Printable View
No to mention the fact that there are people who willingly engage in unsafe sex, knowing the risks. If that is what they want, they have the legal right to do it. Morality and legal rights, it's a sticky situation. People often forget that they can be in favor of a law that defies something they have a moral standpoint on, or vice versa. It's like abortion. You don't have to be in favor of it to be against the idea of a law making it illegal.
I think the entire issue of "safe vs. unsafe" sex is far more complicated than anything that can be put in to the context of condoms vs. bareback. There are sociological, biological and emotional issues involved here. It's so easy to just declare anyone not using condoms as irresponsible and reckless but that trivializes so much of what's involved, if not disregards it entirely.
I'll pause to make the disclaimer because so often in even touching upon such matters people are quick to condemn. I'm in no way saying everyone should run about abandoning condoms and being irresponsible. I'm just trying to raise various points for discussion's sake.
But the prospect of legislating condom use and disclosure, to be quite honest, frightens me. Not to be overly slipperly slope-ish but such a prospect seems so intrusive and extreme. Almost Orwellian.
It's easy to just say "In this day and age, if you don't use protection you're foolish" but there's a history and context here that need be appreciated. I've read a great deal of literature on HIV/AIDS and the "gay liberation" movement and something that struck me from the early CDC reports and surveys on the first 100 gay male AIDS-diagnoses patients was that they had a median lifetime average of almost 1,200 sexual partners. 1,200! And these were men in their 20s and 30s, by in large. 1,200! And that's sexual partners. So one could safely assume an even larger number of actual encounters (numerous encounters with the same person on top one-time partners). Is it because they were all deviants, sluts and reckless perverts? Certainly not.
The AIDS epidemic followed a period of sexual expression and an almost cultural revolution for urban homosexuals in the United States. In New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles (namely) there was this newfound freedom in the 1970s to express oneself, act upon ones instincts and desires freely, pursue ones wants and needs and seek out satisfaction and identify with one's own sexuality to a degree never before permitted in history. Indeed, a revolution for urban gay men. And sex - lots of it, with caution thrown to the wind and a carefree attitude about it - was a big part of that. If not the central part of it. Gay men were free to have sex with and fall in love with whomever they wanted, openly, in these areas. And since the former is much simpler to do than the latter, that's what took place. Sex. And lots of it. It was freedom.
Unfortunately, it turned out such expression couldn't last. That there were consequences unrealized at the time but that made themselves apparent in the late 70s/early 80s when the first AIDS cases popped up. Gay sexual liberation ended up coming at a price, and a costly one at that.
The energy devoted to sexual expression, thankfully, was focused on moblizing people against this new epidemic and mobilizing them to protect themselves. You see that in people who lived through the early and mid-80s in their passion for safe sex, having witnessed what happened in the absence of it. And gay activists and gay rights movements and homosexuals on the whole now found this unifying force in AIDS that mobilized them to push the entire nation in to taking action.
However, I think a sad side effect of it all is that in our need to make it apparent to the country and world as a whole that HIV/AIDS was something that threatened everyone equally, regardless of sexual orientation or anything else (a virus and disease that does not discriminate and knows no demographic restrictions, acknowledges no borders) and be sure the world understood we were just the first among an entire world at risk, we ended up turning on ourselves to a certain extent. In our devotion to the cause that homosexuals, collectively, were the first innocent victims of a virus that does not discriminate, we turned some of our own in to pariahs. "Homosexuals, as a whole, did not bring AIDS upon ourselves. But individual homosexuals who put themselves at risk for it today do bring it upon themselves because they should, by now, know better."
When gay liberation was a possibility, it expressed itself by bursting out of restraints with a natural urge to be sexual and to be free. We can't expect younger gay men to be fully able to suppress that natural urge of sexual abandon by having learned from the lessons of others and witnessed a tragedy through the eyes of the generation before them. In obsessing over behavior ("Condoms condoms condoms!") we've forgotten about instinct. And I think it's instinct that need be the focus if any solutions are to be had.
It's as if we've ignored the core issues by compensating for them. "Use condoms, because we're all promiscuous." "Don't share needles if you're gonna shoot heroin." What about monogomy? What about not shooting heroin?
We know condoms are a barrier to HIV. But what else might people who refuse or don't think to use them see them as a barrier to? Intimacy? Passion? Pleasure? Truly connecting to your partner? Do people not use condoms solely because they're reckless, irresponsible and deviant? Or is there something else satisfied by not using them? We constantly hear about people falsely assuming their boyfriend is HIV-negative, and ending up getting infected by having unprotected sex with that boyfriend. Is that simply because they're foolish? From where did the decision come from to not use condoms with that boyfriend? Was it the manifestation of some desire to connect with and share themselves with someone that they felt condoms inhibited?
Amidst the overpowering message that our inability to trust anyone necessitates the use of condoms, can it not be expected that the flip side of that would be to express the placement of trust in someone by not using condoms? However misguided that notion is, can we at least not see how it's possible? You're constantly told you need to shield yourself from others, and so it seems almost natural someone would disregard that shield when they truly wish to connect to someone else. Either just physically or more intimately.
AIDS exploded in to the gay community as a result of sexual expression and sexual freedom. But condoms don't address the aspect of sexual freedom and expression, they just try and make up for or minimize the effects of it. And if we're entirely dependent on condoms to prevent the spread of HIV, we're leaving other aspects of the situation entirely unaddressed, and thus leaving a great many people vulnerable.
So... should we, in the meantime, continue to encourage people protect themselves? Sure. Because it's all we got right now. And it'll help save lives in the meantime. But if any progress is going to be made in the long run and we're gonna truly affect change, we're gonna have to go way beyond just talking about safe sex and start addressing the roots of behavior, not simply hold off the effects of it.
I can't believe how many of you are basically sticking up for the reckless HIV+ guy. It's disgusting.
How about if I shake all your hands at a convention, but fail to tell you that I've got ringworm on mine? But it's your own fault for taking the risk in shaking peoples hands, right? I'm thinking you'd all be pretty damn pissed at me for doing that. Now imagine it's something that's going to KILL YOU.
This idiot needs to be punished as much as the law allows, and then tried for murder should his victim die before he does.
Geeze, I just don't get it. After decades of "safer sex" information pounded at us, how can anyone feel much sympathy for any person that barebacks with a stranger. Every lover I've had since the 80s had been required to do 2 sets of blood work before ever getting anywhere near my pvt parts.
Seems that ppl these days don't think very much of themselves if they don't believe they are worth waiting for. Still so hot and horny you can't keep it in your pants?
:penny:
Buy a fucking dildo!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt 26z
We could all come in to the thread, call the guy an asshole, pat ourselves on the back for having done so, and move along happily but I dunno why trying to discuss the broader issues and bigger picture all of a sudden makes someone an accomplice to murder. I think the ringworm analogy kind of oversimplifies things.
So what if i got you started smoking cigarettes? What if I introduced you to alcohol, and then you subsequently ten years later caused a death while driving intoxicated?Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt 26z
What if you got HIV but never died? Should you still be allowed to sue? What if you sued and won full resitituion and a vaccine was discovered two years later?
Steve
How did I know someone was eventually going to post this.Quote:
Originally Posted by desslock
Risking giving someone HIV isn't okay just because you believe there'll be a cure before they die. Chances are, there won't be.
I'll tell you what happened here. This HIV+ guy didn't want to limit his relationships to the much smaller pool of HIV+ men, so he either went into denial or just hid his HIV status when he met his dream boyfriend.
And you are of the position that this (discussed above) is criminal behavior? How do you know his intent so clearly? Do you advocate other laws where some weird jury gets to arbitrarily divine the intentions of the accused? And you trust the court system to yield justice with this kind of crimnal prosecution in all instances? If this happened in Arkansas, do you think someone accused for this would get a fair trial?Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt 26z
By the way, are there any other acts of sex which constitute criminal behavior? Why shouldn't sodomy be criminalized? That seems to cause the transmission of HIV too.....
Why do you want to criminalize this kind of sexual behavior? Or are you criminalizing the failure to follow a disclosure proceedure? Perhaps we should have federal recordkeeping requirements of mandatory HIV tests to be available for inspection during working hours....
Steve
HIV+ men having unprotected sex in general regardless of their partners status can't be made illegal, nor should it be.Quote:
Originally Posted by desslock
The real issue here has nothing to do with sex. It just so happens that it was involved.
What it really breaks down to is someone purposely and without consent committing an act that they have prior knowledge will result in serious bodily harm of another person.
Consenting to unprotected sex is not a consent for someone to knowingly give you HIV. These two do not go hand in hand.
So .. someone tell me ...
If a person is HIV+ is there any follow up with the Health Department?
Back in the 70s if you had a partner that tested + for syphilis ALL thier partners were contacted and you were asked to come in for testing. The Dept followed up and kept records.
And that was what they did when all you needed was a shot in the ass and be on your merry way.
So what do they do now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
I took the "instant" test in my doctor's office--less than 20 minutes and less than $25 and I do not have health insurance sharing the cost--so the cost is not high and the wait is short.
i hope this idiot gets punished to the max.
and if it's not illegal to fuck someone and not tell them you are HIV+ it needs to be. Condoms break, shit happens.
If they don't like being HIV+ because they can't get any sex when they tell the person on the other side about it, then it's their problem. There's no reason why someone should go out fucking up people's lives because they made a bad choice.
And he's one of those freaks that goes around getting off on infecting people secretly he deserves to be in jail for the rest of his life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame0120
In the early 80's there were some in government, as well as various citizens groups and advocates, who called for a central database of everyone that tested positive, mandatory testing for those determined to be "high-risk" (homosexual men, drug users, pregnant women, hemophiliacs, Haitians, Africans), and even quarantining people that tested HIV positive from the rest of the population. Preventing them from having contact with others. Drawing up their entire sexual history and pursuing anyone who'd had sexual or "risky" contact with these individuals.
All of these measures were, at the time, considered to be very extreme. And many people - gay activist groups, civil libertarians most vocally - opposed them. They saw in such measures the removal of civil liberties, the potential for highly prejudicial treatment, unfairness, ostracization, not to mention privacy concerns. Imagine a million Ryan Whites. People unable to get jobs. Driven to suicide. Unable to get health insurance. Outcast. Unable to get housing or medical care or anything.
Eventually the initial opposition to such measures has kind of been altered. Not eliminated, but altered. Today, I believe it's 36 states that use name-based reporting of anyone that tests HIV positive. So if your doctor tests you and your results is positive, the doctor's required to hand your name over to health authorities. Same goes for community center testing facilities. There are many who are alarmed by this, again out of privacy concerns. There was also the concern that people would be afraid to get tested if it meant that information would be passed on to the government. And that it could in fact work to drive infection rates higher by discouraging testing.
The government states that the information is only used for accurate reporting. To have a better idea of how HIV is spreading and the numbers of those said to be infected, mainly for predictive and treatment purposes. The Ryan White Act guarantees a set sum of money to states for every person who tests HIV positive. So states want accurate reporting (though some suggest states even want higher numbers to be able to report to the government) because for every person that tests positive, the federal government gives that state a chunk of money to allocate towards that person (not directly allocate towards the person, but to offset the costs of treatment and counseling and care and so forth, really).
There's currently a bill before committee in the California State Senate that wishes to change California's anonymous reporting (HIV positive test results are designated by a code, not a name) to name-based reporting and one of the main reasons the suggestion is being made is so that California can "compete for federal funding with other states".
Anyways, that's the background. So as you can see the tracing and followup measures are not without controversy or concern. The prospect of a central database of all these people and their names and SSNs and other information being handed over to the government was of great concern. HIV has proven itself to be anything but similar to syphillis when it comes to the way in which public officials and governmental bodies handle it, because the politics involved in HIV/AIDs are way beyond anything seen with other sexually transmitted diseases. There was no lifelong stigma or status assigned through a syph. or gon. infection. There is with HIV.
As an aside, another thing that should be pointed out is that HIV tests don't actually test for the virus. They test for antibodies. The existing California legislation that set out code-based reporting on all positive diagnoses refers to HIV tests as "antibody tests for the probable cause of AIDS", and there's a reason they phrased it in such a manner. Because that's what the tests do. Test for antibodies to HIV, which is in turn the probable cause of AIDS. A certain number of tests will always yield false-positives, albeit quite a small number relative to the total tested. I believe a 99.9% accuracy rate is what's claimed by the test makers and what various studies. Imagine if you're that 1 person out of a 1000 given a wrong diagnosis. Told you're positive when you're not. While this happens quite rarely, the consequences can be quite profound for that one individual, now having had their name handed over to government authorities, put on a list, tracked as HIV positive and under scrutiny. All the while actually being HIV negative. And if a more specific test later on down the line shows them to be truly HIV-negative, what happens then? I wonder how long it'd take them to get their name off that list and cleared of that label.
The logic behind use of the antibody test isn't necessarily flawed. That's not what I'm saying. They were originally designed as screening tests to test the blood supply. In that situation, you absolutely want a hypersensitive test and the potential for a false positive isn't a big deal. Better safe than sorry, and throw that batch out regardless. You can always get more blood donated.
As a diagnostic test (diagnosing an individual as infected, as opposed to screening the blood supply), hypersensitivity also satisfies a "better safe than sorry" approach. You'd rather have a few false positives than a bunch of false negatives. You can always retest people to make sure their positive result is accurate and use more sophisticated means of testing to follow-up the antibody tests and confirm their results. But if you were to tell a bunch of people "You're negative!" when in fact they're not, they'd proceed unaware of the need for treatment and caution and so the results could be catastrophic.
But we're talking state involvement, here. So what happens when strict measures are in place to track and enforce certain aspects of behavior on people when the possibility exists, however remote, that they may not actually be infected? The HIV antibody tests themselves all contain disclaimers that remind the test-giver that they are not to be used for diagnostic purposes. So I don't think it fair that someone's name be sent of to the government as HIV-infected when the test they've been given wasn't meant for that purpose.
All viral diagnostic tests are imperfect. They all yield a certain percentage of false results. That's just how it goes. It was determined early on that imperfection on the side of caution was better than imperfection on the side of carelessness. And so we apply these tests as diagnostic regardless. Not an ideal situation, but fine. Again, better safe than sorry.
But when we start imposing draconian methods of enforcement upon people based upon the presumed infallibility of testing? That's a whole new ball game.
We'd all be better safe than sorry locking up every Arab and Muslim in this country when it comes to terrorism, or at the very least putting them all under surveillance and tracking to be sure they're up to no good. But it'd be a dark, dark day if we ever actually did so.
I'm sorry if I'm a little distrusting of the government, but when we see in the Patriot Act a piece of legislation supposedly passed for our own good and laws changed and imposed to accomodate it under the guise of protecting us from terrorism, only to find that the majority of cases of application of Patriot Act provisions have nothing to do with terrorism and our civil liberties are seriously eroded as a result, I don't have to look hard to find cases in which even well-meaning pieces of legislation have interfered with our ability to be free.
in december, 1987, two of my friends and i got our first aids tests. one came back positive. he immediately started calling everyone he had had unprotected sex with. one guy was angry - said he didn't believe it, and there's no way he had hiv. we were all lying to him because we didn't like him. he fucked street boys all the time without a condom. we're talking 3 - 4 new boys per week, many underage.
we called the california department of health, and were told that - in california - hiv and aids were not quarantinable as syphilis was. it was specifically against the law for them to try and intervene in any way.
btw, turned out this guy DID have hiv. he gave it to plenty of hungry street kids with whom he strongly refused to use a condom before he died.
in my eyes, it doesn't matter WHY you don't tell your partner you are positive - you are making a life-threatening decision for another person, and NOBODY has that right. if it was just because you were horny, you could jack off together. there is - at best - a HUGE element of selfishness involved in not telling your partner.
while a lot of people, gay and str8, think of this as gay politics, at one point the largest killer of straight women 18 - 40 was hiv, who were usually infected by their husbands or (so they thought) exclusive boyfriends. unfortunately, HIV knows no limits regarding gender, preferences or age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame0120
Nice post! Thank you. Many questions that have been picking at my sensibilities lately were put to rest tonight. Unfortunately I'm going to sleep with a heavy heart and prayers for the dead.
Parts of the world seemed to have passed me by, while I was elbow deep canning `maters in the Deep South for some 15+ years. I suppose when the plague took Gary, I got so weary of dear friends being taken away I had to leave NY. So I stopped closing the bars, packed the FagHag away and became one with the swiss-dotted apron life. Oddly, but happily- my gay magnet wasn't affected by crossing the Mason/Dixon Line and the only screaming queen in the county became my best bud.
Sigh
Has any generation fucked it up worse than mine?