HIV-positive , should I use a condom with girlfriend??? - Page 6 - 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 02-03-2007, 10:52 AM   #76
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:05 PM
Re: the original post. I think that was a cheap shot on the part of the reporter. He had a "can't lose" situation for himself with the false confessions--if the priests followed the official church teachings he could exoriate them for their dangerous advice (never mind that we all KNOW the the dangerous nature of the Church's official guidelines in this area), if the priests deviated from the Church's official teachings and told him to use a condom etc, he'd be able to reveal how the Church's own priests were ignoring the outmoded offical Church teachings.

Either way he'd have "shocking expose" which in reality isn't shocking at all as it doesn't reveal anything we don't already know about the Church's teachings and advice.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 02-03-2007, 11:05 AM   #77
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: 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
Re: the original post. I think that was a cheap shot on the part of the reporter. He had a "can't lose" situation for himself with the false confessions--if the priests followed the official church teachings he could exoriate them for their dangerous advice (never mind that we all KNOW the the dangerous nature of the Church's official guidelines in this area), if the priests deviated from the Church's official teachings and told him to use a condom etc, he'd be able to reveal how the Church's own priests were ignoring the outmoded offical Church teachings.

Either way he'd have "shocking expose" which in reality isn't shocking at all as it doesn't reveal anything we don't already know about the Church's teachings and advice.
you know, that's something that really struck me in all this. he was actually told by at least one priest that is was a "question of conscience." i've met a lot of priests that are all about their power and their hierarchy, but there have been a few gems who really get to the heart of the matter in terms of having a personal relationship with God. unfortunately this is overlooked, as the article clearly has a certain intention, but this guy was actually told to look inward for answers. i think that is something to be commended. especially since it was at a confession of all places.
__________________

__________________
redhotswami is offline  
Old 02-03-2007, 11:16 AM   #78
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 03:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
Re: the original post. I think that was a cheap shot on the part of the reporter. He had a "can't lose" situation for himself with the false confessions--if the priests followed the official church teachings he could exoriate them for their dangerous advice (never mind that we all KNOW the the dangerous nature of the Church's official guidelines in this area), if the priests deviated from the Church's official teachings and told him to use a condom etc, he'd be able to reveal how the Church's own priests were ignoring the outmoded offical Church teachings.

Either way he'd have "shocking expose" which in reality isn't shocking at all as it doesn't reveal anything we don't already know about the Church's teachings and advice.
I don't see it that way. To me what the priest should have said was very simple -- "I can't offer medical advice so you will need to talk to someone who is qualified to advise you about this issue. As for Church teaching -- you shouldn't be having sex with anyone unless you are married to that person."

I can't see that is all that difficult.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 02-03-2007, 11:22 AM   #79
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by indra


I don't see it that way. To me what the priest should have said was very simple -- "I can't offer medical advice so you will need to talk to someone who is qualified to advise you about this issue. As for Church teaching -- you shouldn't be having sex with anyone unless you are married to that person."

I can't see that is all that difficult.
I actually agree with you about what the priest should have said. All I'm saying is that we all KNOW what the Church's official teaching is. His "shocking revelation" isn't really a revelation and shouldn't be a shock at all. I may disagree with the Church's anti-contraception stance (and I do--course, I'm not Catholic so that's easy for me ) but it's not as if the reporter is really telling us anything that we couldn't find out just by reading whatever the official Church statement is on this issue.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 02-03-2007, 06:12 PM   #80
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,296
Local Time: 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




so is it your responsibility to ask, or her responsibility to tell?
In Canada, it is your responsibility to inform the person you are HIV+. If you do not, you will be charged with aggravated sexual assault because our Supreme Court has ruled that the consent in that case would be vitiated.

They have suggested that if you don't tell the person, but wear a condom, this may be enough to reduce the risk to the point where it would be acceptable. It is an unclear statement and in fact there is a pretty good case going on right now which may result in the SCC having to clarify their position on that issue.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 02-04-2007, 10:43 PM   #81
Blue Crack Addict
 
Varitek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


In Canada, it is your responsibility to inform the person you are HIV+. If you do not, you will be charged with aggravated sexual assault because our Supreme Court has ruled that the consent in that case would be vitiated.

They have suggested that if you don't tell the person, but wear a condom, this may be enough to reduce the risk to the point where it would be acceptable. It is an unclear statement and in fact there is a pretty good case going on right now which may result in the SCC having to clarify their position on that issue.
That's really interesting - what is the name of the case? I'd like to learn more about this.
__________________
Varitek is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 10:46 PM   #82
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 03:35 PM
Google Trevis Smith CFL football player to read about the Canadian case, verdict is due sometime this week.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 02-04-2007, 11:10 PM   #83
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,296
Local Time: 02:05 PM
If you're interested in the big two SCC cases on this topic, look at R. v. Cuerrier (1998) and R. v. Williams (2003).
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 02-08-2007, 03:09 PM   #84
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,666
Local Time: 03:05 PM
Quote:

Former CFLer guilty of aggravated sexual assault


Former CFL linebacker Trevis Smith, who is HIV-positive, has been found guilty of two counts of aggravated sexual assault after he failed to reveal his status to two woman he had unprotected sex with.


CTV.ca News Staff



Saskatchewan provincial court Judge Kenn Bellerose made the ruling Thursday in Regina, saying he found the testimony of the two women to be more credible than Smith's.

"The judge said he did not believe his testimony on either of the women," said CTV's Jill Macyshon outside the courtroom.

Macyshon described Smith as stoic when the verdicts were given.

Smith's wife, who supported him during the trial and with whom he has two children, also had no reaction when the verdict was read. However, she broke down in tears when Smith waved goodbye as he was escorted out by police after the verdict.

Neither of the women in the case have tested positive for HIV. During the trial, Smith denied having sex with one of his accusers and claimed he told the other woman about his condition.

Sentencing has been put off until the end of the month.

Macyshon said the judge will absolutely be giving Smith jail-time.
In previous similar cases, sentences for a conviction have ranged from a couple of years to 15 years for a B.C. man who slept with six people and infected three.

The maximum sentence in the Criminal Code for aggravated sexual assault is life in prison.

In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled that one partner can't consent to sexual intercourse if their partner fails to disclose an HIV infection.

Case history

The first count stemmed from a long-term relationship that Smith had with a woman from the Vancouver area.

She was not in court on Thursday but friends of the woman, who were present, said she was very happy and relieved at the verdict.

That woman testified that she had a three-year relationship with Smith and that they had sex multiple times after he found out he was HIV-positive in November 2003.

Smith argued that he told the women about his condition in August 2004 and that he used protection after that date.

However, a health nurse testified that Smith told her in November 2004 that he had not told the B.C. woman about his condition.

Smith's lawyers had argued that the B.C. woman was an upset lover seeking revenge for his unfaithfulness.

The second woman, a 31-year-old from Regina, said she had a casual sexual relationship with Smith in 2000 and again in 2005.

The woman said she confronted Smith about his status but that he denied it, after which she had unprotected sex with him three more times.

Smith denied ever having sex with that woman after he was informed of his HIV-positive status.

The first charge against Smith was laid in Surrey, B.C. in October 2005. At the time, police took the unusual step of disclosing Smith's HIV status and encouraged anyone else who may have had sexual contact with him to come forward.

The second charge was laid in Regina three weeks later.

Smith, a native of Alabama, played college football with the Alabama Crimson Tide, a top-ranked NCAA team. He had spent seven years in the CFL with Saskatchewan and had worked his way up to starting middle linebacker.

His contract expired before the 2006 season.

With files from The Canadian Press
__________________
BoMac is offline  
Old 03-01-2007, 04:50 PM   #85
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,666
Local Time: 03:05 PM
[Q]Ex-CFL player Trevis Smith gets 5½ years in jail for exposing 2 women to HIV


Mon Feb 26, 7:20 PM

By Tim Cook

REGINA (CP) - An apology to the Saskatchewan Roughriders, his children, his wife and his many lovers wasn't enough to spare an HIV-positive former Canadian Football League linebacker a prison term for aggravated sexual assault.

Trevis Smith was sentenced Monday to 5½ years behind bars for knowingly exposing two women to the virus that causes AIDS by having unprotected sex with them and not revealing his condition.

Provincial court Judge Kenn Bellerose added another six months onto the sentence for two bail violations Smith pleaded guilty to earlier in the day, making the sentence an even six years.

"For this, I apologize to this province and to the team that I represented the last seven years," Smith said from the prisoner's box in a barely audible voice before Bellerose made his ruling.

"I also want to apologize to the women that I've been involved with during this time and my wife for just my actions and I ask that she'd forgive me for me committing adultery.

"I just want to say sorry for everything."

But Bellerose didn't waver.

"As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Smith was very deceitful and very dishonest," he said.

"I'm satisfied he displayed, throughout this whole time - from when he learned he had HIV in November of 2003 until the time of his arrest in October 2005 - a very indifferent attitude with respect to the expectations that the law required on his part to basically come clean with respect to his sexual partners."

Smith showed no reaction as the judge ruled. His wife, who had stood behind her husband throughout the entire trial and could be heard crying as he apologized, left court without talking to reporters.

His lawyer, Clemente Monterosso, also refused comment. An appeal of the conviction has already been filed.

Neither of the two victims could be reached from comment, but one of Smith's former girlfriends - whose positive HIV test first raised alarms about the player's behaviour - said she is happy with the sentence.

The woman, who can't be named under a publication ban, sat through the entire trial and cried as Smith offered his apology.

"I just wish it didn't have to come to this," she told The Canadian Press in a telephone interview from her home.

"I don't think that he will even stop with these six years. I hope he does. The part of me that sees the good in people says, 'yes, yes, he is going to learn his lesson,' but the truth is he probably won't."

Smith was found guilty at a trial earlier this month and the Crown had asked Bellerose to put him away for at least 10 years.

During his trial, Smith testified that he didn't have sex with one of the women after he found out about his condition and maintained he told the other woman about his infection, then always used a condom.

But the judge didn't believe him.

In sentencing arguments, prosecutor Bill Burge suggested Smith selfishly lied to the women for his own sexual gratification in a case that ranks "among the worst of the worst."

"This goes beyond recklessness," Burge said. "It's the deliberation that really aggravates this."

Smith didn't even tell one of the women, who is from British Columbia, about his condition when he became aware that she planned to donate a kidney to her ailing father, Burge pointed out.

But Monterosso argued that neither of the woman contracted HIV and he tried to raise doubt about how much the victims had really suffered.

In her victim impact statement, the B.C. woman said she had thoughts of suicide while she was waiting for her test results.

"My life, in the past year and eight months has been an emotional roller coaster full of sadness, fear and pain," she wrote.

But Monterosso noted that the woman didn't seem to have much trouble testifying and would sometimes make eye contact with her friends in the gallery.

"She seemed to have fun on the stand," Monterosso said. "She did not look so traumatized."

Smith, on the other hand, lost his job with the Roughriders because of the case. He no longer has his $90,000 salary or a house, Monterosso said.

"He's lost everything he had."

Bellerose gave Smith credit for the fact that he was a first-time offender.

He also gave him credit for the three months he had spent in jail prior to trial, but that was washed out by the bail violations for which he pleaded guilty.

In one case, Burge told Bellerose that Smith made out with a woman after he had been released on bail on the condition he not be alone with females over 14.

The woman had asked Smith about his arrest and he denied having HIV, Burge said.

In the other case, Burge said Smith had told his bail supervisor that he was going to a house for work, when he was really making plans to meet up with one of his girlfriends.

Because Smith was under what amounted to house arrest at the time, the lie was tantamount to escaping from jail, Burge argued.[/Q]
__________________
BoMac is offline  
Old 03-01-2007, 08:06 PM   #86
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,410
Local Time: 02:05 PM
I haven't read any of the thread past this, so I don't know where the discussion is right now, but....

I (almost - see below) never support covert journalism. If a journalist plans on making money from writing a story, deception is a pretty low way of doing it, especially considering that the person getting fooled usually isn't getting a thing in return except for a smearing of their reputation. This summer, the local newspaper hired an 18-year old kid to go to a dozen corner stores in town and try to buy smokes without an ID. Of course, some of the stores did so and didn't find out what the deal was until the store owners' faces and store addresses were plastered all across Page 2.

I immediately cancelled my subscription and haven't read that paper since. I couldn't believe that the paper had gone so low as to hire a teenager to buy smokes (isn't that illegal in the first place?) just so that the lawbreaking businesses would suffer a massive loss of business and reputation. I don't condone the stores having sold the cigs to the kid, but at the same time the store closest to me that got nailed is directly across the street from a University residence and in the middle of a University student neighbourhood, where probably 99% of us are over 19, so I can understand with the profits at stake (cigarettes are by far the biggest moneymaker for corner stores here) why the shop owner would do so. He's a nice guy who sits there behind the counter 18 hours a day. Sunday shopping has just come into effect the last couple months here (corner & drug stores used to be the only thing allowed to open Sunday, except restaurants), and he is looking out for his business. He definitely is not trying to hook kids on smokes, but because of that he lost pretty much all of his non-student business. Luckily the students are his best customers.

Before and at the start of this school year, I was determined that I was going to be a journalist, so I signed up for an intro to Journalism course this year to see what it was like. I don't mind the work itself, but what I can't stand is how damn deceptive the media actually is. Absolutely every single word in a modern-day news piece is selected carefully and deliberately to try to either influence you into believing the source or reporter, or to try to deceive you. All the language is selected as a political tool and spun eight ways to Sunday to try to mask your real agenda while trying to convince people that you're both objective and knowledgeable. Nobody says anything straight and honest in the media, at least not since I've been alive. My instructors encourage me to use specific turns of phrase and specific words to try to deceive the reader, and it's really disgusting me. Now, I don't want to be a journalist. I just wanted to write and tell people what's up, maybe go see something new in the world - but I don't want to make a career out of spinning the news any more than I want to make a career out of lying to people. Shit, I had a midterm in that class tonight, and one of the questions on the test was "What two questions should a reporter ask him/herself before deciding to pretend to be someone else in order to get a story?" The answers were "can I get this story from another source?" and "if I am caught, how will this affect me? (career, family, finances, even life)"(emphasis mine) You aren't supposed to question whether what you are doing can irreparably destroy someone else's life just as bad. Journalists aren't all lying selfish douchebags. But if you've got to seriously go undercover as someone else (I'm not talking about giving someone an alias over the phone to get an interview, either), then perhaps the story will cause more damage than good.

Bottom line is, covert undercover journalism is sleazy as balls, and anyone who does it to make cash by selling the story at the expense of someone else's reputation or livelihood is a rat and a snake.

[/rant]

Sorry, had to get that off my chest when I read the first post, esp. after just having been in that class for 5 hours!

Quote:
Originally posted by UberBeaver
If a teacher or a councilor was giving out advice like that in a public school, they should be fired. It it were a private school, I feel they should be fired, but legally they can say what they believe. The priests that the reporter went after are guilty of giving shit advice, but they have every right to give it, it is their belief.
Better do this again... [rant]

No, this is categorically false. Medical doctors run private businesses, and they are regularly sued for dispensing bad advice. If an MD told someone with HIV that they didn't need a condom, even if he was the Pope's brother, he would be fired (and possibly sent to jail if anyone was infected as a result).

If I had a daughter who went to her high school guidance counselor and mentioned that she was thinking of having sex and was curious about birth control, and that guidance counselor either said that she didn't need a condom or that it was a "moral decision" (I forget the exact words used in the original post), no matter how fervent his or her beliefs, I would march into that school and demand that counselor's ass on a platter. I would expect that every parent on the forum would do the same.

So why is it that we allow members of the clergy to dispense advice like this? Advice that, if the man was actually HIV+, would have lead directly to the infection and death of someone else. These priests could have killed someone.

But yet, they get a pass. "It is their belief," you say. Let's suppose the non-existent girlfriend was real, and she actually died from HIV/AIDS. Would anybody be saying the same thing?

Before I go any farther, let me say I respect religious beliefs. It's not my thing, but I can see how religion benefits many people of all faiths. Usually when a priest says something idiotic, that is my reaction: "It is their belief." But 97% of the time that priests offer advice, it is on matters of the soul. Do whatever you like with your soul, if you think you've got one. It's none of my business if you think flying apes are coming to take you to Pluto to live with Elvis and the Three Chipmunks.

When a priest starts dispensing advice on matters of the body though, red flags go up in my brain. That's not their domain. It's a little like asking a mechanic about a medical problem and expecting sound, effective advice.

The thing that most irritated me on Page 1 was the fact that people were condemning the journalist more so than the priests! As I said above, I almost never support covert journalism - except in cases like this, where people's irresponsibility directly threatens lives.

The fact that these men are priests and merely reciting the Vatican line is absolutely irrelevant. I'm sick and fucking tired of priests getting away with shit because "it's their belief". No. This is not acceptable to have clergy advising HIV patients to sleep with their girlfriend (not his wife?) without a condom because a dude in a funny hat in Italy is convinced that God's not down.

As an aside, let's think about this for a second. Man (who is HIV+) sleeps with Woman (who is not), without a condom on the advice of his local priest. Woman becomes HIV+, too. Man & Woman keep bangin' away sans-safety. 9 months later, Baby pops out. Unfortunately, Baby is also HIV+. Man, Woman, and Baby are all dead within ten years. Father Dumbass is responsible for two deaths now, a woman and a child, simply because his need to toe the Vatican line against birth control is FAR more important than protecting the life of the woman or any child she may potentially conceive, despite us knowing exactly how STD's are transmitted and knowing exactly what condoms to do prevent the transmission of same. If anyone says the priest might not have known this, I've got a bridge in New York I'd like to sell you (after March 20th...I want to walk across it first ).

In effect, what this pastor is saying is that the man's sperm has more value in the eyes of God than does the man's girlfriend.

If a doctor pulled this kind of shit, he'd be fired and hauled to court. If a teen counselor said this, the same would happen. The fact that there is absolutely zero recourse for anyone outside the church to have a priest fired for "malpractice" (unless you throw him in jail, that is) is infuriating.

If, for some reason, you believe that the priest was even a little bit justified because "it's his beliefs", or that wearing a condom is a sin and that you're better off without protection at all no matter who you're getting down with, then please don't reply to this post. I assure you I will tear you a new asshole if you try to justify this, and will surely end up banned from the forums in the end. I'd like to avoid this.

[/rant]

If you've read this far, you're either crazy or you have way too much time on your hands. What that says about me as the author is also a little bit sketchy.

ETA: Jesus...1600 words...this is as long as a term paper, and I just wrote it in 10 minutes.
__________________

__________________
DaveC 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 02:05 PM.


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