- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Thursday, October 06, 2005

As long as I don't come in your mouth I don't have to tell you I'm HIV

Yesterday's court ruling that someone with HIV only has a legal duty to take "reasonable precautions" and has no duty to disclose their condition to their sex partner has been hailed by the AIDS Foundation as "common sense." I had no idea that HIV was also a brain-wasting illness up until this point.

The judge ruled that condom use was a reasonable precaution and that oral sex without one is also fine as long as you pull out beforehand! And for this message the AIDS Foundation says:

“that the best strategy for avoiding HIV during anal or vaginal intercourse is the consistent and proper use of condoms.

“Relying on HIV positive people to tell you, and assuming that unprotected intercourse is ‘safe’ if HIV is not mentioned, is a much riskier strategy, especially as approximately one third of people with HIV in New Zealand don’t know they have it, and so can’t tell.

“We are pleased that this decision has highlighted that it is condoms, not disclosure, that keeps people safe.”

Ms Le Mesurier said that the court decision has reflected the biological reality of HIV infection; that there is almost zero risk of HIV transmission from unprotected oral sex and that condoms reduce the risk to such low levels that disclosure of HIV status is not necessary.


So all that bullshit about "dental dams" etc. (whatever the hell they are) is all just actually bullshit. What the fuck is a "riskier strategy" than not telling someone "I'm HIV positive"? - that strategy would work pretty well I think. Who in their right mind would have sex, condoms, whatever, if the other person was HIV positive? That reduces the risk to zero. Are they there to promote sex for HIV people? Or to contain and minimise the disease?

Someone appeal this decision.

It is not "reasonable" given the potentially fatal consequences of transmission. It is not oral herpes from sharing cups or athlete's foot - it's fucking AIDS! Other people have a right to be informed of the jeopardy they are in. The actions of the other person is dependent on the information/disclosure that is due to them, and risks are inherent in these situations. Eg. the other person may embark on "risky" actions not knowing the consequences.

The AIDS Foundation has this paranoid idea that people will not get tested if they think they will have to tell their sex partners if they are positive. ?? The sort of low-life, piece of shit, selfish, nihilst who would be concerned about that is being protected by them. Now the courts have done the same thing. Would those sorts of irresponsible people get tested anyway?

The same thing goes for TB, leperosy etc. If they could have a 30 minute test to diagnose these things then everyone entering the country should have one - and those that are positive are right back on the plane/ship. We would not have HIV here at all if that system was in place 20 odd years ago.

The best solution is prevention, which is not achieved through secrecy.

6 Comments:

At 6/10/05 9:10 pm, Blogger Cathy Odgers said...

Tim

People with HIV would never get laid if they had to be honest about it. Which is entirely your point I guess.

This AIDS Foundation really are a bunch of "arseholes".

They state as an excuse for those not telling that:

"approximately one third of people with HIV in New Zealand don’t know they have it, and so can’t tell"

Well if that 1/3 don't know they have it then how the hell do the AIDS Foundation know they have it?

Anyone who knows they have AIDS or HIV and sleeps with anyone without telling them deserves a bit of justice of the beating type.

Using a condom does not work sometimes obviously so cannot be a true defence. As for pulling out during oral sex before the HIV carrier cums...well has the Judge never heard of pre-cum? Or that the whole point of a blowie is to cum in your partners mouth.

The only true defence can be if a person tells their partner and still the partner wishes to have sex. Informed choice.

I can only start some bad karma on this Judge that he receives a nice brand of genital herpes from the next prostitute he visits.

 
At 6/10/05 9:25 pm, Blogger t selwyn said...

She. The judge is a she. Maybe she doesn't get it... if you know what I mean.

 
At 6/10/05 10:53 pm, Blogger Cathy Odgers said...

Oops.

That is even worse then.

Another 40+ woman who has never or does not anymore give head and therefore does not understand the gritty mechanics of it.

Just what the bench needs for a well rounded judiciary.

 
At 7/10/05 12:29 pm, Anonymous RR said...

So you're advocating having a few more sluts on the bench then? Why not. Being a student of morbidity and health stats, i can say there should be more concern on disclosure for all diseases, not merely AIDS/HIV, which seems to gets all the publicity; particularly Hep C (the cunty one..as it were) which is far more prevalent, and kills more people. If i'm not mistaken the Peter Mwai case in '94 created the criminal nuisance precedent for non-disclosure of HIV status (in NZ anyway) Is that effective enough in itself? Will putting your hand over your mouth be a "resonable precaution" when you sneeze with your bird flu and absolve you from possible prosecution? If AIDS/HIV is a notifiable disease, which i'm certain it is, there is no room in my view, for voluntary disclosure only.

 
At 7/10/05 3:54 pm, Blogger peterquixote said...

yeah jeez donts know about AIDS but fascists say more sluts on bench, like, imagine proposition the judge, always pq wanted to tell judge to get fuck,

 
At 9/10/05 11:52 pm, Blogger Psycho Milt said...

Has anyone ever said "Don't worry, I won't come in your mouth" and wasn't lying? How about "I'm HIV positive, but don't worry, I won't come in your mouth"? Can that person really expect to get a lot of blow jobs?

Re the sort of low life, piece of shit, selfish nihilist who wouldn't tell a prospective partner they're HIV positive, aren't the people most at risk of HIV junkies - the very definition of low life, piece of shit, selfish nihilists? It would be nice if the law aimed to prod people toward they ought to do, rather than just accepting what they're most likely to do. I'm with Cathy Odgers on this one - looks like your only recourse if this happens is to get your mates together and make AIDS seem a blessing a comparison to what you do to them.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home