HIV-positive , should I use a condom with girlfriend??? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-31-2007, 08:49 PM   #31
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
Ohmygod why are people so dumb???
I'm not referring to anyone here, but why be so horrified at what the journalist did? LOOK at what it revealed! And yet, the church defends itself. The church is an institution of questionable integrity. This proves not only that, but the sheer stupidity of the Roman Catholic Church. How is it anything but sincere idiocy to suggest someone with an STD refrain from using a condom is beyond me.
You said it before I could...heh.
__________________

__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 01-31-2007, 08:49 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
Ohmygod why are people so dumb???
I'm not referring to anyone here, but why be so horrified at what the journalist did? LOOK at what it revealed! And yet, the church defends itself. The church is an institution of questionable integrity. This proves not only that, but the sheer stupidity of the Roman Catholic Church. How is it anything but sincere idiocy to suggest someone with an STD refrain from using a condom is beyond me.
I agree. I have no problem with what the reporter did, but I do have a problem with priests giving what amounts to medical advice. They shouldn't have answered that question (the I have HIV, should I use a condom one), instead they should have told him to ask a doctor. I actually would not have a problem with a priest saying "church teaching says you shouldn't be having sex with your girlfriend before marriage," but what the two mentioned did say is really bad advice. I mean that can't be that much of an off the wall question -- they should have some clue how to answer it.
__________________

__________________
indra is offline  
Old 01-31-2007, 08:51 PM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 08:34 AM
Quote:
It must be very difficult for someone who has any STD, especially AIDS, to feel comfortable revealing that to a partner, particularly if you're not talking about the sort of relationship where you're involved for a long time before you start having sex. I'd imagine the reality is many, if not most, people would reject you in rather short order upon learning that. I can understand why someone would feel very, very reluctant to divulge it early on in a relationship. Not that I can't understand Lies' and Vincent's perspective at the same time...but...I wonder how likely most people would really be to give someone HIV-positive a chance if they learned about that before they were sure this was someone they could see themselves sticking with for a long, long time. Which realistically, most people nowadays aren't accustomed to waiting until that point to start having sex.
I would give them a chance as long as they were honest from the beginning. I can't say whether or not we'd be having much sex, but I'm not saying HIV+ people are bad people not worthy of committed relationships. I'm saying that getting mad at me for asking for disclosure or lying when I ask are two things that are not acceptable to me, regardless of what STDs the person may or may not have. It would also depend on how they got the STD. Was it an accident or a one-time thing where they didn't use a condom? Or are they promiscuous and don't even know where the disease came from? The former I can deal with, the latter I can't. Respect of one's body and the bodies of others has always been very important to me, just like I can't tolerate someone who's racist even if they are a virgin with no STDs.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 01-31-2007, 08:53 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 02:34 PM
Well, to have sex with someone, you have to love him/her.
If she revealed to me of being HIV positive it wouldn't stop me from loving her. But I would think twice before having sex with her.
If I found out later, I would feel that she cheated on me.

Of course it is important to ask this question, being uncomfortable or not.
But like I said before, if she had such a disease and knew about it, but hid it from me it would have been her fault not to tell me.

For me it is not acceptable to hide such an important thing from someone, and afterwards simply say, "You didn't ask, it's your fault."
In a relationship I also think honesty is a very important issue, and so I would think she told me if she knew of any disease before we had sex.

But I think this is something Irvine and I think very different about, and so any discussion would just move in a circle.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 01-31-2007, 09:00 PM   #35
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 08:34 AM
on the whole, i am talking about the early part of a sexual relationship -- naturally, people who must be in love to have sex would probably have already crossed this bridge (though, would HIV disclosure prevent you from going any furhter in a relationship?), but i think we know that many, many people have sex before they are in love, and have sex sometimes very early in the relationship.

but this all begs the question: what is an HIV person to do? celibacy?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-31-2007, 09:04 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 02:34 PM
Not celibacy, but being honest, and don't wait for the other to ask.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 01-31-2007, 09:29 PM   #37
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 08:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
Not celibacy, but being honest, and don't wait for the other to ask.


but we seem to have people on this board who are saying that they probably wouldn't have sex with an HIV positive person, and i think we have to admit the possibility that such a big red flag might derail a relationship before it progressed to a sexual one.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-31-2007, 10:34 PM   #38
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 12:34 AM
I for one would never have sex with a HIV positive person. I don't care if they wear a condom, pull out before ejaculation or whatever - I would not have a sexual relationship with a HIV positive person. Perhaps is certain situations (like a long term partner getting HIV through a blood transfusion) then the lines are blurred.

But I do believe that it is a criminal offence for someone who knows they have HIV to sleep with someone without protection and not tell them. That is taking someone elses health and life into their hands, and I am totally against anyone having a power over someone elses life.

I also do not think its stigmatizing to say you wouldn't sleep with someone who has HIV. I wouldn't sleep with a lot of people - women, someone a few years younger then me, men with moustaches, a man shorter then me etc. Yes, I may be picky, and sure in the past i've been called a bitch for rejecting a guy shorter then me, but surely its up to ME who I let get into my pants - and this includes HIV positive people. i am SURE there are plenty of people out there who would sleep with them, so why should I feel bad that I won't?

As the for the question - I don't believe HIV people should be celebate or only sleep with out HIV positive people - but as there is no foold proof way of having safe sex - then HIV people should be mature enough to realise that people may not want to risk their health to be with them (this isn't just HIV - this is lots of STDS and contageious diseases)

But who knows if my opinion would chage if i ever met a HIV person I was attracted to.


Also - regarding the story - I think it basically shows the strength of misinformation that is still apparent in religious circles - vary scary.
__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 01-31-2007, 10:52 PM   #39
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy
But I do believe that it is a criminal offence for someone who knows they have HIV to sleep with someone without protection and not tell them. That is taking someone elses health and life into their hands, and I am totally against anyone having a power over someone elses life.
Sure, I don't think anyone was talking a without-protection scenario here, though.
Quote:
I also do not think its stigmatizing to say you wouldn't sleep with someone who has HIV. I wouldn't sleep with a lot of people - women, someone a few years younger then me, men with moustaches, a man shorter then me etc. Yes, I may be picky, and sure in the past i've been called a bitch for rejecting a guy shorter then me, but surely its up to ME who I let get into my pants - and this includes HIV positive people. i am SURE there are plenty of people out there who would sleep with them, so why should I feel bad that I won't?
Well, I'm not so sure there are plenty of people who would. But I don't know if those 'picky' things you named are really analogous to being HIV-positive, because they all involve stuff that's readily visible, so you're not very likely to get to the stage where you could deeply hurt someone by rejecting them for those reasons to begin with.

It is a very thorny issue though, I wouldn't disagree with that.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 01-31-2007, 10:59 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
redhotswami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Waiting for this madness to end.
Posts: 5,846
Local Time: 08:34 AM
didn't Pope Benedict approve of condoms for couples where one or both partners were infected with HIV or AIDS? or, didn't he initiate some sort of "investigation" or something? i thought i read one of the cardinals saying that it isn't sex with a condom that is sinful, it is the preventing of procreation...because they are concerned with human life. and in cases like these, the lives needing to be saved are the couples'...or something like that.

that being said, before the catholic bashing continues, I just wanna emphasize that what this reporter uncovered was conflicting opinions...in short, really no news at all. I see a lot of people focusing on the response saying not to use a condom. But there were others who disagreed. The church sure isn't perfect, we all know this, but it isn't homogenous either.
__________________
redhotswami is offline  
Old 01-31-2007, 11:09 PM   #41
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:34 PM
Yeah, there is a declaration of that sort in the works, although it's unclear when it will come out, from what I read. It deals specifically with married couples where one partner is HIV-positive, though; obviously (if ironically) the priest who said "don't use a condom with your girlfriend" was going against Catholic doctrine to begin with by suggesting it was OK to have sex with one's girlfriend at all.

Here is the page from the article recounting the interchange with that particular priest--only in Italian though, which I can't read, but maybe someone in here does. I can tell from looking at it that he said more than merely 'No,' but I can't make out what else he said, and as usual the worthless Google "translation" engine doesn't yield anything coherent either.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 01-31-2007, 11:12 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
redhotswami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Waiting for this madness to end.
Posts: 5,846
Local Time: 08:34 AM
Thanks! I didn't even know there was a google translation! I always used babelfish.

Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
obviously (if ironically) the priest who said "don't use a condom with your girlfriend" was going against Catholic doctrine to begin with by suggesting it was OK to have sex with one's girlfriend at all.
yeah, i thought that was pretty silly too. i don't know if he misunderstood the "girlfriend" part, or if he was just one-track minded.
__________________
redhotswami is offline  
Old 01-31-2007, 11:13 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
redhotswami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Waiting for this madness to end.
Posts: 5,846
Local Time: 08:34 AM
I just found this from the Guardian. Looks like a decision should be made sometime this month!

Quote:
After decades of opposition, Vatican view on condoms begins to shift
NOV 23, 2006

The Roman Catholic church has taken the first step towards what could be a historic shift away from its total ban on the use of condoms.
Pope Benedict XVI's "health minister" is understood to be urging him to accept that in restricted circumstances - specifically the prevention of Aids - barrier contraception is the lesser of two evils.

The recommendations, which have not been made public, still have to be reviewed by the traditionally conservative Vatican department responsible for safeguarding theological orthodoxy, and then by the Pope himself, before any decision is made.

The rethink, commissioned by Pope Benedict following his election last year, could save millions of lives around the world. It is likely to be raised today when the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has his first full discussion with the Pope at an audience in the Vatican.

Campaigners and organisations involved in the fight against Aids have long been pressing the Vatican to change its stance on condoms, which they believe obstructs attempts to save millions of lives. Last year the head of HIV/Aids at the World Health Organisation initiated talks with the Vatican to see if any movement could be made on the issue.

The Mexican cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, who heads the papal department responsible for health issues, revealed on Tuesday that he had completed the first stage of the review. A 200-page report, reflecting opinion within the church, had been sent to the Pope and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican's "theology ministry", he said.

He did not reveal its conclusions. But Cardinal Barragán is known to favour reform and Vatican sources said it was highly likely that he had come out in support of using condoms in marriages where one of the partners was HIV-positive.

The Italian newspaper La Repubblica, which broke the news of the policy review earlier this year, reported yesterday that the Vatican would "go from prohibition to the definition of exceptional cases in which it would be possible for the faithful to use prophylactics to avert fatal risks".

Cardinal Barragán noted a passage from a 1981 document issued by the late Pope John Paul II. This said that "every conjugal act must be open to life".

Until now, this has been interpreted as an injunction against contraception. But it could also be used to support an argument in favour of the preservation of life by the use of barrier methods.

The cardinal said some 40 million people were reckoned to be HIV positive and Aids was claiming around 8,000 lives a day. "The disease is not retreating. On the contrary, its aggressiveness seems to be increasing, even though in the more developed countries the strength of the increase is noticed less," he said.

The first-hand experience of Roman Catholic missionaries and pastors in the developing world has been the driving force behind the current rethink. But it is also noted in the Vatican that the Pope, when he was in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, left open the possibility of a change in the church's stance.

The 1987 document Donum Vitae, which he signed together with the late Pope, declared that the Roman Catholic church could never agree to the use of contraceptives in homosexual relationships or by men and women who were not married. However, it omitted to mention married couples. In recent years, the case for condoms as a defence against Aids has been taken up publicly by several Roman Catholic leaders. The Belgian cardinal Godfried Daneels broke the taboo in 2004 when he said it was morally different from using a condom for birth control.

The following year, the Pope's own theologian, Cardinal Georges Cottier signalled doubts within the papal household and argued that the Roman Catholic "theology of life" could be used to justify a lifting of the ban. "The virus is transmitted during a sexual act; so at the same time as [bringing] life there is also a risk of transmitting death," he said. "And that is where the commandment 'thou shalt not kill' is valid."

Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, a former archbishop of Milan who was considered a candidate for the papacy, said earlier this year that a married person with HIV was "obliged" to protect his or her partner from the disease.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which will now consider the issue, was headed by Pope Benedict for 24 years before his election. After he became Pope, he appointed as his successor an American, Cardinal William Levada. For the previous 10 years, Cardinal Levada had been Archbishop of San Francisco - a city where the spread of Aids was a key issue and where Roman Catholic charities played a leading role in supplying care to sufferers. But the cardinal has not himself offered a view in public on the debate.

The Italian daily Corriere della Sera said the Pope's decision could be announced as early as next February, on the 20th anniversary of the publication of Donum Vitae.
__________________
redhotswami is offline  
Old 01-31-2007, 11:52 PM   #44
Refugee
 
fly so high!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: St Andrews NSW Australia
Posts: 1,835
Local Time: 11:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy
I for one would never have sex with a HIV positive person. I don't care if they wear a condom, pull out before ejaculation or whatever - I would not have a sexual relationship with a HIV positive person. Perhaps is certain situations (like a long term partner getting HIV through a blood transfusion) then the lines are blurred.

But I do believe that it is a criminal offence for someone who knows they have HIV to sleep with someone without protection and not tell them. That is taking someone elses health and life into their hands, and I am totally against anyone having a power over someone elses life.

I also do not think its stigmatizing to say you wouldn't sleep with someone who has HIV. I wouldn't sleep with a lot of people - women, someone a few years younger then me, men with moustaches, a man shorter then me etc. Yes, I may be picky, and sure in the past i've been called a bitch for rejecting a guy shorter then me, but surely its up to ME who I let get into my pants - and this includes HIV positive people. i am SURE there are plenty of people out there who would sleep with them, so why should I feel bad that I won't?

As the for the question - I don't believe HIV people should be celebate or only sleep with out HIV positive people - but as there is no foold proof way of having safe sex - then HIV people should be mature enough to realise that people may not want to risk their health to be with them (this isn't just HIV - this is lots of STDS and contageious diseases)

But who knows if my opinion would chage if i ever met a HIV person I was attracted to.


Also - regarding the story - I think it basically shows the strength of misinformation that is still apparent in religious circles - vary scary.
__________________
fly so high! is offline  
Old 02-01-2007, 12:29 AM   #45
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 12:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

Sure, I don't think anyone was talking a without-protection scenario here, though.

Well, I'm not so sure there are plenty of people who would. But I don't know if those 'picky' things you named are really analogous to being HIV-positive, because they all involve stuff that's readily visible, so you're not very likely to get to the stage where you could deeply hurt someone by rejecting them for those reasons to begin with.

It is a very thorny issue though, I wouldn't disagree with that.
Yeah i wasn't really addressing anyone who said that - just thought i'd throw in my opnion on that as i had heard in the past people doing that - and it totally horrified me!

Yeah i do see that being short or whatever is totally different to being HIV positive - but I also think that being HIV positive is a very serious illness and should not be hidden when getting into a romantic relationship with someone. Especially as it is a disease that is life threatening AND contagious - it needs to be on the table as soon as the relationship starts going somewhere - waaaaaaay before sex is even mentioned and unfortunately if the person then rejected the relationship over that fact, they were not the right person for them. Sure they're may be some things you could possibly not bring up but i think HIV is a very important issue not to be taken lightly. I don't think HIV postive people should be treated like lepers, but there is a difference about hanging out or working with someone who is HIV positive when you can wear gloves if any accidents occur and so and so, and actually having that person put something that carries the virus somewhere where you can't see if anything has gotten out, or control it as much as you can by wearing gloves and protecting yourself from the disease.
__________________

__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com