Comments on: Women and AIDS http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/12/02/women-and-aids/ In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:12:24 +0000 hourly 1 By: SA http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/12/02/women-and-aids/#comment-224819 SA Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:07:57 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=9954#comment-224819 It's still somewhat unlikely. If someone had just eaten peanuts and spat in someone's face there's a very small chance it could kill someone. But the fact is, most people don't have peanut anaphylaxis and anyone trying to kill a poice officer wouldn't use peanutty saliva as a " deadly weapon". The difference with HIV is that people juge HIV+ people in a way they don't judge people who just ate peanuts. It’s still somewhat unlikely. If someone had just eaten peanuts and spat in someone’s face there’s a very small chance it could kill someone. But the fact is, most people don’t have peanut anaphylaxis and anyone trying to kill a poice officer wouldn’t use peanutty saliva as a ” deadly weapon”.

The difference with HIV is that people juge HIV+ people in a way they don’t judge people who just ate peanuts.

]]> By: jenny12 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/12/02/women-and-aids/#comment-224790 jenny12 Tue, 03 Feb 2009 05:19:28 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=9954#comment-224790 Yes, a bite can transmit both diseases - hiv and Hep. C. Although hiv is minimal, it is possible if the party has an open sore and a cut inside or outside the mouth. It can also be transmitted if an Hiv party spits in someones face. The saliva - if any blood is present- can enter through the pores in the eyes, This is one reason why medical personal wear goggles in surgeries. In addition, if blood splatters into unprotected eyes, they must flush for at least 10 minutes, Hiv patients are commonly known to have sores casued from the disease. So, the man belongs in prison for not only a violent act, but for his reckless behavior by placing someone else at risk. Certainly, I would'nt expect anything less from the law. Yes, a bite can transmit both diseases – hiv and Hep. C. Although hiv is minimal, it is possible if the party has an open sore and a cut inside or outside the mouth. It can also be transmitted if an Hiv party spits in someones face. The saliva – if any blood is present- can enter through the pores in the eyes, This is one reason why medical personal wear goggles in surgeries. In addition, if blood splatters into unprotected eyes, they must flush for at least 10 minutes, Hiv patients are commonly known to have sores casued from the disease. So, the man belongs in prison for not only a violent act, but for his reckless behavior by placing someone else
at risk. Certainly, I would’nt expect anything less from the law.

]]> By: Holly http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/12/02/women-and-aids/#comment-214925 Holly Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:46:02 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=9954#comment-214925 <i>Dunno. I think it probably turned on the technical meaning of assault. I’m not sure it matters whether there was any actually risk of harm, so long as you cause someone to fear harm it’s assault. If this had been a case of someone shooting at police with blanks from a replica gun, as opposed to live rounds from a real gun, none of us would be debating the risk of harm. Either way he’d have still caused them to fear for their lives. 35 years does seem an awfully long time though.</i> I agree with a lot of other stuff in this thread. But the idea that spitting could be assault because it "causes someone to fear harm" is rather ridiculous. Transmitting HIV by spitting on someone is a myth, an urban legend, a delusion born out of ignorance. You might believe that seeing your reflection in a mirror will cause your soul to be trapped and your body to slowly wither and die -- I've actually run across people who believe things like this, and go out of their way to avoid mirrors, as a phobia. Someone with epistrophobia can't sue or press assault charges against two guys from a mirror company who are carrying a huge mirror across the street when they come around the corner. I'm not even sure it would be assault to chase someone like that around with a mirror, although it certainly might involve intentional infliction of emotional distress. There's no real bodily harm and the fear is imaginary as well, based on unreasonable expectations. It's unreasonable to think that someone can spit on you and give you HIV -- especially if your work brings you into contact with these types of situations. It's ignorant. I was taught that HIV can't be transmitted by spitting on somone TWENTY years ago, in an underfunded inner-city middle school. If I knew about it as a preteen bcak then, there's no excuse for a police officer not to know about it now. Dunno. I think it probably turned on the technical meaning of assault. I’m not sure it matters whether there was any actually risk of harm, so long as you cause someone to fear harm it’s assault. If this had been a case of someone shooting at police with blanks from a replica gun, as opposed to live rounds from a real gun, none of us would be debating the risk of harm. Either way he’d have still caused them to fear for their lives. 35 years does seem an awfully long time though.

I agree with a lot of other stuff in this thread. But the idea that spitting could be assault because it “causes someone to fear harm” is rather ridiculous. Transmitting HIV by spitting on someone is a myth, an urban legend, a delusion born out of ignorance. You might believe that seeing your reflection in a mirror will cause your soul to be trapped and your body to slowly wither and die — I’ve actually run across people who believe things like this, and go out of their way to avoid mirrors, as a phobia.

Someone with epistrophobia can’t sue or press assault charges against two guys from a mirror company who are carrying a huge mirror across the street when they come around the corner. I’m not even sure it would be assault to chase someone like that around with a mirror, although it certainly might involve intentional infliction of emotional distress. There’s no real bodily harm and the fear is imaginary as well, based on unreasonable expectations. It’s unreasonable to think that someone can spit on you and give you HIV — especially if your work brings you into contact with these types of situations. It’s ignorant.

I was taught that HIV can’t be transmitted by spitting on somone TWENTY years ago, in an underfunded inner-city middle school. If I knew about it as a preteen bcak then, there’s no excuse for a police officer not to know about it now.

]]> By: Bina http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/12/02/women-and-aids/#comment-214922 Bina Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:27:47 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=9954#comment-214922 I took a look at the Swiss case (it's of special interest to me since I'm Swiss). The argument made by the judges was that the man should have taken a HIV test, since, before infecting his girlfriend, he had had unprotected sexual intercourse with a woman who was HIV-positive, which he knew. So the idea was that anyone who has reason to suspect he could be infected is required to take a test. This judgment was interpreted as going rather far, since this was not a case of intent, but of neglect. Concerning not the legal but the moral question, I definitely think that the girlfriend had a moral claim towards him that he should avoid harming her. That includes him taking reasonable precaution in order not to infect her with HIV, and if you know you had unprotected sex with someone who is infected then reasonable precaution includes taking a HIV test. I took a look at the Swiss case (it’s of special interest to me since I’m Swiss). The argument made by the judges was that the man should have taken a HIV test, since, before infecting his girlfriend, he had had unprotected sexual intercourse with a woman who was HIV-positive, which he knew. So the idea was that anyone who has reason to suspect he could be infected is required to take a test. This judgment was interpreted as going rather far, since this was not a case of intent, but of neglect.
Concerning not the legal but the moral question, I definitely think that the girlfriend had a moral claim towards him that he should avoid harming her. That includes him taking reasonable precaution in order not to infect her with HIV, and if you know you had unprotected sex with someone who is infected then reasonable precaution includes taking a HIV test.

]]> By: Tom http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/12/02/women-and-aids/#comment-214577 Tom Wed, 03 Dec 2008 06:36:11 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=9954#comment-214577 On the issue of HIV in the African-American community, there was a study by researchers at the Veterans Administration this past summer that demonstrated that the absence of a specific red blood cell antigen protein (the Duffy antigen) is associated with a 40% increase in the risk of HIV infection, but also a slower progression of the infection. About 90% of Africans, and about 60% of African-Americans, lack the antigen, due to a mutation that provided protection against a certain strain of malaria (nearly all Caucasians have the antigen). A model by the authors suggested that as much as 11% of the AIDS pandemic in Africa might be accounted for by this factor. There is an article on the study <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/17/science/sci-hiv17" rel="nofollow">here</a>. On the issue of HIV in the African-American community, there was a study by researchers at the Veterans Administration this past summer that demonstrated that the absence of a specific red blood cell antigen protein (the Duffy antigen) is associated with a 40% increase in the risk of HIV infection, but also a slower progression of the infection. About 90% of Africans, and about 60% of African-Americans, lack the antigen, due to a mutation that provided protection against a certain strain of malaria (nearly all Caucasians have the antigen). A model by the authors suggested that as much as 11% of the AIDS pandemic in Africa might be accounted for by this factor. There is an article on the study here.

]]> By: Kyra http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/12/02/women-and-aids/#comment-214559 Kyra Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:09:01 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=9954#comment-214559 <i>On the other hand, I would be extremely distraught if I found out *after* having sex with someone that they had *any* STD, but it would be worst with HIV. Purposefully putting someone in a deadly situation like that without telling them in general should be criminalized, if it isn’t illegal already. If you can’t tell your partner that you have HIV, *don’t have sex with them.*</i> This. I hate that this concept in today's society treads so close to criminalizing HIV, but only I have the right to choose what risks I take; my sexual partners do not get to decide for me that risking my infection is worth it for them to get laid. I deserve to know so I can decide what precautions I want to take, or if the added risk is too great for me to justify continuing. It sucks, utterly, that STI's are so stigmatized---AIDS included. But (non-solo) sexual activity is not a right like free speech or a fair trial; it's a privilege, provided by and negotiated with another human being, and everybody owes it to the person providing that companionship to be upfront and honest about the risks as accurately to their own situation as possible. This is another one of those difficult "your rights end where mine begin" situations, and certainly needs some working on and consideration. But if I decide to let someone have sex with me, I deserve an accurate picture of what I'm getting into. My body is not theirs; it is mine. On the other hand, I would be extremely distraught if I found out *after* having sex with someone that they had *any* STD, but it would be worst with HIV. Purposefully putting someone in a deadly situation like that without telling them in general should be criminalized, if it isn’t illegal already. If you can’t tell your partner that you have HIV, *don’t have sex with them.*

This.

I hate that this concept in today’s society treads so close to criminalizing HIV, but only I have the right to choose what risks I take; my sexual partners do not get to decide for me that risking my infection is worth it for them to get laid. I deserve to know so I can decide what precautions I want to take, or if the added risk is too great for me to justify continuing.

It sucks, utterly, that STI’s are so stigmatized—AIDS included. But (non-solo) sexual activity is not a right like free speech or a fair trial; it’s a privilege, provided by and negotiated with another human being, and everybody owes it to the person providing that companionship to be upfront and honest about the risks as accurately to their own situation as possible.

This is another one of those difficult “your rights end where mine begin” situations, and certainly needs some working on and consideration. But if I decide to let someone have sex with me, I deserve an accurate picture of what I’m getting into. My body is not theirs; it is mine.

]]> By: Maureen http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/12/02/women-and-aids/#comment-214525 Maureen Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:27:57 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=9954#comment-214525 Perhaps tort law is a better tool against HIV transmission. What if knowingly transmitting HIV was classed as an exceptionally hazardous activity? Perhaps tort law is a better tool against HIV transmission. What if knowingly transmitting HIV was classed as an exceptionally hazardous activity?

]]> By: Bagelsan http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/12/02/women-and-aids/#comment-214495 Bagelsan Wed, 03 Dec 2008 01:57:55 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=9954#comment-214495 I think biting *is* dangerous, though, right? If you have any kind of sore or cut in your mouth, that could result in blood-blood contact. (The spitting thing is ridiculous--that should just be "assault" or "assault of a police officer" or whatever you call it, just like anyone else spitting at people.) I think whether it's criminal to transmit HIV should absolutely be about intent. If someone raped someone else *knowing* they were HIV positive I think that should be an "attempted murder" charge tacked on the rape charge right away, for example (even if the victim were not infected). Or something to reflect the fact that they *intended* for their victim to die. It could be like poisoning or something; if you actively purposefully poison someone, that's terrible, but if you happen to give peanuts to someone allergic without realizing it, that's not criminal, that's a tragic accident. Or like in the case of transmission through pregnancy: if your kid eats paint chips and gets sick, that's not criminal, that's a result of crappy circumstances. As for disclosure to sexual partner(s), I'm on the fence about that. Ideally, I think it should be mandatory, but the stigma should be reduced to the point that knowing someone was HIV positive would merely result in careful precautions, not in criminal charges or shunning or whatever. But it doesn't strike me as always a safe thing to demand of the person with HIV; maybe it would endanger them for people to find out about it somehow... On the other hand, I would be extremely distraught if I found out *after* having sex with someone that they had *any* STD, but it would be worst with HIV. Purposefully putting someone in a deadly situation like that without telling them in general should be criminalized, if it isn't illegal already. If you can't tell your partner that you have HIV, *don't have sex with them.* I think biting *is* dangerous, though, right? If you have any kind of sore or cut in your mouth, that could result in blood-blood contact. (The spitting thing is ridiculous–that should just be “assault” or “assault of a police officer” or whatever you call it, just like anyone else spitting at people.)

I think whether it’s criminal to transmit HIV should absolutely be about intent. If someone raped someone else *knowing* they were HIV positive I think that should be an “attempted murder” charge tacked on the rape charge right away, for example (even if the victim were not infected). Or something to reflect the fact that they *intended* for their victim to die. It could be like poisoning or something; if you actively purposefully poison someone, that’s terrible, but if you happen to give peanuts to someone allergic without realizing it, that’s not criminal, that’s a tragic accident. Or like in the case of transmission through pregnancy: if your kid eats paint chips and gets sick, that’s not criminal, that’s a result of crappy circumstances.

As for disclosure to sexual partner(s), I’m on the fence about that. Ideally, I think it should be mandatory, but the stigma should be reduced to the point that knowing someone was HIV positive would merely result in careful precautions, not in criminal charges or shunning or whatever. But it doesn’t strike me as always a safe thing to demand of the person with HIV; maybe it would endanger them for people to find out about it somehow…

On the other hand, I would be extremely distraught if I found out *after* having sex with someone that they had *any* STD, but it would be worst with HIV. Purposefully putting someone in a deadly situation like that without telling them in general should be criminalized, if it isn’t illegal already. If you can’t tell your partner that you have HIV, *don’t have sex with them.*

]]> By: james http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/12/02/women-and-aids/#comment-214396 james Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:22:50 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=9954#comment-214396 Dunno. I think it probably turned on the technical meaning of assault. I'm not sure it matters whether there was any actually risk of harm, so long as you cause someone to fear harm it's assault. If this had been a case of someone shooting at police with blanks from a replica gun, as opposed to live rounds from a real gun, none of us would be debating the risk of harm. Either way he'd have still caused them to fear for their lives. 35 years does seem an awfully long time though. Dunno. I think it probably turned on the technical meaning of assault. I’m not sure it matters whether there was any actually risk of harm, so long as you cause someone to fear harm it’s assault. If this had been a case of someone shooting at police with blanks from a replica gun, as opposed to live rounds from a real gun, none of us would be debating the risk of harm. Either way he’d have still caused them to fear for their lives. 35 years does seem an awfully long time though.

]]> By: Jill http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/12/02/women-and-aids/#comment-214376 Jill Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:12:31 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=9954#comment-214376 I agree that intentionally infecting someone with HIV should be a crime. But I'm not sure that it should be more of a crime to spit on a cop if you're HIV-positive than if you're not, considering that HIV isn't spread through saliva. And I'm not sure that women should be criminally prosecuted for not taking AIDS meds when they're pregnant. I agree that intentionally infecting someone with HIV should be a crime. But I’m not sure that it should be more of a crime to spit on a cop if you’re HIV-positive than if you’re not, considering that HIV isn’t spread through saliva. And I’m not sure that women should be criminally prosecuted for not taking AIDS meds when they’re pregnant.

]]>