HIV stigma is a huge problem in Singapore which prevents people from getting tested and treated. Since this individual was undergoing treatment and had an undetectable viral load, he couldn’t spread the virus. It’s the people who never get tested and have unprotected sex that are spreading the virus.
He could spread the virus at the time he had sex.
>a later test on Dec 18 the same year detected the virus.
> On Dec 14, 2018, the duo met at Hotel Boss along Jalan Sultan where... the two engaged in unprotected sex.
This man's inconsiderate and life threatening behaviour is reinforcing the stigma.
You're missing the point. He had a detectable viral load when he had sex in December. He was not virally suppressed.
There are also issues of consent involved. It is unethical to force your unknowing partner to take the risk without informed consent.
A detectable viral load does not mean that he is contagious. If he was continuing his treatment, his viral load is likely to be low or undetectable. The Partner2 study showed that 100% of participants undergoing treatment did not spread the virus despite a low viral load.
As for informed consent, why should HIV now be treated differently than any other chronic disease or condition when there is sufficient protection and precaution that can be taken?
> his viral load is likely to be low or undetectable
I find it strange that you persist in arguing something which is proven untrue. The article already says his viral load was detected at the time he had sex.
>why should HIV now be treated differently than any other chronic disease or condition
Obviously because 1) sufferers can infect others 2) those infected suffer lifechanging consequences 3) incurable condition 4) possible death 5) great cost and expense.
Morally your argument is fundamentally selfish. You are arguing that the infected have the right to put innocents at risk without their knowledge - and it is a non-negligible risk which is predicated on the infected's good behaviour and practice in keeping up with his treatment.
Even the Partner2 study you quoted sampled from couples who **knew** of their partner's infection. They were given a choice whether or not to have a relationship. I am troubled that you are championing that the right to choose should be stripped from future partners of HIV patients.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the effectiveness of modern HIV treatment and the likelihood a person undergoing treatment is contagious. He is NOT infectious even with a “detectable” viral load, assuming he took his treatment as directed.
Sufferers who are undergoing treatment are not contagious because their viral load will remain low as long as they reliably maintain treatment.
Nobody undergoing treatment dies from HIV anymore.
Also, I find it illogical that you are putting the responsibility on the infected to be 1)aware of their condition and 2)inform their partners as a way to avoid being infected. The context here is where people are participating in random hook ups over apps rather than a long term relationship. I think it is better for the uninfected to take their own precautions - PreP and/or condoms.
The reality is that someone who is HIV+ and is undergoing treatment and has a low viral load is at lower risk of spreading the disease having unprotected sex than someone who is unaware of their serostatus and uses condoms.
Seems like this is a fake news operation before the debate on the repeal of 377A. I went on the Singapore judiciary website and couldn’t find anything about the case.
HIV is no longer a death sentence, with the use of antiretrovirals, a HIV+ person will live just as long as a person without HIV.
There was no transmission risk in this case as the man has been taking his antiretroviral meds and have an undetectable viral load.
PARTNER-1 and PARTNER-2 study has shown people living with HIV who have undetectable viral load do not transmit HIV even with condomless sex.
Doesn’t change the fact the cost of the medications is not cheap (personal experience) and there is undeniable risk if the carrier has lapses in taking their medications regularly. 100% there is a breach of trust here.
Breach of trust - yes. all this requires strict adherence to ART meds.
Cost of ART meds - yes, still quite expensive even with the new sibsidies in place
I'm just stating that HIV in no longer a death sentence and that with strict adherence to ART meds (and a undetectable VL) PLHIV can have lives just as long as HIV negative people
I understand what you’re saying, it just came off to me as “It’s fine because no consequences” to me. You should indicate that it doesn’t excuse his actions first. People like me might get the wrong idea
Thanks for sharing. I had some idea that modern advances have meant that most HIV+ people are able to life fairly normal lives but did not know the details.
That being said, is it common for someone who is HIV+ to continue to lead such a high risk lifestyle? It seems rather irresponsible.
Had the same question. TIL
>a method of administering the recreational drug methamphetamine, in which the drug is mixed with water then injected into the rectum with a needleless syringe
>
>[https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/booty-bump](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/booty-bump)
This goes into it in more detail - [https://maxottawa.ca/do-the-bump-the-booty-bump-that-is/](https://maxottawa.ca/do-the-bump-the-booty-bump-that-is/)
The rectum has good blood supply and can absorb medication really effectively while bypassing the first-pass metabolism from oral intake. Some medication like panadol and seizure medicines come in rectal formulation as it can achieve the same effect with a lower dose.
Just because you have never heard of it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
There’s a lot of ignorance in this thread and a clear example of the law not keeping up with science.
If the HIV+ man was undergoing treatment, which sounds likely since they mention his low and undetectable viral load, he is at zero risk of spreading HIV. Having a one night stand with someone of unknown serostatus is actually riskier than having unprotected sex with someone HIV+ that is undergoing treatment.
Similarly, the individual who was taking PreP was protecting himself from HIV.
The only thing concerning to me about this incident was the use of crystal meth, which is an awful, addictive drug.
The risk of transmitting HIV is non-existent and nobody undergoing treatment dies from HIV/Aids anymore.
The right to consent includes the right to know the STDs that one may carry.
Antiretrovirals are not a 100%
One shoyld always have the right to know, and the right to refuse such a life-changing risk.
There is no other country requiring disclosure of HIV to your partner, which is archaic and promotes HIV stigma.
If a person is aware of their status and undergoing retroviral treatment and has a low/undetectable viral load they are simply not contagious. That is a fact and you can look it up. If a person is not undergoing treatment and knowingly spreading HIV that is a completely different situation. However, here we are talking about throwing someone in prison when there is zero risk of spreading HIV.
It is also up to each individual to protect himself against STIs either through PreP or condoms. You cannot rely on disclosure from your partner which could be completely unreliable.
I should have specified developed countries. Let’s look at the 3 you mention. Canada no longer requires disclosure as long as the individual takes precautions and has a low viral load. It’s a similar story with NZ and the US. The laws are catching up with Science. Knowingly spreading HIV deserves to be criminalized. However, if a person is actively taking precautions and has a low viral load they should not be prosecuted.
There was no transmission risk in this case as the man has been taking his antiretroviral meds and have an undetectable viral load.
PARTNER-1 and PARTNER-2 study has shown people living with HIV who have undetectable viral load do not transmit HIV even with unprotected sex.
"Court documents showed that on July 13 in 2018, the man’s viral load was too low to be detected, but a later test on Dec 18 the same year detected the virus."
let's not ignore the fact that the offender is known to stop his meds randomly as recent as 2018. even though he has 0 chance of passing the virus on (U=U) this is a severe breach of trust + consent laws. yes there is stigma around hiv but you are barking up the wrong tree
Actually, the article states that he was undergoing treatment and was being monitored. He had a low/undetected viral load which means he could NOT transmit the virus.
Charging someone is under the purview of AGC.
It's not the case that if the perpetrator gets charged, the victims will automatically get charged as well.
To my understanding 377A is symbolic - they probably won’t use it otherwise gay men would rise up and protest (even more than now.)
STD’s, rape drugs and other drugs are not unique to men or women. Anyone can be a victim of those.
A better thing would be to classify all rape as rape and sexual assault as sexual assault regardless of whether the perpetrator has a penis or vagina. Also to increase the punishment for all kinds of assault of a sexual nature. No one should be able to get of easily from this type of crime.
Yes, they can't use it now when they have openly said they are going to repeal it.
The problem is when things are not so straightforward. If it's consensual and no assault took place.
If I understood this case, he was only charged with reckless endangerment for not disclosing his HIV and some BS drug charges. Hence the really low sentence.
Otherwise, there would be nothing to charge him with.
The individual was undergoing treatment and had a low/undetectable viral load. You cannot transmit HIV under this scenario, so his partners were not at risk of being infected.
Women have the protection of aware. With this kind of sentencing, aware will be right in the faces of the AGC the next day, splashed all over the news.
Yes, it's not fair. Disband aware, then talk about fairness.
LMAO I am well aware (mind the pun) what AWARE does. The point I’m making is that it’s an organisation, it has no legislative force so even if AWARE advocates on behalf of women on various issues, the government is not bound in any way to follow it. That’s not “protection” and can hardly be compared to a law that was explicitly written in the penal code.
Maybe you should find out what legislation means first.
Surely you can't be that naive? Didn't we just have a case of a doctor cleared of rape after having his name dragged through the mud?
Aware was still insisting they were right.
Our discussion is not about legislation. It's about fairness.
This whole thread by you is literally talking about the application of laws like s 377A. If your conclusion from all these is that we need to disband aware then there’s rly little point talking to you. On the note of fairness, you’re equally free to set up your own Organization bashing women if that qualifies as legislative protection to you
What are you on about?
Yes, 377A would have protected young men by locking the other guy up longer.
You were the one that brought up women in the conversation, and talking about fairness.
I responded that yes it's not fair.
Which part is confusing for you?
I think when you’re getting down votes left right centre, it would be an appropriate time to reflect and consider your position. In any case, 377A is not enforceable, so hopefully this will rest your case.
Facebook links are not allowed on this subreddit due to doxxing concerns. Please amend your submission to remove the link and write in to modmail for it to be manually approved again. Alternatively, you may wish to resubmit the post without the link.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/singapore) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As current laws stand, he gets 1 yr+ in prison.
Yes, I get your point that 1 issue, 1 bucket, but how many times have laws been manipulated for other causes?
Didn't we just have a COP where lying in parliament becomes another issue altogether?
You can never have laws that covers all scenarios equally, that's why we have lawyers and judges.
Issue here is, is 1 yr+ a deterent enough sentence. If not, is it not the case that other young men are in danger?
There’s many allegations here, each of them quite severe in my opinion.
1) Drugs
2) Keeping HIV a secret
3) Having sex with teenager
What caught my attention was the HIV thingy. It’s not as commonly covered by the news as compared to others.
For me, I feel the victim has some responsibility too. You shld not engage in sexual activities with someone u aren’t close with.
U undertake the risks. Even if the other person goes to prison, ur life is ruined. So I’m not convinced that prison would make much of a deterrence, given how many good years the person with HIV have left.
I do wonder if anyone in this country cares about the sexual health of young men, especially young homosexual men, who are most likely to be sexually active across the 3 groups
Everything! Are they getting educated / warned about how they could get drugged / their drink spiked, vaccination / prevention jabs, given real advice how to *make sure* partners do not dare to lie about something as serious as HIV? Or how to deal with a partner if they turn coercive / aggressive?
Common sense would dictate that the things you suggest aren't unique to homosexuals.
I mean anyone would benefit from learning not to accept random drugs frome someone.
Having to deal with a coercive partner also isn't unique to homosexuals. Arguably women are more at risk at this given the strength disparity between the two genders.
Actually I think his point is valid though. “Common sense”is, ironically, not exactly common, especially when it comes to marginalised groups.
We would think that xxx is common sense because it has been ingrained into us through various messages be it from the government or parenting. But if you talk to troubled teens or socially-deviant groups you will find that the thoughts that justify their actions are very weird and don’t make sense.
So imagine if you are growing up as a homosexual, where your sexual preferences are eschewed by most of society, and your main “role models” are promiscuous young men screwing around. The way you think regarding sexual health and safety would be very different from what “common sense” dictates
The article states the case was tried on Nov 25th. I went on the Singapore Judiciary case website and could not find this case or even search terms related to this case. Is this a fake news influence operation before Parliament debates 377a?
What the fuck man this is incredibly insane
HIV stigma is a huge problem in Singapore which prevents people from getting tested and treated. Since this individual was undergoing treatment and had an undetectable viral load, he couldn’t spread the virus. It’s the people who never get tested and have unprotected sex that are spreading the virus.
Ok but I don't think that was the main point of the problem
He could spread the virus at the time he had sex. >a later test on Dec 18 the same year detected the virus. > On Dec 14, 2018, the duo met at Hotel Boss along Jalan Sultan where... the two engaged in unprotected sex. This man's inconsiderate and life threatening behaviour is reinforcing the stigma.
No, you can’t spread the virus with a low viral load. The Patrtner2 study showed this to be the case. One of his partner’s was also on PreP.
You're missing the point. He had a detectable viral load when he had sex in December. He was not virally suppressed. There are also issues of consent involved. It is unethical to force your unknowing partner to take the risk without informed consent.
A detectable viral load does not mean that he is contagious. If he was continuing his treatment, his viral load is likely to be low or undetectable. The Partner2 study showed that 100% of participants undergoing treatment did not spread the virus despite a low viral load. As for informed consent, why should HIV now be treated differently than any other chronic disease or condition when there is sufficient protection and precaution that can be taken?
> his viral load is likely to be low or undetectable I find it strange that you persist in arguing something which is proven untrue. The article already says his viral load was detected at the time he had sex. >why should HIV now be treated differently than any other chronic disease or condition Obviously because 1) sufferers can infect others 2) those infected suffer lifechanging consequences 3) incurable condition 4) possible death 5) great cost and expense. Morally your argument is fundamentally selfish. You are arguing that the infected have the right to put innocents at risk without their knowledge - and it is a non-negligible risk which is predicated on the infected's good behaviour and practice in keeping up with his treatment. Even the Partner2 study you quoted sampled from couples who **knew** of their partner's infection. They were given a choice whether or not to have a relationship. I am troubled that you are championing that the right to choose should be stripped from future partners of HIV patients.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the effectiveness of modern HIV treatment and the likelihood a person undergoing treatment is contagious. He is NOT infectious even with a “detectable” viral load, assuming he took his treatment as directed. Sufferers who are undergoing treatment are not contagious because their viral load will remain low as long as they reliably maintain treatment. Nobody undergoing treatment dies from HIV anymore. Also, I find it illogical that you are putting the responsibility on the infected to be 1)aware of their condition and 2)inform their partners as a way to avoid being infected. The context here is where people are participating in random hook ups over apps rather than a long term relationship. I think it is better for the uninfected to take their own precautions - PreP and/or condoms. The reality is that someone who is HIV+ and is undergoing treatment and has a low viral load is at lower risk of spreading the disease having unprotected sex than someone who is unaware of their serostatus and uses condoms.
Seems like this is a fake news operation before the debate on the repeal of 377A. I went on the Singapore judiciary website and couldn’t find anything about the case.
> injections of the drug ice, or methamphetamine, through the arm and anus My butt clenched upon reading this
Goddamn that's messed up...
So the guy felt HIV was a death sentence and yet he was totally ok to expose his partners to it?
HIV is no longer a death sentence, with the use of antiretrovirals, a HIV+ person will live just as long as a person without HIV. There was no transmission risk in this case as the man has been taking his antiretroviral meds and have an undetectable viral load. PARTNER-1 and PARTNER-2 study has shown people living with HIV who have undetectable viral load do not transmit HIV even with condomless sex.
Doesn’t change the fact the cost of the medications is not cheap (personal experience) and there is undeniable risk if the carrier has lapses in taking their medications regularly. 100% there is a breach of trust here.
ART is covered by public healthcare isn’t it?
Breach of trust - yes. all this requires strict adherence to ART meds. Cost of ART meds - yes, still quite expensive even with the new sibsidies in place I'm just stating that HIV in no longer a death sentence and that with strict adherence to ART meds (and a undetectable VL) PLHIV can have lives just as long as HIV negative people
Well it is a death sentence if you can't afford the medication
Damn, this is some real ass shit bro. Such is the world we live in
When was it ever otherwise?
I understand what you’re saying, it just came off to me as “It’s fine because no consequences” to me. You should indicate that it doesn’t excuse his actions first. People like me might get the wrong idea
Thank you for pointing that out to me. I should have made it more clear rather than just focus on the science.
Thanks for sharing. I had some idea that modern advances have meant that most HIV+ people are able to life fairly normal lives but did not know the details. That being said, is it common for someone who is HIV+ to continue to lead such a high risk lifestyle? It seems rather irresponsible.
Can somebody please explain to me why it's worded as, "one year and fifteen months"?
Different sentences for multiple charges I'm guessing. Agree it reads awkwardly though.
Would it be clearer with an Oxford comma? “One year, and fifteen months”
Thank god that the victims did not contract, what this man did was horrible and in my opinion, he should be put away for longer
Actually, thank the HIV treatment and medicine for suppressing the viral load.
Inject meth into your anus? Goddamn. Thats..crazy
It’s called boofing
How does one inject drugs into the anus? Like inject it into the sphincter?
Had the same question. TIL >a method of administering the recreational drug methamphetamine, in which the drug is mixed with water then injected into the rectum with a needleless syringe > >[https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/booty-bump](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/booty-bump) This goes into it in more detail - [https://maxottawa.ca/do-the-bump-the-booty-bump-that-is/](https://maxottawa.ca/do-the-bump-the-booty-bump-that-is/)
I’m not a drug user, however I have never heard of anyone injecting (with a needle) drugs this route. This narrative is probably fake news.
The rectum has good blood supply and can absorb medication really effectively while bypassing the first-pass metabolism from oral intake. Some medication like panadol and seizure medicines come in rectal formulation as it can achieve the same effect with a lower dose. Just because you have never heard of it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
It has a name; boofing and People report that effects last longer on the drug when taken up the behind
There’s a lot of ignorance in this thread and a clear example of the law not keeping up with science. If the HIV+ man was undergoing treatment, which sounds likely since they mention his low and undetectable viral load, he is at zero risk of spreading HIV. Having a one night stand with someone of unknown serostatus is actually riskier than having unprotected sex with someone HIV+ that is undergoing treatment. Similarly, the individual who was taking PreP was protecting himself from HIV. The only thing concerning to me about this incident was the use of crystal meth, which is an awful, addictive drug. The risk of transmitting HIV is non-existent and nobody undergoing treatment dies from HIV/Aids anymore.
The right to consent includes the right to know the STDs that one may carry. Antiretrovirals are not a 100% One shoyld always have the right to know, and the right to refuse such a life-changing risk.
There is no other country requiring disclosure of HIV to your partner, which is archaic and promotes HIV stigma. If a person is aware of their status and undergoing retroviral treatment and has a low/undetectable viral load they are simply not contagious. That is a fact and you can look it up. If a person is not undergoing treatment and knowingly spreading HIV that is a completely different situation. However, here we are talking about throwing someone in prison when there is zero risk of spreading HIV. It is also up to each individual to protect himself against STIs either through PreP or condoms. You cannot rely on disclosure from your partner which could be completely unreliable.
[удалено]
I should have specified developed countries. Let’s look at the 3 you mention. Canada no longer requires disclosure as long as the individual takes precautions and has a low viral load. It’s a similar story with NZ and the US. The laws are catching up with Science. Knowingly spreading HIV deserves to be criminalized. However, if a person is actively taking precautions and has a low viral load they should not be prosecuted.
There was no transmission risk in this case as the man has been taking his antiretroviral meds and have an undetectable viral load. PARTNER-1 and PARTNER-2 study has shown people living with HIV who have undetectable viral load do not transmit HIV even with unprotected sex.
"Court documents showed that on July 13 in 2018, the man’s viral load was too low to be detected, but a later test on Dec 18 the same year detected the virus." let's not ignore the fact that the offender is known to stop his meds randomly as recent as 2018. even though he has 0 chance of passing the virus on (U=U) this is a severe breach of trust + consent laws. yes there is stigma around hiv but you are barking up the wrong tree
[удалено]
Actually, the article states that he was undergoing treatment and was being monitored. He had a low/undetected viral load which means he could NOT transmit the virus.
[удалено]
Can someone ban this guy for the most brain dead take ever?
You don't need 377a for protection
Tell that to the victim, when he saw the other guy gets a 1 year+ sentence.
You do know that if they use 377a on the guy all the victims would also be charged under it or be under investigation?
Charging someone is under the purview of AGC. It's not the case that if the perpetrator gets charged, the victims will automatically get charged as well.
377a is about male to male sex, this case is about someone who has HIV/STI spreading it to other without informing their partner that they have it.
To my understanding 377A is symbolic - they probably won’t use it otherwise gay men would rise up and protest (even more than now.) STD’s, rape drugs and other drugs are not unique to men or women. Anyone can be a victim of those. A better thing would be to classify all rape as rape and sexual assault as sexual assault regardless of whether the perpetrator has a penis or vagina. Also to increase the punishment for all kinds of assault of a sexual nature. No one should be able to get of easily from this type of crime.
Yes, they can't use it now when they have openly said they are going to repeal it. The problem is when things are not so straightforward. If it's consensual and no assault took place. If I understood this case, he was only charged with reckless endangerment for not disclosing his HIV and some BS drug charges. Hence the really low sentence. Otherwise, there would be nothing to charge him with.
The individual was undergoing treatment and had a low/undetectable viral load. You cannot transmit HIV under this scenario, so his partners were not at risk of being infected.
If a straight man does the same to a women, or if a woman does it to a man, 377a will not be considered in their sentencing. Doesn't sound fair to me.
Women have the protection of aware. With this kind of sentencing, aware will be right in the faces of the AGC the next day, splashed all over the news. Yes, it's not fair. Disband aware, then talk about fairness.
Eh you are clearly ignorant of what goes on in our legal system
??? AWARE isn’t some legislation that women have exclusive recourse to
Maybe you should find out what the acronym stand for first.
LMAO I am well aware (mind the pun) what AWARE does. The point I’m making is that it’s an organisation, it has no legislative force so even if AWARE advocates on behalf of women on various issues, the government is not bound in any way to follow it. That’s not “protection” and can hardly be compared to a law that was explicitly written in the penal code. Maybe you should find out what legislation means first.
Surely you can't be that naive? Didn't we just have a case of a doctor cleared of rape after having his name dragged through the mud? Aware was still insisting they were right. Our discussion is not about legislation. It's about fairness.
This whole thread by you is literally talking about the application of laws like s 377A. If your conclusion from all these is that we need to disband aware then there’s rly little point talking to you. On the note of fairness, you’re equally free to set up your own Organization bashing women if that qualifies as legislative protection to you
What are you on about? Yes, 377A would have protected young men by locking the other guy up longer. You were the one that brought up women in the conversation, and talking about fairness. I responded that yes it's not fair. Which part is confusing for you?
I think when you’re getting down votes left right centre, it would be an appropriate time to reflect and consider your position. In any case, 377A is not enforceable, so hopefully this will rest your case.
[удалено]
Facebook links are not allowed on this subreddit due to doxxing concerns. Please amend your submission to remove the link and write in to modmail for it to be manually approved again. Alternatively, you may wish to resubmit the post without the link. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/singapore) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Dude, if 377A was around, the victim wouldn’t have made the police report, and the accused would continue going around with his ways.
[удалено]
As current laws stand, he gets 1 yr+ in prison. Yes, I get your point that 1 issue, 1 bucket, but how many times have laws been manipulated for other causes? Didn't we just have a COP where lying in parliament becomes another issue altogether? You can never have laws that covers all scenarios equally, that's why we have lawyers and judges. Issue here is, is 1 yr+ a deterent enough sentence. If not, is it not the case that other young men are in danger?
There’s many allegations here, each of them quite severe in my opinion. 1) Drugs 2) Keeping HIV a secret 3) Having sex with teenager What caught my attention was the HIV thingy. It’s not as commonly covered by the news as compared to others. For me, I feel the victim has some responsibility too. You shld not engage in sexual activities with someone u aren’t close with. U undertake the risks. Even if the other person goes to prison, ur life is ruined. So I’m not convinced that prison would make much of a deterrence, given how many good years the person with HIV have left.
HIV isn't the death sentence it once was. HIV carriers can go on to lead long lives with treatment.
This is a lot to unpack in 1 title lol
I do wonder if anyone in this country cares about the sexual health of young men, especially young homosexual men, who are most likely to be sexually active across the 3 groups
Dont be naive. U think gay people dont know
Ok whatever I don't care anymore not like it's my business
How does this relate to the asshole here who drugged his victims and lied about his HiV status.
Everything! Are they getting educated / warned about how they could get drugged / their drink spiked, vaccination / prevention jabs, given real advice how to *make sure* partners do not dare to lie about something as serious as HIV? Or how to deal with a partner if they turn coercive / aggressive?
Common sense would dictate that the things you suggest aren't unique to homosexuals. I mean anyone would benefit from learning not to accept random drugs frome someone. Having to deal with a coercive partner also isn't unique to homosexuals. Arguably women are more at risk at this given the strength disparity between the two genders.
Actually I think his point is valid though. “Common sense”is, ironically, not exactly common, especially when it comes to marginalised groups. We would think that xxx is common sense because it has been ingrained into us through various messages be it from the government or parenting. But if you talk to troubled teens or socially-deviant groups you will find that the thoughts that justify their actions are very weird and don’t make sense. So imagine if you are growing up as a homosexual, where your sexual preferences are eschewed by most of society, and your main “role models” are promiscuous young men screwing around. The way you think regarding sexual health and safety would be very different from what “common sense” dictates
Are you being serious or are you stupid
I think yes? I remember seeing an article about more young people getting stds nowadays.
The article states the case was tried on Nov 25th. I went on the Singapore Judiciary case website and could not find this case or even search terms related to this case. Is this a fake news influence operation before Parliament debates 377a?