Unless you rape someone... — Page 4

I really don't know. This whole post got away from me. No thanks to your insisting on including married couples in this debate.

I guess you would stop using the condoms until the wife gets pregnant.

like i said to you earlier in a PM, you can't start a topic like this with so many different views without having it turn into a debate with input form ALL sides... so please don't complain when it does.

"No thanks to your insisting on including married couples in this debate."
you seem to be the one insisting that this only applies to gay couples. you need to be more open minded with something like this. yes the article in question refers to gay men, but it also refers to one person... yet this isn't the only person effected by the law, just as gay men wouldn't be the only people effected by this law.

---

someone did answer.. two people actually... go back and look at their responces.

---

and the ISSUE is for ALL Americans.

And you opened it up for discussion on a board populated by ALL types of people.

---

.......ok........

---

How often would you counsel the couple to have the P24, iflit?

Are you familiar with the (controversial) concept of Negotiated Safety for gay couples, which was pioneered by British AIDS educators?

---

My knowledge of the P24 comes from having used it a a screening for cadaveric organ donors where rapid AND sensitive results are essential. It is my understanding that it is able to detect infection within one week of exposure. The ELISA, of course is too unreliable as anything more that a screening test, and the Western Blot still has too big of a window to be useful in a situation where the information is used to determine what happens withing the next few hours (ie use organs for transplant or not...). There's a newer test...apparently just as sensitive...that is taking the place of the P24, but quite honestly, I haven't checked into the specifics yet.

It would be outside my realm to 'counsel' about which tests should be done and how often. My point was more that for couples who want to move past using condoms and other safe sex practices, there are tests that can be done to assure that they are starting out on a monagamous journey with a 'clean slate'. It might be something as simple as practicing safe sex while having serial Elisa's for an extended period of time. Or maybe a two Western Blots something like six months apart. Again... this is venturing outside of the area where I feel knowledgable enough to offer specifics... But the concept holds.

---

Updated On: 7/21/05 at 11:56 PM

Yes not everyone is in or wants to be in a long-term relationship and some of us just hook up to have sex and get intimacy from family or friends or pets or tv's.

Updated On: 7/22/05 at 12:01 AM

I didn't say long term, I said commited.... or you could even substitute exclusive relationship.

And I'm not judging anyone here, all I'm saying is that you can't honestly say that having one night stands is responsible. Call it fun, call it necessary, call it what you like... but at least open your eyes to see that it's not responsible.

Updated On: 7/22/05 at 12:07 AM

I think it's unrealistic to think that sex is ever going to be limited to committed relationships. Or even that it should be...
Which is why the function as if you and your partner du jour are both positive (unless proven otherwise) is most reasonable approach.

I get very nervous when people start talking about legislating sexual practices between consenting adults. That can SO EASILY be manipulated and turned against the very people it was intended to protect.

---

I actually am constitutionally unable to read this entire thread, as I have taken part in this discussion on another board, as well as, I believe, right here a couple of months ago. And it's very upsetting.

I agree with Iflit completely about the slippery slope.

I have no idea if what I have to say has been said already. But I find it physically distressing that gay men would argue in favor of litigation AGAINST other gay men.

Here are some things to consider. No research anywhere suggests that gay men who know themselves to be HIV positive actually WANT to infect anybody else. Except for some people with serious mental health issues, no HIV negative gay men particularly WANT to be infected with HIV.

So, how does infection continue to happen? In large degree, men who DO NOT KNOW that they are positive, pass the virus onto negative guys. So, I for one, condemn any gay man who is willing to sell positive gay men down the river for the ILLUSION of safety. For two reasons. One, they (the litigigous neggies) should be responsible for their own bodies and nobody but their own bodies. And two, they want to see this poor guy locked up because it contributes to their ILLUSION of safety. And that's all safety is, an illusion.

The point is that more testing needs to happen. But I'll tell you what, you make disclosure mandatory by law and non-disclosure punishable by jail time, and there will be EVEN FEWER MEN GETTING TESTED. The result, more transmission.

The other thing is, there is NO evidence that this guy infected the other guy. NONE. He's in jail because some queen got nervous.

Jesus Christ.

---

no, popular, the difference is that we don't judge you for not having one night stands, but you judge us for having one night stands.

---