Should religious wives know their HIV-status? What is the purpose?

OK, before the outraged gender activist women and men attack me personally for posing this question, let me explain.
The higher HIV/Aids rate amongst Western gay men is often highlighted by religious people to prove a moral point about the innate sinfulness of homosexuality, and the "natural goodness" of heterosexaulity.
In southern Africa HIV is a largely heterosexual epidemic, and as such it concerns marriage.
A lot of our SA nurses are working in Islamic countries, and I've heard that often only the husband receives the HIV test results of his wives.
In non-Western heterosexual transmission of HIV (and often in Western transmission too) the virus is spread largely by philandering men to faithful women.
HIV stigma has many accounts of women being diagnosed and then facing abuse, or even being cast out by the husband who infected them!

However, many evengelical Christians tell me that the husband is the head of the household.
He has the right to know these things, and make mistakes, and the woman must be the faithful 'heart" of the home, while he is the God-ordained "head" of the home.
So in that paradigm (which I'm questioning, and is not my own) what is the religious point of the woman knowing her status, if the husband knows?
It is not a cause for wives' divorce (they promise to love in sickness and health until death do them part) and they must remain faithful. So why must they know or even question? Where is this verse to protect women in marriage?
As far as I understand, wives may not even use a condom to protect themselves from an HIV-positive husband in marriage according to Catholicism.

reply to post by halfoldman


EVERYBODY should know their HIV status, doesn't matter who or what you are.

To spread this disease, without knowing your status, is wrong. And if you do spread it knowing your status, that is a serious wrong doing.

VVV

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
reply to post by halfoldman

 

EVERYBODY should know their HIV status, doesn't matter who or what you are.

To spread this disease, without knowing your status, is wrong. And if you do spread it knowing your status, that is a serious wrong doing.

VVV

You could try and shoot a UFO with your DNA and in... nah sorry

bad form..



Edit to add - I agree with you. No matter your status in society(If you have to suffer one) knowing your infectious state is paramount...

reply to post by badw0lf


LOL, touche badwolf.

I thought this might happen. I do apologize.

VVV

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
reply to post by badw0lf

 

LOL, touche badwolf.

I thought this might happen. I do apologize.

VVV

Hahaha No dramas mate, I was just kidding

But hey, we agree here so common ground is met !!

Id prefer that anyday!!

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

Too true.
However, the point is people do often not (know their HIV status).
In cases so far that have worked before courts for deliberate infection they have been non-marital cases or degrees of "deliberate infection". In other words, "casual sex" in which both partners should have used protection (I'm thinking here especially of a German female singer - Nadja Benaissa - who was sentenced recently).

Nevertheless, most of these cases are within marriage.
So how does heterosexual marriage protect deliberate HIV-infections and infectors?
Probably in a variety of ways, possibly even legally.
The fact is - it does! That's the plain truth.

So far I still see no purpose, except the husband's decency and humanity, but that is not prescribed.

I Just re-read the op.

If the woman does not know that her husband is hiv positive, even in such a hardcore religious situation as you describe, i think it is still wrong. I reckon the husband should immediately tell his wife if he is hiv positive. Honestly, by not telling his wife, he is knowingly condeming her to death. This is a very serious problem.

I feel very strongly about this subject. Hiv tests are free and takes a couple of minutes, with such a deadly disease, I would even say plague, going around, everybody should know their status, and act accordingly.

It's just common sense.

VVV

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

Well, I think in SA we are more clued up perhaps, considering our huge epidemic.
However, we should remember that marital rape has only been recognized as a crime for a few years.
Many cultures don't agree with such secular laws at all.
Informing women is not necessarily what imported "moral religions" - from Mecca to Wyoming - are telling people or implying to them.
A condom may be a lesser evil, but the ideal wife will trust God and even martyr herself.

The fundamentalist Christians teach that God made a "fence" around sexuality called marriage (although man is weak), and there is no standard teaching on what happens from that.

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep


ding ding ding ding

this is the right answer. everyone should start this and the thread should sit as a testament to how much sense is in your few sentences.

Originally posted by halfoldman

However, many evengelical Christians tell me that the husband is the head of the household.
He has the right to know these things, and make mistakes, and the woman must be the faithful 'heart" of the home, while he is the God-ordained "head" of the home.
.

Anyone teaching this needs to seriously reevaluate what it is they are following to be honest. It isn't just the woman taking these vows the men take exactly the same ones. Do people make mistakes? Yes they do but it is about either side being the faithful heart of the home and while the male may be the head of the home the only thing that entitles him to is more responsibility. Both partners have a right to know their spouses status, yet neither has a right to separate because of it. And both have the responsibility to ensure the disease doesn't spread form them.

reply to post by snusfanatic

Yes, speaking from a common sense, public health position it also makes sense to me.
However, religion has tried its best to dilute successful condom messages since George W. Bush assumed funding for HIV planning. Soon, anyone who wanted funding had to preach "Abstain, Be faithful and then Condomize" (ABC - condoms only as a last resort if you're too immoral to do the first two options).
So as a wife, if you're doing B, you shouldn't need C?
I mean just choosing C stigmatizes you.
So ding, ding, ding ... and up go the HIV-infection rates in Uganda once again.

reply to post by halfoldman


Well C shouldn't be necessary from an idealistic standpoint. The problem becomes one of where frequently the men in these areas aren't practicing B and in many cases even if they do and end up killed from fighting or illness, their infected brother ends up inheriting the wife spreading the disease. It is a complex situation over there and there are no real easy answers. And the situation isn't going to get any better anytime soon especially with evangelical Christians going over there to do the teaching because they latch on to a few aspects of faith but completely and totally throw out the teachings against greed, corruption and violence and instead are more worried about the sex aspect of it.

reply to post by Jovi1

Interestingly, during the pomp surrounding the Pope's visit to Britain, that question which affects millions was totally overshadowed by the child-sex scandals.
I only saw it answered vaguely once, with some vague reference that they couldn't stop anyone from using a condom.
I see some evangelicals now also using that argument.
It sounds ridiculous to me.
In other words, throw the doctrinal problem back at the believer, and make basic public health a matter of conscience!

I'd say they are personally responsible for every wife that is infected, or HIV-positve child thus born, and it is high time they were dragged to court and sued for billions! But how does one ever sue a faith....

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by Jovi1

 

Interestingly, during the pomp surrounding the Pope's visit to Britain, that question which affects millions was totally overshadowed by the child-sex scandals.
I only saw it answered vaguely once, with some vague reference that they couldn't stop anyone from using a condom.
I see some evangelicals now also using that argument.
It sounds ridiculous to me.
In other words, throw the doctrinal problem back at the believer, and make basic public health a matter of conscience!

I'd say they are personally responsible for every wife that is infected, or HIV-positve child thus born, and it is high time they were dragged to court and sued for billions! But how does one ever sue a faith....

edit on 30-9-2010 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

It isnt really a doctrinal problem, the doctrine itself is sound, you abstain your safe if you are in a committed relationship and not cheating your safe, If you aren't doing either of those things and if your using a condom your safer but still run the risk of getting it. What do you expect the Pope to say? For him it is a no win situation because he cannot say "Hey if you want to have sex outside of your marriage use a condom" because his faith simply does not allow for him to. So what do you want him to do pass out condoms and tell people to go enjoy?
It isn't the religious doctrine that is at fault it is those that only practice the parts of it that they like that are.

It is simple if your married you have sex with your spouse and only your spouse that is all there is to say about it. Anything else is justifying bad behavior.

reply to post by halfoldman


Well, this isn't a religious point, but...

If a wife doesn't know her HIV status how will she get appropriate treatment if she's HIV+?

This especially becomes an issue if she gets pregnant, or could get pregnant, in which case there are things that can be done to reduce the risk of transmission to the infant.

reply to post by Jovi1
You raise some good points from the other side of the coin.

It is simple if your married you have sex with your spouse and only your spouse that is all there is to say about it. Anything else is justifying bad behavior.

Ideally yes.
The problem is that the spouse's safety depends on an assumption of trust and no other protection.
Within marriage sex is allowed anyway, so why not sex with a condom, especially if one partner is known to be HIV-positive?
The doctrine leaves married women defenceless.
(Of course unfaithful wives can also infect husbands, but judging by the gender constructs in many cultures, some form of infidelity is tolerated or even encouraged for men.)

reply to post by americandingbat

The wife will find out eventually, either when she develops Aids or when she's pregnant and tested in a clinic.
The question is how many years of exposure can happen before such an intervention.
The wife can also find out when the husband develops Aids first.

Incidentally, there's a good SA movie on the issue called Yesterday.
en.wikipedia.org...(2004_film)