HIV-positive , should I use a condom with girlfriend???

[hiphop]

i'm sorry, but you're doing a terrible thing to an HIV positive person if you rejected them when they disclose, but have sex with them when they don't. that inspires sneaky, devious behavior, and that can't be a good thing.

i think we can all agree that disclosure is the best policy, but punishment for disclosure is something else.

punishment?

first of all, the HIV positive person is doing a terrible thing to me when they don´t disclose (in case they know, of course).

in that case, my own health is the most important thing. sorry, it´s a tad bit more important than what i do to the life of the HIV positive person.

if HIV positive a good person, it does not inspire sneaky behaviour. that´s a cop-out, irvine. if this is a good, true and honest person, he/she will always tell the sexual partner before (assuming he/she knows of being positive).

if you are positive, you are responsible for your health; if you don´t tell, you´re robbing the other´s right to freely decide if he/ she wants to take this risk for his/ her own health.

there are possibilites to minimize the risk. a friend of mine (social worker) has been working at the local HIV center being confronted with such situations every day. yes, it is possible to live with an HIV positive person together for many years. however, there is still a risk. it really depends on the relation whether people stay together or not after one of them has found out he´s positive, with every single case it´s a new situation.

when having "casual" sex however, one night stand, whatever, imo it´s the duty of the person who is positive and who knows it, to tell the truth (not only when asked).

if you think you can lead a totally free life when you´re positive, fucking around with whoever you like without giving a shit, you´re on the wrong way, no matter whether you think you can protect the other person by using a condom.

your sexual partner has the right to say: "if you weren´t ill, i would like to have sex with you. but you are ill, and sorry, this is too dangerous for me". he/ she has that right, no matter how bad that is for the opposite.

 

[hiphop]

about how some people will sleep with anyone if they don't know your HIV status, but will drop you like a rock the moment they find out that you're positive.

and this is what i think is most harmful -- you're encouraging deception.

yeah, well excuse me but that´s life

at the moment, i don´t have such a multi faceted sex life because i´m in love, but there were times when i had.

obviously, i have not slept with anyone, but with some women who i fell in love with - maybe just for a couple of weeks - who were attractive, without waiting until we go steady.

obviously, i would not have slept with them if they were HIV positive.

and you have the nerve to tell me i´m encouraging deception? bullshit. it´s my decision who i want to have sex with. maybe fucking around is not the most intelligent way how to deal with it, but i don´t think i´m encouraging deception by saying "no" where i would have said "yes", if...

the person practising deception is responsible for practising deception, not me.

i think the reaction can make a lot of difference. to "drop someone like a rock" is cruel.

but why should someone feel cheated when there is a good talk and where people can still respect each other, meet each other, be friends or have a sex-free relation. why would this be encouraging deception?

if this leads to deception, then just because the HIV positive person is selfish enough to think life is easier for him/her (in terms of getting the sex he/she needs) when he/she lies.

 

[Irvine511]

yeah, well excuse me but that´s life

at the moment, i don´t have such a multi faceted sex life because i´m in love, but there were times when i had.

obviously, i have not slept with anyone, but with some women who i fell in love with - maybe just for a couple of weeks - who were attractive, without waiting until we go steady.

obviously, i would not have slept with them if they were HIV positive.

and this is a great example. thanks for bringing it up.


[q]and you have the nerve to tell me i´m encouraging deception? bullshit. it´s my decision who i want to have sex with. maybe fucking around is not the most intelligent way how to deal with it, but i don´t think i´m encouraging deception by saying "no" where i would have said "yes", if...

the person practising deception is responsible for practising deception, not me.[/q]


can we understand that i'm not condoing someone not disclosing their stauts while at the same time acknolwedging that if an HIV person is going to be tossed aside like rubbish -- as you've said you would do -- when they do disclose, that you're going to inspire (whether justified or not, whether fair or not) more deceptive behavior.

you'd sleep with someone if you don't know their status, positive or negative, but you won't sleep with someone when you know their positive status even though there are numerous things you can do to protect yourself?

that, to me, is discrimination. and while i understand where it comes from, please stop for a moment and put yourself in the place of the HIV positive person.

i also wonder if we aren't less sympathetic to HIV positive people because of the underlying thoughts that they've done something to deserve their status, that they're gigantic sluts, that they've obviously had unprotected sex, that they've allowed themselves to become infected.

anyway, this is the crux of my point: you (the hypothetical you) will sleep with anyone if you don't know their stauts, but you'll drop someone like a rock if you know they're negative even if you have protected intercourse. that, to me, seems hypocritical.

 

[Irvine511]

but we also know that the disease is 100% preventable

I think this is where the crux of the disagreement lies.
According to the CDC , condoms have been proven to be highly effective in preventing the transmission of AIDS but there is no absolute guarantee. As yet, the only way to guarantee that you will not become infected with HIV is to abstain from sexual relations with an HIV positive individual.

Although condoms have been proven to be highly effective in preventing the transmission of HIV, and as you have pointed out, it is possible to have a sexual relationship with an HIV positive individual and not contract HIV, we can't dismiss the fact that there is still a chance, however small, that one might contract this life-threatening disease through sexual relations with an HIV-positive person.

i respect your thoughtful post and do understand it, but i also want to add that the insistence upon abstinence is a highly political inclusion into the CDC due to the Bush administration's subservience to Christian special interest groups.

i agree, it's factual, you won't get infected if you don't have sex, but placing it side-by-side with condoms, and only calling them "highly effective" as opposed to the usual 99% (and that's only for pregnancy, it's harder to catch HIV than it is to get pregnant) when used properly.

again, i know long-term couples who have happy sex lives where one is positive and the other remains negative. all it takes is a little education and precautions, as well as sympathy for people who are HIV positive.

 

[Vincent Vega]

No one is dropping someone like a rock.

And I know that there are many cases you can get HIV infected, like a transition of blood.
This even could happen through kissing, when the other person has a tiny bleeding.

They said the Titanic will never ever, not in a gazillion years, sink.
Everyone knows what happened.
There is not this 100% safetyness, and everyone has the right to consider this.

It is hard for an HIV infected person, no question, but does that give them the right to blame me for being healthy, and stay healthy.

I've said it before, when the partner is honest beforehand, you can have a talk about it, you can attend the doctor to speak it through with him, and you for sure can work it out somehow.

There is no right of having sex, regardless the danger. But there is the right for everyone to say "no" when it comes to a point where your health is at risk.
That's why in Germany a draftee can say "no" to get send abroad. Because it is a decision concerning his health and life.

And I think there is an order in the responsibility, made by common sense.
First, the knowingly HIV infected (and we can only talk about knowingly affected, of course) has to tell his/her partner about there status, second in this order of responsibilty comes the question if the partner is HIV infected.
If you're not sure, for whatever reasons, attend the doctor to make the examination.

But you can't say it's like "Don't ask, don't tell".

Nowadays, everything gets called "hypocritical". I don't even want to count how many times this word appears on this board.
Everything is just blamed hypcritical today. So for the future we should take minutes of every single word we say, so that we can get through it whenever we enter a new discussion.

In my view it is not hypocritical at all.
Of course I would blame myself for being so naive not to ask. Still I would of course blame the other person for putting me at a risk she knew about, and for her own sake she didn't tell me.

Next I have to feel guilty for being healthy (healthy at least concerning STD's, but my asthma can't get transmitted) and to decide to stay healthy.

I said it before, it can't be that I have to say yes only that the other person would feel better.

What you're saying is that it is my repsonsibility to ask, but you leave out the other person's responsibility to tell. Why am I more responsible?

And you asked why we don't tell the other person beforehand that we are negative.
Well, that would be like you're entering a plane, and then get approached by the pilot only to get told "Sir, I only wanted to inform you that this plane is safe and there are no known problems."
How would you feel then?
Well, I would be highly confused and ask myself, "Why the hell did he tell me the obvious?"
With sex it is similar. You know of the potential danger. But would you ask the stewardess upon entering, "Are there any known problems with this plane?"
And after you arrived, and the pilot told you, "Well, before we started we didn't know if this plane will make the flight because there was some problem that could have resulted in a crash."
Would you ever fly this airline again, because otherwise you would be hypocrite?

So your partner has to tell you, whether you ask or not.

Sex is a nice thing, no question, but it's not essential.

 

[Vincent Vega]

again, i know long-term couples who have happy sex lives where one is positive and the other remains negative. all it takes is a little education and precautions, as well as sympathy for people who are HIV positive.

But in this case both know about the other's condition, and both have agreed on having sex. Both have said yes.
But it shouldn't be made mandatory to say "yes".

Both have agreed on taking the risk.
It is a tiny risk, still I want to be free to take this risk.

The risk of dying through an anaesthesia is very, very low as well. Still you have to sign a paper that you acknowledge the risk. And you can sue the hospital when they didn't inform you about the risk, even though it is common knowledge that there are risks.

Both parties have to agree, not one.

That's totally different from the one who knows about being positive, and not telling the other.
That is cheating for the own gain.

 

[Liesje]

anyway, this is the crux of my point: you (the hypothetical you) will sleep with anyone if you don't know their stauts, but you'll drop someone like a rock if you know they're negative even if you have protected intercourse. that, to me, seems hypocritical.

Not me! I'd never even have oral sex with someone without have this discussion beforehand.

I think at this point, at least you and I, can agree to disagree? I agree that it's not fair to place the responsibility solely on the other parter. But I disagree that I'm doing a terrible thing by protecting myself and sticking to my own standards.

I guess the crux of MY point is that the decisions I make on sexual health are decisions that I made when I was 16 years old. I don't change my standards based on the person and whether or not he might have this or that. These are standards I made for MY own body before I was even interested in serious relationships. I think it's quite odd to tell young men and women that they should change their standards because they might hurt someone's feelings (someone who's already been sneaky and betrayed trust) or that they should put their lives at risk to have sexual relations with partners who aren't even committed enough to disclose. I will sympathize for HIV+ people as far as they will show respect for me and my boundaries. Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly, but what I'm reading makes me

 

[dazzlingamy]

So we are expected to sleep with HIV positive people out of sympathy for them? That if we say no - because of the risk - however minute it would be we're discriminating against them? Why about my choices of a partner? Why am I not "Allowed" to reject someone with HIV? And for the record - it has nothing to do with any preconceptions against them - i have nothing against people sleeping around and a lot of the time people contract HIV from blood transfusions or sharing needles (i wouldn't be with a drug adict either - but am i discriminating because i don't want to catch hepatitus from them? or deal with the consequences of having a drug addict in my life?) So i don't feel anything towards HIV people, perhaps sympathy for them aquiring the disease and hope that a cure can be found, but other then that, if someone feels im slighting them because i don't want to risk my health (as i've said before, condoms are effective but not 100% of the time) then thats their fault for feeling that way. Move on - find someone else there are support groups for HIV suffers and im sure there are people there who will be more then happy to enter into a relationship with them.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

Sex is a nice thing, no question, but it's not essential.

What, are you nuts?!!

I've only skimmed this thread, but I don't have an issue with assuming all future partners are "guilty till proven innocent" or to having protected sex until the end of time. Maybe it's because I'm single and don't expect to know everybody's status or history, the same way I dont' expect them to know mine

 

[Irvine511]

So we are expected to sleep with HIV positive people out of sympathy for them? That if we say no - because of the risk - however minute it would be we're discriminating against them?

oy. i knew people were going to take it this way, and i guess i have to realize, as i've stated before, that most people don't have to deal with the issue of HIV, how it is and isn't transmitted as well as actually knowing people with HIV, the way your everday gay man living in a city does.

so, with all that in mind, i'll reiterate my main points:

1. it is your responsibility to inquire about a sexual history just as much as it is someone else's responsibility to disclose their HIV status or any other STDs (though we all know that people don't do this ... and do we demand to know if somone once had another STD at some point in their life, or is HIV different?)

2. failure to do so on both ends should not result in blame solely on the HIV positive person -- they didn't tell, but you didn't ask, so you're both idiots, imho.

3. it's dangerous to assume that people are negative unless they tell you that they are positive.

4. to drop someone on -- whether kindly or not -- soley on the basis of their HIV status is discrimination. maybe understandable discrimination, but it is discrimination nonetheless when we are presented with ample evidence that people can be in long term relationships and never once transmit the virus to one another. worries about transmitting HIV through kissing are quite ignorant. i look back on the few (2) happy couples i know where one is positive and one is negative and i think of how terrible it would be if the negative partners had the same attitudes expressed on this board -- fear.

5. whether fair or not, if you are down for a one night stand with someone when you don't know their status, and then reject them outright when you do know their status even when you've intended to use protection from the beginning is doing to inspire more deceptive behavior on the HIV+ person in the future.

 

[Chizip]

5. whether fair or not, if you are down for a one night stand with someone when you don't know their status, and then reject them outright when you do know their status even when you've intended to use protection from the beginning is doing to inspire more deceptive behavior on the HIV+ person in the future.

What if you left them not because they had HIV, but because they were deceptive about it, would that encourage less deceptive behavior in the future?

 

[Irvine511]

What if you left them not because they had HIV, but because they were deceptive about it, would that encourage less deceptive behavior in the future?

i think that's a good distinction, and if you were dropping them, i think that would be a very good point to make -- imho, that would be exactly the right thing to do becaus that makes the issue about honest, not about a disease.

 

[Liesje]

so, with all that in mind, i'll reiterate my main points:

1. it is your responsibility to inquire about a sexual history just as much as it is someone else's responsibility to disclose their HIV status or any other STDs (though we all know that people don't do this ... and do we demand to know if somone once had another STD at some point in their life, or is HIV different?)

2. failure to do so on both ends should not result in blame solely on the HIV positive person -- they didn't tell, but you didn't ask, so you're both idiots, imho.

3. it's dangerous to assume that people are negative unless they tell you that they are positive.

4. to drop someone on -- whether kindly or not -- soley on the basis of their HIV status is discrimination. maybe understandable discrimination, but it is discrimination nonetheless when we are presented with ample evidence that people can be in long term relationships and never once transmit the virus to one another. worries about transmitting HIV through kissing are quite ignorant. i look back on the few (2) happy couples i know where one is positive and one is negative and i think of how terrible it would be if the negative partners had the same attitudes expressed on this board -- fear.

5. whether fair or not, if you are down for a one night stand with someone when you don't know their status, and then reject them outright when you do know their status even when you've intended to use protection from the beginning is doing to inspire more deceptive behavior on the HIV+ person in the future.

I agree with 1-3.

4. Yeah, I guess you can call it discrimination, but to me discrimination usually means you're making assumptions about other people based on a single characteristic. For example, if I said "HIV+ people are gross and nasty people, simply b/c they have HIV", that would be discriminatory because I'm making a judgment based on THEM. But when I say I won't sleep with someone who has HIV, it's NOT because I don't like them, I think they are gross, etc, etc, it's because I - ME - have decided that I'm not getting an STD. It really has nothing to do with the other person. If someone said "You'll get an STD if you sit on that toilet" (yeah I know it's not true), I wouldn't sit on the toilet. It's about me, not the other person, or object, or whatever.

Do I fear HIV? Hells yes! Who doesn't? I guess if I'm labeled a discriminatory person b/c I don't want to die and also put my future children and my current partner at risk, than so be it. But I don't fear the other person and I don't make judgments about them based on the disease, I fear the disease itself.

5. As for deceptive behavior, I can't hold myself responsible for how other people choose to act. The only thing that I think really encourages deceptive behavior is being deceptive yourself, and I don't agree that being up front about sexual health is deceptive, in fact I think it's everything but deceptive. If that somehow encourages others to act deceptively b/c they are afraid of the truth or would rather lie, then that's their problem, not mine.

 

[Irvine511]

Do I fear HIV? Hells yes! Who doesn't? I guess if I'm labeled a discriminatory person b/c I don't want to die and also put my future children and my current partner at risk, than so be it. But I don't fear the other person and I don't make judgments about them based on the disease, I fear the disease itself.

i totally understand the fear -- and am glad i am in a monogamous relationship and not dating because Memphis and i trust each other and we're honest so it's huge relief not to have to worry about death and stuff while dating -- but we also know that you can be with someone and never contract HIV. look at Magic Johnson and his wife -- he's positive, she's negative, and they've stayed that way since 1991 or whenever he tested positive.

5. As for deceptive behavior, I can't hold myself responsible for how other people choose to act. The only thing that I think really encourages deceptive behavior is being deceptive yourself, and I don't agree that being up front about sexual health is deceptive, in fact I think it's everything but deceptive. If that somehow encourages others to act deceptively b/c they are afraid of the truth or would rather lie, then that's their problem, not mine.

that makes sense, but i think we also have to be realistic about these things, and i think the vast majority of HIV+ people understand the fear and they don't want to infect anyone.

 

[sallycinnamon78]

Good grief... what a horrible thing to do! (Referring to the original post, obviously!)

 

[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.

 

[redhotswami]

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.

 

[indra]

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.

 

[maycocksean]

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.

 

[anitram]

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.

 

[Varitek]

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.

 

[trevster2k]

Google Trevis Smith CFL football player to read about the Canadian case, verdict is due sometime this week.

 

[anitram]

If you're interested in the big two SCC cases on this topic, look at R. v. Cuerrier (1998) and R. v. Williams (2003).

 

[BoMac]

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]

[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]

 

[DaveC]

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!

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.