Unless you rape someone... — Page 6

but doodle, I already have 5 of them, do you mean I could have had a 6th tattoo free? Could I design it myself?

seriously I was floored when he made that statement

---

Chita, I have to disagree. That's like saying that if someone rides a motorcycle, they know they might get hurt, but the person who knowingly swerves into their lane and cuts them off, thereby causing an accident IS the one ultimately reponsible.

You are really not being smart to have unprotected sex with ANYONE today (gay OR straight) unless you are monogamous and even then you'd better be pretty darn sure that the person you are with IS being faithful. But beyond making that statement about it being silly not to protect yourself, it is still the responsibility of the person to tell you they are HIV positive.

If someone has a cold or flu and you are planning a date with them don't you want to know that they are sick, so you can call it off if you have an important presentation next week and don't want to risk getting sick? Sorry...but it is ultimately the person whose body is infected who bears the responsibility.

---

Yes . you choose who you sleep with and what you do in bed with them.

And please forgive me but I'm an angry man and I need to stay home.

Updated On: 7/22/05 at 02:14 PM

Doodle, the comparisons I gave are not meant to be EXACTLY the same but my opinion still holds.

If you KNOW you are HIV positive and you don't tell someone, you are saying that is OK because the person you are with should be responsible enough to ask for a condom and if he/she does NOT then you should not be held responsible.

I still have to disagree. While it may be STUPID in this day and age to have unprotected sex...where is it written that stupidity should be a death sentence handed down by someone else who casually decides to withhold this information?

This person is using a weapon on you (and at your most vulnerable) just as certainly as if they had a knife.

While you both have responsibility for the safety of the situation, I think that someone who knows they are HIV and purposely hides it is evil. So, you'll just say to the person who becomes infected...oh...well, you were STUPID, honey? I think that's a bit of a light sentence don't you? AND, the person who hid the HIV goes on to infect OTHERS?

We have all kinds of laws in this country that protect stupid people and while you may not think they are good laws, this one would certainly fit the bill for a 19 year old, naive kid who BELIEVES that the person he/she is with is clean.

Sorry...my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

---

I can't believe I read the whole thing.
It is horrifying.

LOL!

I think if you are stupid enough to have sex with someone who is not a trusted partner without a condom you get what you deserve. If you chose not to have safe sex, you can't blame ANYONE but yourself.

---

why is this a hot topic.

Thank you Jerby, for your two cents. I had this same exact argument a few months ago on this board and was astounded by the number of people who think that asking makes a difference in whther or not you are safe.

The fact is that many poeple get tested once a year and that is a long time between tests where they may not know that they have been exposed. Consider the fact that you you be tested today, get the results that you are negative a week from today then go out and have unprotected sex the next day and be exposed. I ask "Are you positive?" you reply "No, I was just tested a week ago." How stupid am I if I take that mean something and go ahead and have unprotected sex?

If you always protect yourself when having sex with someone you are not in a committed, monogomous realtionship with, you never even need to ask....unless the one stand is headed toward a relationship.

There are too many people becoming newly positive because they asked, were told that the person they were about to have sex with was negative, then realized that person didn't even know yet that they were positive.

---

I have to admit, I didn't look at this from a homosexual perspective, where it could look like another form of persecution. I looked at it from a legal perspective because my brain works like that- the government is allowed to quarantine people with certain communicable diseases. Also, the only previous time I heard of someone being prosecuted under a law like this, it was actually a straight guy who knowingly infected tens of women- an unusual horror story, not a case of a gay man accidentally transmitting in between tests.

Namo's points about the possible effects of this kind of law are valid, but I'm still not seeing how this behavior doesn't fall under the legal definition of, say, reckless endangerment.

Plum--how did those women get HIV from the guy?

Did they have him wear a condom?

Did he poke holes in the condom?

Were they able to prove motive?

---

It is clear to me that some of you just do not comprehend the realities of promiscuity--whether it be with one person or 100.

You can't belittle the lack of responsibility and stupidity of a person opening their legs without a condom by tidying it up into the pretty label of "they made a mistake". And that the person lying is the only bad guy in the situation. Just naivete of the most tragic degree.

---

Updated On: 7/22/05 at 07:08 PM

Okay, the case I'm finding right now (which may or may not be the one I'm thinking of; I can't remember) is that of Nushawn Williams. He knew he had AIDS, received counseling about all the dangers of it, and had unprotected sex with 48 identified partners. (It was a lot more than that, really.) 13 tested positive for AIDS. He was charged with reckless endangerment for having sex with a 15-year-old in the Bronx, the first time that charge was brought in an AIDS-related case in New York.

I think it might be better not to have a law devoted especially to HIV cases. Reckless endangerment has a higher burden of proof, but it's appropriate.