|
JVoV -> RE: California reduce penalties for knowingly exposing partners to HIV (10/11/2017 8:11:03 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyPact
quote:
ORIGINAL: JVoV
Sex isn't always about kink. But as a gay man, I don't think I can risk the luxury of trust without verification regarding my partner's HIV status. I have to assume that if it's not a committed relationship, and they're wanting to bareback with me, then there's a high probability that they've done so or are doing so with others. Also, knowing myself as I do, I would likely be too emotionally distraught upon learning of an HIV infection to worry about dealing with prosecution. And did he even tell me his real name? Was I supposed to check his ID? Run a credit check maybe?
It may also be important to note that I do have my own trust issues, and don't have much faith in monogamy.
Again, I am on a pill each day for PReP (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis). A quick visual inspection of any partner's junk for warts or sores can be played off as a part of foreplay, but seems necessary since there are other STDs aside from HIV. Outside of a relationship, and a very select few, I always use condoms. More because I have no way of knowing whether the dude is 'spring fresh' or has eaten a gallon of chunky peanut butter in the last day or so. This is nonnegotiable. If they want to swallow when it's time, I'm OK with that.
Thank you for the lovely mental picture. [8D]
No, sex isn't always about kink but the premise is the same. Prosecution on this matter has been about people who knowingly spread the disease. Not about people who were unaware of their own status. The former is a type of criminal negligence while the latter is not. Lowering this to a misdemeanor on the idea that it's better for the reduction of the prison overcrowding problem isn't much of a consolation for those who will have to deal with the disease for life.
The decriminalization for blood donations is reasonable, as we've had proper blood testing for decades. Unlike in the 80's, infected blood isn't getting to patients, so anybody who has an actual intent of infecting others that way isn't going to get very far. It's obsolete.
The law isn't about consolation; that's what therapists are for, and they're needed by people infected by partners that weren't aware of their status as well. The law is also not about revenge, because what could ever be enough when it's you or a loved one that's been infected? The best we can hope for with any law is a bit of punishment, and for the behavior(s) to be stopped.
The only change in the law that I would recommend is that anyone who is convicted be registered as a sex offender, and all that that entails.
As for blood donations, since blood lasts 42 days, there is ample time for an incubation period of 14 days for accurate testing to be done before any donations proceed to the next stage. I won't say that a waiting period isn't necessary for gay & bisexual men between their last sexual activity and the time they can donate, but a year is too much, and quite frankly, everyone that is sexually active should have to abstain for a designated period before they can donate, be it 14 or 30 days, with exceptions being made only in extreme emergencies, for specific blood types, and regular donors that have consistently tested clean.
And yeah, any breakdown in the safety of our blood supply at this point will be caused by lackadaisical testing measures, or an internal terrorist.
|
|
|
|
