Dear Editor,
Mr Matthew Thomas in his letter of February 13 insists that the buggery law is no deterrent to anal penetration (that activity is not sex). I don't know anyone who would disagree with him on that point.
The law serves not merely as a deterrent but as an indicator of what behaviours are acceptable and conducive to the common good. Is the law against murder a deterrent in Jamaica? Or the road traffic law a deterrent to dangerous driving?
Secondly, in using the valid illustration of the reduction of HIV prevalence among MSMs in Singapore, he neglects to mention that this was achieved without repealing their buggery law. What is clear is that a repeal of the buggery law is neither necessary nor sufficient for a reduction of HIV prevalence in MSMs.
Mr Thomas is quite right in stating that fidelity and condom use will reduce HIV transmission irrespective of the gender of the participants. This being so, the 20-fold higher prevalence in MSMs over the general population is food for thought.
A wise man once said that perversity is the inability to act in one's own best interest.
Finally, while condom use and monogamy will reduce HIV transmission, neither is capable of preventing the trauma and subsequent incontinence that occurs from the simple anatomical reality that the intestine is not (and was never designed to be) a sex organ.
Claire Edwards-Darby
viaveritaslux@gmail.com
Matthew Thomas correct about the buggery law
-->
Mr Matthew Thomas in his letter of February 13 insists that the buggery law is no deterrent to anal penetration (that activity is not sex). I don't know anyone who would disagree with him on that point.
The law serves not merely as a deterrent but as an indicator of what behaviours are acceptable and conducive to the common good. Is the law against murder a deterrent in Jamaica? Or the road traffic law a deterrent to dangerous driving?
Secondly, in using the valid illustration of the reduction of HIV prevalence among MSMs in Singapore, he neglects to mention that this was achieved without repealing their buggery law. What is clear is that a repeal of the buggery law is neither necessary nor sufficient for a reduction of HIV prevalence in MSMs.
Mr Thomas is quite right in stating that fidelity and condom use will reduce HIV transmission irrespective of the gender of the participants. This being so, the 20-fold higher prevalence in MSMs over the general population is food for thought.
A wise man once said that perversity is the inability to act in one's own best interest.
Finally, while condom use and monogamy will reduce HIV transmission, neither is capable of preventing the trauma and subsequent incontinence that occurs from the simple anatomical reality that the intestine is not (and was never designed to be) a sex organ.
Claire Edwards-Darby
viaveritaslux@gmail.com
Matthew Thomas correct about the buggery law
-->