“I have had no sympathy from any of the accused. One who was HIV-positive came six times. Not once did my husband express any concern about my health,” she said.
Even if these rapists claims they thought they were participating in some weird sex play, if you knew you were HIV positive, why would you have unprotected sex with anybody?
Obviously. The point the person was making was to say that even if we buy into the bullshit narrative that this was consensual, it still doesn’t make sense. They didn’t use incorrect terms to skirt around it, they were making a specific point about their claims.
Except it isn’t obvious to many people, and using the correct language is more important than any supposed point they were trying to make (because part of rape culture is society, and especially the media and the courts not calling it what it is to muddy the water. I’m not accusing OP of doing that deliberately, but that’s why words matter, even if you intention is benign).
Edit to add now my brain is in gear, probably just as important: is the issue of perpetuating ableist and or queerphobic stigma (which again, OP doesn’t have to intend for it, for it to be happening) - there is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with a person who has HIV having unprotected sex. Most HIV patients, especially in developed countries, now have viral loads so low they are not contagious, and have partners who are perfectly happy and safe having unprotected sex with them.
The problem here is and always was the lack of consent, aka rape, and the fact that the rapist husband told all his rapist friends that condoms were unnecessary. Nothing at all to do with the HIV status of one of the rapists (note she caught 3 other STI’s too, but no one is singling those rapists out individually)
So yes, words matter, the fact that they don’t matter to you, or any of the other fragile downvoters, doesn’t change that.
Even if these rapists claims they thought they were participating in some weird sex play, if you knew you were HIV positive, why would you have unprotected sex with anybody?
Their claims reek of bullshit.
When you use the correct terms, your question answers itself (E, in case it wasn’t clear: because they’re a selfish piece of shit).
Obviously. The point the person was making was to say that even if we buy into the bullshit narrative that this was consensual, it still doesn’t make sense. They didn’t use incorrect terms to skirt around it, they were making a specific point about their claims.
Sir, this is Lemmy. There are semantic arguments we must beat each other over the head with. I didn’t make the rules…
Except it isn’t obvious to many people, and using the correct language is more important than any supposed point they were trying to make (because part of rape culture is society, and especially the media and the courts not calling it what it is to muddy the water. I’m not accusing OP of doing that deliberately, but that’s why words matter, even if you intention is benign).
Edit to add now my brain is in gear, probably just as important: is the issue of perpetuating ableist and or queerphobic stigma (which again, OP doesn’t have to intend for it, for it to be happening) - there is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with a person who has HIV having unprotected sex. Most HIV patients, especially in developed countries, now have viral loads so low they are not contagious, and have partners who are perfectly happy and safe having unprotected sex with them.
The problem here is and always was the lack of consent, aka rape, and the fact that the rapist husband told all his rapist friends that condoms were unnecessary. Nothing at all to do with the HIV status of one of the rapists (note she caught 3 other STI’s too, but no one is singling those rapists out individually)
So yes, words matter, the fact that they don’t matter to you, or any of the other fragile downvoters, doesn’t change that.
It was pretty obvious, mate.
Writing war and peace doesn’t change that.