QueenTiye, on Dec 20 2007, 10:46 PM, said:
BTW, Scott - I'm not clear which opinions you found distasteful... but I don't apologize even a little bit for expressing an opinion that work needs to be done to help women not feel the need to appease their boyfriends with sex. That's a real issue and women know it. I think men do too.
Sorry, I thought I had clarified this, but I guess I didn't. I agree with your post I imported from the other thread: work does need to be done to help women not feel the need to appease their boyfriends (with sex, and in other ways, too). The reason I imported that bit is because it seems to contradict your posts in this thread, which have indicated support for confining this man for life because the women he slept with refused to protect themselves during casual sex.
As long as the government is treating women as somehow less than equally responsible for protecting themselves during casual sex, some women will continue to *act* less than equally responsible for protecting themselves during casual sex (and I think you and I are both talking about the same set of women: the ones who feel the need to appease their boyfriends). Now, in Canada, the Supreme Court has enabled women to lay back and think, "if he was Poz, he'd have to tell me, and he hasn't told me, so I guess it's OK to let him penetrate me without a condom."
Call me crazy, but I think we'd all be safer if we adopted the following:
a) it's NEVER OK not to ask your partner what his/her status is
b) it's NEVER OK to assume
he or she has told you the truth
c) whether you ask or not, ANYONE who consents to have unsafe sex is also consenting to the RISKS that come along with having unsafe sex, which makes the consequences your own, personal responsibility -- and no one else's
I think the above standard would make us all a lot safer than confining people like this man to life in prison.
In this day and age, there is simply no excuse for pleading, "But I didn't know
s/he had ___." Sorry: you should have. Your first clue should have been when s/he said "we don't need no stinkin condoms." I mean: hello
??? Anyone who says that -- or who otherwise demonstrates that he wants to bareback -- is someone who should be regarded as HIV+ and possibly HEP C+. It's as simple as that.
Any standard that relies on getting a stranger to disclose his status is a standard destined for failure.
Of course, condoms are a bummer -- but there's only one way to safely get rid of them: first, develop a serious, trusting, monogamous relationship. Then, both partners get tested together
, and if both are negative, they get tested again three months later. If both are still negative, condoms can be confidently thrown away without fear of contracting HIV.
All that said: QT,
I do apologize for saying I found your opinion "nauseating." That went too far, and I have edited that word out.
scherzo, on Dec 21 2007, 09:50 AM, said:
Yeah, it's amazing how science works.
When it's actually WORKING, it doesn't usually contradict good 'ol common sense.
Um... what? Sure, it does. All the time. That's why we do it: because if good ol' common sense sufficed, we wouldn't need no stinkin science to make sure our medicines are safe and our buildings don't fall down.
You can't possibly calculate a definitive life expectancy for an infection like hiv,
Nor did anyone ever claim to have calculated a "definitive" life expectancy for HIV+ people. What this study (and others like it) demonstrated is that *young* people who have access to, and who conscientiously adhere to, HAART therapy will live an average
of 35 years post infection.
Which is to say: on average, they can expect to enjoy a normal life expectancy.
BTW, just because you haven't been aware of the disease doesn't mean it hasn't been around. The earliest cases of HIV have been traced to the early 20th century.
Considering the amount of people who failed to survive infection well into the LATE 20th century, I think it's relatively safe to say we're only recently coming to grips with it.
I think it's relatively safe to say that you're
only recently coming to grips with it. Me and my community came to grips with it a long time ago. I also think referencing "the amount of people who failed to survive well into the LATE 20th century"--aka, before there was an effective treatment--illustrates my point that mainstream attitudes about HIV/AIDS are still rooted in the plague-era mentality -- like this Canadian Supreme Court ruling. (And like recent commnets by GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee, Dr Bill Fris, and various other republicans.)
An arbitrary projected universal life expectancy is going to be a tough sell under the circumstances.
No one's trying to sell any such thing.
The the most apt comparison is diabetes, BTW.
Diabetes is not communicable. A huge difference that completely negates any comparison to hiv.
I'm not making the comparison in terms of infection, but in terms of living with the disease. It's a pretty common frame of reference among HIV/AIDS experts and their patients.
Kosh, on Dec 21 2007, 09:52 AM, said:
Yeah, it's amazing how science works. BTW, just because you haven't been aware of the disease doesn't mean it hasn't been around. The earliest cases of HIV have been traced to the early 20th century.
I heard something once about a brittish sailor being the first known case, in the '50's.
That was once true -- in 1959, I think -- but in the 10 or so years since that story, they've traced it back further, to the twenties.
Caithness, on Dec 21 2007, 12:25 PM, said:
ScottEVill, on Dec 20 2007, 05:19 PM, said:
Yes, the women should have demanded the Love Glove,
And if they had, his failure to disclose his status would have been irrelevant. But they didn't do that, did they?
Possibly, if condoms were made of steel.
If you use a condom correctly, the chances of contracting HIV are virtually NIL. (BTW, condoms don't break if they're used correctly.
Bill Maher likes to say, "condoms are the most relibale product since the toaster," and he's right -- I've been using them for nearly 20 years and have never had one break.)
runaway train said:
They shouldn't have slept with him but even condoms aren't full proof.
No, condoms aren't fool proof -- as I noted above... but don't blame the CONDOM for that. Blame the fool.
Who's gonna pay for their pills to keep them from getting full blown AIDS? This guy won't be able to afford to pay for all of them
The story is about Canadians -- They have universal healthcare.
Edited by ScottEVill, 22 December 2007 - 03:25 PM.