your rainbow connection

How much do you need to know about your spouse's previous sex life?

Published: Tuesday, 4-Jul-2006

Under a new ruling by the California Supreme Court, a person who has reason to believe he or she has HIV may be sued by sexual partners should they become infected. To knowingly pass on HIV is already illegal in California and people who do so may be sued for damages in state court, but the new ruling extends the state's view of when liability arises from the disease.

The chief issue before the court was whether an HIV-positive person who hadn't yet been tested for the virus could be held responsible, in a civil suit, for infecting a partner, and the answer is yes, at least in some circumstances.

( text saved below cut for educational purposes )

The court has ruled that the husband must disclose when and how often he had sex with men, because it might indicate whether he should have known he was infected.

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=18688,

this article did give the most comprehensive information, and helped calm me down a wee bit, i'm still calling bullshit.

look, this whole situation sucks. if the husband spread hiv knowingly, he's an ass and then some. he'd be a case in which i wished i believed in karma. and i really don't justify willingly transmitting hiv to someone who doesn't know what they might be getting themselves into, which means, i'm not talking about "bug chaser" situations (wherein gay men try to get infected), of which i don't presently have commentary. but i'm not even sure if i'm *comfortable* with the prosecution of willful transmission to the unwilling. from the way things are looking, the guy had a negative hiv test. "high-risk" behaviour be damned, he had at least some reason to believe he wouldn't be transmitting hiv.

the government really just needs to stay the fuck out of my pants. THEY'RE MY PANTS!11!! they should stay out of yours, too. unless you want to let them in, but ONLY YOUR PANTS then. nobody else's. not your parents'. not your partners'. NOT MINE. and that's really, as far as i'm concerned, is what a lot of this is all about.

( yes it really is..... )
let me finally clarify that i do not blame the woman if she is, in fact, the victim of an asshole here. again, her situation is sad and tragic. and if she infected her husband, that, too, is sad and tragic. my statements would remain the same if she were a sex worker and not his wife. but the government still needs to stay out of my pants.

[the case is john b. vs. superior court, S12824]

see also:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/04/HIV.TMP

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/health/04suit.html

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Jul03/0,4670,DisclosingHIV,00.html

so, apparently, both target and american girl are wankers.

both have caved to x-ian pressures.

a)target... they've opted against the vibrating cock ring. they're still selling the "stimulating" gels. i mean, really, what afa originally got their panties in a bundle over is the product line is aimed at OMG NO women's pleasure.

and target still "bans" all religious money handlers from their property, including the anti-gay salvation army.

so they could be worse. like, ahem,

b) american girl this back pedaling SEVERELY pissed me off...

from afa's email: Within hours of our email alert, American Girl changed their website and removed the link to Girls Inc. from their site. They then moved all references to Girls Inc. from the homepage to a secondary webpage.

News reports state American Girl has no plans to drop their close association with Girls Inc. and will continue giving the group financial donations.

In addition, American Girl changed the text of the "I Can" bracelet program, stating the donations are "earmarked" for non-lesbian, non-abortion promotional activities. This financial support designation simply frees up others monies at Girls Inc. for political and social advocacy activities.

EMAILS: target AND american girl

i'm waiting until i get to the point of something beyond "for fuck's sake people" before emailing. (though, with target, that's not all that bad of a response....)

i've had a busy week. this is NOT how i had preferred to end it....

( cut of rape references, lj-abuse stupidity, and, naughty language. )

dear feminist mens:

thank you ever so much for being men and feminists! you all deserve cookies; i will soon return to the kitchen and bake for you. you have my undying gratitude. i'm ashamed of anyone who would make you feel bad. that women-folk would even think about asking you to be quiet and let women talk -thus creating a "safespace" - no matter how brief the timespan, is nothing short of stupid.

i apologize that there are those evil(man-hating-hairy-lesbianic, etc.) feminists who think that maybe you shouldn't be leaders of The Movement. they're just bitter. all this reverse sexism makes no sense, i'll tell you what. and besides womens need to be taught a lesson as to how to talk back. it's their fault if they don't!

we can talk about privilege all we want. that doesn't matter. privilege is as priviledge does. what matters is keeping you guys interested. i don't want any of you to feel ignored; we need your penii lest we perish! we must fight the oppression of the almighty penis at all costs!

also-feel, before i forget, free to mock woman-kind all you want. making fun of a disadvantaged group, of which you are not a part, is perfectly fine. anyone who says anything to the contrary is only trying to oppress you further.

sincerely,

a concerned feminist (who isn't one of *those* feminists)

(  NTYIMES 1-17-05 Police Question Mother, 13, in Baby's Death... The mother of a newborn boy left for dead outside a church in the Bronx was identified by the police last night as a 13-year-old girl. She will probably face charges, the authorities said. . . .The girl can be charged as an adult. . .The baby was left only six blocks from the hospital. Under state law, people can leave unwanted children at hospitals without fear of arrest.  )

HOW do *i* know where to take any unwanted children? (and, actually, i think there's an age limit on this) because every time something like this happens - it's mentioned.
is it mentioned any other time? no. are there signs up in the subway? no. are there comercials on tv? no. or the radio? no. are there billboards on phone booths? no. in schools? no. on top of taxis? no. have i ever heard this law mentioned at any other time, save for when it's already too late? NO.
protective state laws don't mean shit if you're uninformed.

and if you're THIRTEEN years old? in new york, you may (currently) be able to get an abortion/birth control services on your own to keep this from happening, but this is provided you KNOW this and can AFFORD it.
however, may not be old enough to (legally): vote, drive a car, buy liquor/tobacco/porn, join the military, generally open your own bank account, have your own credit card, stay out past city-imposed curfew, be employed by most employers, get into R (or NC-17) movies, rent an apartment by yourself, easily open your own public assistance case, get a loan, be respected. . . . but goddamnit, you just might be old enough to be tried as an adult.

fuck fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuck

i never meant i wanted the entire nation to turn into one giant extension of kansas.

in other news, i hear ireland is hiring social work jobs. . .