Stealthy HIV Sex: The Tale of a Woman Who Chose Not To Inform

[Razor]

Source (BBC)

Nadja Benaissa had faced up to 10 years in prison

An HIV-positive German pop star accused of infecting a former partner with the virus has been given a two-year suspended prison sentence.

Nadja Benaissa, 28, was found guilty on one count of causing grievous bodily harm and two of attempted bodily harm.

The No Angels singer had admitted having unprotected sex and keeping her HIV status secret, but denied deliberately infecting anyone.

At the trial, she said she was "sorry from the bottom of my heart".

"I wish I could turn back the clock and make it all not happen," she told the court in the western town of Darmstadt.

As well as the two-year suspended sentence, Benaissa will be required to perform 300 hours of community service and attend regular counselling sessions.

This right here is the first quarter or so of the article. This is what I'm focusing on at the moment.

In one sentence:

What the fuck?

This woman goes around having sex with people while she's HIV positive. She doesn't tell them that she's HIV positive. And she has the gall to say it's okay that someone got infected because she didn't mean for it to happen?

There are drunk drivers that get sentenced to 10 years for Involuntary Manslaughter every day. They didn't mean for that person that they hit to die. But they're somehow more guilty than a chick who knows she's HIV positive and doesn't tell her partners?

C'mon. Some personal responsibility here.

But she claimed she had been told by doctors that the risk of passing on the virus was "practically zero".

Really? Well, tell that to the 34-year old music executive that caught HIV from her.

A German Aids-awareness group criticised the verdict, saying Benaissa's partners also carried a share of the responsibility for becoming infected.

"If the responsibility for prevention is put entirely upon women and HIV-positive people, we are not recognising the combined responsibility of two people," Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe spokeswoman Marianne Rademacher said.

Gag.

Germany, are you for real right here? That man who caught HIV is responsible because this woman hid her status from him? How does that make sense? The last I looked at the "acceptable things to hide from your partner before or after sex" list it only included irrationality, halitosis, and any unsightly fatty bulges on your body. Not HIV.

I'm....in awe, honestly. A woman has sex with men without disclosing her HIV-positive status, infecting a man, and is deemed not as guilty against society as a drunk man who honestly doesn't want to kill people, but can't control his actions? This woman was in complete control. And she still chose to put these men at risk without their say at any point. I'm sure if she had said "Hey, I have HIV" not a single one of those men would have slept with her.

But no. Somehow, not only did she get away with only 300 hours of community service, but a German HIV Awareness group somehow managed to work the guilt back onto the victims. I would also like to talk to those "doctors" that told her the risk of spreading HIV through sex was minimal. Because I'd love for them to go and tell the doctors in Africa that same fact. You know, the country that sees men raping virgins because they believe sex with a virgin will cleanse them of the disease. All of those virgins don't have HIV, right shitty doctors?

Wow. Stake your claim. I've obviously stated mine.

 

[Soapguy]

Honestly, I almost always agree with you, but I'm going to have to side partially with the AIDS Institute on this one. . .if we're talking about casual sex and not sex inside of a committed relationship. The article itself is unclear. I can't quite figure out if she infected ex-boyfriends or casual sex partners.

I'm not saying that she is free of blame, because she was aware of her status and still decided to have what I assume is unprotected sex anyway, but who the hell agrees to have unprotected sex with an individual they're not in a committed relationship with anyway? Excluding the fact that some people will knowingly spread HIV it is estimated that MANY other individuals have no idea they're even infected. That's just HIV, we're not even talking about the countless OTHER STDs out there. Having casual unprotected sex, in my opinion, is a crapshoot and an all around dumb idea. Is putting on a condom really that difficult?

While she is responsible for knowingly not disclosing her HIV status it takes two people to have unprotected sex and anytime an individual does so they put themselves at risk for infection even more so than an individual who is driving one a road that may or may not have a drunk driver on it. Because not only is a negative outcome much more possible statistically, but it's also much easier to prevent.

I don't think Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe's statement was that out of line, but I think people who knowingly spread HIV should have to take responsibility for their actions. By the same token, we should also be smarter about where we put our penises, anuses, and vaginas.

 

[Soapguy]

So I just did a little bit of reading about HIV in Europe and I realized that my previous comment did not take into account the HIV situation in Europe (or lack thereof). If we're being more specific it's probably centered in my gay and black American state of mind. As those two groups have higher rates of HIV it's difficult for me to imagine someone going lightly into contraception-free casual sex. While HIV/AIDS awareness appears to have increased in Europe over the past few years, I can comfortably say that the behavior of the three men involved wasn't as risky as I originally assumed as there are parts of Europe where the percentage of people infected is less than 1%. I still can't bring myself to take issue with the statement of Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe, though as it still comes down to a shared responsibility when talking about STDs.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I agree with most of what you say Razor, but I think it's wrong for you to not realise both sides had a part in this. I'm not saying she's any LESS guilty, but short of her raping him, he made the choice not to use a condom too. Any time you do that, you're putting yourself at risk of an infection.

That being said, I don't think the above fact should change what her sentence should be, at all, it should just make clear that everyone has a responsibility in stopping the spread of infection. If this was casual sex, you should really know better, if it's a partner, go for an STI test before stopping using condoms. It's the only way to stop this happening again.

She should definitely have told him, and her sentence is laughable. Nice to know you can slowly, painfully kill someone and get almost nothing happen to you. I'm pretty sure if this was the other way around, a guy's sentence would have been worse. Something major needs to happen to address this issue, and a manslaughter charge should be available to the judge.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

I'm completely with the OP here. This was a POP star - I don't think it was irresponsible of the music exec to believe that (a) She was on birth control; or (b) That she was STD free. There is a reason for the term Sex, Drugs and Rock'N'Roll and it would have been a safe assumption by the exec that this person would have checks - she did, she just didn't pass the info along! This woman had consentual unprotected sex knowing she could pass on a terminal disease - a previous poster stated, "he made the choice not to use a condom too". She KNEW she had Aids, surely asking that a condom be used would've been a bloody courtesy - she wouldn't have to reveal having HIV, she could've stated reasons of personal protection or not having any female birth control products! Seriously, it's a given these two knew each other - it wasn't a meet in the bar one night stand arrangement, so normal sex with strangers rules would not apply. The onus of care was fully with her - END OFF!

 

[HBK-aholic]

This woman had consentual unprotected sex knowing she could pass on a terminal disease - a previous poster stated, "he made the choice not to use a condom too". She KNEW she had Aids, surely asking that a condom be used would've been a bloody courtesy - she wouldn't have to reveal having HIV, she could've stated reasons of personal protection or not having any female birth control products! Seriously, it's a given these two knew each other - it wasn't a meet in the bar one night stand arrangement, so normal sex with strangers rules would not apply. The onus of care was fully with her - END OFF!

I love it when people come and take posts completely out of context . Did I ever say the guilt didn't lie with her? That she shouldn't have been found guilty for this despicable act? Of course not. That being said, you don't go around having unprotected sex with people you're not in a relationship with, and even then, have an STI test! There are two issues here - the one of her not informing him (A legal issue, she should be in prison) AND the issue of unprotected sex (A moral issue, one that shouldn't come up in situations like this). She didn't force him not to use a condom, he had just as much of a responsiblity in THIS part of the issue as she did. It's not his fault he caught AIDS, that responsibility lies with her, and she is legally responsible. But he has to accept he could quite easily have insisted on using a condom - there IS a combined responsibility to stop the spread of infections.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

While I understand and agree that people should be more diligent when it comes to using protection, there's honestly no excusing or defending what this woman has done. When you know that you're HIV+ and then engage in unprotected sex with someone while keeping your HIV status a secret, that's the same as pointing a loaded gun at someone and pulling the trigger in my opinion. I don't see it as being any different than exposing anyone to Anthrax. The method of exposure might not be the same, but it's efficiency can't be questioned and the outcome is the same.

Whether this be a casual encounter or not, this is a vital piece of information that should have been divulged. People in committed relationships stray all the time and have contracted STDs, so the overall nature of the sexual encounter doesn't render her any less responsible. Even if they had used protection during intercourse, that doesn't necessarily mean anything at all. After all, what about oral sex? HIV can be spread via oral sex just as easily and a condom isn't going to protect him if he went down on her and most men don't wear condoms while being on the recieving end of oral sex whether in committed relationships or during casual encounters.

I'm sorry but the "Yeah, I've got HIV and didn't tell you but it's your own fault for catching it because you didn't wear a rubber" defense is ridiculous. Personally, I think this woman should spend the rest of her life in prison.

 

[Soapguy]

Seriously, it's a given these two knew each other - it wasn't a meet in the bar one night stand arrangement, so normal sex with strangers rules would not apply. The onus of care was fully with her - END OFF!

Knowing someone does not constitute knowing a persons sexual history. If someone's willing to sleep with you without a condom then chances are that they've been willing to sleep with others without one as well. There's no way for you to know how many people they've had unprotected sex with and the HIV statuses of all those people. So simply assuming she was clean simply because he knew her was a silly assumption in this case.

Don't get me wrong, I'm disgusted by the lack of punishment here, but come on. How can we logically place ALL of the blame on her in consensual sex? If anything, this should drive home the fact that ANYONE can be infected (even the people we know) and that safe sex and getting testing with your sexual partner are the smart ways to go.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

First off - Jack Hammer, HIV can only be passed orally into an unhealthy mouth. The mounth is very resilient against viruses and the HIV virus is actually very weak (as opposed to the cold or flu viruses).

HBKaholic & Soapguy - Who's reading who out of context? I opened my post with the reasons why the exec would have felt safe in the belief that she was STD free (This was a POP star - I don't think it was irresponsible of the music exec to believe that (a) She was on birth control; or (b) That she was STD free. There is a reason for the term Sex, Drugs and Rock'N'Roll and it would have been a safe assumption by the exec that this person would have checks - she did, she just didn't pass the info along!). These people live in a different moral world to us, STD assessments are minimum quarterly events, more often 6 weekly. This greatly diminishes the chances of any health risks (and remember, even condoms ain't infallible). It was not irresponsible of the sales exec to have unprotected sex, the failsafes where there - if there was any irresponsibility on his part, it was showing trust in his partner - she'd followed the failsafes and then kept schtum!

 

[HBK-aholic]

First off - Jack Hammer, HIV can only be passed orally into an unhealthy mouth. The mounth is very resilient against viruses and the HIV virus is actually very weak (as opposed to the cold or flu viruses).

HBKaholic & Soapguy - Who's reading who out of context? I opened my post with the reasons why the exec would have felt safe in the belief that she was STD free (This was a POP star - I don't think it was irresponsible of the music exec to believe that (a) She was on birth control; or (b) That she was STD free. There is a reason for the term Sex, Drugs and Rock'N'Roll and it would have been a safe assumption by the exec that this person would have checks - she did, she just didn't pass the info along!). These people live in a different moral world to us, STD assessments are minimum quarterly events, more often 6 weekly. This greatly diminishes the chances of any health risks (and remember, even condoms ain't infallible). It was not irresponsible of the sales exec to have unprotected sex, the failsafes where there - if there was any irresponsibility on his part, it was showing trust in his partner - she'd followed the failsafes and then kept schtum!

Having unprotected sex when you're not 100% sure a person is fully STI clean, and on a method of birth control (Unless you're trying for a child) IS irresponsible. Male, female, old, young, stranger, friend - it's the truth. I'm not taking any of the blame away from her - she 100% should have informed him of her status. But that doesn't take away from the fact unprotected sex is irresponsible - not just this man, but anyone who does it, in any way that isn't in a committed, long-term, relationship.

How you're using the term 'Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll' to explain why he DIDN'T use contraception is laughable. It basically SAYS these people go about having sex, protected or otherwise - who knows? And, when someone is willing to have unprotected sex with you, you should really wonder who else they've had unprotected sex with.

As Soapguy put very well, this should drive him the fact that ANYONE can have a disease, whether you know them or not, and you need to BOTH take responsibility to ensure you don't catch it, OR spread it.

 

[One to Remember]

the pop star is solely responsible. Withen her jurisdiction she has already committed legal misconduct so in this particular case she is ONE HUNDRED percent accountable. If she knew she had HIV she had an obligation to inform him without him requesting info or she had an obligation to say recent testing showed a positive test result. We have more of a right to unprotected sex then HIV positive people have to privacy. People with HIV aren't allowed to play football w/o informing team mates or the opposing team. You guys blaming him who already knew her anyways is as stupid as me blaming one of you for selling your car for 5k and then finding out the mooney was counterfit. its like me saying "oh wel its your fault, you should have had 1 of those markers to test the money with, you have only yourself to blame for now being w/o wheels.."

 

[gd]

I think the saddest thing in all of this is that she didn't know she'd pass on HIV by having unprotected sex. She should get a test to make sure that she isn't mentally ******ed. I mean, really.

I wouldn't say she's any worse than a drunk driver though. I mean, operating a huge hunk of metal and traveling at speeds of over 50 miles an hour while complete inebriated is not a good decision either. I'd say this chick is about on equal terms with a drunk driver though, no better, no worse.

 

[JJsGirl]

I think both the pop star herself and the guy she infected were at fault here but her more so because she should have informed him that she had HIV and they both should have been responsible for using condoms when they had sex. I can't believe she's been handed a suspended sentance - it just seems like a total joke in my view.

Soapguy, I disagree with you about sleeping with people you're not in a relationship with - sure, in an ideal world we'd all be in committed relationships but that's not realistic to think like that. Now maybe I'm only that way because my first time was a one night stand with a guy I barely knew.

 

[One to Remember]

I think both the pop star herself and the guy she infected were at fault here but her more so because she should have informed him that she had HIV and they both should have been responsible for using condoms when they had sex.

why should one use a condom if she said she was strait or never said to the contrary which she had a legal duty to do?
you know how much chaos it would cause in society if every time someone gave their word we still went ahead and disputed it? Ruffled feathers leads to conflict..

Now maybe I'm only that way because my first time was a one night stand with a guy I barely knew.

So what happens when you and JJ split? Do you get a new screen name here? wow ur just full of regrettable decisions q:

 

[JJsGirl]

One, JJ are not my fiance's intials so I won't need a new screen name if we split up. I'm not suggesting he just take her word for it - that's why I said both of them should have been responsible for using protection, not just her. I do admit regretting my one night stand but hey, it's over, it happened and there's nothing I can do to take it back - although I would if I could.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Wait, what are the defenses people are using to argue that this guy is at least partially at fault? If you don't think that this woman should have informed her partner that she had AIDS before having sex with him, then you're out of your fucking mind, plain and simple.

Now, if the guy said he still wanted to have unprotected sex with her after she told him she had AIDS, that's a different story.

 

[Soapguy]

Wait, what are the defenses people are using to argue that this guy is at least partially at fault? If you don't think that this woman should have informed her partner that she had AIDS before having sex with him, then you're out of your fucking mind, plain and simple.

Now, if the guy said he still wanted to have unprotected sex with her after she told him she had AIDS, that's a different story.

I don't know how many different ways I can say this to get people to understand why someone would logically think the men in this situation acted irresponsibly. I'm really worried about the reading comprehension levels of some of you guys. Neither JJsGirl, Becca, nor myself suggested that those infected with STDs/STIs should not inform the people that they sleep with of their condition. (We all stated this pretty clearly.) In a perfect world everyone would be open and honest about their sexual history and this would never. We, however, do not live in a perfect world. People neglect to share their STD status, people sometimes simply lie about it and in MANY cases people are UNAWARE of the infestations they may or may not have lying within their nether-regions . So with this COMMON knowledge it would be pretty safe to assume that. . . .

Unprotected Casual Sex = Pretty Dumb Idea

I'm quite literally worried for the sexual health of everyone in this thread who doesn't get this point. Would you leave your wallet sitting unattended in a public place? In a perfect world those who see it would either leave it there thinking the owner would come back for it or return it to some type of lost-and-found area. We don't live in a perfect world and so chances are someone will decide to take it. Does the fact that the victim acted stupidly make the criminal any less guilty? No, but that doesn't change the fact that the victim acted stupidly. The same thing happened here. The victims made a mistake and it cost them. Is the HIV positive woman any less guilty because of their mistake? Heck no. Did the victims deserve it? Not at all. Did they act stupidly? Yes, they sure as hell did.

Soapguy, I disagree with you about sleeping with people you're not in a relationship with - sure, in an ideal world we'd all be in committed relationships but that's not realistic to think like that. Now maybe I'm only that way because my first time was a one night stand with a guy I barely knew.

I never said I was against casual sex. I said UNPROTECTED casual sex is risky business and should be avoided if one hopes to avoid STD's. I'm all for sex, it's a great thing. I just wish more people would be smart about it.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Unprotected Casual Sex = Pretty Dumb Idea

It wasn't casual sex, it was sex with her boyfriend.

I don't see how this can be defended in any way, shape, or form. You could argue the he should have been more cautious of having unprotected sex with someone he was in a relationship with, but, if you can't trust a person you're fucking on a regular basis, then whom can you trust?

 

[One to Remember]

One, JJ are not my fiance's intials so I won't need a new screen name if we split up. I'm not suggesting he just take her word for it - that's why I said both of them should have been responsible for using protection, not just her. I do admit regretting my one night stand but hey, it's over, it happened and there's nothing I can do to take it back - although I would if I could.

Whoa whoa i meant by default a boyfriend. You took that to mean fiance? slowww down girl..
I am suggestig with laws in place mandating she state so and so before the boots are knocked that it was not unreasonable at all for him to take her word for it. Why use protection when your bases are covered? All that does is make it seem like he is double guessing and that leads to conflict and at some point no sex. I am not saying he shouldn't im just saying how do you dispute someone right after they give their word and a conflict not start? If you worked in a store and i had to dealing with money and i counted it right after you counted it four times would you not resent that?

And why was your one night stand soo bad? what was so negative about it? Now you got me wonderin' about u... :/

Oh yeah why is ur rep so bad? lol

Now, if the guy said he still wanted to have unprotected sex with her after she told him she had AIDS, that's a different story.

se thats the whole thing about it. This is how we know shes in the wrong and not him. If its okay to have HIV and unprotected sex why not tell everybody? Because she knows shes wrong and she knows ol' boy would be all the way to the edge of Mongolia before she could even get to the V! "Uh baby i gotta tell you something, I uh have H.I..." poof hes gone, as it should be...!

Neither JJsGirl, Becca, nor myself suggested that those infected with STDs/STIs should not inform the people that they sleep with of their condition. (We all stated this pretty clearly.) In a perfect world everyone would be open and honest about their sexual history and this would never. We, however, do not live in a perfect world. People neglect to share their STD status, people sometimes simply lie about it and in MANY cases people are UNAWARE of the infestations they may or may not have lying within their nether-regions . So with this COMMON knowledge it would be pretty safe to assume that

Why is it whenever discussions or debates about sexual misconduct (and the consequences of said misconduct) are had, the women always take things out of context or point to off topic and obscure scenarios to make a point? Its the same bs like in the abortion debates "uh but if she was forced blah blah" even though that makes up like 2 percent of cases. Stay on topic, quit trying to muddy the waters.

Its not about a perfect world. I think the situation would had went better for the man if the laws were harsher, there was public awareness of these laws, and public awareness of the fact that HIV can be traced through people. It should had been made clear that these cases aren't as hard to proceed with as some might think.

she wasn't casual, she was not unaware of her status, and I think strong laws can offset a lack of ethics in many people.

In a perfect world those who see it would either leave it there thinking the owner would come back for it or return it to some type of lost-and-found area. We don't live in a perfect world and so chances are someone will decide to take it

I found ten bucks in the hall way of my high school. I gave it o the office. I did not expect an type of reward. I found a guys wallet at the park, I drove all the way to guys house. I found a chick's wallet with he kids' SS cards, birth certificates, etc, stuff they'd have to go all the way back to NC to get copies of, I took it to there house! Next you'll say someone being robbed at an ATM is at fault for their own stabbing because perhaps you feel jars of money buried in the backyard was the proper way to go..?!

The bottom line is this, people with STDs have enough other people with STDs to choose from. They have options, they themselves have civil rights protections. All this failure to confirm and failure to inform bullshit should be treated no different then an assault and an attack on one well being and life. In the United Sates we allow self defense up until the threat is repelled or the option of lethal force is clearly justified. This shit has got to stop.

 

[Soapguy]

Listen, if the guy was in a relationship with her then he had every right to trust that she would've informed her if she had and STI/STD. My original point still stands about unprotected casual sex, though. The HIV/AIDS Institute saying that stopping the spread of STD's is a the responsibility of both people involved in consensual sex was not that far off base.

@OneToRemember: Dropthesoapguy? You don't agree with someone so you decide to insult him using a gay innuendo. You, sir, are a shining beacon of maturity and originality.

Whoa whoa i meant by default a boyfriend. You took that to mean fiance? slowww down girl..

Again, your comprehension skills come into question. She's saying that she has a fiancée and that his initials aren't "JJ". Pretty obvious.

Why use protection when your bases are covered? All that does is make it seem like he is double guessing and that leads to conflict and at some point no sex. I am not saying he shouldn't im just saying how do you dispute someone right after they give their word and a conflict not start.

Riiiight, let's all go have unprotected sex so we don't hurt anyone's feelings. Because being nice so worth getting a permanent STD.

and I think strong laws can offset a lack of ethics in many people.

You think harsher sentences (within the context of what we westerners consider acceptable legal punishment) are going to fix dishonest/reckless/immoral people? Lulz.

I found ten bucks in the hall way of my high school. I gave it o the office. I did not expect an type of reward. I found a guys wallet at the park, I drove all the way to guys house. I found a chick's wallet with he kids' SS cards, birth certificates, etc, stuff they'd have to go all the way back to NC to get copies of, I took it to there house! Next you'll say someone being robbed at an ATM is at fault for their own stabbing because perhaps you feel jars of money buried in the backyard was the proper way to go..?!

Good for you, you do realize that there are people who wouldn't have done any of that? That's my point, which I'm pretty sure was clear and my original post. . . . . .which brings us back to your lack of comprehension. Regardless of the fact that you or I might feel compelled to do the right thing, there are people that don't and therefore, deliberately leaving your wallet unattended is not be a good idea. Deliberately having sex without protection when you're aware that there are people out there who don't care if they spread STI's isn't a smart choice to make. What part of that is not getting through to you? No one's saying that it's not the infected person's duty to inform. No one is saying that those who knowingly spread STD's shouldn't be punished. There is not a person in this thread that isn't disgusted by the actions of the pop singer. What I'm saying is that we should all think twice before hitting the sheets without protection. I am incapable of writing that any more clearly than I already have. Go forth and have unprotected sex, dude. I just hope your luck is better than the guy in the original article.

 

[Trill Co$by]

Did NOBODY see the part where her damn doctor told her that she wasn't likely to pass on the HIV? In my opinion, she might have just misinterpreted that as early signs of HIV which is harder to spread than final stages. In which case, sure she could've told someone, but then again it all goes back to the doctor for not making it clear.

Then again, why should she be at fault? Do you know how many "relationships" that news ends on a daily basis? It's statistically proven that majority of the people who hear that a partner has HIV won't stay with that partner. Maybe, just maybe she didn't want to take the chance of someone leaving.

And if it was casual sex, then that's the guy's fault. And if he contracted it through oral as someone once put it, HIV and other STDs give off different odors down there at times. If the guy was dumb enough to ignore the smell, he might as well suffer the consequences.

Now I'm not saying this girl's a saint, but damn don't jump down her throat hear. After all, she WAS misinformed by her doctors... which as we all know throughout history are paid for in terms of famous people... in which case her label should've known that she had HIV.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Did NOBODY see the part where her damn doctor told her that she wasn't likely to pass on the HIV? In my opinion, she might have just misinterpreted that as early signs of HIV which is harder to spread than final stages. In which case, sure she could've told someone, but then again it all goes back to the doctor for not making it clear.

Then again, why should she be at fault? Do you know how many "relationships" that news ends on a daily basis? It's statistically proven that majority of the people who hear that a partner has HIV won't stay with that partner. Maybe, just maybe she didn't want to take the chance of someone leaving.

And if it was casual sex, then that's the guy's fault. And if he contracted it through oral as someone once put it, HIV and other STDs give off different odors down there at times. If the guy was dumb enough to ignore the smell, he might as well suffer the consequences.

Now I'm not saying this girl's a saint, but damn don't jump down her throat hear. After all, she WAS misinformed by her doctors... which as we all know throughout history are paid for in terms of famous people... in which case her label should've known that she had HIV.

There is NO way that a DOCTOR told her that there was little chance of passing on the disease, she made this up to avoid jail! Do you honestly believe that a Doctor would tell a patient that HIV isn't that contagious - to quote Easy E or the Miz "really? REALLY?"

 

[One to Remember]

Listen, if the guy was in a relationship with her then he had every right to trust that she would've informed her if she had and STI/STD. My original point still stands about unprotected casual sex, though. The HIV/AIDS Institute saying that stopping the spread of STD's is a the responsibility of both people involved in consensual sex was not that far off base.

If people with STDs can't take the high road and police themselves or mingle amongst themselves exclusively when seeking to hit it raw they may need to be brought under the jurisdiction of some type of administrative agency. Some type of mechanism of over sight should be given to the government to handle this issue. We can not allow their unethical behavior to harm those who are healthy and responsible. They were given acceptance and tolerance in the '90s but they are again becoming a threat to the well being of the commonwealth. I am looking out for you and me dogg.

@OneToRemember: Dropthesoapguy? You don't agree with someone so you decide to insult him using a gay innuendo. You, sir, are a shining beacon of maturity and originality.

"I'm Pop-eye the Sailor Man (toot!), I'm Pop-eye the SAY-lor man (toot!), I'm strong to the finish, 'Cause I eats me spinach, I'm Pop-eye the Sailor Man (toot! toot!)"

Again, your comprehension skills come into question. She's saying that she has a fiancée and that his initials aren't "JJ". Pretty obvious.

it was a joke dogg. Gender based banter. thats all..

Riiiight, let's all go have unprotected sex so we don't hurt anyone's feelings. Because being nice so worth getting a permanent STD.

all i am saying is disputing the horse's mouth on every issue will lead to problems. Be aware that people will be offended at any "uh yeah just in case" argument. Not saying don't look out for yourself but if your clean its an insult to be called dirty.

You think harsher sentences (within the context of what we westerners consider acceptable legal punishment) are going to fix dishonest/reckless/immoral people? Lulz.

I think if they are treated o par with those who commit assaults, attempted murders, and murders both within a court of law and in the context of those looking to justify an affirmitive defense.

Go forth and have unprotected sex, dude.

I shall...I owe it life you know.

I just hope your luck is better than the guy in the original article.

Me to...Hate to have to cop a charge lol

 

[JJsGirl]

Whoa whoa i meant by default a boyfriend. You took that to mean fiance? slowww down girl..
I am suggestig with laws in place mandating she state so and so before the boots are knocked that it was not unreasonable at all for him to take her word for it. Why use protection when your bases are covered? All that does is make it seem like he is double guessing and that leads to conflict and at some point no sex. I am not saying he shouldn't im just saying how do you dispute someone right after they give their word and a conflict not start? If you worked in a store and i had to dealing with money and i counted it right after you counted it four times would you not resent that?

And why was your one night stand soo bad? what was so negative about it? Now you got me wonderin' about u... :/

Oh yeah why is ur rep so bad? lol

Oh right One - that's me just suffering from one of my well known blonde moments (despite me being a brunette!) I am engaged so I have a fiance - that's why I mentioned it in my previous post.

My one night stand was rubbish for a number of reasons:-

1) It was with someone I didn't care for even as a friend much less as a lover

2) We were drunk

3) Neither of us had any clue what we were doing - I strongly suspect he was a virgin too

4) The next morning, I couldn't remember whether we'd used any protection and at the time I wasn't on the Pill so I could have ended up pregnant

I could go on...but I don't wanna bore you to death!

As for my rep being bad, maybe that's got something to do with the warning I got after my very first post

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Oh right One - that's me just suffering from one of my well known blonde moments (despite me being a brunette!) I am engaged so I have a fiance - that's why I mentioned it in my previous post.

My one night stand was rubbish for a number of reasons:-

1) It was with someone I didn't care for even as a friend much less as a lover

2) We were drunk

3) Neither of us had any clue what we were doing - I strongly suspect he was a virgin too

4) The next morning, I couldn't remember whether we'd used any protection and at the time I wasn't on the Pill so I could have ended up pregnant

I could go on...but I don't wanna bore you to death!

As for my rep being bad, maybe that's got something to do with the warning I got after my very first post

Just like your one night stand, your reputation on here is rubbish for a couple of reasons:

1) You're responding to someone who has been banned and can't respond back to you.

2) You're borderline spamming up this thread with details about your personal life that no one here gives a shit about.

3) You have offered little to no reason for why the gentleman in this case is at fault, although in your initial post you said he was (albeit less so than the woman who is HIV+).

Anyway, no one has yet to offer a reason as to why this guy is at fault at all. The facts have been stated, and people have either overlooked or ignored them in order to put forth their own arguments.