45 years in prison for spreading HIV

[Apollo]

I don't see why people are placing half the blame on the women for having unprotected sex.

When you have HIV, you have a responsibility to let your partner know when it gets intimate. End of story. If you don't out of your own maliciousness or cowardice - in my eyes - its murder.

It's all well and good if you wear a condom EVERY time. Great, i'm happy for you. Some people aren't like that. Doesn't mean they should be killed for their preference.

Thank you.

You also have to think about the people who had him wear a condom and it broke and now they are infected.

 

[kallipolis]

I don't see why people are placing half the blame on the women for having unprotected sex.

When you have HIV, you have a responsibility to let your partner know when it gets intimate. End of story. If you don't out of your own maliciousness or cowardice - in my eyes - its murder.

It's all well and good if you wear a condom EVERY time. Great, i'm happy for you. Some people aren't like that. Doesn't mean they should be killed for their preference.

Each of us must assume responsibility for our actions, when engaging in a promiscuous sexual life. Anyone participating in sexual intercourse with occasional partners, must assume that there is a risk, for contracting the more common sexually transmitted infections, as well as for HIV. HIV has been headline news for some thirty years.

When we cross a busy road, we look in both directions, to ensure that our crossing will be executed safely. We do not just depend upon the actions of the truck driver, in being able to stop his truck in time.

Engaging in a promiscuous sexual life without practising safer sex (condoms) is tantamount to playing Russian Roulette. I prefer better odds.

Indifference to our own security, and greater risk, of contracting sexually transmitted infections, walk hand, in hand.

 

[kallipolis]

There is a difference between living with the consequences of your own actions, and being stripped of your chances to do so.

Looking both ways before you cross the street is all well and good - but what happens when some drunk fuck runs the light/stop sign and hits you at the halfway mark? Are you halfway responsible because you didn't time it correctly?

All i'm saying is, his actions were purposeful and malicious, and the women shouldn't shoulder all the blame they're getting in their role.

The issue under discussion is not blame. It is taking responsibility for our life.

Never assume that another person, will take more responsibility for your life, than your self

It is a fact that the HIV+ criminal's sexual partners made no effort to protect themselves from sexual infections. They were irresponsible, and are now paying the price. That the culprit has been sent to gaol for life, does not alter the HIV+ status of the victims. The victims also share responsibility, for their failure to be prudent when engaging in sexual relations with multiple partners.

Sexually transmitted infections are at epidemic levels. The use of a condom, reduces the risk of infection.

Also consider that there are many men, and woman who unknown to themselves are HIV+. Innocent transmission of HIV is also a common fact of life.

Take responsibility for your life, by practising safer sex. There is no such reality as safe sex.

 

[luminum]

Which is all well and good if you were privileged enough, even in the United States, to have an education that gave you even basic information about reproduction, sex, and HIV. Let's not overestimate the number of informed, sexually active people out there.

We live in a society whose government has ONLY supported a curriculum of complete ignorance for our soon-to-be active kids for the past 8 year if not longer which may even continue on for a few more years. Communities who are rich enough to be able to prioritize truthful sexual health education have the luxury of turning away funding for the government, but poorer communities need that government support to keep their schools open at all, and to get it, they have to agree not to even discuss condoms EXCEPT for if they want to talk about how often condoms fail. And the cherry on top of that is that the government curriculum has NO way of controlling the level of misinformation for contraceptive "failure rates."

If you happen to be part of the lucky ones who got all that information, had supportive communities or access to people who reiterated that information, or even had the time to prioritize that education over the daily struggle to feel safe at home or put food on the table, then you have NO excuse as far as information is concerned.

But when we talk about people, victims, we can NEVER assume that they were just too lazy and stupid to ask to use a condom or to put one on. That already assumes an entire world of things about their relationship, the socio-political dynamics of their lives, their cultural background, and their level of access to what should (key word there being "should") be open information.

 

[kallipolis]

Which is all well and good if you were privileged enough, even in the United States, to have an education that gave you even basic information about reproduction, sex, and HIV. Let's not overestimate the number of informed, sexually active people out there.

We live in a society whose government has ONLY supported a curriculum of complete ignorance for our soon-to-be active kids for the past 8 year if not longer which may even continue on for a few more years. Communities who are rich enough to be able to prioritize truthful sexual health education have the luxury of turning away funding for the government, but poorer communities need that government support to keep their schools open at all, and to get it, they have to agree not to even discuss condoms EXCEPT for if they want to talk about how often condoms fail. And the cherry on top of that is that the government curriculum has NO way of controlling the level of misinformation for contraceptive "failure rates."

If you happen to be part of the lucky ones who got all that information, had supportive communities or access to people who reiterated that information, or even had the time to prioritize that education over the daily struggle to feel safe at home or put food on the table, then you have NO excuse as far as information is concerned.

But when we talk about people, victims, we can NEVER assume that they were just too lazy and stupid to ask to use a condom or to put one on. That already assumes an entire world of things about their relationship, the socio-political dynamics of their lives, their cultural background, and their level of access to what should (key word there being "should") be open information.

If you choose to fuck, or be fucked, then use a condom. It's that simple. It does not need much in the way of education to understand.

Don't blame government. Don't blame society. Look both ways, before you cross the road. Then cross your fingers.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

If you choose to fuck, or be fucked, then use a condom. It's that simple. It does not need much in the way of education to understand.

You sure? How do you know condoms prevent STDs? Were you born with this knowledge? You're speaking as if it's an innate instinct.

 

[pigface]

How about: "I don't know you are HIV free; I'm not having sex with you AT ALL."

If you dont say "no", unless you are raped, you deserve whatever you let yourself in for.

 

[kallipolis]

You sure? How do you know condoms prevent STDs? Were you born with this knowledge? You're speaking as if it's an innate instinct.

In this particular instance, we can be reasonably sure that the adult women who were infected by HIV, were using the contraceptive pill. Thus to ensure that they would not become pregnant, and thus continue to be promiscuous, without the consequences of pregnancy. I doubt whether the woman were picked up at a local convent, nor straight out of the mountain pastures of the Himalayas. That the woman were smart enough to prevent them selves becoming pregnant, you can be sure that they were informed enough to use a condom. That they did not, does suggest, that irresponsibility rather than lack of awareness, of the need to employ a condom, resulted in their HIV+ status.

When you play in the big league, then be prepared to play according to standard practice, rather than in assuming that your partners, are all squeaky clean virgins.

 

[kallipolis]

Gee, ok kallipolis. It's that simple, in a community taught to do one thing, to know to do the other.

Africa proves otherwise, but you say "it's that simple".

Right. Well you go with your theory then.
(i didn't think education was the point, but it has swung that way, and that's where i get off the boat)

When you dive in the deep end, be prepared to swim. Otherwise stick with the paddling pool.

Taking responsibility for our actions, can be a daunting task for those, who believe that they should delegate responsibility to others, for their life's actions. Life does not work that way. It never has, and never will. Zombies populate other planets. Try, Hollywood.

 

[kallipolis]

You sure? How do you know condoms prevent STDs? Were you born with this knowledge? You're speaking as if it's an innate instinct.

As I have already stated, there is no such reality as safe sex. We can reduce the risk factor, by employing a condom. But there is no guarantee that the condom is not defective, nor that it will not break during coitus.

Living is a risky journey through time. What else, is new?

 

[Lefty]

in my book, the only thing the women were really guilty of is wanting to have sex...now, who among you can claim innocence?

 

[kevbo]

I don't know about 45 years. There's a big difference between not legally knowing to tell someone you have HIV and infecting someone on purpose.

Although common decency tells me that is information that should be divulged before any body fluids are messed about, ya know?

 

[kallipolis]

I don't know about 45 years. There's a big difference between not legally knowing to tell someone you have HIV and infecting someone on purpose.

Although common decency tells me that is information that should be divulged before any body fluids are messed about, ya know?

In a perfect world, filled with perfect people, that should be the case.

We have prisons, bursting at the seams, because we have yet to create Utopia.

 

[kallipolis]

in my book, the only thing the women were really guilty of is wanting to have sex...now, who among you can claim innocence?

When I have sex with a complete stranger, I always utilise a condom.

These were adult woman. No doubt utilising contraceptive pills. For if they were not using the contraceptive pill, they would have insisted that the man use a condom in order to prevent becoming pregnant.

This is not about blaming people, but of learning, that we must always assume, that the other person, is carrying a sexually transmittable infection. Then we have a choice. To abstain. Use a condom, or take a huge risk.

We can be compassionate and feel sorry that the women were so unlucky. But also learn that their bad luck, was the result of them not insisting on the man using a condom. But of course, life does not come with a guarantee, that there are no risks.

 

[Lefty]

kal, i am in total agreement here. my previous post was meant to express my disdane for those jubbers out casting stones

 

[Lefty]

disdain damn it disdain

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

When you dive in the deep end, be prepared to swim. Otherwise stick with the paddling pool.

Taking responsibility for our actions, can be a daunting task for those, who believe that they should delegate responsibility to others, for their life's actions. Life does not work that way. It never has, and never will. Zombies populate other planets. Try, Hollywood.

Unfortunately America isn't full of scholars as Greece may be. You'd be surprised how many Americans don't know how to put a condom on.

I guess it's easy to snub your nose up at people and make trite remarks about how they, apparently, should've been born with this knowledge.

 

[Lefty]

ummmmmm. are not condoms pretty self-explanitary?

 

[luminum]

Here are some important questions you may want to ask when you start using condoms (since most of these things are taught in proper sexual health classes and workshops):

Do you know instinctively to pinch the tip to give the condom extra room so that when you ejaculate, it will reduce the chances of it breaking? Do you know to also put a dab of lube inside the condom so that it reduces inner friction and will reduce possible breakage? Do you also know that the amount of lube in a lubricated condom is generally less than the amount needed to comfortably have sex and reduce outer surface friction? Did you know that a condom needs to be put on when you have a full erection and has a higher chance of breaking if put on while flaccid, followed by achieving an erection? Did you know that a condom is not recommended for use two times in a row? Did you know instinctively that lotion, mineral oils, oil or silicone-based lubes will break down a latex condom? Did you know that the only difference between a normal condom and an extra-large one is that the ring is slightly larger? Did you know there were polyuerthane condoms for people with latex allergy? Do you know which lubricants are safe for those condoms? Did you know that lambskin condoms don't protect against HIV? Did you know that you can't use two condoms on top of one another because the friction between the latex will cause them to tear? Are a female condom and male condom okay to use simultaneously? How do you properly insert a female condom? How long does a condom have before you should buy a new one? If you a condom in a hot car, is it still safe to use? What about in a freezing car during the winter? If you keep a condom in a wallet, is it still okay to use even if it's been folded?

And more importantly, does everyone know where to get condoms? Do they have enough money to always have a good supply?

You'd be surprised how many people don't know the answers to those questions about condom safety and proper use. And you'd also be surprised how many kids were told that condoms won't protect them from STI's in their classrooms (because from a Abstinence-Only perspective, that 1% of risk means that condoms don't work).

I mean, we live in an age where the Pope can make widely publicized statements that ""[o]n the contrary, [condom use] increases the problem" of HIV/AIDS in Africa. We live in a society that takes the statements of their religious leaders VERY seriously and children who grow up believing these things are true. And if they live in a community that agrees that kids should not use condoms and should wait to have sex and shouldn't even be exposed to them in any comprehensive way, we get people who know essentially NOTHING of what they need to know to engage in safe sex.

My college roommate grew up in a rural area in northern Michigan and his friend was never allowed to sit in on sex education under the request of her minister father. She was 18 when she asked him what a condom was.

You'd be surprised how uninformed people can be kept with the right amount of social inequity or the proper power of those with the right political/religious agenda.

Did you know that a recent study found that STI's were increasing in "Abstinence-following" teenagers because they didn't know that STI's were transmittable in the same manner via anal sex as vaginal sex? Kids are getting infected in higher numbers because no one tells them these things. They may hear that you can't get (in truth, it's rare) genital herpes from oral herpes, and it's not a far stretch for them to believe that you can't get gonorrhea from anal sex.

Things are not that simple. If it were, everyone who ever had a condom in their hand whenever they were about to have sex would never have any STI or ever get pregnant.

People even have questions about STI medications. That's why every birth control commercial or STI medication always says that the medication does not prevent STIs. Herpes medications have to say that they don't protect against other STIs or prevent pregnancy. The HPV vaccine has to say that it only immunizes against 4 strains and won't cure anyone who already has one of them. These may seem obvious to some of us, but a huge majority are in the dark. If everyone knew these things were self explanatory, they wouldn't be advertised as consistently as they are.

Really, think about everything you know about condoms and STI prevention and you'll see that there's a lot more to it than "Condoms protect you against HIV," and "Condoms go on the penis." We don't have millions of professionals and huge chunks of money going toward sexual health efforts because it's simple as pie. The reality of the situation is that it's incredibly complex.

Actually, the best evidence is if you check out the Health and Wellbeing forum and look at some of the questions guys have. You'll be floored by how many simple questions there are and how frequently they come up again and again.

 

[luminum]

Now days, Australian schools teach awareness, they teach safe sex. Shit I went to a catholic school whose idea of safe sex at the time was to not have sex till you married and then don't do it when your wife was having her period because there'd be no chance of procreation, to measure time and do it two weeks before. (Sadly that was the extent of sex education in my school).

If the American education system doesn't teach safe sex, doesn't teach that HIV is not a gay disease but a disease that kills all it can reach, then the US Education system needs an overhaul.

Yeah, it doesn't, at least not officially. The government offers funding to schools that will teach it's Abstinence-Until-Marriage-Only curriculum. Of those requirements, you cannot talk about any form of contraception except for talking about their failure rates. And even then that information can be warped and provided inaccurately, giving kids the impression that forms of contraception such as condoms fail most of the time (and they may even be told that the failure rate is higher than it actually is). And who is going to fact check that? The government who supports Abstinence-Only? The schoolboard who also believes in Abstinence-Only or that just desperately needs the funding or both? The parents who most likely support the same school curriculum or who have far too many other homelife concerns to handle than to seriously attend a PTA meeting?

The only schools that have the option to give accurate and comprehensive sex ed are those that have the money and therefore the luxury to refuse government funding in exchange for the freedom to teach their students accurately. Even in those cases, the material is subject to the one who's teaching it. Even if the instructor gets through all of her or his required topics, he or she may never get a chance to teach the last chapter on contraception, or even same-sex sexual ed. Or, he or she may even plan it so that they "just ran out of time" and never got to it. It's always up to that one teacher and what he or she believes, even in a pro-comprehensive sex ed school system. And overall, there's still a real divide between those who have in this country and those who don't.

Most (if not all) schools have to teach a curriculum on HIV independent of their sex education method, but again, it all comes down to quality and the specific beliefs of the school board and the person teaching it.

So perhaps it's not a case of the greeks being scholars while the US are not. Perhaps it's more of a case of ignorance breeding contempt. Medications now make HIV nothing more than a managable disease. And therefore the "horror" of the past is no longer as relevant. Or perhaps people still believe you have to be a junkie or a fag to be at risk.

I think this is a good point and it's definitely one of the factors that influences perceptions of HIV in the modern setting. But I still think you see a lot more "I didn't know that about HIV"-type issues in the populace than the "Yeah, but how big of a deal is it really?"-type problem.

But my point, and I'm sure I had one when I started writing this response is that ultimately people have to take responsibility for themselves. While it's not necessarily the most trusting way to begin a relationship, a condom on the cock is the only way to do it. Whether you've known someone for a minute or a lifetime, whether you trust them implicitly, unless you know the sexual history of every person they've been with, and they've been with and they've been with, you don't know what is lurking under their skin.

Of course. I mean, there's always the risk you take on yourself and the responsibility therein. No one is ever guaranteed a 100% safe sexual experience. But again, the statement that, "a condom on the cock is the only way to do it," still assumes a lot more information, education, and most importantly belief and acceptance of that as factual truth (and not a political agenda as it's been made to be) than it appears to assume.