If somebody knows they're infected and they fail to tell the person they're going to fuck, then yes, they should be charged with something.

The problem is, how do you prove they didn't tell the other person?

Yeah, that's what "the problem is", and it's their problem, not ours. Screwing around is risky, and people tell lies about everything... That's how it's done. "Charging people with something" is weird, anyway. It's sounds like you're not even ready to say the behavior is illegal, but are eager to involve yourself in their stupidity.

If you don't want to be lied to, don't chase tail or be chased. For your own sake, use protection, and don't come cryin' to me when you don't. Hell, don't come cryin' to me when you DO....

This is not a problem for Daddy Government. Taxpayers don't care whether you get laid or not.

Also, Canada is goofy in some very European ways. Having a neighboring superpower pick up the expense of your international defense –simply because they need done right, whether you're up to it or not– can give you weird ideas about the preciousness of your comity.

To carry another thread over to this one - if this is a sexual assault (and I'm not saying it's not, because this guy wouldn't get any if he told the truth)...

... what's the restitution?

She can't be uninfected!

Restitution?

He can pick up the cost of her Valtrex prescription in pepertuity.

Also: the article does not say that the woman contracted herpes.

Assault at least. It's no different than jabbing someone on purpose with a dirty needle. Yes, it's an adult's job to protect their own health, but you can't do that if another adult intentionally lies to you. If your Dr told you your test results were fine but they weren't, would that be your own fault for trusting, as well?
With HIV, I think it should be attempted murder.

One part of me says yes, another say no.

What about other situations. What if a women says she is using birth control but gets pregnant - can she sued for theft or fraud or something.

How about prostitutes? Can they be charged too as above?

What constitutes notice? Verbal? Written? Contract? Will a simple Facebook status suffice?

Well your honor - the accuser was befriended on the tenth - exchanged and accessed the clients page 20 times before they had sex the first time - 3 days later. It was clearly detailed on his info page.

I'm all for requesting documentation of std status before sex. Not very romantic, but neither is getting an std.

I would argue that this is a civil case at most. The idiots with HIV who deliberately attempt to spread it should be charged with attempted murder.

One ought to be able to depend on a prosecutor to be able to tell the difference. Mike Nifong, alas, is not the only bad prosecutor we will ever have.

Bill O'Reilly claims to be looking out for you, but I've had better luck looking out for myself. Life happens, and then you die.

Hogg is a pig.

> It's no different than jabbing someone on
> purpose with a dirty needle.

I can't imagine anything more different! She was out there in the market for a stabbing anyway, not that there was anything in it for me, Mr. Distant Taxpayer. No goodness is delivered to my life when she gets exactly the Jolly Rogering she was looking for. She wants to stay healthy? Fine, she stays home and does her nails. She wants to get laid anyway? Fine... Leave me out of it.

Dating and trusting other people is always going to be a risky business. Disappointments, including infectious ones, have been happening since the dawn of time. There's no novel hazard at work here... No reason for me to be bothered as a taxpayer or jurist.

> If your Dr told you your test results were
> fine but they weren't, would that be your own
> fault for trusting, as well?

Is he fucking you from behind at the time? The relationship of a doctor to a patient has legal ramifications not present in a weekend hookup, including commercial ones. And your weekend fuckbuddy can't proscribe meds.

This is just so APPALLINGLY infantile. How could this woman BE more pathetic? And how could the people in her community who think that yes, these private goings-on are their business? For the love of Christ... If she's not going to handle this part of her life with independent responsibility, what can we rely on her to deal with? Her nutrition? Her education? Her finances? Her health care? Of course not. This idiot kid was a ward of the state from the moment she slipped into a training bra.

This isn't a question of libertarian principle, this is a test of (minimal) adulthood.


If you're serious about this, you have a selection of cultures in which the sexual fulfillment of distant young women is very much the business of the middle-aged men.

> Hogg is a pig.

Wish I'd said that.

When you lie with Hoggs, you're likely to get mud and shit on you.

There should be no punishment. The infectee should have gotten to know the person they were sleeping with better before they slept together. Maybe take some time to get to know your partner and get to the point where you can thrust one another before you bang.

After reading the above comments...I find that I must change my mind.

The impossibility of providing proof beyond a reasonable doubt alone makes criminal charges a moot notion.

This should be kept as a civil matter.

I wish there were some way to hold people that knowingly spread disease criminally accountable.

But because of the intimate nature of those illnesses, it is impossible to prove it was never discussed. And any possible criminal statute would likely just result in fewer people bothering to get tested.

There was an fml (Fmylife.com) posted by a man who said, and I quote:

"Today, I went to the free clinic down the street to prove to my girlfriend I don't have any STDs so that we can finally have sex. Turns out I have one. FML"

Crid, as usual is entirely correct. You assume certain risks as an adult engaging in contact with other people, both sexual and non sexual.

The legal system is not designed to protect you against a virus (HSV-1,HSV-2)that may be carried by up to 80 percent of the adult population.

I know that a number of my male and female friends have HSV, without them telling me because I have seen cold sores on their lip on one or more occasions.
If I were to kiss them, touch them or have sex with them, even in the absence of an active outbreak, I would be exposing myself to HSV. and it really wouldn't matter where the sore occurred when I contracted it because the disease would reside in my nervous system for life.

I might get zero outbreaks and never pass it on to anyone else, and I might get one or more sores every time I was under stress OR I might be one of those people who continually shed the virus without any active lesions and subsequently passed it on almost everyone I came in contact with who was not already infected, or immune, just like a modern day Typhoid Mary.

In short, HSV, like HPV, is one of those viruses, that is so common in the human population, you are probably a lot better off just assuming someone has it than assuming they do not.

And if you do not have it but not being exposed to it is your chief worry in life, than you should under no circumstances, touch, kiss or have sex with another human being.

This is completely a personal responsibility. Has no reason to be in the court system at all, maybe civil court. ? But, punished by the law? No. There has to be a point where people finally wake up and take personal responsibility for themselves. I am so sick to death of this crap.

"But because of the intimate nature of those illnesses, it is impossible to prove it was never discussed. And any possible criminal statute would likely just result in fewer people bothering to get tested."

My first thought was that it would be a nightmare to prove, but then, let the burden be on the victim to do that. I would think in some cases there would be e-mail or text exchanges which could clearly prove the person witheld this information and admits so after the fact (ie: "Why didn't you tell me?" "I was embarrassed", etc).

I have a girlfriend with herpes and she recently slept with a guy she's been dating for about a month, and she didn't tell him. In her defense, he didn't ask - and she says she wasn't having an outbreak at the time so figured the risk was low - but I still find it unethical, and I told her so. Yet, many people won't say because they're ashamed or fearful they'll be viewed differently.

But if they might be prosecuted or sued for not telling, they'd probably think twice about witholding the information.

If anything, this is a civil matter. "My boyfriend omitted information" isn't the same as "I was raped at gunpoint." I don't see how a consensual sexual encounter is viewed as aggravated sexual assault because some guy's a lying d-bag. And, as everyone's already pointed out- what proof is there that they hadn't discussed it beforehand?

I do feel like people have a MORAL obligation to inform potential sexual partners that they have an STD. However, I also feel we have a MORAL obligation to take care of the insane. Doesn't mean I think we should legislate it.

> if they might be prosecuted or sued for not
> telling, they'd probably think twice about
> witholding the information.

Even then, not worth it. This is intimate contact, after all, and volitional exposure on behalf of both (private) parties. It's not like a guy who knew he had cholera went recklessly sneezing his way down the salad bar at the (participating) Red Lobster™.

If the elemental shame of infecting another human being isn't enough to stop a guy, he's probably not the kind of steady gentleman who's gonna briskly cut a check to pay off a legal judgment, either.

Maybe he's not the guy she should be fucking... But that's not for me to say, m'kay? I'm a feminist, and want and expect women to take command of their own lives. So don't ask. PLEASE don't make me take of time from work to think about it, or pay the taxes for a judge to sort through it all. There are no jurists sharp enough to make these calls.

I mean, Mom4, is lying really the problem? Is that where our prosecution should end?

What if he said she had hair like Thai silk and cheeks like a Georgia peach, and it charmed her pants right off... But actually her hair was more like chenille and her cheeks were like walnuts, only she didn't figure it out until later? Is there an extra legal judgment to be made?

What if he said he'd been madly in love with her from the moment they made eye contact, and he was looking forward to fifty years of loving marriage, beginning first thing in the morning? (After the fucking, I mean.) But then they didn't get married. Does he do jail time?

What if he just said "Yeah, Kitten, I'll call ya." And then he didn't. Actionable?

When a woman says the problem for which she needs state support is the lying, I tend to believe her... Even if both of us know better.

Oh please Crid, there is morning after regret when he doesn't call, and there's the regret you carry with you in the form of painful sores the rest of your life. And no, up to 80% of the population does not have herpes (no doubt if you have it, you might find lying about it's commonality comforting), and genital herpes is not the same as cold sores. Different viruses, although you can get genital herpes orally oral ones genitally. But a person with cold sores is not going to start breaking out genitally from that virus. They ahve genital sores too, it means they have genital herpes too.

I don't know what columnist Dan Savage would say about the legal issues regarding herpes, per se, but here are a few 2005 letters re what he said re HIV:

Holy cow, Dan! What a mean response! I totally disagree that there is a direct parallel between mugging old ladies and having unsafe sex with an HIV diagnosis. The old ladies have no way to protect themselves, whereas every single partner who sleeps with an HIV-er has the choice to use a condom. I work at an HIV-service agency, and we deal with the issue of disclosure all the time — it’s one of the hardest things for sexually active gay men, especially those who feel validated by sex, to handle. Placing all the blame for the spread of HIV on the people who are already infected is stupid — for many of them, it’s incredibly psychologically damaging to live with both the social pressure of being gay and being seen as a walking infection. Should they expose other people to the virus? Of course not. But it takes two to tango.

Plus, there’s a better way to reach positive people than forcing them to pay "drug-support payments." We should educate them so that they understand the risks they’re putting themselves at, rather than scolding and punishing them for living with a tragic disease.

Doctor Nice

For the love of God, Doctor Nitwit, go into some other line of work! HIV-service agencies are overrun with idiots who agree with you, and you’re all making the AIDS epidemic incalculably worse. When confronted with a man who’s running around indiscriminately infecting other men with HIV, your first impulse is to start spitting out excuses. We should have compassion! Disclosure is difficult! Let’s educate the poor little darling — not about his responsibility to his sex partners, heavens, no! Let’s educate him about the risks he’s putting himself at!

What about compassion for the men he’s infecting? What about his responsibility not to spread HIV? As for education, if this asshole is smart enough to use the Internet to line up sex dates, he’s smart enough to know that it’s wrong to give someone else HIV.

And you know what, Doctor Dipshit? I didn’t suggest that we scold and punish people for living with a tragic disease. I suggested that we scold and punish people who maliciously and/or negligently infect other people with a tragic disease. I have scores of friends with HIV who go to great lengths to avoid infecting others, and I certainly wasn’t scolding them. They’re the good guys, and I’m sick to fucking death of "HIV educators" lumping my ethical HIV-positive friends in with selfish, unethical, immoral HIV-positive shitbags who couldn’t care less about infecting other people.

Yes, it takes two to tango. That’s why in my drug-support-payment plan the malicious and/or negligent infector would only be on the hook for 50 percent of the expense of the drugs that the person he infected would need to stay alive. As for being "mean," my drug-support-payment plan is less mean than the alternative suggested by numerous "Savage Love" readers: prison. In most US states and all of Canada, knowingly exposing someone to HIV is a felony — just like mugging little old ladies.
_________________________

As someone who has worked in HIV/AIDS in New York City for almost 17 years, I applaud your "drug-support payments" idea. Since the beginning of HIV/AIDS I have always been amazed that the onus of prevention was on the uninfected and not the person with HIV. For most communicable diseases, the infected person is educated on how not to spread disease. Someone with active tuberculosis is expected to stay home, not go to work, and to wear a mask to prevent others from being infected. So why is it so hard to council someone with HIV not to spread a deadly virus? Why is it such a taboo among so many gay-activist groups for the HIV-positive person to be a responsible human being?

Wake Up, People!

P.S. If you print this, please do not use my name. I work for a public-health agency that would not be too happy with my opinions.

I was heartened by your letter, WUP, until I got to your P.S. What does it tell us about HIV and public-health agencies that your opinions are so controversial that you can’t have your name run with your letter? Nothing good.
___________________

Long-time reader, first-time writer. In regard to your "drug-support payments" idea, why stop with just HIV? Why shouldn’t we do the same for smokers? Their health problems are numerous. And what about fat people? They regularly make themselves more obese. Shouldn’t they have to pay for their diabetes meds, heart-disease meds, heart operations, etc.?

J.

Someone has to stuff his own face to get fat and light his own smokes to get lung cancer, which means every fat person and smoker out there is solely responsible for his own health problems. To get infected with HIV, however, someone has to infect you.

But I’ll take your bait: yeah, I believe that people who smoke or stuff themselves should pay higher health-insurance premiums than people who don’t take those risks — and I said "higher," not crushing. The idea is to create a financial incentive for people to make better choices. Likewise, I think people who maliciously and/or negligently infect others with HIV should be held responsible for their actions, and drug-support payments would create a financial incentive to make better choices.
_________________________

I’m a 52-year-old gay man — native San Franciscan — who lost count of the friends I buried from AIDS. I worked at San Francisco General Hospital and saw the horrors of ward 5A. I volunteered at Project Open Hand to feed those infected. I’ve walked in countless AIDS walks. How I escaped is beyond me, because I was there in the thick of it. But not a day goes by that I don’t remember one of those who died. We didn’t know what caused AIDS then. We do now.

That this asshole is purposely infecting others for his own physical pleasure is nothing short of criminal. It is premeditated murder. Yeah, I’d drop his ass quick — and I’d tell everyone I knew why. Hell, I’d probably tell total strangers. He would not be a friend. Sorry, but my friends care for other people. And ya know what else? I don’t want to pay for his fucking medication. Nor do I want to pay for the medications of his barebacking asshole partners.

Once upon a time we opened our hearts and our wallets to those infected. We demanded that the government step in and help. I really hate to say that I don’t care, but I don’t. Go ahead and die.

Tim D.

__________________________

It’s difficult for me to read about people like Help Me Do the Right Thing’s friend. At 32, I contracted HIV from a guy I’d been seeing who lied to me about his status. I’ve accepted my part of the blame. But I also know that in California, knowingly transmitting the virus is a felony. I’m not sure if prosecuting this guy is what I want or if it will make any difference, but I do agree with the idea that he should pay for the obscenely expensive meds I now have to take for the remainder of my life.

Todd

> there is morning after regret when he doesn't
> call, and there's the regret you carry with you
> in the form of painful sores the rest of your
> life.

But you didn't mention those, you just mentioned "lies". As if a grown woman needs community help to anticipate "lies" in a moment like that. As if the rest of the community would expect her to trust him, and not to insist on protection, and would support her decision later. As if the her regret were skin off the community nose. As if "painful sores for the rest of (her) life" were something she needed community support to be wary of.

Besides, I've heard that these are really no big deal once you're settled in life. Couples close to me have enjoyed long marriages which one partner began with genital herpes. Outbreaks can be infrequent, and fade over time. And if the fate is as tragic as you imply, why wasn't she wary? Lord knows there are other consequences to worry about. Or is she going to need help with those, too?

And her education, and her nutrition, and.........

Dear Fellow Americans! ---

Do not include me in the trial to punish the herpes "liar" in your life. For while I am bitter and spiteful when impaneled, I'm also impassioned and persuasive in deliberation. I am the Jury Whisperer, and I'll do everything possible to compound your sorrow, shame and expense...

You slut.

"But a person with cold sores is not going to start breaking out genitally from that virus. They ahve genital sores too, it means they have genital herpes too."
D

They can pass it on through oral sex and if you were to touch an oral herpes sore and then touch your genitals or someone else's genitals you could infect them. If you are shedding either virus, orally or genitally, even without an active lesion, you can infect them. You can catch it from sharing a drinking cup or a wrestling mat.

From some studies I have read there is a 60-40 split between the two very similar types of herpes, that is, 60% of HSV-1 is oral, 40% is genital, and that stat is pretty much reversed for HSV-2. Some researchers seem to think that the two types may reach parity soon because of the amount of oral sex has rapidly increased in our population.

Many people seem to be unaware that most STD's can be easily caught and transferred both orally and also in your eyes. I have a friend who is a nurse and she told me about treating a number of traditional STD's that have infected people's eyes. Chlamydia is a particularly nasty one.

In fact Herpes is not really a true STD at all. It is a contact disease that just happens to be more easily transmittable through thinner skin around the mouth and the sexual organs. If you think you can't get HSV-1 genitally or HSV-2 on any part of your body, you are sadly misinformed.

> in California, knowingly transmitting the virus
> is a felony.

A ludicrous example of the California presumption that all of life's hurts can be made to go away with policy. What's the rate of infection for unprotected sex generally? Low enough that proving transmission to be "knowing" would be essentially impossible without video of a deliberate needle stick.

Robert: The problem is, how do you prove they didn't tell the other person?

Good question. The article does say "After police investigated, they determined there was enough evidence to charge him with aggravated sexual assault,..." Perhaps a crucial piece of that evidence was him admitting that he didn't tell her?

Also, the "police may have gone too far" comment doesn't appear to apply to the charge of assault per se. Instead it applies to the inclusion of "aggravated."

But Toronto criminal lawyer Patrice Band suggests it may be a case where police have over-charged.

"When they include 'aggravated,' that word means to maim, or to wound, or to disfigure or to endanger the life of somebody. And I don't think herpes qualifies for any of those descriptions," said Band, who is also on the board of the Criminal Lawyer's Association.

I can see grounds for an assault charge. Arguing that because the woman consented to have sex with the guy, she has to take full responsibility for being infected is akin to arguing that if you consent to let a stranger stay overnight at your house (say, through couchsurfing.com), you have to take full responsibility if that person steals your laptop and your wallet, that the person shouldn't be charged with theft.

At what point does lying (by ommission or commission) become a crime?

It's one thing to lie about your socio-economic level ("I'm just driving the Yugo 'cause my Ferrari's in the shop") or your background ("If I hadn't blown out my knee in college, I'd be in the NFL today") or even your marital status ("I'm separated") to get someone into bed. That's really just toying with their emotions.

But it's another story when you're lying about something that could permanently damage (or even kill) someone if not disclosed.

Does it rise to the level of assault with a deadly weapon? How about "assault with a friendly weapon" (James Coburn - The Ballad of Waterhole #3)?

==============================

As someone pointed out in the needle analogy, she went looking for a jab, just not an infected jab.

But what if she decided to take her chances ... even after being warned?

How can he prove that to a jury? A rational person would say "I would never take that risk." But after several drinks late at night...? A jury is made up of (presumably) rational people in daylight who would most likely give her the benefit of the doubt, unable to imagine themselves being so careless with their own safety (even to the point of ignoring their own track record if necessary).

==============================

It's not like a guy who knew he had cholera went recklessly sneezing his way down the salad bar at the (participating) Red Lobster™.

True.

One assumes certain risks eating a salad bar salad at a (participating) Red Lobster™.

But where do those "certain risks" end and Cholera Boy's responsiblities begin?

==============================

If the elemental shame of infecting another human being isn't enough to stop a guy, he's probably not the kind of steady gentleman who's gonna briskly cut a check to pay off a legal judgment, either.

Crid, as usual[,] is entirely correct. You assume certain risks as an adult engaging in contact with other people....

And we've hit the crux of the matter.

There are certain risks one assumes in human relations, especially intimate ones. Sadly, some of those risks carry long-term consequences.

And you can't go through life counting on the other guy to assume responsibility for his own culpability in creating those consquences ... or on the government to make him take responsibility.

"I can see grounds for an assault charge. Arguing that because the woman consented to have sex with the guy, she has to take full responsibility for being infected is akin to arguing that if you consent to let a stranger stay overnight at your house (say, through couchsurfing.com), you have to take full responsibility if that person steals your laptop and your wallet, that the person shouldn't be charged with theft."

If you consent to kiss someone, and get a cold or the flu from it is it also assault?

You are sort of on the right track, but this is a poor analogy. Transmission of an infection is not the same as a deliberate tort such as theft.

A better analogy would be, the stranger spends the night on your couch, and a few days later, you or your kids come down with the flu, or the chicken pox.

You contact the stranger and he admits that he felt sick during the night he spent at your house but did not realize that he was actively contagious with anything.

Criminal liability and assault? I think not, our courts are over clogged enough as it is......

Believe it or not, I have actually had this happen only it was a friend, who slept on a spare bed in my kids room. The next day, she broke out in chickenpox and one of my kids had it a few days later.

Like I said, there are plenty of crimes where you may not have proof - theft being one of them. We had some people stay at out house while on vacation, and when we returned, some things were missing, but we couldn't absolutely prove theft, beyound a doubt, although theft is a crime.

Yet, if we'd had a hidden camera set up - or were able to extract a confession - we could've taken that to the police. So, the idea that a crime is only a crime if it can easily be proven is the wrong way to view it.

This can be deemed a crime, but the burden of obtaining proof would obviously be on the infected party, which apparently it already is. Presumably, this woman had something in the way of a confession to take to the police.

A friend of mine's daughter contracted TB from a lab partner at her college (in med school), and I believe it was later determined that this student (who was from another country) did in fact know he was a carrier and exposed her and several others. He lied on his college application. I believe there were charges in that case.

I don't know what the laws are in Toronto, but here in the good old U.S. of A., in order to bring suit against someone, certain criteria have to be met, including the court being able to provide you a remedy in the first place.

Herpes has no remedy. Unlike love, herpes is forever. If this were a crippling condition that hampered her ability to find a job or navigate everyday existence, she might be entitled to financial compensation. But an STD?

Sorry, no can do. Next time, tell him to wrap it, or take it home and whack it.

I R A Darth Aggie: He can pick up the cost of her Valtrex prescription in pepertuity.

In Canada? I don't think he would need to. They have that socialized medicine stuff that the U.S.A. is terrified of.

Crid: I can't imagine anything more different! She was out there in the market for a stabbing anyway, not that there was anything in it for me, Mr. Distant Taxpayer.

He beat me to it. The comparison of this to a malicious wounding is ridiculous. Unless she's some kind of bondage freak, she's not out there to be physically hurt. (I was going to say "penetrated," but...well, she WAS out there to be penetrated, albeit in a different sense.)

"The infectee should have gotten to know the person they were sleeping with better before they slept together."

Interesting. And if they were married and the offender was cheating?

Kewl

If they were married and he was cheating, it seems unlikely that he'd have taken the risk of exposing her to this hazard. She didn't know he was cheating, right?

But even then, I don't want women asking for legal support for this... Certainly not when it's only herpes. In that case [A] Thank God it's only herpes and [B]{1} ditch the guy or [B]{2} pull your marriage back together.

It really depends on how aggregious the deception is. I read about some poor lady who married a guy who never told her he had HIV. Most people don't wear condoms during the course of a marriage. She only found out after giving birth to a child who was infected.

To me, that is an aggregious deception, which should be treated as criminal. Not only did he knowingly expose the wife, but also the innocent child.

There are a lot of situations where criminal charges can be brought for misreprentation. As a landlord, I'm liable for my representations to tenants and guests, at least civilly. Not sure they can charge me with a crime, but I believe they can if, let's say, I send a potential guests a brochure of some lavish hotel, and they get to my place and see it's not at all what I represented. There's probably some kind of "duping a tourist" charge. Certainly, if they got here and found I didn't even have a place - that it was all a lie and their money was aquired falsely - which has actually happened to some tourists.

Again, they have to prove the misrepresentation, and it has to be pretty aggregious. I don't know if that should be the case with herpes, since it's not life-threatening, but with HIV, definately.

> But where do those "certain risks" end and
> Cholera Boy's responsiblities begin?

Weird question... Cholera was selected for example because it's so virulent and needs so much less intimacy for transmission. If you've got cholera, you have a responsibility to avoid the public entirely, and certainly to stay away from food.

If you consent to kiss someone, and get a cold or the flu from it is it also assault?

If you consent to kiss someone, and get HIV*, would that be assault?

(* although the risk is remote, the CDC notes that there have been cases of HIV being transmitted via deep kissing.)

Transmission of an infection is not the same as a deliberate tort such as theft.

I agree that it's not exactly the same but I don't think it has to be exactly the same for there to be grounds for a charge of assault.

You contact the stranger and he admits that he felt sick during the night he spent at your house but did not realize that he was actively contagious with anything.

What if he did know he was actively contagious?

Criminal liability and assault? I think not, our courts are over clogged enough as it is......

I'm not saying I'm completely on board with the idea, just that I can see valid reasoning behind it. Also, even if HSV isn't that harmful, it still is harmful and I see a situation like that as more deserving of a day in court than all the situations (e.g. drug usage, prostitution) where people are only harming themselves or where two consenting adults are not harming each other.

Weird question... Cholera was selected for example because it's so virulent and needs so much less intimacy for transmission. If you've got cholera, you have a responsibility to avoid the public entirely, and certainly to stay away from food.

That's kind of where I was going.

If you've got a transmittable disease (even one whose effect is inconvenient rather than deadly ... i.e., herpes), you've got a level of responsibility to the public at large. You should take steps to avoid the willful, or even negligent, transmission of that disease.

This is not to say we should jail people in public with the flu, but how many times have you wished a cowoker would have stayed home for a day instead of bringing the latest cold of flu into the office?

Figuring out that level of responsibility may be bit tricky when it comes to legal repurcussions.

Basically, if you can't make yourself actually useful to others, you can at least avoid infecting them.

"What if he did know he was actively contagious?"

Now you are getting into questions that only a tort law professor can answer well
The courts generally use a balancing test. If you were actively contagious with something lethal, and you knew or should have known that there was a good chance of transmission, and you did an affirmative act that you either knew or should have known would be likely to infect an individual with something that had a substantial chance of killing them, then yes, in most states you would be criminally libel.

A good example of this is Lovelysoul's Med student with TB.

He had the requisite knowledge about the disease and its transmission and deliberately lied on an application that got him into med school in the US because he knew as a carrier of TB that he could and probably would actively infect people,through casual contact and would be denied entry into the US because of being a carrier.

The lie on the application was Mens rea (evidence of a guilty mind)

However, if you knew you were infected with something but thought it was something generally non lethal like a cold when it was actually ebola, no, you would not be criminally libel.

You would also not be criminally libel if you gave someone a cold and it developed into a fatal pneumonia and killed them.
I would argue, that Herpes (any form) and HPV are much more akin to the common cold situation, than the TB, Ebola, Cholera HIV hypotheticals.

My further thoughts on criminalizing herpes (or HPV) transmission is that we already have enough men whose entire sex and social life is watching porn on their computer.

Do we really want to criminalize what little is left of normal human sexual contact so that the few intelligent men left who are still interacting with women call it quits with real sex and relationships as well?

We watched this happen with men and children. My wonderful, generous husband gave up tutoring in the public library because it is simply too dangerous, if you are someone with any assets, or any common sense. The allegation alone will ruin your life.
He spent the weekend last month teaching a 17 year old girl how to drive and took my son's 22 year old girlfriend along with him just to be safe..

So, let me get this straight:

If a car salesman lies to you about mileage, you get to give the car back, get your money back and the salesman gets prosecuted for fraud, but if your partner gives you a disease, tough?

"They have that socialized medicine stuff that the U.S.A. is terrified of."

Excellent. I can't wait to do what the hell I want on the taxpayer dollar. No wonder Americans go to Canada for their health care. (/sarc)

Although I understand the complaint, and assault would be the closest crime, what's her obligation? There's no notation, unless I missed it, where she even asked if he was infected. If he's mandated to disclose, she should at least be mandated to inquire, to care enough about her health to ask him if it's an issue.

"The infectee should have gotten to know the person they were sleeping with better before they slept together."

Making assumptions much? Do we even know how long they knew each other before sleeping together?

Back in the early '90s, a friend of mine got herpes the same way. Actually, it was a bit different because her boyfriend didn't tell her he had herpes. She discovered she'd contracted it when she went to her doctor. She'd been dating the guy for three years and had never had sexual contact with anyone else in that time. Her boyfriend swore up and down that he never cheated on her. He admitted he knew he had it before he started dating her, and just never told her because he was afraid of how she'd react, and besides, he hadn't had any outbreaks in all that time.

She actually continued dating him -- in fact, she married him. I told her she was totally crazy, but she said she was afraid that now that she had herpes, no one else would want to date her.

Oooo, herpes is no big deal! Crid says so. It's good the guy got to make that decision for her. I always like to leave the possibility of my exposure up to others. (should I ask my hubby nightly if he's infected? I doubt he'd offer it up. If someone cheats, they're not likely to do the right thing afterward).

Valtrex isn't a cure. You can still break out and still transmit, and Valtrex has some unpleasant side effects. Not to mention it's cost. Herpes is not no big deal. I do not have it, and if someone ever gives it to me it will be the last act of sex they ever have, because I will cut it off.

"Do we really want to criminalize what little is left of normal human sexual contact so that the few intelligent men left who are still interacting with women call it quits with real sex and relationships as well?"

But it isn't just men witholding this information. My friend is a woman and she isn't disclosing her herpes status.

Your post is excellent - very informative - and I agree with you that herpes isn't in the same league as Ebola or HIV. But it still carries a pretty impactful social stigma, as well as expense.

I'd imagine the times when outright fraud could be proven would be rare. Proving someone knew would almost require an outright confession, or access to their medical records.

My point is that I doubt this would actually result in that many criminal arrests, but the threat of prosecution would still be a deterrent.

I think that would inspire full disclosure in someone like my girlfriend, for instance. She's not a bad person, just able to justify this lack of total honesty. And, right now, the worst that may happen is that some guy will be pissed that she gave it to him.

Then again, I can see Crid's point that the guy is running the risk by sleeping with her. I think you can still catch herpes even when using a condom..is that right? How is anyone really supposed to protect themselves unless they're totally celibate?

Knowing someone willfully put you at risk for an often painful and stigmatizing condition that you will carry for the rest of your life seems like a valid charge - IF it can be proven.

Thanks for your comments, Isabel.

I would consider the lethality and the longevity of what was being transmitted, with the lethality being, by far, the most important factor. Again, I'm not totally on board with the idea of charging someone with assault if they knew they had HSV and infected someone during sex; it probably would be best treated as a civil matter.

I realize this is off the main topic here but, since you mentioned it, why do you think a lot of men watch so much porn online?

And you're that cynical about men? You think there's hardly any intelligent men who are still interacting with women? I'm curious, what
has led you to that conclusion?

Sorry to hear your husband had to give up tutoring, but it was very nice to see how you described him.

Btw, I dated a guy who disclosed he had herpes, and I opted out of even dating him, much less sleeping with him. I felt badly, especially because he was very nice, and it could've gone somewhere, but I just didn't want to get herpes. I saw no point in continuing to see him, and maybe falling in love with him, if I wasn't willing to risk getting the disease.

So, having herpes does greatly impact your romantic life. His prospects for finding a partner are limited by it. Pretyy much the only women he can date are women who already have herpes themselves.

He caught it from a girl he'd known for years but dated only briefly, after she had just broken up with a cheating boyfriend. They were actually on a trip together when she had her first breakout. He was with her when she went to the doctor and found out. Two weeks later, he had a breakout.

That, of course, is just an unfortunate series of events, not criminal. He couldn't blame her because she didn't know.

lovelysoul, I hadn't read all of these comments so I didn't see the one where you wrote about your girlfriend with herpes. Do you happen to know just how low the risk of transmission is if a person with it is not having an outbreak?

But, even if the risk is minimal, as long as there is some risk, then I feel that the person with it has the ethical responsibility to disclose it to someone before having sex. I really don't see it as any "defense" of nondisclosure that the other person doesn't inquire. If I had it, I would absolutely tell a woman, whether she inquired or not.

Good for you for telling her that you find it unethical.

You would think by now people would learn. If you are going to take risks, there are consequences. I personally have a "no glove, no love" policy until I've been with a person for an extended period of time, then we get tested. It's my responsibility to do my due diligence. While there is still a chance that I didn't choose wisely in a mate and I could potentially get burned, at least I don't just blindly take their word (yes, I always ask). I'm 44 and remain STD free. I'm tested annually for my own peace of mind, I think I must be doing something right.

I always love this tough, macho-sounding bravado that some people put on, making threats that only a stark-raving idiot would actually act upon. Like this one: I do not have it, and if someone ever gives it to me it will be the last act of sex they ever have, because I will cut it off.

Great idea. Your kids will finish their growing up without a mom, because you'll be spending 20 in prison.

Y'know, I hadn't figured out that they were longer-term. I thought it was a quicky thing.

(One day I'll learn to read these things and follow the links. Then, much later, I'll learn to watch the videos.)

So, yeah, one hopes she finds... Recourse. (Presuming she asked him point blank if he was healthy and he affirmatively deceived her.)

But I'm still not sure courts should be bothered with this. There ought to be some humiliation at hand from their mutual friends, or from the people in his life who she's met. Not go after them for comp, but just to rub his nose in it... Maybe give his next sweetheart a shot at hearing about it through the grapevine.

(The court hearing was two days ago: No updates on Google news at present.)


> the salesman gets prosecuted for fraud, but if
> your partner gives you a disease, tough?

What do used cars have to do with tail? We can put a man on the moon, but microwave popcorn sux.

> There's no notation, unless I missed it, where
> she even asked if he was infected.

Nikkles, I like the way you think. My concern for this woman is predicated on the assumption that she asked him –dispassionately but with eye contact– about communicable disease, and he lied. If she never got around to asking, or was patient with his evasions, it's hard to be sympathetic.

In the years after the divorce, I got tested for HIV every year, and neatly filed the paperwork. When women asked about my history in a straightforward way, I told the truth and offered them the file. (Nowadays I do platelet donations so often –and tap unfamiliar tail so rarely– that there's no point.) We need to be rational about it, and that's all: When WOMEN played weird games with this, as if they still wanted some emotional strokage about it before moving forward (yea or nay), I usually just picked up the car keys and her sweater and took her home. She understood or she didn't, and I wasn't running a clinic. Health discussions aren't playtime, and shouldn't be confused with other things: Not by women and not by men. I knew what I thought about the health crisis and expected the same of them.


> she said she was afraid that now that she had
> herpes, no one else would want to date her.

That's tragically pathetic. So tragic that it seems unlikely, as if it were designed to forestall further inquiries regarding motivations.


> It's good the guy got to make that
> decision for her.

Don't be uncivil, M4. This is a courteous blog, composed of gentle persuasions and respectful address. We're all just trying to slice off some sustainable kindness for each other in a world that doesn't care.

My understanding is that both herpes and HPV can be spread throught skin-to-skin contact: You can get it even if you do use a condom. And doesn't anyone else recall the story about the highschool wrestlers who got if off of mats?
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/news/story?id=2748372

It's not letting me post a crow-eating comment

> There's no notation, unless I missed it, where
> she even asked if he was infected.

Nikkles, I like the way you think. My concern for this woman is predicated on the assumption that she asked him –dispassionately but with eye contact– about communicable disease, and he lied. If she never got around to asking, or was patient with his evasions, it's hard to be sympathetic.

In the years after the divorce, I got tested for HIV every year, and neatly filed the paperwork. When women asked about my history in a straightforward way, I told the truth and offered them the file. (Nowadays I do platelet donations so often –and tap unfamiliar tail so rarely– that there's no point.) We need to be rational about it, and that's all: When WOMEN played weird games with this, as if they still wanted some emotional strokage about it before moving forward (yea or nay), I usually just picked up the car keys and her sweater and took her home. She understood or she didn't, and I wasn't running a clinic. Health discussions aren't playtime, and shouldn't be confused with other things: Not by women and not by men. I knew what I thought about the health crisis and expected the same of them.


> she said she was afraid that now that she had
> herpes, no one else would want to date her.

That's tragically pathetic. So tragic that it seems unlikely, as if it were designed to forestall further inquiries regarding motivations.


> It's good the guy got to make that
> decision for her.

Don't be uncivil, M4. This is a courteous blog, composed of gentle persuasions and respectful address. We're all just trying to slice off some sustainable kindness for each other in a world that doesn't care.

Here's the breakfast nook of a loving American home.

I always love this tough, macho-sounding bravado that some people put on, making threats that only a stark-raving idiot would actually act upon. Like this one: I do not have it, and if someone ever gives it to me it will be the last act of sex they ever have, because I will cut it off.

Patrick, the "it" in momof4's comment undoubtedly refers back to sex. She's not claiming she's going to go all Loreena Bobbit on him.

"What do used cars have to do with tail?"

You're smarter than this.

Lie, or fail to tell the buyer about the mileage on a car = jail.

Lie about the sores you have = OK, sorry about that. Bye.

That's what. Yes, we already punish lying with the law.

-----

Although I actually think M4 IS talking about using a knife (and further, that she will have told anyone close that fidelity is a condition of her presence in any way), please note that Lorena Bobbitt is not in jail.

From Wikipedia: "After seven hours of deliberation, the jury found Lorena not guilty due to insanity causing an irresistible impulse to sexually wound her husband. As a result, she could not be held liable for her actions.[5] Under state law, the judge ordered Lorena to undergo a 45-day evaluation period at Central State Hospital, located in Petersburg, Virginia, after which she would be released."

Here's the breakfast nook of a loving American home.

Pretty funny Crid. It reminds me of this...

Wayne: Okay! Now, uh.. Aerosmith is definitely here, right?

Barry: Yeah. Yeah. They're upstairs in the kitchen sitting right at the table there.

Wayne: You mean, they're up there in the breakfast nook! Aerosmith is in my breakfast nook? Excellent! Alright!

Garth: Excellent! Excellent!

Wayne: Alright, let's go up to the Nook Cam, alright? "Nook Cam! Nook Cam! Wayne's World! Excellent!"

Although I actually think M4 IS talking about using a knife...

Radwaste, you and Patrick are right. My mistake.

For some peculiar reason, I read her

if someone ever gives it to me it will be the last act of sex they ever have, because I will cut it off.

as

if someone ever gives it to me it will be the last act of sex they ever have with me, because I will cut it off.

Never knew that Lorena was found not guilty due to insanity.

> she said she was afraid that now that she had
> herpes, no one else would want to date her.

That's tragically pathetic. So tragic that it seems unlikely, as if it were designed to forestall further inquiries regarding motivations.

I totally agree it's pathetic, Crid. But people can be pretty pathetic. And maybe you're right that it wasn't her real motivation in staying with him. She may have told me that just so I'd stop waving my arms and screeching about how she should break up with the son of a bitch.

On the legal issue -- I think it's utterly despicable to deliberately expose someone to a disease, especially one he/she can't get rid of. This guy sucks, and I feel bad for this woman. That said, from a legal perspective, how do you prove the herpes carrier lied about it? Perhaps the victim agreed to take on the risk and changed her mind after the relationship went sour.

I also don't disagree that you always take a certain amount of risk when you sleep with someone -- that he has a disease, that she's not really on the pill... Perhaps we all need to exchange test results before sleeping with someone and draw up contracts agreeing to be faithful when entering into a relationship.

> You're smarter than this.

You're scattered and unreadable.


__________________


Was just talking to a friend about this-- When you're dating, people with energy about fidelity are a pain in the ass... They have goofy questions about old girlfriends and stopping after work for a beer with the guys. They don't realize how mundane it all is, especially to someone with no special capacity for jealousy.

A cousin paranoia fuels this discussion; an insistence that government has a role to play in matters that adults can handle for themselves, and an eagerness to discuss the cases where people infect each other deliberately.

Really? It's that fascinating? Ok, maybe for whatever stage of your life, you're supposed to be fascinated.

But can the rest of us sit this out? We'll be at the next table, talking about the Korean Grand Prix... We don't really have time to serve on a jury or anything.

> She may have told me that just so I'd stop
> waving my arms and screeching about how she
> should break up with the son of a bitch.

Well, these are judgment calls, but I think you're on the right side. Every time I see Four Weddings and a Funeral, I wanna be the guy who interrupts the nuptials to ask, "Really?"

(Even though the Conniving Hen was as attractive as any woman in the movie.)

"I don't just blindly take their word (yes, I always ask). I'm 44 and remain STD free. I'm tested annually for my own peace of mind, I think I must be doing something right."

You're probably doing everything right, but tested annually? That must mean you still have some doubts. Nobody likes to think that, despite their best efforts, this could happen to them, but the truth is that it can.

In my experience with dating, most people are very diligent about protection at first, but once they're in a relationship, hardly anybody is. It seems like you're specifically saying that you don't trust them, which is a pretty hard stance to maintain as you're moving in, getting engaged, or marrying them. At some point, the condoms are put away.

I don't think any of us without an STD should feel smug, just fortunate. Sure, we may have taken the right precautions MOST of the time, but who among us hasn't had one or two instances of getting swept up in the moment and forgetting to use protection or ask the right questions?

"That said, from a legal perspective, how do you prove the herpes carrier lied about it? Perhaps the victim agreed to take on the risk and changed her mind after the relationship went sour."

I believe, in most of these cases, the carrier either confessed in writing to knowing before sleeping with the victim, or their medical records prove that they knew and subsequent correspondence proves that the victim didn't know.

"Good for you for telling her that you find it unethical."

Thanks, Jim. I definately believe she has an ethical obligation to tell, just as the very decent guy I dated did. He gave me the opportunity to make a fully informed choice, even if it meant I might choose to end the relationship.

Whether or not it should be criminal, I'm not sure. Guys rarely ask her the question. And I know her well enough to know that she wouldn't lie straight out if asked, but many people don't consider an act of ommission lying.

The problem with this is that you'd have to prove that A) the carrier knew he/she had herpes B) he/she deliberately lied about it and C) he/she was actually the one to give the other person herpes. A would probably be easy with medical records, B maybe if you happened to have it written down somewhere, but C is pretty much just one person's word against anothers--ie how do you prove that it was your girlfriend who gave you herpes and not just a one night stand? Unless you make sleeping with someone without disclosing your STD status illegal, period, but would that mean you can prosecute for cases where the STD wasn't actually contracted?

Also, would this set a legal precedent for less severe STDs as well? What about non sexually transmitted diseases? If I have sex with you without a condom and get chlymidia, then you can argue that it's my own fault for willingly exposing myself to an STD. But if I stand next to you in an elevator and thus contract a severe case of flu, isn't that your fault for exposing me to an illness against my will? Plus the chlymidia is quickly and easily treated and has no visible side effects, whereas the flu has no quick-fix treatment and puts me out of commission for a week--it's just that the STD carries more stigma, even though objectively speaking it's easier to deal with. So where do you draw the line at what gets prosecuted, and how much responsibility does an individual have to protect society from their illnesses?

> You're probably doing everything right, but
> tested annually? That must mean you still
> have some doubts.

That's a really freaky thing to say. Sara's responding to the health crisis in a profoundly practical way. She's choosing to live in the real world rather than through the magical thinking which so many sisters in these decades have adopted. She's not theatrically resisting partners until after a third glass of wine, as if the virus merely needed to understand that she wasn't a submissive victim. She's not pestering partners with insinuating chatter about the risks she takes by acting like a grown woman. She's not obsessing about the unseen evil in the infected hearts of others. A merely annual check is hardly obsessive for a woman of modern sociability.

You're belittling the "doubts" in the hearts of those who demonstrate the greatest rationality.

This is infectious disease, not an emotional litmus test of Ouiji boards, tea leaves and poetry deconstruction.

> So where do you draw the line at what
> gets prosecuted

Yeah, that's why I reacted so strongly to this story. Canadians (and others) have all sorts of busybody legal processes that intrude on free speech, etc. This seems like another one.

"A merely annual check is hardly obsessive for a woman of modern sociability"

That depends on how many different men she's sleeping with in a year. If it's lots, I'd agree an annual STD check is in order, but I'm sure you, of all people, would recommend that the number be kept low.

If someone is vetting their lovers properly and having only one or two presumably exclusive sexual relationships within a year, an annual check would seem unecessary. Maybe every 2 or 3 years. Hardly anyone gets checked annually unless they're being pretty promiscuous...or maybe just so they have the piece of paper to show a potential partner, "See, here's my recent test results!"

Personally, I'd be more concerned about things if a guy presented me with his "annual STD screening".

Lovelysoul, I'm single, I have been for almost 9 years. I've had my share of lovers over the years, and have only been in two committed relationships that have lasted more then 6 months. So I prefer the peace of mind that an annual test provides me. By the way, it only takes one person to infect me, so whether I have one lover or 10 in a year is neither here nor there. HPV is rampant in adults, I've heard varying statistics, the numbers go up to 80% of women have it...I don't. And if you haven't seen the recent research on throat cancer and it's connection with HPV here it is:

http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/suppl/2011/10/03/JCO.2011.36.4596.DC1/364596-Chaturvedi.pdf

So while some may consider annual testing overkill, I prefer to stay healthy and alive, and not infect a partner unknowingly. And if some guy is concerned that I have annual testing then that's his hang up, not mine.

I understand, Sara. I think it's prudent in your situation. Maybe a little overkill, but if it makes you more comfortable, and you can afford it, then it's up to you.

I'm curious to know at what point you would stop using protection. Did you stop when you were in the committed relationships? I know I did once we were exclusive, and I believed I could trust him.

And how would you feel if you reached that point, exposed yourself, only to find out later that he lied about having herpes?

Lovelysoul, in the comments for a previous column you were vehement that one should always tell a friend or even an acquaintance if one knows their partner is cheating. You largely justified this with the fact that the cheated-on person could unknowingly contract an STD, and if one has knowledge of cheating, one is morally obligated to help that person make the right choices and protect themselves.

So why aren't you doing something to protect the sexual partner(s) of your herpes-infected friend? Yes, you told her it was unethical not to disclose her status, but that alone won't stop innocent men from unknowingly contracting a lifelong, painful and embarrassing disease from her. Maybe she's not having outbreaks, maybe they are using condoms, but there's still a chance, isn't there? My own very good friend has herpes and swears the guy she got it from (who called her a liar when she told him he HAD to be carrying it) had no visible sores and even wore a condom.

And everyone, my friend was absolutely devastated by all this, but she chose to move on instead of trying to press charges or cut off the guy's member. She is always upfront about her status with potential partners, and despite the challenges, has managed to have several fulfilling sexual relationships.

Back to Lovelysoul: an innocent person's health is at stake. Surely that justifies you involving yourself in another's personal affairs. Why don't you send your friend's partner an anonymous note about her herpes status?

Maybe because it's none of your business, and rather her partner's job to ask the right questions and make the right choices during the relationship. Maybe, regardless of the shitty things others do, people bear full responsibility for their own relationships and health.

You sure seem to think so in this case, when the so-called victim is someone else and not you.

"So why aren't you doing something to protect the sexual partner(s) of your herpes-infected friend?"

Well, she's not in the town where I live, so I'm not there to inform her lovers. Plus, I don't know them at all, which is a bit different than if this was my friend, and I heard her husband was cheating on her. I would tell; I have told; I've never regretted telling; and I would tell again under similar circumstances.

I also have a male friend with HIV. I believe he is conscientious about it, but he recently brought a new young lover to my house, and I was just wondering yesterday whether or not my friend had discussed his status with him. I intend to ask him, and if I find that he isn't being honest, I would feel an obligation to disclose that information (if he refused to for some reason, which I can't really imagine). But, of course, it would depend on me having an opportunity to do that directly.

Jim, for God's sake, read it again. She said, "it will be the last act of sex they ever have, because I will cut it off."

She did not say that it would be the last act of sex they have with her. She said "it will be the last act of sex they ever have, because I will cut it off."

Yes, she is talking about going Lorena Bobbitt on someone.

"Maybe because it's none of your business, and rather her partner's job to ask the right questions and make the right choices during the relationship. Maybe, regardless of the shitty things others do, people bear full responsibility for their own relationships and health."

That's your opinion, but I can't imagine taking that stance regarding a life-threatening situation, such as I just detailed above. Herpes is one thing, but HIV is another. If I knew someone had HIV and wasn't disclosing it, I couldn't just cavalierly say, "Oh, it's none of my business...They make their own choices...Can't get involved..."

Do you do this in every situation where you witness wrongdoing? If you see an employee stealing from shopkeeper, do you just say, "Hey, he should've screened him better! I'M sure not going to say anything!"

I hope you get caught on that show, "What Would You Do?" because you're precisely the type who "minds their own business" to the point of being an asshole.

And, again, why don't you use your real name? I have a good idea who you are.

You did see it, Jim. Never mind. Regarding the HIV status, Lovelysoul, just curious, but what will you do if he gives you a non-answer?

Patrick, I'd probably take that as a "no." I've never had to disclose something like that, so I don't know how I would approach it, particularly since I don't really know the partner. I think I'd really push my friend to tell him first - say if he didn't, I would.

I think it's probably mute because my friend is an ethical guy. I can't really imagine him lying about that. But I'm curious how/when he brings it up and tells his lovers. First date? Third date?

Patrick, the "do something and you'll go to jail and deprive your kids of a mom" argument can be used to tell people they should roll over and take pretty much anything. Strip searches for no reason, rape, anything. Some of us aren't sheep. Not to mention, as many men have bemoaned here before, I doubt I'd do jail time. Pretty pointless discussion, as I'm married and apt to stay that way, to a man I have every reason to assume faithfulness of, but still. There are abuses to our physical selves we simply shouldn't stand for. I'd say this is one.

Lovelysoul, you really do seem like a genuinely smart and caring person, but I find your logic on some matters inconsistent in an icky way. For heaven's sakes, you've suggested sending anonymous notes to the partners of cheaters, and heavily criticized someone who had known his boss was cheating but said nothing to the wife (whose name the individual didn't even know). Quoting you:

Yet you kept quiet like most do, even knowing the absolute truth. Why do otherwise ethical people feel this is ok? Would you do it if you knew he was embezzling from his employer? Why is deceiving the most intimate partner in his life given a pass?

And:

What I'm suggesting is not that LW even has to involve herself. Write an anonymous letter... most would be grateful to know, and in this age of HIV and HPV.

But now, you say that disclosing not only a your herpes-infected friend's status, but your other HIV-infected friend's status to their partners would depend on me having an opportunity to do that directly.

This when you KNOW that your friends are infected and possibly risking their partners' health with every single sexual act. But the partners are strangers, they live in another town, you're waiting for the right moment if it arises... and that excuses your getting too involved on their behalf.

Frankly, I agree! But in the cheating discussion, you refused to accept that one could use this kind of discretion in disclosing such incredibly important matters, because the partners DESERVE TO BE TOLD, no matter what.

Yes, I think some of your views seem to coddle so-called victims and to be disturbingly on the busybody side. I don't like them, I have other ideas, I post them. But that doesn't mean that I'll turn my back on a robbery or a rape! Bit of a leap there.

I highly doubt you know who I am, since I've been reading this blog, column and comments for almost five years but have posted on no more than ten items in that time... using more than one name, big whoop when no one remembers who you are anyway. I don't think I'm using anonymity to mask my troll-like tendencies. But hey, maybe I made an impression on you at some point, so you can guess my other names if you like!!

> That depends on how many...

Nope, it's you. You'll always speak up to undermine strength and decency, to belittle precisely those people who take affirmative, rational action to improve their lives without troubling those around them. It's your comic book superpower: You move with a speed beyond animal reflex, and with a precision that leaves neurosurgeons weeping with envy.

Takes my breath away. Never seen anything like it.

"But in the cheating discussion, you refused to accept that one could use this kind of discretion in disclosing such incredibly important matters, because the partners DESERVE TO BE TOLD, no matter what."

I never said people should go around like some vigilante and tell virtual strangers things like this. I certainly don't go around my neighborhood telling people I hardly know gossip I've heard about their spouses. I was talking about people that you DO know - either as a co-worker or a friend.

In my friend's case, I don't know these men and wouldn't have a clue how to contact them. If she becomes serious about one, and brings him around, then I'll get to know him - and maybe then I'll bring it up - but no, I'm not going to track total strangers down to inform them she has herpes.

I don't see that as inconsistent with my view that you should tell a friend if you have reason to suspect their spouse is playing them for a fool and cheating on them, as was the case in that thread. The LW had more than mere gossip. She was given direct information.

All I advocate is sharing what you see or hear. Let the spouse either clear up a misunderstanding ("Oh, that's John's cousin! She's staying with us for the weekend") or piece together that their spouse is, indeed, lying, ("You saw him out where? He told me he was playing golf that day!").

I live in a small town and I've actually been grateful when friends have told me things like this and given me a chance to clear up any misconceptions. My husband often has rather cute employees - and that's all they are - but I'd hate to think that if he was out at staff luncheon that people would assume he was cheating and WOULDN'T tell me that they saw him.

What's offensive is for friends and aquaintances to make assumptions that you aren't a big enough girl to handle the information. Maybe it's all innocent - maybe there's another explanation. Maybe they're being stalked by some crazy person. Treat your friends like grown ups and tell them if you hear or see something that doesn't seem right. Most of us would want that courtesy.

Strangers are a different matter though.

I understand, Sara. I think it's prudent in your situation. Maybe a little overkill, but if it makes you more comfortable, and you can afford it, then it's up to you.

I'm curious to know at what point you would stop using protection. Did you stop when you were in the committed relationships? I know I did once we were exclusive, and I believed I could trust him.

And how would you feel if you reached that point, exposed yourself, only to find out later that he lied about having herpes?

Annual testing does give me peace of mind and the annual cost is a small price to pay for that peace.

I stop using protection once my partner has undergone a full STD screening. Not before then and certainly not until I know that he's trust worthy. I'm not just hoping into bed with anyone and everyone because I'm not willing to put my health at risk for momentary lapse in judgment. In case you hadn't heard, you can die from sex. I like sex, I think it's wonderful and it feels oh so good, and nothing relieves stress quite the way a good O does. But I don't want to die because I had a big O, I'd like to be around to see my kids and grandkids live life.

As for your last question, I've reached this age without contracting an STD because I have grown up and I take responsibility for myself, my body and my choices. If I've done my job in vetting my lovers, I decrease the likelihood that will happen. If it did happen, I would feel hurt and betrayed that my partner would lie and put me at risk. Then I would end the relationship because I wouldn't able to trust him. What I wouldn't do is file a police report and go after him criminally or civilly. I'd probably want to trash his name, but I wouldn't...karma will always be a bigger bitch then I have to be.

"You're scattered and unreadable."

OK, you're not smarter than this. I had hope.

Thanks, Jim. I definately believe she has an ethical obligation to tell, just as the very decent guy I dated did. He gave me the opportunity to make a fully informed choice, even if it meant I might choose to end the relationship.

You're welcome, LS. The guy that you're referring to did the right thing. Good for him (and other people like him.) People that have an STD and don't disclose to a new partner are not just unethical but also selfish. They don't want to give the new person the opportunity to make that fully informed choice because what they want is to sleep with them and they don't want to take the risk that the new person will decide to not sleep with them.

Whether or not it should be criminal, I'm not sure. Guys rarely ask her the question. And I know her well enough to know that she wouldn't lie straight out if asked, but many people don't consider an act of ommission lying.

Well, technically, omitting information is not lying but it's also, of course, not being completely truthful. That's the reason witnesses are asked if they swear to "tell the truth" (don't lie when you are asked) and also to "tell the whole truth" (don't omit information).

"I stop using protection once my partner has undergone a full STD screening. Not before then and certainly not until I know that he's trust worthy."

To get back on topic you might want to check what a full STD screening consists of.

The Mayo clinic web site claims that there is no valid screening test for Herpes, but what would they know?

> I've reached this age without contracting an STD
> because I have grown up and I take
> responsibility for myself, my body
> and my choices.

I adore you.

Peeps, read her comments again, OK?

So, Crid, it's ok if a woman has lots of different lovers as long as she has an STD screening every year? You disappoint me.

"I've reached this age without contracting an STD because I have grown up and I take
responsibility for myself, my body
and my choices."

No offense to Sara, but she's reached this age because she's beeen LUCKY. And I'll bet that if, during her annual screening, she discovered that she was infected with herpes or HIV, she'd be a lot less forgiving than she maintains. Here's someone showing due diligence, so if one of the apparently several guys she sleeps with in a year presented her with what turned out to be a false screening report, I bet she'd be pretty upset. Plus, she'd have the report itself to prove that he lied. Hard to believe that she'd just let it go.

People who can't handle principle try to reduce it to gossip.

Don't let them.

If everyone followed her example, there'd be a LOT less sexually transmitted disease.

If everyone followed yours, there'd be a lot more inane chatter from borderlines.

No offense to Sara, but she's reached this age because she's beeen LUCKY.

I have to give the nod to you on this, LS...but the way I'd say it is that there's an element of luck involved.

I'd liken it to driving. If you don't exercise due dilience as a driver, if you drive carelessly and recklessly, you'll probably end up getting in an accident. So it's a good thing to drive with care. But you can be a very careful driver and still get in an accident. If a driver has never been in an accident, they simply can't attribute that entirely to their driving skills.

I've been diligent in taking precautions with my sex partners but I'm not smug about it. I also feel lucky that I've never gotten an STD.

Sure, Sara is lucky to be STD free. Like I said, my good friend contracted herpes from a guy with no symptoms who wore a condom. You could say that she was unlucky. And to support Isabel's / the Mayo Clinic's claim of there being no herpes screening test--I am an expat in Germany, which surely has good modern medical care, and my gynecologist told me she could only test for herpes in the presence of clinical symptoms (sores).

However, Sara also doesn't owe her health JUST to luck. Mutual testing for screenable diseases before losing the condoms is a sensible choice, and certainly decreases her chances of contracting many things. Testing for STDs only every few years or taking partners at their word on their status results in a greater risk, no matter how safe or trusting one might feel at the time. I test every couple of years, and I have trusted people without seeing their test results. But I acknowledge that I am taking greater risks than her, and if something happened to me, I'd have to live with it.

Anyway, why shouldn't Sara feel proud of being healthy and responsible? I don't see anything smug about that.

Did someone really suggest up there that Sara getting tested for STDs yearly was a bit much? Eh? Am I the only one who goes in for a yearly gyno exam/pap in order to get my birth control prescription renewed? When I was single I'd get tested for everything else on that visit. Is that really that unusual?

> Is that really that unusual?

You wouldn't think so, would you?

Yet some folks are offended when women take responsibility for their health... Because it means the women have "doubts". Go figure....

How do you define "everything else"? The pelvic exam itself will catch symptoms of many STDs. Chlamydia and gonorrhea require extra cell testing which you must specifically request. The pap smear catches abnormal cells that may indicate cervical cancer, which HPV causes. There is an extra HPV test which is really only recommended for women over 30, because many, many women under 30 have HPV infections that resolve themselves. HIV, syphilis and hepatitis B are blood tests only, which are typically done by your regular doctor or at STD testing centers, not the gynecologist. And the herpes blood test is apparently not recommended by most doctors because it is so imprecise.

I get a pelvic / pap yearly, but I had a couple years between the extra chlamydia and gonorrhea test as well the HIV blood test. I just did all those again. It's also been a couple of years since my last extra HPV test and syphilis and hepatitis B tests, and, well, never since I had a herpes test. My own doctor didn't recommend those tests for me when I asked about them, taking into account my age, lifestyle and lack of symptoms.

If you request additional testing annually, that's not overkill, it's prudent. But you are not getting tested for every single sexually transmitted disease, ever. It is usually both difficult and unnecessary to do that.

Geeze, I never said it was JUST luck, but the number of partners she has per year exponentially increases her risks, even if she gets tested once per year. That's like saying that driving your car 50,000 miles a year is more responsible and less likely to result in an accident than driving it 10,000 miles, just as long as you stop in and get a tune up once a year. The driver taking the least risk, and therefore in less need of a tune-up, is the 10,000 per year driver, no matter how much you want to praise the 50,000 per year driver for getting a check up.

Isabel, I remain curious how you came to the conclusion that there are "few intelligent men left who are still interacting with women"?

And, as for guys watching porn on their computer, since this thread is about STDs, that's certainly one of the benefits: zero risk of catching any.

Jim, it is a combination of factors, both personal and anecdotal. I have children who are in their 20's and they have a lot of friends. I also spend most of my free time competing in a sport where most of the other competitors are men. I was formerly an Army officer. One of my better friends is a divorce attorney.

As I see it, it is riskier than ever to be a man with a professional degree and a good income in this country. I would be happy to relate some personal stories if you are interested but I don't want to put it all out on this web site. I really need to get my own gmail address for comments, but until I do, you can contact me if you want at (name above) at aol.com

> Geeze, I never said it was JUST luck, but

Numbers b'damned... In a Western Blot Shoot-Out, I'd wager on Sara's clarity against your voodoo incantations every single time. The behavior she's described is as good as it gets.

> Personally, I'd be more concerned about things
> if a guy presented me with his "annual STD
> screening".

And I would regard your concern as powerful prophylaxis... From a mere test! Modern medicine's a miracle, y'know?

(And besides, who are you quoting?)

Tennis, town, the partaaay! Today's going to be good!

Look, Crid, Sarah may be the most responsible person on the planet, but most people don't get annual STD screenings unless they're sleeping with quite a number of partners.

My ex has annual STD screenings...because he's sleeping with lots of women and therefore fears he may contract an STD. So, the act of getting an annual screening doesn't tell you anything about how safe or responsible the person is. I would argue the reverse - someone feeling the need to be tested annually is more likely to be someone who suspects they've been exposed to an STD.

> but most people don't get annual STD screenings
> unless

Your voodoo beliefs will protect you!

Try a midnight ceremony! Set some stones in a circle at the beach, about 27" circumference. Using fallen branches no larger than your thumb (and neither palm nor pine), build a second ring OUTSIDE the stones (not inside!).... THIS is what you'll use for the ceremonial fire. Next, using a mortar and pestle, grind the eye of a newt into a mulch with some sassafras leaves and psilocybin spores (Central American work best); set this preparation aside, but do NOT refrigerate. Gather some children (for music) and three trusted adults. At midnight under the full moon, sit the adults around the site, and....

Whatever. Sara will be talking to a doctor about her health, which I think is just ducky.

LMAO, Crid. Ok, I'll try it...next full moon.

Lovelysoul, why do you assume I have numerous partners in a year?? I never said I had numerous partners so you must have extrapolated that because I take care of myself and have myself checked annually. Or is it because I've only had a couple of relationships that have lasted longer than 6 months so therefore I MUST be a slut and sleep with a different guy every time I walk out the door? I've had exactly two lovers this year. Not that I feel the need to justify myself to someone who appears to be quite small minded about a woman who takes responsibility, but I like to keep the record straight. Although I do agree to an extent that I have been lucky, because in the past I wasn't always so careful. In my 30's I found myself single again, and the dating landscape was far different then it had been in my 20's. I took responsibility for my health because it was far more important than stroking some guy's ego and letting him in without a condom. By the way, women haven't done themselves in favors in the sex department. It never ceases to amaze what some women are willing to let a man get away with because she doesn't want to draw that line in the sand.

Off topic because I know this isn't a thread on dating, but women who don't have boundaries make dating for women like myself almost impossible. Because he knows if I won't let him in without a condom he can go somewhere else, and she will. Not that I want to be with that type of person, But I have to believe that if more women had standards and actually lived by them, guys wouldn't get off so easy. Maybe this is on topic, because maybe if the woman in the story had vetted her lover better...

Crid, thanks, I adore you too!

Sara, I didn't mean to imply you were a slut. I'm sorry you took it that way. My only point is that an annual screening doesn't prove that either way. It can mean the person is very cautious and has few lovers in a year, like you, or it can mean they're very promiscuous, like my ex.

And, probably, people are going to make assumptions either way based on their experiences and acquaintances - like, as I said, my impulse would be to think that a guy was more promiscuous if he presented me with an annual screening.

So, I don't know if it's something you share early on with guys you date, but I could see it leading to the wrong impression of you. Guys don't like to go to doctors anyway, or have blood drawn, so most would probably have a hard time wrapping their minds around the fact that you'd go every year even though you have few lovers.

Lovelysoul, do you think I pull out my test results on a first date, or maybe I have them posted over my bed? That's personal information for my peace of mind that I share when it's appropriate. Why are you knocking me so hard for being responsible? No one, including me likes going to the doctor. But I have to go every year anyway, and trust me, I'd rather have blood drawn then get a pap smear every year. Let me repeat, I don't leave my physical health to chance so I get the pap every year because if anything is wrong, I'd like to know sooner rather than later. Same with STD's, because again, it only takes on person to infect me and one time for me to infect a person unknowingly. I'm not willing to take risks with my health so I'm damn sure not going to take risks with someone else's.

I have to agree with some others here, you're inconsistent. First I was a slut because only permiscuous people would get screened annually:

" most people don't get annual STD screenings unless they're sleeping with quite a number of partners. "

Then this: "It can mean the person is very cautious and has few lovers in a year, like you, or it can mean they're very promiscuous, like my ex."

Please make up your mind, am I slut or not?

> I'm sorry you took it that way. My only
> point is that...

The phrase "I'm sorry you took it that way" gets three pages in the DSM-IV (subhead "Borderline disorders").

Remember George Thorogood?

Psycho - P - P - P - P - Paaa-yuth,,,,,

Holy shit, I thought I was kidding.

Obviously, you're not a slut. I don't even like to use that word. You say you have very few partners and I believe you. But it really doesn't matter to me if you have 2 partners or 20.

Yet, I apologize because I did initially make the assumption that you had a lot of partners if you felt the need to get screened annually. This is obviously because the only other person I know who gets screened for STDs that frequently is promiscuous.

However, you've changed my view of it in this very thread, so now I believe annual testing could mean either someone is super cautious OR promiscuous.

You know, Crid, I will kindly ask you to stop with the personal attacks. I'm not a narcissist or a pyschopath. You know very well that I'm a average, middle-aged mother of two, living a perfectly normal life in south FL. I have no criminal record and have never been diagnosed with any sort of mental disorder. Usually, I just ignore you, but this is getting old. There seems to be something wrong with YOU if you can't refrain from making such personal attacks over nothing.

Well, now, see, that's the thing about blogs. I "very well know" nothing about you except the things you present... And the difference between the insights people claim for themselves and the judgments they offer makes it fun. Since it's anonymous, it's difficult to worry that people's feelings are being deeply hurt.

Anonymity has a lot going for it. I'm willing to put up with the snot (and blow some of my own) for the pleasure of seeing less-shamed communication from people. But a lot of that ugliness is what commenters bring with them... They assume that in this magical new realm, no one will spot the weaknesses which real people in their lives notice instantly.

And so they give themselves names like Lovely Soul and BrilliantBrain and Thunderdick and pretend to carry expertise ("paying agent!") or righteous anger (Circumcision! Military expenditures!) which are nowhere in evidence.

So, y'know, it's another social reflection. These exchanges, from breezy Christmas greetings to bitter sarcasm, are clarifying. Maybe the people in your life are at peace with "I'm sorry you took it that way"... But isn't it great to know how that shit plays out here on the street? Or do you want to keep it indoors? Because that would be OK, too. No one misses us when we leave.

I have to agree with some others here, you're inconsistent. First I was a slut because only permiscuous people would get screened annually:

"most people don't get annual STD screenings unless they're sleeping with quite a number of partners."

Then this:

"It can mean the person is very cautious and has few lovers in a year, like you, or it can mean they're very promiscuous, like my ex."

Sara, those statements are not inconsistent. We don't know if LS's assertion in the first statement is true but she said "most" people, not "everyone." In her second statement, she's acknowledging the "non-most" people.

If we able to study everyone who got annual STD tests, it wouldn't surprise me if LS's assertion turned out to be true.

Another argument for safety through ignorance!

Repulsive.

Off topic because I know this isn't a thread on dating, but women who don't have boundaries make dating for women like myself almost impossible. Because he knows if I won't let him in without a condom he can go somewhere else, and she will. Not that I want to be with that type of person, But I have to believe that if more women had standards and actually lived by them, guys wouldn't get off so easy.

Sara, I find this very interesting. Whenever I've met a woman and really liked her and we were going to get naked and she told me she required me to use a condom, I'd use one. Not enthusiastically, because I dislike them, but I'd use one because I'd want to make love with her, not just make love with any woman who'd spread her legs for me. So it seems to me that maybe you're meeting guys who aren't that into you if they're going to go somewhere else simply because you ask them to use protection. What do you think?

I get what lovelysoul is saying--getting tested for STDs doesn't actually prevent you from getting STDs any more than getting, say, your vision tested can prevent you from needing glasses. But regular testing does help you treat any STDs in a timely fashion, and prevents you from spreading them to others. You can also make the argument that someone who is conscientious enough to undergo regular testing is probably responsible in other areas of their sex lives as well, and is less likely to contract an STD than the average person. I've also heard that you're supposed to get retested after every new partner, so once a year is hardly unreasonable--I'd say that's really the bare minimum for someone with an average sex life.

On the topic of wearing condoms--I'd be suspicious of ANYONE, man or woman, who was ok with not using a condom, let alone advocated against using one. If you don't want to wear a condom with me then you probably didn't wear one with everyone else you've slept with too, meaning you're probably more likely to have an STD than the average person.

> someone who is conscientious enough to undergo
> regular testing is probably responsible in other
> areas of their sex lives as well

Ringa dinga ding! We have a winner

"And so they give themselves names like Lovely Soul and BrilliantBrain and Thunderdick and pretend to carry expertise ("paying agent!") or righteous anger (Circumcision! Military expenditures!) which are nowhere in evidence."

I never had a call name, or whatever this is, before online dating, and I chose "lovelysoul" in about 10 mins (after several other names I wanted were already taken) because I thought it might inspire men to take me to dinner (as opposed to "ballbustingsoul" or "screaming shrew666").

So, when I came here the first time, I impulsively used it again, and I sincerely wish I hadn't. This obviously isn't the same kind of place. I much prefer it when people refer to me as "LS", so from now on, I'm going to use that because I'm sick and tired of being teased or called a "narcissist" because I use the name "lovelysoul."

There was an LS here previously, which is why I didn't use it earlier, but I haven't seen him or her in a while, so I'm going to stake claim to "LS".

As for regular screening, I still don't believe it proves anything. Perhaps there is a difference in men and women. I know my ex uses his STD screenings to prove his status in hopes that the women he dates will then feel comfortable enough not to make him wear a condom, which he hates. He can show them the piece of paper and say, "Look, I had a screening. I'm clean! You don't have to worry."

This apparently works too since many people (including quite a few here) seem to view being frequently tested as a sign of sexual responsibility. However, I'd still argue that it proves nothing of the sort.

Ahem...

@Jim - I used sex as the broad example because this topic is about STD's. It was more about women's lack of boundaries and how they keep moving their personal line in the sand. However, I find that more than a few men are just looking for the easy lay, I've rarely had more than three dates with the same person from online dating. But if all I wanted was a "hook up" it's a gold mine. I'm NOT picking those types of men, I'm trying to weed them out.

@Lovelysoul - Annual screenings prove to ME (and I am my main concern) that I am on the right track and being responsible. I don't need them to prove anything to anyone. Although maybe I should compile them into an album and leave it on my coffee table so I can share all of my screenings with my dates!

Moving on...I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, some people just don't want to "get" it.

Sara, I don't understand why you're reacting so defensively about it then. I never called you a "slut". Yes, I assumed - from the fact you said you were tested annually - that you must have more than one or two partners in a year, but there's nothing wrong with that, as long as you're practicing safe sex.

What I "get" is a lot of resentment over other women's boundaries not being the same as yours, and I'm sensing that these comments (as well as the online dating ones) are being directed towards me.

Yet, I have pretty much the same attitude towards sex as you do and had around the same (small) number of partners during the entire time I was single. I always used protection until I was in an exclusive relationship, plus I donate blood regularly, so I knew I didn't have HIV.

So, just because I didn't feel the need to screen as frequently as you doesn't make me - or any other woman - irresponsible.

> I still don't believe it proves anything.

Good luck out there. Trust your voodoo! Remember, during the odd-numbered months, never light your blood-candles in an East-facing window before the gibbous moon has passed apogee. Also, remember to take the DEEPEST POSSIBLE offense when others give evidence of their own clear-headedness. Please. I beg you.

> It was more about women's lack of boundaries and
> how they keep moving their personal line in the
> sand.

Listen to this woman SING!... This woman, who trusts the best, most real information she can find, rather than her own whims. She doesn't presume her aura will protect her.

Crid, I'm sick of your inane, totally off the wall personal attacks. What have I said that supports VOODOO? What is it about using condoms and staying STD free through 5 OR 6 years of single life, getting married, and still being STD free, so that I don't need to run down to the health clinic every few months to get screened because I'm in a loving, committed relationship voodoo?

I'll tell you: Absolutely nothing. It's all in your head. So stop attacking me on ridiculous personal grounds. If you disagree, fine - debate the facts. But all this "voodoo", "psychopath" "narcissism" references are uncalled for, and I'm not taking your bullying anymore.

@Lovelysoul - you still just don't get it! I'm not trying to impose my agenda on anyone and I'm certainly not slinging mud at you regarding online dating. I was relating MY personal experience with that partcular venue for meeting people. Online dating for me was a crap shoot, and I got tired of it. I have personally witnessed women's flexible boundaries, my sister, my best friend and others. I don't care what their boundaries are, just draw the damn line already, pick your poison and then take responsbility and live with the freaking consequences!

By the way, if you don't want to be in the middle of a shit storm, don't start slinging it first. Your implication that I was a woman with loose morals (since you don't like using the "S" word) was not appreciated. Don't judge me based on your ex husband's actions. In fact, please don't judge me, you don't know me, I don't know you and I have not made any judgments or assumptions about you and your online dating past. Perhaps next time you should have your facts straight before you decide to make assumptions.

> What have I said that supports VOODOO?

After nearly 30 years of the HIV crisis, a grown and sensible commenter describes the most responsible practices for a socially active woman... And you reduce the exchange towards a 1962 beehive-hairdo disquisition on how many boyfriends a good girl kisses before prom night... Specifically:

> That depends on how many different men
> she's sleeping with in a year.

...As if a seventh-grader's air-sniffing snootiness will protect a grown woman's health, reproductive and otherwise, as well as does a routine annual doctor visit and all the counseling that comes with one. Care which, commenter ahw thoughtfully notes, women should be seeking anyway.

It's not merely that your comments encourage a woman to regress in our broader understanding of HIV, knowledge that's come to us at enormous cost in dear lives; they do so by pulling her back into the feelings of her OWN less-competent, less-educated, less-responsible youth... Where too slutty vs. too lonely is the stuff of afternoon tears and shitty poetry in purple ink on ruled paper. You're plucking at some of the oldest, most poignant fears in the human heart. And you're doing it, essentially, for fun. Or you're doing it through a habit of obliviousness unchallenged since 7th grade.

Not a biggie, right? Certainly no individual woman (or man) is going to get sick because of anything that gets said on this blog. It ain't a HYOOGE deal... But I'm a cranky aging man, and I flatly do not like your language and the things you do with it. Anyone my age has had to put up with tremendous bullshit about this for decades. More to the point, getting women to take good sex advice from doctors, and getting doctors to GIVE it, has been one of the better social changes in my lifetime. It came with friction. I saw it over the generations of my family, including my own, and it was stupendous. It shouldn't be mocked by fools without the clarity to treasure it.

Get pissed off if you want.

For the record, a review of the comments shows that I was actually moving towards M4's direction, as if maybe the state DID have some post-hoc role to play in women's social lives. (October 14 10:24 AM was kinda harsh.) And then came the reminder that there are always people who want to pull society back towards a less-sensitive, less-rational condition.

Thanks Sara. I'm still puzzled by your "women who don't have boundaries make dating for women like myself almost impossible" comment earlier but no matter.

Well, Crid, at least that's an argument, not a character assignation. Something I can actually respond to, as opposed to calling me a goblin or voodoo priestess or psychopath.

But, as usual, you have it wrong. You take the most extreme interpretation of my comments in order to make it seem that I'm against STD testing. "Yeah, ladies, whatever you do, don't get tested!"

Do I think every woman needs an STD screening annually? No. Not if she's very cautious with her choice of lovers and uses protection, and/or if she's in a committed, exclusive relationship with someone she trusts. The risks are extremely low in those cases, so it's really up to her.

Definately a woman should be tested frequently if she's sleeping with multiple random partners, which, contrary to how Sara took my comments, I don't believe means she has "loose morals". I'm not judging that. Single people are single and can have as much sexual fun as they choose, provided they use protection.

Not every woman needs a breast exam EVERY year either. Depends on her risk factors. I have mine every 2-3 years because I'm not a high risk candidate (of course, now you'll probably say I'm against mammography, which I'm not).

> Definately a woman should be tested frequently
> if she's sleeping with multiple random partners

Guidance like this... Whatever. "Multiple random partners".

Never an assignation, promise

I meant assassination, obviously.

Nope, still appalled.

> Do I think every woman needs an STD screening
> annually?

Can I ask my own questions? No? Then let's conclude: Your thinking on this matter is not to be trusted... Call it whatever you want.

So, you think even married women, or women in LTRs should be tested for STDs annually?

What if she donates blood regularly? You know blood is tested for HIV. A someone noted, the screenings don't even test for herpes. So, HIV is the main concern, and if a woman isn't in a high risk situation, why should she have an annual HIV test?

Does every other woman here get tested annually for STDs? (I'm not talking PAP or cervical exams). You make me out to be some crazy, irresponsible woman, but I'm curious if other women get screened each year if they're married or in LTRs.

Does Amy have an HIV test yearly? She's single too, but she's been with Gregg 7 or 8 years. Does she really need one, Crid?

> What if she donates blood regularly?

Tissue collection is NOT the first stop for health care. Talking to doctors helps people see the world as it is. The ramblings of someone who imagines the sex lives of other women to be populated by "multiple random partners" is not.

Tell you what: Any woman who has "multiple random partners" should feel free to trust your advice. All others should consider the examples from sara, ahw, Catherine, and Isabel.

"Does every other woman here get tested annually for STDs? (I'm not talking PAP or cervical exams). You make me out to be some crazy, irresponsible woman, but I'm curious if other women get screened each year if they're married or in LTRs."

Personally LS, I think testing for STD's'for most people is a waste of time and money. Too many people use testing and condoms as if they were some kind of magic incantation that wards off the devil.
In reality testing detects a very small range of common STD's and condoms don't do much to protect you against some very common things such as herpes or chlamydia. So even if you are doing both testing and protection, there is still an element of luck involved.

HIV is the big scary one right now,and yes, if you are at risk for that you probably should get tested annually, but random unprotected sex with strangers is less likely to transmit HIV than steady sex with an infected partner, (or sharing needles with IV drug abusers)at least according to the studies that I have read.
I personally am at the age and time in my life that I don't want to "have sex" nearly as much as I want to "make love" and the latter requires a long term committed relationship where I am not going to be sleeping around.
My first question to myself with a potential sex partner would be, (if I ever have another one) Do I trust this guy enough to give him access to my bank account? If the answer is no or maybe, I had better not be sleeping with him either.

It would be naive to assume that some women (and men) don't have multiple random partners. C'mon, be realistic and quit blaming reality on me just because I acknowledge it! I didn't invent promiscuity nor do I encourage it.

And, since I've been in an LTR, My doctor has never suggested that I have annual STD screenings. For one thing, who pays for all this testing?

Being self-employed, I have major medical coverage, with a high deductible, so I try to avoid unnecessary tests because they come out of my pocket. My insurance pays for pap smears and mammograms annually, but I don't think that covers STD screenings.

Perhaps Sara's insurance pays for her yearly screenings - or it gets picked up by her employer or (more likely) passed along to the rest of us in some way or another, which is another good reason for not having unecessary testing performed.

Thanks, Isabel, for providing some measure of reason to this discussion.

@Lovelysoul - I find you more and more disgusting, you just keep going and you won't stop nailing me with backhanded insults. How dare you continue to draw assumptions about me and how I pay for my healthcare. You fucking bitch! I pay the $250 for the fucking blood tests! Again, it's a small price to pay.

Calm down, Sara. Good grief, you really overreact - from reading "loose morals" and "slut" into everything I say about you (none of which I said or even implied) to this.

I said I didn't know how your screenings were paid - whether you or your insurance paid for them. But since Crid seems to think we should encourage annual STD screenings for almost every woman - even those in LTRs - it's important to note that if insurance is paying, we'll all end up paying for it in the form of higher premiums.

Also, Sara, read what Isabel wrote. Screenings don't protect you or even necessarily show every STD you may pick up. I'm not criticizng you for having them, but I do agree that they can give a false sense of security. If you're as careful as you've stated here, especially requiring tests from your few partners and using condoms, you're very low risk and probably don't need testing. You may feel you need an annual screening for your peice of mind, but your safe sex practices are what protects you, not the testing.

Why are you even pondering HOW I'm funding my health screenings? And like it or not, your implication since your first post regarding my health screenings has been that I sleep around. What word(s) would you prefer I use, you don't like slut and you didn't like woman of loose morals, so I'm at a loss. No matter how you want to spin it, that has been your implication and it still is. Forgive me for taking a proactive approach to my health. By your logic, I should probably forgo mammograms every year since I'm only 44. The problem with you judging me and drawing conclusions about who I am is the fact that you don't know my complete health history. For example, you don't know that when I underwent back surgery a few years back I had to have several blood transfusions, that weren't my own blood because I burned through that during my first surgery and there were three subsequent surgeries beause I had a strep (yes strep, not staph) infection at the surgical site. And you aren't aware that my ex husband cheated on me with some unsavory people and I lived through each blood test in fear. So you don't know me, don't presume you do and that you can pass any manner of judgment on me. And I'll calm down when you stop putting your foot in your mouth.

No, I don't know anything about you, which is why I used the word "if"...as in "if you have multiple partners in a year." I didn't say you DID have multiple partners. Do you honestly believe I care whether you do or not?

The only relevancy this has to me is in the course of this discussion, and I said that, based on your small number of partners, I questioned whether annual testing was really necessary in your case...but that's because you didn't share the rest of the information. How is that my fault? You witheld information that was directly relevant to your choice to get annual screenings, then blast me for questioning why you need annual screenings?

If you'd merely said you'd had blood transfusions, the answer would've been obvious, but no, you act all smug that you're taking care of your health in a way that other women, with their "shifting boundaries," aren't doing - implying (along with Crid) that other women aren't being as responsible as you. That we're actually being irresponsible by not choosing to have annual screenings, but that's a bit disingenous given the full information.

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on! The fact is I shouldn't have to disclose my full medical history. The point I tried making was that I was taking responsibility for my health, and that more women should rather than leave it to chance, or blind trust in their partner. I wasn't being smug, nor was I holding myself out as a shining example. So again, fuck you, stop making judgments.

The reason you're upset is that I assumed that if you felt the need to get annual screenings, it was because you were concerned you'd been exposed. Turns out I was right about that, just not because you've had multiple partners. I simply couldn't understand why, but now I do. I'm sorry you took my questioning as judgement. It just didn't make sense why you'd need annual screenings with such few partners and such safe practices.

And still missing the point. What's it like going through life being so dense? I grew up, and took responsibility for myself a long time ago. You should try it, it's quite liberating. And it's amazing what you see and hear when you pull your head out of the sand.

The reason you're upset.

If you really took responsibility for yourself and your life choices, you wouldn't freak out in defensiveness and hurl insults over someone merely questioning them.

Lovelysoul when did I hurl insults at you? Did I make assumptions about you, did I imply that you were a slut? Short of calling you a fucking bitch, which I still think holds true, when have I ever hurled an insult? You weren't merely questioning my choices, you were passing judgment on me. It doesn't matter WHY I get tested annually, it doesn't even matter that you didn't have all the facts at the beginning. Who died and left you to sit in judgment of anyone? More women should take responsibility for their bodies and reproductive health and not leave so much to chance. That was and still is the point of my first post in this thread.

I think calling someone a fucking bitch qualifies. lol

Please, take a deep breath, Sara. I never thought you were a slut. It didn't even enter my mind! That somehow came from your own defensiveness about this, so you read my questions as a judgement of you when that was not at all my intent.

I was simply questioning why you felt the need to be tested so often. It didn't make sense to me, given how few partners you have. I think it's natural that I initially assumed you must be pretty sexually active to screen that often.

When I asked, I believe you said something like, "I am single..." and I perceived that as a woman who is liberated and comfortable with her sexuality, and was acknowledging that she has lots of dates. That's the way I took it at first, so I agreed it was "prudent" of you to be tested, which it would be under those circumstances.

Yet, then, when you said you rarely slept with anyone, I was just thrown off.

Women can "take responsibility for their bodies and reproductive health" without having annual STD screenings. Most of us do that with our choice of partners, which it sounds like you do as well. As Isabel said, if you wouldn't trust him with your bank account, why do it with your body?

From there, every woman has to weigh her own risk factors and decide accordingly what testing she needs. Obviously, you have some risk factors that may require you to be tested more often (though, if it's been a while since your surgery and the breakup of your marriage, I doubt you need to worry). I wish I had known about those factors while discussing this. Of course, you had no obligation to reveal them, but it would've made the picture clearer, and perhaps we wouldn't have had this misunderstanding.

The reason we're upset is a misunderstanding because of defensiveness.

Anybuddy ever have a sore tooth?

Tweet

Liked that little levity from the last one, Cridster.

This thread's been more petty than funny?

Well, then...

G'night!

I'm in a 3 year relationship and I get tested annually. I show no one my test results, it is for my own info. This includes testing for: hpv (pap smear), chlamydia/gonorrhea (urine test), syphilis/hiv (blood test). That pretty much covers everything aside from hsv and my doctor recommends testing only in the presence of sores, since a blood test will be positive if you have cold sores.
I've been getting tested annually ever since I was sexually active even though I only stop condom use when in LTR.
It's one thing to say you don't understand why someone would feel the need to get the testing, but when you say you don't see the need for it unless one has multiple partners or they are just paranoid, you are in fact judging. Own it. People judge, big deal.
Even if you completely trust your partner, they may be infected and not know it. Sometimes symptoms don't show until years later, so you could be infected not because you were cheated on, but because your partner was cheated on and never knew. It takes 3-6 months to detect hiv, and untreated stds can lead to infertility among other problems. Besides I wouldn't call annual testing not trusting your partner, but more recognizing that people are fallible because nobody's perfect no matter how much they love you or how good morals they have.

LS, when you ask, " For one thing, who pays for all this testing?" and then offer as a possible answer, "Perhaps . . . (more likely) passed along to the rest of us in some way or another," you are implying that sara's testing is at everyone else's expense. You later tried to back track and say you meant passed along via higher insurance premiums, but that doesn't really make sense. Since you already offered Sara's insurance and her employer as possible means of payment, it would be redundant to say "the rest of us" also means insurance.
You say you are just questioning why she felt the need when it seems to you unnecessary, but then you make the jump to assuming she is unnecessarily costing the rest of us via higher premiums. So you claim you are live let live, but it seems you are trying to make her feel guilty about her choices because of a possible burden on the rest of us. Otherwise why even bring this up?
You are pretty inconsistent, and you do back-track. A lot. The LL stands for longtime lurker.

LL, this is a debating forum. Perhaps others view it differently, but I don't see it as a warm and fuzzy place where I come to make friends and stroke people's egos. I come here to discuss and explore various topics, and that often includes questioning things like, in this thread, which is about STDs, who pays for STD testing?

To say "the rest of us" obviously means in the way of higher premiums or taxpayer funding. You may not have gotten that, but I wasn't backtracking. That's precisely what I meant.

Some may accuse me of being "inconsistent" only because they didn't understand what I said in the first place. Everybody takes something different from the written word.

To me, this whole "judging" business is weird. Like I said, this is a debate forum. The heading is about STDs. Someone shares they get tested annually, and I question why...and who pays for it?

It seems like a lot of testing to me. It seems like overkill. That's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it, as you are yours.

I think it's being way oversensitive to feel "judged" over questions like this. If I was calling Sara a "psychopath" - or some other insulting nasty name like Crid typically uses - I could see feeling personally judged, but what I wrote here, including what you've quoted, is reasonable inquiry regarding the topic.

Maybe this is a supersensitive subject because we're dealing with sex and women, and all the underlying taboos and stigmas aassociated with it. Just questioning how often someone tests for STDS somehow gets translated into, "You think I'm a slut, don't you?!"

But I was raised in a liberal, non-religious household, so I don't even think like that. I wasn't taught that there was any particular "sin" involved or number of partners that made you a "good girl" or "bad girl".

So, maybe I didn't realize what a sensitive topic this could be for some and my words have been misinterpreted as judgement when that truly wasn't what I meant. I never meant to imply that anyone was promiscous because they test so frequently.

I do believe, however, that if a woman is with the right partner, in a committed LTR, annual screening is unecessary. If you genuinely fear he might "make a mistake" and give you an STD, then he's not the right guy to be with.

I could be wrong, and if so, feel free to correct me, but I don't think STDs show up "years later". After a screening or two, it should be fairly clear that you are...well, in the clear.

I'll add that I know that HIV can take a few screenings to show up - that there's a window - but it's a matter of months, not years, or our donated blood supply would be completely unusable.

> my words have been misinterpreted

> I'm sorry you took it that way

> That somehow came from your own defensiveness

Loveline's comedian, Carolla, used to do ten good minutes of standup comedy on the fourteen-year-old girls who talked this way, children who couldn't understand why they weren't getting social traction. 'Listen, I'm the kind of person who just tells it like it is, OK? I just put it out there. There are a lot of people who are intimidated by the magnitude of my realkeeping, but that's their problem....'

Somehow, there's this magical number of lovers that landed in one "lovely" heart, one below which we'll be perfectly safe. But this "soul" can't tell anyone what it is, because it's not an integer... It's just one of the special Disney insights that comes just from being "lovely". And if you close your eyes and wish very hard, maybe you'll find your magic number, too! Meanwhile, she's "disappointed" in those who rely on science.

These are incantations, not principles. This IS voodoo. Everything's inverted: Cowardice is courage, isolation is perspective, and ignorance as wisdom. It's cute, if pathetic, when it comes from a Junior High schooler in rural Kansas who can't seem to make friends on the soccer, cheerleader or debate teams, and doesn't know why.

But from a grown woman, posing to seriously offer advice on health care and TESTING through blood donations? There's just nothing to admire about this... Nothing.

I like that this thread brought a fellow longtime lurker / rare commenter with some insights on STDs and LS.

I also think it's hilarious that some random spam for a French resort appeared at the end of this long, informative and controversial discussion (though Amy apparently caught it already!).

Surely we can keep this thread going into the 200s! Here's trying:

LL's Sometimes symptoms don't show until years later was not referring to symptoms appearing after an STD screening, but rather, STDs appearing years later in apparently healthy individuals who have not been screened since infection. According to the National Library of Medicine, up to 25% of men and as much as 70% of women infected with chlamydia have no symptoms. Untreated chlamydia can lead to urethritis in men and pelvic inflammatory disease or infertility in women.

So, a perfectly nice individual might carry a symptomless disease that has serious consequences like chlamydia. Maybe they got it from prior carelessness, maybe from being cheated on in the past, but they can pass it on even if they are presently in a trusting, monogamous relationship. You don't know the health status of their past sexual partners. Maybe they got infected despite condom use, maybe they got cheated on since their least screening and then got it. The only way to KNOW is to get mutually screened every time you start a new sexual relationship. If you'd rather not bother and simply trust that both of you are ok, fine, but you are indeed assuming a greater risk of infection in that case, and you could also spread the disease to your next long term, monogamous relationship partner as well.

The risk may not be huge, but it's hardly overkill to rule it out--aren't we supposed to get physicals every year?? Nor do I see it as an undue strain on the health care system and insurance companies, unjustly jacking our costs up... hell, if we all did this, then STDs would no longer spread at all.

I'm NOT aginst testing.I'm NOT against testing I'm NOT aginst testing!

Gee, I guess I have to repeat things over and over or else the presumptions here are always going to be like Crid's, "She's telling you all to avoid screenings...and mammograms and pap smears too! She's an evil voodoo-practicing teenager from some show I once watched! Heed my incoherent ramblings! Let's pile on her!"

I merely wonder how many women in monogamous long-term relationship need to be tested yearly. Does Amy get screened for STDs yearly? Nobody answers that question because Amy makes sense, and it's just too much fun to pretend that I don't.

"What, what are you saying? You only need to be screened ONCE OR TWICE for chlamydia, not every year from here on out? How outrageous! Let me tell you about chlamydia...it can show up years later IF YOU DON'T KNOW YOU HAVE IT!"

Maybe you all are speaking a different language, but that's exactly what I said. One or two screenings and you should know you're in the clear.

Now, if you change partners...or have multiple partners (note: this a just a statement of fact. Not calling anyone a slut!), or don't trust your current partner, then you should get tested again.

"The risk may not be huge, but it's hardly overkill to rule it out--aren't we supposed to get physicals every year?? Nor do I see it as an undue strain on the health care system and insurance companies"

When someone else is paying, it never seems like a strain. As a self-employed person, I pay for my own health care and therefore don't run to the doctor over everything. I was one of those moms who didn't pump my kids full of antibiotics either, so they actually have some immunity left.

Therefore, when I look at health care, a "small risk" isn't worth a lot of tests. And I still would view it the same way even if I had an employer-provided health plan. Somebody pays for it.

Again, if you're in a high risk group, or worry you've been exposed, by all means get tested. But, for most women, it isn't an annual necessity.

Sorry, but that's more backtracking. Before any shit-slinging, Sara said:

I'm single. I have been for almost 9 years. I've had my share of lovers over the years, and have only been in two committed relationships that have lasted more then 6 months.

We are clearly not talking about a monogamous relationship lasting for several years with the same person.

You granted that it was "prudent" in her situation. But you also said:

It seems like a lot of testing to me. It seems like overkill.

That is what you said, and people disagreed with you. As do I.

You also say, If someone is vetting their lovers properly and having only one or two presumably exclusive sexual relationships within a year, an annual check would seem unecessary.

People disagree with you there too. I say, if you have a different lover every year, then the MOST prudent course would be testing yearly, especially given the factors of symptomless diseases, not knowing about others' pasts, that have been brought up. If you have two lovers a year, then TWICE would actually be the most prudent... And so forth.

No, we can't live life trying to bubble wrap ourselves against every last risk. Some people test annually, some more than that, many less. Everyone has different circumstances and makes their own decision, which affects their level of risk, and that's that.

But I have read back, and I can't find anyone here who said that people in long term, trusting monogamous relationships should test year after year AFTER the initial test... Except you, as a straw man defense when people continued to question your views.

No one here hates you. Well, I certainly don't, anyway. And name-calling and sweeping judgements are silly, if a guilty pleasure to witness. But even in a purely logical debate, if that's what you want to have, inconsistency is an irresistible invitation for those who disagree with you to pounce.

"No, we can't live life trying to bubble wrap ourselves against every last risk. Some people test annually, some more than that, many less. Everyone has different circumstances and makes their own decision, which affects their level of risk, and that's that."

Which is exactly what I said. Women must evaluate their own risk factors and decide how often to be screened.

I don't think Sara, particularly given her transfusion history, is wrong to test annually. In fact, I said, in her case, it was prudent. Maybe a little overkill (she said that too and I agreed with her), if she is using safe sex practices and vetting her few lovers properly, but I said "if it makes you feel more comfortable, why not?"

But, following this, there was the direct implication that other women were not being "responsible for their bodies and reproductive health" because they might evaluate their risks differently and choose not to be tested annually. Those are the comments I was addressing.

Personally, chlamydia is the only STD I feel a need to test for. I donate blood regularly, so I know I don't have HIV. Therefore, I don't need an HIV test annually. Herpes would likely show itself with symptoms, if either my husband or I had it, so I don't feel the need to test for it either.

Obviously HIV is the big concern. Yet, the likelihood of contracting HIV from heterosexual sex with a heterosexual male, who is not an IV drug user, is still pretty low - because HIS odds of contracting it from straight sex, even with an infected woman, is low. Unless he had a cut or open sore, there's not an easy pathway for the virus to enter the body.

Before anybody gets all bent out of shape, I'm not saying it's impossible, just that the risks are low. I don't think most women involved with heterosexual, non-drug-abusing men need to become paranoid about contracting HIV.

I just found out my gay friend has indeed told his lover his status. They've actually been involved, on and off, for years (I thought it was a new relationship). They don't use protection, yet he is positive and the lover is still HIV negative! That is soooo ridiculous, not to use protection, but it just goes to show that HIV isn't contracted that easily.

Let's get it straight, I never said I thought annual testing was overkill for me. Just that some (i.e. YOU) considered it overkill.

"So while some may consider annual testing overkill, I prefer to stay healthy and alive, and not infect a partner unknowingly."

Yes, and my resonse was: "I understand, Sara. I think it's prudent in your situation. Maybe a little overkill, but if it makes you more comfortable, and you can afford it, then it's up to you."

Am I the only one wondering when the bikinis and baby pool full of jell-o are coming out?

Sara, you seem quite fixated on this idea that LS called you a slut.

What she said was: Sarah may be the most responsible person on the planet, but most people don't get annual STD screenings unless they're sleeping with quite a number of partners.

You responded with: Or is it because I've only had a couple of relationships that have lasted longer than 6 months so therefore I MUST be a slut and sleep with a different guy every time I walk out the door?

LS made the assumption -- which, in my opinion, is not unreasonable -- that most people (most people; she didn't say all people) who get tested annually for STDs do it because they're sleeping with quite a number of people. So, obviously, she was suggesting this could be the case with you. But she was simply stating that you might have quite a few partners during the year. She didn't use a pejorative like "slut" and neither did she even say that having multiple partners was bad.

Meloni, that could be a good way for Amy to make some extra money!

Wading in on the original question. Yes, the person that gave the STD should be held liable. I think it is a civil case rather than a criminal one, though. The person that didn't take prudent, reasonable precautions and caught the STD is also on the hook. I'm not sure if it is a 50:50 deal. I'll say it should be about there.

Big daddy cannot keep you safe from your own foolishness. You gotta own it.

AFAIK, abstinence is the best bet for avoiding pregnancy and stds. Jump off the wagon and there are some risks. Each person must determine their own level of risk tolerance.

People would love to have a guarantee that recreational sex not become procreational sex. No guarantees. You roll the dice, you may come up snake eyes.

Thanks, Jim, for seeing that I did not call her a slut. I don't even know how that leap happened because, in my response to her above, I was clearly trying to reassure her, tell her that she shouldn't be so concerned about STDs precisely BECAUSE her number of partners is low and she's NOT promiscuous.

I think some of my comments to Crid were taken as being directed towards her, but they weren't.

You're welcome LS.

A tangent on when people do call a woman a slut. I think it's obvious why conservatives do (or would) call a woman a slut. They feel it's immoral have sex with a lot of different people.

Aside from conservatives, I'm not sure why a woman would call another woman a slut...perhaps jealousy?

But I've always felt when a man (again, aside from conservatives) calls a woman a slut he's definitely doing it out of jealousy. Many men would love to be "sluts" but most us do not have the same sexual opportunities that women have. And I think that envy gets expressed by putting women down.

> Am I the only one wondering when

In Formula One, they call it handbags.

_______________

> Yes, the person that gave the STD should
> be held liable.

But then...

> The person that didn't take prudent, reasonable
> precautions and caught the STD is also
> on the hook

So why do you want to get the state involved in an intensely personal offense, with complicity on both sides?

What's in it for us, the taxpayers who are expected to host this squabble? Why should we pay for the judges and the courtroom and the paperwork? Do we really want more idiots hanging around downtown?


_______________



A new entry!

My words have been misinterpreted; I'm sorry you took it that way; That somehow came from your own defensiveness; (and now:) taken as being directed towards her.

"So why do you want to get the state involved in an intensely personal offense, with complicity on both sides? " Crid

Because I am redhead. We are known to be contrary.

I know! We should invent some method or system whereby people with real or imagined losses may seek restitution from those that have harmed them.

...waitaminute....

The funk spreader should not get off free. Neither should the funkee be removed from all responsibility for their own actions. Leave it to the people already hired and trained to sort it out.

An imperfect solution yet one recognized by our society as effective and appropriate. The alternatives may involve things like vehicular homicide, Bobbit-izing and possible something as horrible as nasty Facebook posts.

Oh, the humanity.

Comments from Lovelysoul regarding her assumptions about me, and comparing me with her promiscuous ex:

If someone is vetting their lovers properly and having only one or two presumably exclusive sexual relationships within a year, an annual check would seem unecessary. Maybe every 2 or 3 years. Hardly anyone gets checked annually unless they're being pretty promiscuous...or maybe just so they have the piece of paper to show a potential partner, "See, here's my recent test results!"

Look, Crid, Sarah may be the most responsible person on the planet, but most people don't get annual STD screenings unless they're sleeping with quite a number of partners.
My ex has annual STD screenings...because he's sleeping with lots of women and therefore fears he may contract an STD.

And the hits just keep coming:

my impulse would be to think that a guy was more promiscuous if he presented me with an annual screening.

Yet, I apologize because I did initially make the assumption that you had a lot of partners if you felt the need to get screened annually.

The reason you're upset is that I assumed that if you felt the need to get annual screenings, it was because you were concerned you'd been exposed. Turns out I was right about that, just not because you've had multiple partners. I simply couldn't understand why, but now I do. I'm sorry you took my questioning as judgement. It just didn't make sense why you'd need annual screenings with such few partners and such safe practices.

Please...the above is not the reason I was upset, but I'm sure if you shake your magic 8 ball, it will tell you everything you need to know about me. Do not ascribe your fuckedupness (I know it's not a real work, but I like it) to me.

My one and only use of "slut" in this discussion. Note, I never said she specifically called me a slut. I was only inquiring whether that was her assumption of me based on the few facts she had.

Lovelysoul, why do you assume I have numerous partners in a year?? I never said I had numerous partners so you must have extrapolated that because I take care of myself and have myself checked annually. Or is it because I've only had a couple of relationships that have lasted longer than 6 months so therefore I MUST be a slut and sleep with a different guy every time I walk out the door?

As Jim pointed out, Sara, I was saying "most people"...not all, and not you. Yes, when you first said you were screened annually for STDs, I assumed, as I think most people would, that you did so because you have multiple partners. But this wasn't a negative "judgement" of you, just a reasonable assumption based on the facts. You quickly clarified that your DIDN'T have multiple partners, which is why I responded that it was probably overkill to be screened so often.

I'm tired of defending myself about it. I know I didn't think of you as a "slut". If you want to believe that was my meaning and that I was actually attacking you while responding to someone else - so you can continue to hurl nasty insults at me - then go ahead. That just shows a pretty ugly side of you, and I'm sure everyone is pretty much sick of hearing about this.

LauraGR, I really enjoyed your last post. Funny and brilliant.

Ah, the original blog question: "What Should The Punishment Be For Giving Somebody An STD?"
Good news, folks... I've come to a conclusion: Public Humiliation, dealt out by the victim.
You're welcome.

Meanwhile, I hear syphillis is making a comeback.

Lovelysoul, and all I have ever asked was for you to clarify your position as it related to me. Not once could you do that. The only thing you succeeded in doing was putting your foot in your mouth repeatedly. Because once you started digging the hole, you just couldn't help yourself and you kept going. My original comment should never have gotten this thread to the point it's at. But unless and until you are willing to back down, I will continue to call BS on you in this thread. I owned what I called you, and I still stand by that. No apologies and no explanations needed. When you decide to step up and own what your implications, assumptions and the characteristics you ascribed to me, then will I stop.

Sara, "promiscuous" means not restricted to one sexual partner. That's an accurate term to describe a lot of single people. There's no inherent value judgment attached to it.

Now, do some people use it in a pejorative way, as in promiscuous = slutty? I'm sure they do. But that is usually evident from they way they say it or the context. And I saw nothing in any of LS's comments to indicate that.

I'm being an impartial observer here. I'm not defending LS because she's my BFF (or even F.) If it seemed to me she intended that as slam, I'd support what you're saying. But I didn't, and don't, see it as a slam. For whatever reasons, I think you're overreacting.

I can't recall ever meeting a woman who told me she got annual screenings for STDs. But if I did, I believe I would assume that she was doing this because she was fairly sexually active. That seems like a reasonable assumption to me but I don't know...perhaps most people would not assume that.

"Lovelysoul, and all I have ever asked was for you to clarify your position as it related to me. Not once could you do that."

Sara, this just isn't true. I can go back through the thread, but I know I said that I didn't care how many lovers you had, and truly I don't.

Here's a quote:

"Obviously, you're not a slut. I don't even like to use that word. You say you have very few partners and I believe you. But it really doesn't matter to me if you have 2 partners or 20."

Jim stated the same earlier. Even if you had said you had many lovers in a year, I wouldn't have judged you. I've had multiple lovers in a year myself. I don't believe that makes anyone a "slut". As far as I'm concerned, single people are free to have multiple partners.

You have a sensitivity about this, and it has nothing to do with me. I'll probably regret writing this, but if I had to guess, I'd imagine some man (perhaps your ex?) called you a slut at some point, and this has made you especially sensitive to being judged in that way. But I honestly wasn't judging you like that.

You have a sensitivity about this, and it has nothing to do with me. I'll probably regret writing this, but if I had to guess, I'd imagine some man (perhaps your ex?) called you a slut at some point, and this has made you especially sensitive to being judged in that way. But I honestly wasn't judging you like that.

How's your shovel holding up?

(Sigh) Obviously not well. I'm at a loss in knowing how to deal with your obsession about this. I know what I meant. I know what I wrote. I know what I meant when I wrote.

You're not a slut, Sara. Even if you had 50 lovers in a year, you wouldn't be a slut in my book.

Mixing the timeline, for the kind of narrative rhythm and flow that makes symphonic composers swoon with admiration for the freewheeling conventions of our blog comment form:

> I am redhead. We are known to be contrary.

I had a sister... Her cussedness taught new meanings of "stubborn" to the logicians of Oxford and Sorbonne. ("Holy shit," they said.)

> We should invent some method or system whereby
> people with real or imagined losses may seek
> restitution from those that have harmed them.

Like I said above: Tell his friends. See also, ahw:

> Public Humiliation, dealt out by the victim.

Public, I dunno... Well-targeted/semi-private is more to the point. The fact that two strangers might disagree about things doesn't mean the rest of us have to help them sort it out.

> The funk spreader should not get off
> free. Neither should the funkee

Fine. Listen, I'll concede in a heartbeat that the Spreader is a shabby man, OK? And he bears more responsibility than does the Funkee, though in this particular case, she's (apparently) complicit. So how many other questions will these two demand we answer? How much time will we have to give?

In Big Law, there's a thang called cert. When the Supreme Court denies cert to a petitioner, it basically means Don't bother us with this shit. I don't know what this is called in lesser houses of law... But in smaller suits, cases are often dismissed as beyond the interest of The People.

We're told that the average American is much less likely to be suing his neighbor than he would've been two centuries ago. One reason for that is that there's so much more precedent to draw from, insights molded into regulations containing misbehavior before it hurts people. But another reason is that Americans are more confident that they can move forward when something bad happens... They've grown thicker skins, withdrawing the prickly sensitivities which demanded balm. We should continue to nourish this withdrawal.

And this just may not be that big a deal. I'm pleased to offer no expertise, but a typical course of herpes apparently involves irregular outbreaks of localized, occasionally painful sores at distant intervals for some long time. It ain't lung cancer. Many people would apparently trade this illness against a moderate Christmastime head cold for as many years in a row. Lord God knows there are worse hazards from fucking, including babies, death, bad unions, and financial swindles. People do crazy shit for love.

No, the greater insult of herpes is to dignity.

But Dear infectees: I don't care about your dignity. You were fucking, and that's never dignified. You made yourself vulnerable to another human being because you liked 'em. I don't want to have to sign off on your attractions, or instruct you —or pay a judge to instruct you– on how they can go better.

I don't want to do it in a courtroom, and I don't want to have to deal with "public humiliation" of people I've never met... Angry scenes in line at the grocery, or whatever. But if my friends were doing this to people, I might wanna know.

> Oh, the humanity.

Humanity is for the gays, lady... This is Thundertown! We're distributing justice ovah heah.


> "promiscuous" means not restricted to
> one sexual partner.

It does?

Wiki—

"In humans, promiscuity refers to less discriminating casual sex with many sexual partners.".

"[1] composed of all sorts of persons or things".

"[1] derogatory having or characterized by many transient sexual relationships: she’s a wild, promiscuous girl."

Oooo! Holding at six: The reason you're upset; My words have been misinterpreted; I'm sorry you took it that way; That somehow came from your own defensiveness; taken as being directed towards her; and You have a sensitivity about this. (There are probably several others, but who in their right mind would read all this again to find them? There's no rush: Could anyone doubt there will be more in the times ahead?)

Now, Sara can and will defend herself as she sees fit. And regular readers will understand that sentiments like "You disappoint me" from this particular commenter are not likely to disrupt my patterns of rest, nutrition, and spiritual fulfillment. Butcha know...

The larger lunacy still rankles. Jim is a carrier of the derangement:

> people [...] who get tested annually for
> STDs do it because they're sleeping with
> quite a number of people.

Got that? "Quite a number". That's his best science, and it's every bit as vague & superstitious as the advice of his Soul sister. Their rule seems to be: Don't be a person I could turn up my nose at, because THAT's what puts you at risk. They can't support bogus epidemiology with logic, so they scoot the discussion towards longtime marrieds.

Well, what grown women do is this: They go to the doctor. Annually at least. They go for counseling and clarity about sex disease, and they go for RATIONAL, NON-EGOCENTRIC guidance on the rest of their health concerns. They don't pretend that some cartoon-twinkle feeling of the heart, some absence of "doubt", will protect them from genuine hazard. They know that infectious disease is not original sin.

How many others are still reading at this point? I'd guess six. Of those, I'd bet three have similarly wagered their health on their darling emotions in the style of Jim and Soul. And get this: None of them are infected. But they're very much like the commenter on this blog who's never had insurance, but has made it to his late 30's without serious illness. He gloats about cleverly saving money; yet all he's done is pass his risks to others. The JimSouls are similarly deluded... And dangerous.


And goddammit, that's ALL there is to say about this!


...Unless anyone wants more.

Be in touch, Seekers!

"Of those, I'd bet three have similarly wagered their health on their darling emotions in the style of Jim and Soul. And get this: None of them are infected. But they're very much like the commenter on this blog who's never had insurance, but has made it to his late 30's without serious illness."

That's a completely bogus argument. I have never "wagered my health." I've always had appropriate STD screenings when necessary. Fortunately, they haven't been necessary on a yearly basis, and if you weren't so eager to oppose me, you'd usually be the one to say that this was good - both that my behavior didn't warrant numerous STD screenings, and that I wasn't passing unnecessary cost for my life choices along to you.

After all, why should you give a shit whether I trust my partner or forgot to ask him to use a condom? Why should my fucking around be at your expense? People make stupid or risky sexual choices, then want a screening to tell them they're ok...again. Ordinarily, that wouldn't be something you'd applaud.

Oh, c'mon Crid, no, "Johnny Dickface Gave Me Herpes!!!" billboard next to the Interstate? Really, you're no fun.

Exception granted.