There's legally no risk in catching HIV if your partner wears a condom
"Hi, I'm Justin and I'm HIV positive, Let's have sex. I`ll supply the condoms".
It's not exactly a good pick up line.It's also a line that Judge Susan Thomas considers unnecessary.She considers that an HIV person like Justin Dalley doesn’t have to tell his partner that he is HIV positive - as long as he puts on a condom before having sex.
And it stays on.
But more than 92 percent of Stuff readers who volunteered for a poll disagree with her. Perhaps the other eight percent have HIV or work for the AIDS Foundation.
The question in this case is, does the step of wearing a condom remove the danger to a sufficient degree that they shouldn't face any criminal liability."
The Judge has decided that it does. It's like gays in the military. "Don't ask, don't tell". In fact don't even tell if you are asked, just wear a condom and hope like hell it stays on. Those who are HIV positive are rejoicing. Sexual partners are now easier to find.
But if you are HIV positive and you condom breaks, you will be breaking the law if you continue without putting another one on.
It’s a legally nutty decision and should be appealed. Someone should have asked the judge if she would she have sex with an HIV person who is wearing a condom, after meeting him via the Internet, and without knowing of his HIV status.
Apparently the risk of contracting HIV if a condom is used is one in every 20,000. At least that’s what the court was told. This article says the risk is one in 1000 if one is not worn, and guess who wasn’t wearing a condom that time. Yep, Justin Dalley. He was sentenced to 300 hours community work at the time. In 2001 the risk was 1 in 588
The AIDS Foundation and Bruce Kilmister, from Body Positive, a founding trustee of the AIDS Foundation and a former HERO Parade chairman, welcomed this weeks decision. Well, Kilmister would, wouldn't he. He's HIV positive as well. Unlike Dalley, he's gay. This is what Kilmister said of Dalley's last girlfriend, who had unprotected sex with Dalley without knowing he was HIV positive.
I think she let herself believe that she was in a relationship in which her partner was being honest and the tragedy was she wasn't in that kind of relationship. And she could have avoided that situation had she used condoms."
I'm just waiting for a court case where a person was to get infected with HIV because the condom broke or didn’t work. Or came off - as what happened with Dalley's earlier girlfriend. What will the AIDS Foundation say then?
1 comment:
Heres the analogy.
You get a partner. Its the third partner you have in the past six years. The other two partners were perfectly safe. Do you ask if the third partner has HIV? Why would you?The percentage of partners who have HIV is low.
You believe this partner is perfectly safe for unprotected sex. Otherwise you may not have uprotected sex with that partner.
But then you realise you were wrong. This partner has HIV. Too late! You should have got yourself a condom but you prefer to trust people to be honest.
Given that most people ( partners) do not have HIV, would you have rather been told or do you think you have to ask?
Now replace the word “partner” with “house”, and the words “unprotected sex” with “living in”.
Then replace HIV with “lacking a firewall” and ” condom” to “building report” and change the grammar.
What is the difference, in terms of the law? Would you buy a dodgy house and live in it or would you like to be told it was dodgy rather than find out afterwards.
Building reports dont find all the discrepancies in a house just like condoms dont protect 100 percent.
Post a Comment