Tom.Mickus@f440.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Tom Mickus) (09/25/89)
How should society deal with those citizens who *knowingly*
continue to practice intercourse with members of the opposite/same sex
after having been diagnosed as carriers of one of the strains of the
AIDs virus, and who do not tell their partners?
We all of course remember the controversial PBS documentary of some
years back, describing such behaviour as practiced by a black street
person.
Just recently in Maritime Canada, a man was arrested for having
given the AIDs virus to a pregnant mother. We've all heard of
"cocaine-babies", now it seems we're going to have to get used to another
such label. Chances are the baby will get the virus passed on via her
mother.
Should we lock these people up? Should they be charged with 1st
degree murder? Manslaughter?
Perhaps even more pertinent, how does society protect its citizen's
from such an "attack"? Hard questions...no easy answers. Ultimately, we
as individuals have to be the watchguard of our own safety. Everyone time
we engage in sex, if we want to be smart, we'll have to make some kind of
determination as to what the risk is going to be (ie. your sleeping with
everyone they've slept with for the past X amount of years...). Seems to
me that unless you're 99% sure, sex isn't going to be a whole lot of fun,
at least on the cerebral level.
The answer? Some how mutual masturbation doesn't seem like a long
term solution. Strict monogamy? I guess, but that's old fashioned. What
about tightly screened sex clubs? If everyone is carefully tested, and
agree to put some restraint on their behaviour, then it seems that such an
idea would work. That way people could get the variety they've been
looking for, without the risk. However, one could foresee abuses even
here. Its all a question of trust, and simply put, its easier to put your
trust in one person whom you live with, than in a group of people you only
meet occasionally.
Just a couple of thoughts on some aspects of the AIDS dilemma.
--
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!stjhmc!250!440!Tom.Mickus
Internet: Tom.Mickus@f440.n250.z1.fidonet.orglimonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) (09/27/89)
In article <27434@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> Tom.Mickus@f440.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Tom Mickus) writes: > We all of course remember the controversial PBS documentary of some > years back, describing such behavior as practiced by a black street > person. Do you mean a black street-person or was it an unconscience typo meant to say, "back-street person". (this is off the track about what you suggest, but it is relevant) Today was Multi-Cultural Awareness day at Drew University. All classes are canceled and from Monday night until late Tuesday night speakers and events are planned. I attended a panel about AIDS and was surprised to find that so many people were in favor of quarenteen for PWAs or HIV+ people. It was interesting that one of the panel members mentioned that America is one of the few countries that has anything like quarenteen for certain diseases. Cuba is "locking up" anyone suspected to be HIV+, and it's resulting in a McCarthy/Hitler (ok... I admit that's a bit overly strong depiction) situation. The suspects are placed in jails; usually in solitary confinement. MOST IMPORTANTLY: It isn't working and AIDS is still on the increase. So, avoiding all the social/human-rights issues, on a medical level it just doesn't work. > Perhaps even more pertinent, how does society protect its citizen's > from such an "attack"? Hard questions...no easy answers. Ultimately, we "Attack" -- What a strong word. [more deleted] > The answer? Some how mutual masturbation doesn't seem like a long > term solution. Strict monogamy? I guess, but that's old fashioned. What > about tightly screened sex clubs? If everyone is carefully tested, and > agree to put some restraint on their behaviour, then it seems that such an > idea would work. That way people could get the variety they've been > looking for, without the risk. However, one could foresee abuses even > here. Its all a question of trust, and simply put, its easier to put your > trust in one person whom you live with, than in a group of people you only > meet occasionally. How about more effective education? The W.H.O. has realized that AIDS education can not exist in a vaccum, but it must be completely orientented towards the person's ethnographic background. That's when it becomes effective. The other thing (now that I'm on my soapbox) that I encourage is "the sexual interview". (not my idea, but I can't remember the person that coined the term). This is not a serious/scientific discussion to be held between you and a partner, but before "the act" one should discuss as casually as possible things like birth control, safer-sex issues, and past partners. As you sit in the bar/dorm/etc and talk, you can ask those questions in subtle ways. The person that coined the phrase even suggested that it become part of foreplay; some of those questions can be exciting when talked about :). The difficult question is to ask if the person is HIV+, yes, just ask directly out and possibly find when that person has had their last blood-test (if any). The whole technique can be hidden as conversation and becomes second nature to many people. > Just a couple of thoughts on some aspects of the AIDS dilemma. Some (mostly) related thoughts on, well, things that were on my mind today. :) > Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!stjhmc!250!440!Tom.Mickus > Internet: Tom.Mickus@f440.n250.z1.fidonet.org -- Drew University -- Tom Limoncelli C M Box 1060 -- limonce@pilot.njin.net P O Box 802 -- tlimonce@drunivac.Bitnet Madison, NJ 07940 -- 201-408-5389
jay@banzai.PCC.COM (Jay Schuster) (09/30/89)
Tom.Mickus@f440.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Tom Mickus) writes: > How should society deal with those citizens who *knowingly* >continue to practice intercourse with members of the opposite/same sex >after having been diagnosed as carriers of one of the strains of the >AIDs virus, and who do not tell their partners? > Should we lock these people up? Should they be charged with 1st >degree murder? Manslaughter? Are you being ridiculous? It seems to me that you can't be ``infected'' unless you let yourself be infected. People who worry about others who go around ``infecting'' people seem to me to be the ones who aren't changing their sexual habits because of AIDS. These are the people to worry about, to be locked up. *Everyone* is a carrier of HIV. Or at least, that's what you should be thinking when you are having sex with someone. And you shouldn't change your behavior when they tell you they are negative. It's your life. No one is forcing you to have sex with this person. If you catch AIDS from them, I think it's pretty much your problem, not theirs. -- Jay Schuster <jay@pcc.COM> uunet!uvm-gen!banzai!jay, attmail!banzai!jay The People's Computer Company `Revolutionary Programming'
kwee@spencer.cs.uoregon.edu (kelvin wee) (09/30/89)
In article <27585@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> uvm-gen!jay@banzai.PCC.COM (Jay Schuster) writes: > >*Everyone* is a carrier of HIV. Or at least, that's what you should >be thinking when you are having sex with someone. I truly find that very offensive. As someone who has abstained for the last eight (8) years, I would be insulted if someone right off the block took the liberty of thinking that I was HIV positive. I think the alternative should be to be safer in your sexual activities and not try to label anybody any more than already is being done by society. In addition, as someone who has tested negative for the last eight years (I get myself tested once a year just before Christmas) I would be very offended by such assumptions. Anyhow, I do not plan to break by vows to the "nunnery" anytime soon, at least not in the next ten or so years because I do have more important things to live for, I would hate for anyone to think or feel that I was HIV positive right when they met me. >It's your life. No one is forcing you to have sex with this person. How true, how true. >If you catch AIDS from them, I think it's pretty much your problem, >not theirs. I beg to differ again. It's both parties problems if one or the other is HIV positive and infects another person. I guess my response is that when one is considering sexual contact with another person, it is only sensible to ALWAYS be safe, or safer as it may be termed, or not have sex at all. After all, as Jay said, it's your life. Don't count on anyone or what they say. Be responsible. Kelvin Wee
marco@ozdaltx.UUCP (marco) (10/01/89)
Hi Jay. Just a couple of thoughts on your post. I had an acquaintance
that turned into a friend, that turned into a sex partner, about two
years ago. He was a generally nice guy, and occasionally exhibited
some unstable behaviour (who doesn't??).
One night, after a perfectly fun and safe bout of knock-down-drag-out
sex, he told me he had something to tell me. His tearful story was
that he was HIV+ (although healthy). I admired him for his self-
disclosure, and told him it was OK, 'cause everything we've done was
minimally risky at best. He seemed appreciative of my response.
I usually sleep in the raw, and upon waking the next morning, had
this wierd feeling like maybe I had been boinked during the night.
(anally penetrated) I knew he had a digit in my rectum when he was
going down on me the night before, so I just passed it off to that.
About a week ago, a mutual friend told me that this guy had died (horribly)
of AIDS complications (wasting) at U of G'town hospital in DC, way
back in July of '89.
Now... I am a member of a cohort study that tests my blood for HIV
antibody every six months, and they continually come back negative.
However after being told of my friends plight, I have this unnerving
thought that keeps haunting me....
Was it REALLY his finger? Or did he do something unsafe that he shouldn't?
Just a thought for your response about everybody taking responsibility
for their own situation. I suppose I could have worn a chastity belt
while I slept... right? Or completely avoided having sex with him
until I had physical proof of his antibody status... right? Or sent
him home after playtime... right?
I guess time will be the teller of the real story....
--
Steve Giammarco
AIDS Resource Center
Dallas TX 75219
{ames,rutgers,texsun,smu}!attctc!ozdaltx!marco brianl@uunet.uu.net (Brian Larsen) (10/04/89)
In article <27434@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> Tom.Mickus@f440.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Tom Mickus) writes: How old are you? I can't believe that you have been around this"club" very long, based upon your discussion here. > How should society deal with those citizens who *knowingly* >continue to practice intercourse with members of the opposite/same sex >after having been diagnosed as carriers of one of the strains of the >AIDs virus, and who do not tell their partners? I think you need to open up a little here and look at the situation more realistically. I don't believe we have alot of individuals running around "infecting" others maliciously. The situation of finding you are HIV+ and how that affects your sex/emotional life is a very complex matter involving alot of denial, blame, anger, depression etc. These people are not criminals. They are dealing with a problem that in our society, there is little support or assistancein coping with, you're on your own BABES!! > > We all of course remember the controversial PBS documentary of some >years back, describing such behaviour as practiced by a black street >person. -nasty > > Just recently in Maritime Canada, a man was arrested for having >given the AIDs virus to a pregnant mother. We've all heard of >"cocaine-babies", now it seems we're going to have to get used to another >such label. Chances are the baby will get the virus passed on via her >mother. I admit this is a sad scenario. But where is the pregnant woman's responsibility in this? > > Should we lock these people up? Should they be charged with 1st >degree murder? Manslaughter? How about government funded counseling post positive testing? How about government funded medication? How about more education? How about compassion and not blame? > > Perhaps even more pertinent, how does society protect its citizen's >from such an "attack"? Hard questions...no easy answers. Do you really feel that "society" needs protecting from a PWA's "attack"? >Ultimately, we >as individuals have to be the watchguard of our own safety. BINGO!!!!!! >Everyone time >we engage in sex, if we want to be smart, we'll have to make some kind of >determination as to what the risk is going to be (ie. your sleeping with >everyone they've slept with for the past X amount of years...). Seems to >me that unless you're 99% sure, sex isn't going to be a whole lot of fun, >at least on the cerebral level. If you want to be smart, PLAY SAFE!!! Any determination you make will be subjective and will ALWAYS leave the possibility for error. What will you base your decision on. What he/she says. "Who" they dated/fucked before you. And even then Even if they give all the "right" answers and are as honest as possible, who's to say the one they were with before you, hadn't lied, and he/she are now carrying the virus only to innocently pass it on to you. I guess you would want the gas chamber. > > The answer? (am I ready?) >Some how mutual masturbation doesn't seem like a long >term solution. Strict monogamy? I guess, but that's old fashioned. What >about tightly screened sex clubs? If everyone is carefully tested, and >agree to put some restraint on their behaviour, then it seems that such an >idea would work. You are not to be believed!!! What kind of "screening" do you feel is appropriate. Or would it suit you better to have a nationwide mandatory testing of everyone and "weed" out the undesireables. The idea would/could never work. Who's going to police the individuals on the dates. Are you "safe" ALL the time. When you get drunk and have sex with someone (which I'm sure you *never* do) Don't you "slip". I mean they "look" clean. >That way people could get the variety they've been >looking for, without the risk. However, one could foresee abuses even >here. Its all a question of trust, and simply put, its easier to put your >trust in one person whom you live with, than in a group of people you only >meet occasionally. my, my how profound. > > Just a couple of thoughts on some aspects of the AIDS dilemma. Why don't you pull your head out of your ass!!! "The AIDS dilema". Is that what you call it? Is it merely an inconvenience to your sexuality. I am amazed when I read garbage like this here. It makes me realize just how fucked up things/people are. These are my thoughts. If you don't want AIDS, have safe sex!!!! Brian Larsen ..................................................................> >--