.
Planned Parenthood is advocating immoral (immoral as in giving people AIDS) and antisocial policies. If you are diseased by AIDS or other contagious and dangerous disease you should not have the same right as other people in areas where the disease can be spread.
They are advocating safe sex practices and voluntary disclosure. Let’s be accurate about this. They are NOT advocating “giving other people AIDS.”
They ARE advocating a very unwise policy with respect to whether disclosure of one’s HIV+ to a sex partner should be voluntary or mandatory. So why don’t we confine the criticism to what’s deserved?
While in general, the pamphlet is chock-full of helpful and useful information, the tone of the pamphlet does seem to reflect this quote from the main text:
This is not, in fact, true. Young people, or people of any age, who have a positive HIV status have a moral obligation to inform their potential sexual partners of that status before they have sexual contact.
That’s basically is reality what will happen if people listen to what they’re saying. Planned Parenthood has shewn itself to be a danger to the Republic and it’s citizens.
“Young people living with HIV have the right to decide if, when, and how to disclose their HIV status”
This is another catch 22 thing that I think shows the BS of their stance. Having HIV is a horrible social stigma that must be kept secret if thats what the carrier wants. But, it should be okay to secretly expose SOMEONE ELSE to this horrible disease just so someone can get laid without the embarrassment of full disclosure in a private, voluntary, and intimate setting.
