Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Savage Responsibility
Last week in Savage Love, Dan Savage answered an email from a kid whose "friend" was knowingly spreading HIV to internet-dating partners. Dan was really irate, and said that he believes in a "paternity" law that would make the infector pay 50% of the drug costs for the newly infectee. Understandably, this week's Savage Love is all about that one particular email.
Personally, I'm torn between thinking that's a good idea and "blaming the victim" so to speak. Yeah, if you go around infecting people, you're a major dickwad (pun intended?), but if you agree to unprotected sex with a stranger, I think you're really taking your life in your hands. So I'm not sure if I think you only get 50% responsibilty for that action.
There was a letter a few weeks back from a guy who demanded that his internet partner use a condom, but later discovered that the condom "slipped off." That's not cool, and that's really not what I'm talking about. In a case like that, I'd probably be in favor of criminal proceedings as well as full financial responsibilty. Yeah, the infectee was taking a risk by having sex with a stranger, but the disease is sufficient punishment for that.
I suppose my view is slightly colored by the fact that I'm a chick and I don't tend to have sex with random people. I don't really understand the urge. So I'm open to thoughts and other opinions.
In a related issue, I'm also pro-choice and in favor of strict paternity laws. In other words, You Fuck It, You Bought It.
Personally, I'm torn between thinking that's a good idea and "blaming the victim" so to speak. Yeah, if you go around infecting people, you're a major dickwad (pun intended?), but if you agree to unprotected sex with a stranger, I think you're really taking your life in your hands. So I'm not sure if I think you only get 50% responsibilty for that action.
There was a letter a few weeks back from a guy who demanded that his internet partner use a condom, but later discovered that the condom "slipped off." That's not cool, and that's really not what I'm talking about. In a case like that, I'd probably be in favor of criminal proceedings as well as full financial responsibilty. Yeah, the infectee was taking a risk by having sex with a stranger, but the disease is sufficient punishment for that.
I suppose my view is slightly colored by the fact that I'm a chick and I don't tend to have sex with random people. I don't really understand the urge. So I'm open to thoughts and other opinions.
In a related issue, I'm also pro-choice and in favor of strict paternity laws. In other words, You Fuck It, You Bought It.
