And in a perfect world everyone would be able to reasonably expect that someone was not infected if they said so. But we don't live in a perfect world, and because we don't live in a perfect world anyone who has unprotected sex is putting their life at risk. That might not be fair, but it is reality. Anyone who doesn't protect their own life against that reality is accepting that risk.
None of what I just said negates the criminality of anyone who knowingly passes along a disease. But let's face it, by not using protection women facilitate their own victimization. And please let's not get side tracked in saying I'm blaming the women. I'm not. They didn't consent to having sex with an infected man. I'm not blaming the victim. But I'm also not allowing women to be less that powerful when it comes to their own sex lives and their own safety. Condoms empower women. They chose to play Russian Roulette.
What I am saying is that in a perfect world a woman ought to be able to walk down the street, at midnight, in South Central LA, butt naked and not be raped--but the reality is something entirely different. If you walk down the street naked at midnight in South Central something bad is going to happen to you. You are expanding the risk ratio to the point where you are going to lose. Sex without a condom does exactly the same thing. The risk ratio becomes life threatening. That's just reality.
Additionally I'd like to make a comment about the 'who is to blame' thing here in this thread. I think it's being missed, but Scott is not talking about blaming the women for what someone else did to them. He is saying they could have prevented the damage if they had been responsible. That's a different issue entirely. Many here seem to think that statement is relieving the man of his responsibility. It doesn't. It isn't an all or nothing proposition. If you say the women contributed to the risk, it doesn't lessen what the man did by being pos and infecting them. There are two distinct areas of responsibility here. He is responsible for what he did, and they are responsible for what they didn't do in this case. That doesn't impact his crime, [although I'm sure a defense attorney would argue that it does] it only means that women are responsible for their own health. But that doesn't make it OK for HIV men to go around infecting women. There are two areas of responsibility here--not one or the other.
As to the 'heat of the moment' and how difficult it is to get a man to wear a condom.. If you don't get that glove on him, you are walking down the street, butt naked, at midnight in South Central. Good Luck. Your life depends on being safe. You don't want to take care of your own life, then bad things can happen. Just understand that you are living with a greater risk of infection. A risk that is unacceptable to most of us, so we learned how to put a condom into play. Truthfully if every women would insist on it, men would never think about not having sex without one because their pleasure would depend on it. I'm just sayin'.