Unless you rape someone... — Page 5

It's not so much that I am judging your choice to have a one night stand, like I said I don't think it makes someone good or bad, wrong or right to have or not have one... I'm just not convinced that "responsible" is the best choice of words one could use to describe it, that's all.

Updated On: 7/22/05 at 12:41 AM

"You ridiculed me for saying I am a responsible gay man who protects myself and my partners by not engaging in unsafe sex."

That is not what you said. What you said is:

"So even if I take all the possible precautions as a responsible man with HIV, I still have to tell my one night stand that I'm positive?"

There is a difference. And I'm sorry if you felt ridiculed because I found the phrasing of your sentence ironic. My intention is not to make anyone feel disrespected. My best friend is notorious for hooking up and I love and respect her dearly!

What I don't agree with - getting back onto the topic at hand - is if someone feels they don't have to disclose themselves as HIV+ to their sex partners. Condoms aren't 100% and the person should at least have a choice of whether or not they want to put themselves at risk.

Let's see if you can wrap your brain around this one, Popular. You say that condoms are not 100%. Well, if used CORRECTLY they come pretty close. Yes, that means checking expiration dates, using plenty of lube, putting them on correctly with no air bubbles trapped inside.

BUT. Not every incidence of unprotected sex with a positive person will result in a transmission. There are many many factors that influence this. Is the positive person newly infected? Is the positive person on treatment? What is the positive person's viral load? You make it sound as if the rubber breaks, the negative person immediately seroconverts.

And guess what else? Many people when asked their status give the results from their most recent test. But that can be anywhere from two days to ten years before.
If you're having safer sex with somebody whose status you aren't sure of, and the condom breaks, GO ON POST-EXPOSURE PROPHYLAXIS. Nobody who has ever gone on PEP has ended up seroconverting. That's NO ONE. Did you know this?

Also, you say it's a semantic issue and that "responsible" isn't quite the word that you mean. Well, what word or phrase more accurately DOES reflect what you mean?

---

And say goodnight to that "friend" of yours that you hold in such high esteem. She's notorious for getting around. She's got a great friend in you. I guess you need someone like her to make your choices seem superior and responsible.

Is it natural to be so petrified of getting HIV that I would abstain from sex for life?

---

Perhaps not natural, but feasible...

---

I lived with my partner for two years and during the first year we had sex many times. He had AIDS and we learned how to accept certain safe guidelines and then just give into each other completely. With precautions and all.

"No thanks to your insisting on including married couples in this debate."

Considering this law obviously can't specifically target gay men, straight couples (married or commited or one night stands) have to be considered in your argument. Just because your original article was about gay men, straight men HAVE been arrested for knowingly infecting women in consensual sex, so your previous argument that only gay men are affected by laws like these is a bit flawed. Hell, one guy was convicted under this law for BITING someone without revealing his HIV status, so it's not just about invading their sex lives. You seem to only be looking at this issue only from your own perspective, and not considering the majority of the rest of the world that also are affected by this law.

---

"read the F*****g article! It's about a gay man."

there ya go sweetheart. somebody calm him down.

"Get it through your thick, ignorant, homophobic head!"

i think you're being pretty ignorant by not realizing this effects more people than you.

---

One way I think we can ratchet down the hysteria and reactionary responses if we can make a fine distinction in the terms being tossed around here.

The most important is that there is a WORLD of difference between "not disclosing HIV status" and "deliberately giving somebody HIV."

I agree with Chita that CULTURALLY, nobody would say to a married couple, you always have to use condoms.

---

Convicting people and locking them away provides those who support such actions with the illusion that the threat of the law that brought the conviction will keep them safe. It won't.

It will also discourage people from being tested. Therfore, the law will make people who take comfort in the illusion that it is making them safer, less safe.

---

I am so amazed that people are still not accepting responsibility for their actions when it comes to sex. I am with Chita on this. I know of several people who were lied to and contracted HIV...lovers, married straight couples, one niters, the gamut...and saw alot in back in my volunteer days/and working w/ HIV/AIDS patients.
Ever since we realized how to prevent this disease, it became our individual responsibility to protect ourselves. This reminds me of when Buckley (not <===Betty but Wm. F.) stated that all HIV postitive people should be tattooed!
VERY slippery slope here...

...and Chita, you dont need anyone else to speak for you...you've done a great job...but get some rest, man!

---