Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, May 24, 2006

New charge filed in HIV exposure case

Man goes back to jail after prosecutors reveal fourth incident

May 24, 2006

Advertisement

A man already charged with three cases of HIV exposure in Douglas County went back to jail Tuesday after prosecutors filed a fourth case against him.

Robert W. Richardson II, 29, was arrested Tuesday morning at the Judicial and Law Enforcement Center, 111 E. 11th St., by a sheriff's deputy who was waiting outside his court appearance for a previous HIV-exposure case. Richardson is expected to make a first appearance on the new case today, and his bond on the new charge has been set at $100,000.

He had been free on bond before Tuesday's arrest, which came at the end of a hearing that laid out some of the evidence against him in a pending case involving a 30-year-old Emporia woman. Tuesday was the second time in recent weeks that women have taken the stand to describe their contact with Richardson. In a hearing earlier this month, one woman said she had sex with Richardson after meeting him on the online dating site OKCupid.com, and another testified she met him through Kansas University's Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics.

The Emporia woman testified Tuesday that she had unprotected sex twice with Richardson late last year after she met him through the Internet site www.friendster.com. She testified she didn't learn he was HIV-positive until she came across online Lawrence Journal-World stories about his arrest.

So far, the woman has tested negative for HIV, as have the previous two women who testified in Douglas County.

At the end of the hearing, Judge Stephen Six ordered Richardson to stand trial July 12 despite defense attorney Thomas Johnson's request to dismiss the charge. Johnson argued there was no evidence Richardson meant to hurt the woman.

In addition to the four Douglas County cases, Richardson has HIV-related cases pending in Emporia and Johnson County, Mo.

Comments

Marion Lynn 7 years, 10 months ago

The video was there but it was cut from about 3 minutes to a little over a minute and was shown at the very beginning of the boradcast.

I missed it myself!

It is not featurned on the KCTV5 website but I am in communcation with KCTV5 regarding getting a copy to put up on "that other" website.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

BritBoiNYC 7 years, 10 months ago

What happened to the video that was supposed to appear on the channel 5 website? Is it there and I am just missing it??

0

RichardCory 7 years, 10 months ago

Two friends meet on a Saturday afternoon to take a photograph to use on the cover of a small movie that they've been working on. The photograph involves a gun being held to one friend's head. They discuss, and the gun is to unloaded. The "victim friend" takes a break, runs to the restroom before taking a few more photos, meanwhile the other slips a bullet into the chamber.

Now, did the victim get their brains splattered in the backyard because the friend actually wanted him dead, or because he wondered what it would feel like, emotionally and physically, to watch that person's skull explode? Maybe he thought it would feel nicer than just standing there posing.

If you know you are HIV positive, and someone agrees to have sex with you on the grounds that you will wear a condom, and you proceed to slip it off when she's distracted, does your motive at that point matter? If you know you're carrying around a loaded gun, society expects you to act a little more responsibly than if you're carrying a water gun.

0

gr 7 years, 10 months ago

"with the intent to expose that individual to that life threatening communicable disease;"

The key just isn't whether he knew he had the disease but if his "intent" was to expose the individual to the disease versus he just wanted sex and he took off the condom because 'it feels better'.

According to the law posted, no crime was committed if he just was having sex with no "intent" to expose the victim. If exposure was only a side affect.

0

karma_king 7 years, 10 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Sigmund 7 years, 10 months ago

Marion- Thanks for the kind word, although at least one person thinks I was comparing safe sex to safe driving?!?!?! And although I cited the precise Statute Chater and Verse some still had trouble finding it.

0

RichardCory 7 years, 10 months ago

Let's make sure we are familiarizing ourselves with all of the information that has been presented before we call the dogs off of this guy:

" . . .she learned he was HIV-positive shortly after meeting him.

She testified she had sex with him Jan. 20 on the condition that he wear a condom. But during their encounter, she said, he removed the condom without her noticing.

When she later noticed the condom was gone, she said, the encounter stopped." (LJW May 3, 2006)

She wasn't angry that he was HIV positive, or she wouldn't have agreed to have sex with him. If the condom had accidentally slipped off, and she had felt that he was in the least bit sorry, I don't understand why she would be wanting to drag her own name, face, and personal information through the courts.

At least he DID TELL this one that he was HIV positive. It sounds like a lot of the others weren't so lucky.

A lot of this is going to boil down to intent. If he honestly had no idea that he was HIV positive, and ended up spreading it, then it's a bad situation and it would have great if he'd been tested or used protection, but that's about all one can say. However, if a person has been receiving medical treatment for years, and has already been arrested for this type of behavior in Louisiana, it's a little hard to feel sorry for them when they systematically start trying to have sex with as many people as possible in another state. And slipping the condom off that you agreed to wear certainly sounds like you're trying your hardest to infect others.

0

justthefacts 7 years, 10 months ago

Got it, I think:

21-3435.   Exposing another to a life threatening communicable disease. (a) It is unlawful for an individual who knows oneself to be infected with a life threatening communicable disease knowingly:

  (1)   To engage in sexual intercourse or sodomy with another individual with the intent to expose that individual to that life threatening communicable disease;

  (2)   to sell or donate one's own blood, blood products, semen, tissue, organs or other body fluids with the intent to expose the recipient to a life threatening communicable disease;

  (3)   to share with another individual a hypodermic needle, syringe, or both, for the introduction of drugs or any other substance into, or for the withdrawal of blood or body fluids from, the other individual's body with the intent to expose another person to a life threatening communicable disease.

  (b)   As used in this section, the term "sexual intercourse" shall not include penetration by any object other than the male sex organ; the term "sodomy" shall not include the penetration of the anal opening by any object other than the male sex organ.

  (c)   Violation of this section is a severity level 7, person felony.

  History:   L. 1992, ch. 289, § 7; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 45; L. 1999, ch. 164, § 7; July 1.
0

justthefacts 7 years, 10 months ago

Not that I have one iota of sympathy for any person who knowingly and intentionally inflicts a deadly illness on another person, without their permission or knowledge, but just what is the statute number (in Kansas) that makes intentional transmission of the HIV virus a felony?

I tried finding it on www.kslegislature.org but haven't had luck, so far. Anyone know the precise statute(s) under which he has been charged?

0

OliviaT 7 years, 10 months ago

karma- there is a law against it for a reason. read the law.. it's obviously a felony.

0

karma_king 7 years, 10 months ago

I completely agree with the folks that say leave this guy alone. The women are just as much at fault that let this guy bed them. The issue here shouldnt be punishing this guy, but rather, pushing the message of safe sex.

If you don't have your man wear a rubber, you are at fault.

0

warcraft1975 7 years, 10 months ago

how about we just round up everyone hiv postive and set them on fire?i bet that would help get rid of it right?

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 10 months ago

Sigmund:

Great post!

Thanks.

Marion.

0

azreader 7 years, 10 months ago

wow this guy just wanted to get some!! Why should he be charged. These women knew that having unprotected sex with a person they met online was solely at their own risk.. and so far they all are tested negative, so whats the big deal. you pay for your actions.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 10 months ago

Sigmund:

It's a huge leap to condemn safe consensual sex based upon this case of disease transmission.

Analogous to banning cars based upon one bad driver committing vehicular homicide.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 10 months ago

Gotta agree with Rhoen.

That was a very good post, RichardCory.

0

Sigmund 7 years, 10 months ago

If you missed it there are now two HIV infected studs in Lawrence tainting half the open minded atheist in the northeast corner of the state. A 30 year old homeless guy was accussed of intentionally exposing a 37 year old woman to a life threatening disease.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/may/23...

I do love the evolved morality and values displayed here in Lawrence. It's not casual sex that is condemned, oh no, but casual sex without a condom which is the great sin. Commit that sin and you deserve what you get. So what piece of latex will protect both your genitals and your spirit from the disease of cheapening other human beings into objects whose sole purpose is give you thrill?

So lets look to the Statute our studs are charged under, KSA 21-3435, Exposing another to a life threatening communicable disease: (a) It is unlawful for an individual who knows oneself to be infected with a life threatening communicable disease knowingly: (1) To engage in sexual intercourse or sodomy with another individual with the intent to expose that individual to that life threatening communicable disease;

I am sure all you Johnny Cochran wannabe's can see what our biologist, poetist, athiest, ecomentalist, defense will be. "Ooops, my raincoat fell off, sorry bout that." Now all together "If the glove did not fit, you must aquit!"

So as I sit in traffic on 23rd street undistracted by ballons and unable to phone a friend to tell them I'll be late, I'll be comforted by the new Lawrence morality, a kinder gentler godless (or godessless) morality, where I am free of second hand smoke in bars but not gun shots, and at least the frogs are safe in the Lawrence swamp.

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 10 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Rhoen 7 years, 10 months ago

Thoughtfyul, accurate, and totally on-point RichardCory... Thanks for your insights.

0

RichardCory 7 years, 10 months ago

The victims that have come forward are doing something incredibly responsible - they're putting their own lives on hold, putting their own reputations at risk, and apparently financing their own lawyers to stop this guy from spreading HIV to others. They really have nothing to gain from this - the MOST they could be hoping for would be money from this guy, and from looking at his websites and realizing that fighting HIV isn't exactly cheap, it's doubtful that he's got anything to go after. If they're trying to hide this from their future partners, volunteering to have their personal information plastered all over the media in the coming months isn't exactly the best way to go about it.

Amusing how we assume that all women that are currently sleeping with someone other than ourselves are stupid and easy.

It's appearing like we're dealing with a psychopath - I'm guessing the scariest part of this whole deal will be when the details of his relationships with these women come out.

Again, props to these women for standing up at their own expense to stop this guy from infecting others. Many others have had the opportunity to stop him and for whatever reason passed, giving him more years to destroy lives. How brave of them to put their own embarrassment, privacy, etc aside to prevent him from infecting women that they will never meet.

We've all made decisions that we wish later we could take back (even if, looking back, we realize that information we were given to make that decision was completely false), but most of us quietly sweep it under the rug and go on with our lives. These women aren't - to go after this guy, they're going to have to admit details in court that NO ONE wants to share, but it will get him stopped. I admire them for that.

0

Ceallach 7 years, 10 months ago

Blaming the women is ridiculous. Being gullible is not an offense punishable by death. He put his pleasure before their lives, which is wanton disregard for human life.

I would like to see the research that has determined three months of negative reading to be anything but three months of negative readings. HIV can rear it's ugly head in these women's futures.

They are the victims, true, but now that they have been exposed -- they too must be responsible enough not to endanger their future partners.

0

offtotheright 7 years, 10 months ago

Face it, none of these women can be too bright.

0

GardenMomma 7 years, 10 months ago

RichardCory: "I suspect, though, that most people infected knows what it feels like to receive that news, and would do anything possible to keep the people they care most about from having to go through it."

Except for the subject of this article, who did nothing to keep the people with whom he had sex, from having to go through it.

It's fortunate that none of the women so far have tested positive.

0

RichardCory 7 years, 10 months ago

gr -

I'm virtually certain that I have references in print, however, until I find them, here are a couple to get you started.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2296151.stm http://www.neo-tech.com/pleasures/history.html

Obviously, waiting to get married to have sex IS a great way to prevent STDs and other issues, but it's interesting how many people wave their hands in the air and bemoan the number of people having sex before marriage now, when really, it's been going on all along. Also, keep in mind that people are now getting married at a time in their lives when historically they would have already borne a dozen children, as well as the fact that "til death do us part" is now two to three times as many years as it was historically.

As for comparing intentionally misleading someone into thinking that you are clean, and then slipping the condom off during intercourse so as to infect them to a can of soda or a cigarette, I think it's rather clear that that's a poor analogy. Yes, you do take a gamble when you have sex with anyone - you don't have absolute PROOF that your wife didn't have sex with the mailman today. Also, there's a difference between your wife accidentally killing you with a can of contaminated soda she purchased at the grocery store, vs her spending months figuring out exactly how to obtain and plant cyanide in that can of pop. Perhaps some of these cases were random hookups, but if you read through the past information presented on here, one of the women he did this to, he carried on a 5-year-relationship with. It's a bad idea for a woman to walk across a parking lot at night, but when a young mother running after diapers ends up raped and gutted in a grocery store parking lot, we don't blame her. Let's wait until we know all the details of the case before we blame the women.

And if any of these women come up positive, and proceed to traverse the country trying to systematically infect as many people as possible, then by all means, lock them up. I suspect, though, that most people infected knows what it feels like to receive that news, and would do anything possible to keep the people they care most about from having to go through it.

0

Linda Endicott 7 years, 10 months ago

The most frightening thing to me about HIV is that there are a lot of people out there who don't even know they have it, and they're spreading it around all the time. So, ALWAYS use protection. ALWAYS be cautious.

The trouble with this guy is that he KNEW he had it, and had no problem or conscience whatsoever with the possibility of spreading it to these women. Just for sex? Maybe. But as someone pointed out, there are always other HIV people around, or masturbation, or whatever. To me it sounds more like he was out for revenge, toward the woman who initially gave it to him. Sick, but probably true.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 10 months ago

Dani:

Goooo Cougars!!!!

I can't remember, are you out practicing yet or are you getting close to the Bar???

0

Dani Davey 7 years, 10 months ago

holygrailale and OliviaT - thanks for the info.

0

OliviaT 7 years, 10 months ago

gr:

I am not suggesting that a crime did not occur. You misunderstood my comment. A crime did occur and it doesn't matter what the hiv status of the ladies is right now....

0

Adrienne Sanders 7 years, 10 months ago

Yes, i absolutely would want to know about other illnesses the person might be aware they have. But I do think there's a difference between a deadly virus and one that's not life threatening. The link between a potentially cancer-causing virus would be too tenuous. Also, there is no test for HPV for men, so how would they know they might be spreading it? (HPV being the only sexually transmitted, potentially cancer causing virus I can think of off the top of my head.)

0

gr 7 years, 10 months ago

Olivia: "the woman would be postive if they were tested now for possible transmission that occured months ago. most cases come up postive within 3 months. they are not infected."

Are you suggesting no crime was committed?

Confrontation: "I sure hope you don't have kids! Only a small percentage of teens are abstaining and waiting until marriage."

So, following the same logic, if most people with HIV attempt to infect other people, we shouldn't be worried.

Since most kids aren't abstaining, let's encourage the remainder to go ahead, too.

dulcinea47: "Here's the thing. If you (or me, or anyone) had sex with someone who had HIV and they didn't tell you, wouldn't you feel like they were putting your life at risk even if you DID use a condom? I would."

Well, what about any number of other transmitted diseases? Just because they don't kill you, would you want them? Do you expect them to tell you? Suppose they don't and you get one that leads to cancer which leads to death. What about that?

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 10 months ago

Condoms are not a 100% guarrranty of not transferring the virus.

Other sexual practices may involve the right kind of contact which would allow the virus to pass from the infected party to another.

Thanks.

Marion.

0

Adrienne Sanders 7 years, 10 months ago

Here's the thing. If you (or me, or anyone) had sex with someone who had HIV and they didn't tell you, wouldn't you feel like they were putting your life at risk even if you DID use a condom? I would.

0

Confrontation 7 years, 10 months ago

Posted by satchel (anonymous) on May 24, 2006 at 6:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Maybe if we would just remain abstinate until marriage the spread of aids would diminish.. But, oh no!! That is impossible to control our animal-evolved selves!! In the schools let's teach our kiddos to USE CONDOMS!! RIGHT!"---I sure hope you don't have kids! Only a small percentage of teens are abstaining and waiting until marriage. Those who learn about condoms and safe sex are more likely to be prepared when they decide to have sex. Those who get GW's ridiculous abstinence-only education are more likely to go at it without a condom. Since most kids are having sex before marriage, then why not teach them how to be safe? If a kid is strong enough in his/her beliefs on abstinence, then he/she will wait. Most kids won't tell their parents when they're sexually active, unless there is an open line of communication on the topic. If you have/had kids, then I bet they would/have denied all sorts of stuff. Someone has to prepare kids for reality, since people like you don't.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 10 months ago

Sigmund:

It's a huge leap to condemn safe consensual sex based upon this case of disease transmission.

Analogous to banning cars based upon one bad driver committing vehicular homicide.

0

Sigmund 7 years, 10 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

OliviaT 7 years, 10 months ago

gr: the woman would be postive if they were tested now for possible transmission that occured months ago. most cases come up postive within 3 months. they are not infected.

dani: look up KS statute 21-3435. it's a class 7 felony.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 10 months ago

Dani:

I don't know the case law but it's the lethal aspect of the virus that is on point here. The method of delivery is secondary.

If he was walking down the street with a syringe full of infected blood innoculating people, then there would be no controversy on your point.

0

mom_of_three 7 years, 10 months ago

A previous article stated one of the victims would only have protected sex, and he agreed, but removed the condom during sex, and she stopped when she realized. So evidently, he did know what he was doing and one of his victims was being responsible.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 10 months ago

gr isn't the fastest hard drive in the array, if you know what I mean.........

0

GardenMomma 7 years, 10 months ago

gr, had he wanted sex only he could have satisfied his urges by informing his partners that he is HIV positive AND USED A CONDOM!!!!!!!!!

No one said you should never have sex again if you're HIV positive, just use the head above your shoulders and use protection for the head below the waist.

0

GOPConservative 7 years, 10 months ago

satchel said:

"It is fascinating to me to see how far we have diminished morally since the 1960's and then we whine about the consequences of our behavior, and blame God for it."

Sadly, the decline in morals of the American people is reflected in our elected officials.

Jim Ryun and Sam Brownback used tainted money to get elected and then served at the whims of notorious lobbyists like Jack Abramoff, who paid off Ryun by giving him $300,000 off the price of his home in Washington.

I don't know how we can expect our children to be moral people when our leaders set such terrible examples.

0

gr 7 years, 10 months ago

Marion, thought I might bring you out! :-)

Please, do explain the difference.

One "infects".

The other "gives" or "causes".

Both are fatal and diseases.

Both happen with the perpetrator knowing it is harmful to the subject.

Sounds on the same ball to me.


Olivia - read "so far".

0

Dani Davey 7 years, 10 months ago

I'm curious what the actual charge is. Under what law is it illegal to spread an STD? (not that I'm saying he shouldn't be held accountable in some way, I'm just curious what law is providing the basis for the charge)

If someone can illuminate the situation for me a bit, that'd be fantastic.

0

OliviaT 7 years, 10 months ago

Gr: Is reading hard for you? It clearly states:

So far, the woman has tested negative for HIV, as have the previous two women who testified in Douglas County.

NEGATIVE does not mean infected. Good Lord.

0

Marion Lynn 7 years, 10 months ago

Uh, GR:

Going around trying to infect folks with an invariably fatal disease ain't even in the same ballpark as the smoking issue!

Are you nuts?

Thanks.

Marion.

0

gr 7 years, 10 months ago

You may be right - I don't know that much about the case. However, you are implying "intent". So, suppose he was just someone who really "love" women and couldn't help himself. Would you view it differently? Women full well know that anyone could have HIV or other diseases. It was their choice. They knew the risks. Now, they are infected. They should be tracked and labeled to prevent other murders. Just like implying for this guy. He once was the victim - now the criminal.

Likewise take smoking. While it may be able to be cured (stop smoking), some of the resulting problems are non-reversable. The companies know it is a deadly weapon. They know the continued end result is an earlier and suffering death. They may not be seeking "revenge", but are seeking to make as much money as possible at the health and lives of others using their deadly weapons.

Why isn't there more of an outrage with them? Why aren't they locked up?

0

Rhoen 7 years, 10 months ago

gr - What this man is doing is, literally, assault with a deadly weapon.

It's obvious he knows that he is HIV positive and that there is still no cure for this disease. It seems to me that his actions are less about sexual gratification and more about his exactly a generalized revenge on the gender which (I assume) presented him with his own death sentence.

Sad for everyone involved - The women he targeted are, of course, at fault for inviting the consequences of their potentially fatal decisions. But until they too deliberately assault someone else with their own now-deadly weapons, they can't logically be condemned.

Ain't love grand?

0

gr 7 years, 10 months ago

Rhoen,

Funny? Yes - in a way. Interesting how everyone gets so upset about this.

I attempted to use the same excuses as homosexuals make. Doesn't seem to fly in this case for some reason. I wonder why.

If it's because he knows he has a disease, see my post above. And you can guess some other responses.

0

Norma Jeane Baker 7 years, 10 months ago

Woa there!!! Trying to blame the woman??? Are you out of your freaking collective minds??? It doesn't take a lot of smarts to realize that this dude knew exactly what he was doing. I'm not saying that the women shouldn't have been a bit more prudent about whom they were sleeping with, but trying to blame them is just plain lame!

0

bobberboy 7 years, 10 months ago

I say off with his whanger and nutbag.

0

Centrist 7 years, 10 months ago

Come on - he is an attempted murderer!

You are all excusing HIM and blaming the VICTIMS. They were NOT told he had HIV. He knew what he was doing. Yeah, people are gullible, and especially when a man comes along to "romance" a woman, sure, they can be gullible. Every woman wants to be wanted. Every woman wants to be told they're pretty. It's a natural fact. Yes, they were dumb to have unprotected sex with him, and that goes on every day. Don't kid yourselves, people. It happens all day, every day.

He conned these women into sex. They believed him, they TRUSTED him. Bad mistake, sure, but obviously HE is at fault here because HE KNEW and they DIDN'T .. !!

Hang the b*stard!

0

Rhoen 7 years, 10 months ago

gr - responding to your questions:

<<>> Yes - when this satisfaction involves other mammals

<<>> ummmm .... no.

<<>> ... "Bigots"? ... "attacking"? You're just being funny, right?

0

gr 7 years, 10 months ago

"And historically, people never did - thoughout history, men wouldn't marry a woman until it was proven that she could bear children for him"

Some references and evidence would be in order. While it may be true that "some" people never did, I find it hard to imply that "people never did".

What about the women he infected? Are they being watched like a hawk? Are they being tagged as future potential criminals? You know, this guy got infected from someone. He didn't just start it. So, should these women wear some sort of scarlet letter to make sure they don't try to infect someone else? Maybe entered into a database?

As far as knowingly causing disease in someone else....

What about softdrinks in schools? I guess that's being addressed.

What about softdrinks anywhere?

What about fastfood?

What about smoking? Now, there's something where it's proved to be hazardous, comes with warnings, and yet it's still allowed.

Seems like unfair applications of the law.

0

Rossp 7 years, 10 months ago

I think the women should be just as liable for this as him. They knew that there was a chance as there is everytime you have "unprotected" sex. That is a chance you take when you don't use condoms..........RIGHT? I don't think this guy should be in trouble with this. It's stupid that he's in all this trouble when I think it's just as much the womens fault for sleeping with someone they don't know that well and none the less not even using a rubber............come on now........

0

RichardCory 7 years, 10 months ago

Since he's already been arrested for this exact same activity in Louisiana and already has four people in Kansas that are brave enough to accuse him in public (how many others out there just don't want to admit it?), it's doubtful that he just "forgot" he was HIV positive. And there are websites and dating services that will pair you up with others that have the same infection that you do, if you're truly wanting to have sex and not spread HIV.

In theory, it would be stellar if everyone would wait until they got married to have sex, but the reality is, most people don't. And historically, people never did - thoughout history, men wouldn't marry a woman until it was proven that she could bear children for him - it was too much of a risk when your financial well-being depended on how many children you could produce. The Victorian age re-wrote our moral history for us.

Until ALL of the facts come out about these women, it's best to concentrate on just what we know - this guy knew he had HIV, and systematically attempted to infect as many women as possible. We don't know what he told them, how long he'd known them, the details of their relationships, etc, nor does any of that matter. He KNEW he had HIV, he knew what he was doing was against the law, and he proceeded to do it over and over again anyway.

0

gr 7 years, 10 months ago

'Why is everyone against this poor guy? This is just about sex. As was said, there was no evidence he meant harm to anyone. He just wanted sex. Should he go the rest of his life without experiencing and satisfying his natural urges for sex? Isn't that his right? Why are these bigots attacking him?'

0

billyflay 7 years, 10 months ago

what, are you kidding?

telling a liberal to not have casual sex like a dog is out of the question,

i find it amusing that the broads that are duped into having sex with this guy are also assumed to be smart enough to make a decision regarding their bodies,

it's a woman's choice you know,

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

0

ReachAround 7 years, 10 months ago

Actually, just using condoms would almost totally reduce the risk of AIDS transmission. It's not that difficult. But you're right in a sense, wild promiscuity is a very dangerous activity. Even using a condom isn't a fool-proof way of preventing the spread of STDs.

Your bible-beating rant is pretty ridiculous though. I could argue with you fundies forever, but instead I'd rather go have fun, kinky, monogamous sex with my sweet and beautiful girlfriend. Au revoir.

0

satchel 7 years, 10 months ago

Has anyone ever considered not having casual sex? in this day and age meeting someone on line and having sex with them is just stupid. Maybe if we would just remain abstinate until marriage the spread of aids would diminish.. But, oh no!! That is impossible to control our animal-evolved selves!! In the schools let's teach our kiddos to USE CONDOMS!! RIGHT!

It is fascinating to me to see how far we have diminished morally since the 1960's and then we whine about the consequences of our behavior, and blame God for it.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.