Originally Posted by UnderMind
Some of the arguments being tabled by Q against contacting them directly are:
- Contacting others removes their right to privacy.
- She might not like the person being contacted.
- She feels that the responsibility for ensuring there is informed consent isn't being delegated, so it's too going to be too much time and stress to deal with it herself.
- That I typically over-analyse things. (To be fair, I do. That's why I brought this to these forums to find out what others thought).
- She feels like there's a lack of trust in both herself and the people she chooses to date.
- Exactly who should be contacted, anyhow? How is it to be determined whether someone is a casual or a serious/regular partner?
- She thinks it infantilizes her date.
1) When involved in a situation where the health of multiple people is at stake, one doesn't have a right to avoid being identified as a person affecting the health of those others. Their right to privacy ends when it can affect my health and the health of my wife and amorata (and their other partners).
Further, identification as an involved person is not much of an intrusion. It in no way divulges details of the interactions nor anything extremely intimate beyond the involvement. The others involved do have a much stronger claim to know who it is that may affect their health so they can judge whether to stay involved as they are.
2) Who gives a damn whether she likes the others? That's not a requirement, though it certainly can be something that gets negotiated. I suspect that D isn't interested in such an agreement, so her only recourse would be to end involvement with him if she didn't like his others.
At this point, however, if she's intellectually honest, she can only assume that he's involved with at least one other whom she wouldn't like. If her not liking his others is a problem for her, then she has that problem right now; knowing who his others are is the only way to eliminate that problem.
3) Really? She's that lazy and irresponsible when it comes to her sexual health (and yours, by extension)? It might involve some effort to make certain you're all safe and that's too much to ask?
4) A thorough analysis is never too much, and if you've not considered all of the aspects, you've not done a thorough analysis. This hearkens back to the laziness mentioned above. You've no obligation to make decisions without a thorough analysis.
5) As for trusting her, I suggest it's a matter of trusting her approach to making these decisions that is being considered. If she wants you to trust her ability to make these decisions, it's on her to use a process that you find trustworthy.
As for trusting her others...um, why in hell would she think you're going to trust somebody you may not know or may even have reason *not* to trust? That strikes me as a disingenuous argument. Expecting you to trust people with whom you've not had involvement to learn to trust is nonsensical, on the face of it.
6) Who should be contacted? Anybody with whom he's involved on a recurring basis, certainly. If he's in the habit of one-offs, I'd expect him to be tested frequently and have contact info available for each; they may not care that he has other partners/fuck buddies/one night stands, though they do need to know how exposed they are to risk. As are you.
7) Her date sounds pretty infantile already. Expecting him to take responsibility for his behavior and the effects it has on others is anything but infantile. Sounds like she's enabling his infantile behavior.
Just so ya know: If you think I sound a bit harsh, I can say that I've had to take a cycle of anti-virals after a possible exposure to blood-borne pathogens several years back (ah, the joys of working in corrections!). Staring down the possibility of HIV infection while taking 40 days of an extremely toxic AIDS cocktail is nothing I would wish on most people.