Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: The LGBTQ Thread  (Read 152903 times)

Saxby Clemens II

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 820
  • I'm Chuck Bass.
    • View Profile
Re: The LGBTQ Thread
« Reply #930 on: March 23, 2008, 12:20:29 AM »
Do any hot 'mos want to rent my apartment this summer?
Quote from: Cady
::clutches doll with matching outfit::
Quote from: TheJ
::flippers Sax on ass just for the hell of it::
Quote from: For All Intensive Purposes
i'm not gonna judge, i just think you are a f-ing weirdo

armada

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 191
  • I have people to go and places to see!
    • View Profile
Re: The LGBTQ Thread
« Reply #931 on: March 23, 2008, 01:48:08 AM »
So I had my first ever HIV test on Tuesday (came back negative :D), and the experience brought up a lot of concerns. I went to an HIV forum to ask some general questions in their off-topic area(since all the other forums were geared towards people who are either positive or questioning their status), and my questions (and I would venture to say that my overall  presence) appeared generally unwelcomed since I didn't appear to be suffering from anything, so I'm posting here where I know I have at least one thing in common with folks here (interest in law school), so I'd appreciate any of your insights on this:

--


I'm a 23 yr old African American lesbian who was tested for the first time this Tuesday, via a Rapid test. For quite a while I've known about the risks of contracting, but really didn't think much of them since I wasn't very active (dumbest reasoning ever).


Anyway, I was watching the Logo station on Sunday and saw a movie, I think it was called 26 days, though I can't be sure. In any case, I started looking up symptoms just out of curiosity and ran across the swollen glands part. I'm scheduled to have my tonsils taken out because the swelling hasn't responded long term to penicillin, which is kind of unusual (I would have thought mono, but penicillin would have made me break out into hives if I had mono, as it has happened to me before and is a common effect, says my GP). Then I noticed the swollen glands under the arms symptom, and this was a huge red flag for me, since my ex complained of this and I saw scars under her arms. (she turned out to be a compulsive liar, which is why I became so worried so long after breaking up with her--2 years ago).

Fast forward 2 years and I'm thinking about those scars I saw. and the fact that she claimed she was sick....by what? who knows? But I'm thinking..and thinking.. and by Monday, I was scared to death. Why did I never think about getting tested long before now?? What an idiot I am. Especially because I have a current girlfriend, who I've insisted we get tested before we go any further intimately. Such a dummy. So I was terrified for all of 24 hours and frantically got myself to a clinic and was relieved to know that both of us are negative (we got tested together). And I feel like we are in the clear now. Finally. Except...

We had a discussion the other night about protection. Even though we are quite committed and trust one another, is it ever really okay for us not to use protection? Our guess was probably not. And here's just a general question, is it ever smart for monogamous couples to not use it? Ever? I mean, I'm fresh from reading about our New York governors and LT governors, and I think it's a prime example of why we can't. But maybe I'm missing many other insights. But I'd like to see what I can learn here in this community, if I can.

I hope to hear from all of you soon.

---

Aside from all this: happy weekend everyone. enjoy the l word season finale! Can't believe it's ending already. I hope the last season is promising. Just from watching this season's, I feel like it will be.


Waiting for the results of that rapid test thing was one of the most excruciating things I have ever been through even though I knew that I had a tiny, if any chance it coming back positive.  Anyway, as to your question, I think at some point, it's okay to stop using protection, like when you're pretty much married to the person.  You do raise a valid point with the whole Spitzer thing but I'd like to believe that's an anomaly.  I think it'd be somewhat strange to always use protection with someone that you're committed to for life.  Anyway, I'm rambling.  My point is, if you're dating, then use protection, if you're committed, trust each other, definitely together forever, etc, then I don't think it's necessary.  Just MHO.

Principled.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
  • Fundamentals, period.
    • View Profile
Re: The LGBTQ Thread
« Reply #932 on: March 23, 2008, 12:42:58 PM »
That trusting part, is what appears to be key.

I don't know if it's the case that I didn't truly trust my ex or if my idea of trust has evolved over time....or if I trust my ex and my current the same (a case which would beg the question of good judgment). Truth is, I feel that I trust my current in a way that I have never recognized before and it's such a fresh feeling. But because I've had this experience with my ex whom I couldnt, in hindsight which is always 20/20, trust as far as I could throw her, I lean in the direction that it'll never feel safe to go without pro. Practically speaking though, I agree with you that a clear long term commitment, as in marriage or union should give a person reason to feel safe without it, but even that only seems to be logical under ideal circumstances. one has to stop to wonder if all ideal conditions have essentially disappeared. My optimistic self says no. But reality threatens that perspective.
"(s)he's arguing...(s)he's making an argument."

"...I'm so ready to promise my all & I'm so ready to give 'til the day that my life is no more... I'll be everything that this woman could possibly be...cause I'm ready to be like the olden days when commitment was golden" ~Chrisette Michele

fliingdutchmn

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 223
  • You're a dirty bugger aren't you?
    • View Profile
Re: The LGBTQ Thread
« Reply #933 on: March 23, 2008, 06:02:00 PM »
Hey everybody, love the humor around here its great! but i've got a little question for you all... heres my situation...

I'm applying to law school in the fall probably in septemper/early october and taking the lsat in june and a pre class in a few weeks. The thing is my gpa sucks 2.5-7 bc I transferred from a private college up in the northeast where I was doing well at to the south (yeah.. Mississippi!?!?) to be closer to my mom who was going through a divorce - nice for her, not the best decision for me- but I've got lots of internships and volunteer type experience and worked all through collge pt. I'm going to be applying to law schools in the boston area, nyc 1 or 2, and maybe american pt and district of columbia in dc, and im liking franklin pierce too. I want to go back to a more northern, urban, gay friendly area. I want to work in a smaller firm or maybe even public interest doing something to represent people.. not out to be some big corporate lawyer or anything lol.. but im going for 3rd tier and some 2nd tier schools mainly..hoping to be around 160 for the lsat. I've been active doing gay rights activiss stuff to around Mississippi on campus and the surrounding area and its a little receptive to it but its definitely still the deep south...

... cant wait to get out of the south lol!!

so any advice? Suggestions? thanks!

Hey Sah,

Good luck!  If you've been doing LGBT activism and might be looking toward that for a career, Northeastern could be a good fit.  They tend to look beyond #s and generally favor LGBT applicants.  I'd also say write a KILLER personal statement and addendum explaining things and apply  VERY early.  You're going to need schools to "take a chance" on you, so to speak. The more time they have to look at your application and realize you're more than a number, the better. 




I agree. Northeastern.

OperaAttorney

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 182
  • Freude, Königin der Weise!
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The LGBTQ Thread
« Reply #934 on: March 25, 2008, 01:10:49 PM »

Waiting for the results of that rapid test thing was one of the most excruciating things I have ever been through even though I knew that I had a tiny, if any chance it coming back positive.  Anyway, as to your question, I think at some point, it's okay to stop using protection, like when you're pretty much married to the person.  You do raise a valid point with the whole Spitzer thing but I'd like to believe that's an anomaly.  I think it'd be somewhat strange to always use protection with someone that you're committed to for life.  Anyway, I'm rambling.  My point is, if you're dating, then use protection, if you're committed, trust each other, definitely together forever, etc, then I don't think it's necessary.  Just MHO.

To each his own. I'm a gay male and must confess that my past experiences have "colored" my views on commitment and protection.  I personally would never advise LGBTs to discontinue safe sex. It's not an option for me. Not ever.

It simply is not worth the risk--your health and your life!  Plus, it's not like you're trying to make a baby  ;D. With that said, I truly believe that women have a higher "fidelity" index than men; ergo women in same-gender relationships are more likely to practice monogamy. Just my 2 cents.
"I don't believe in the word 'impossible,' because the One in whom I believe can do the impossible." - Me

armada

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 191
  • I have people to go and places to see!
    • View Profile
Re: The LGBTQ Thread
« Reply #935 on: March 25, 2008, 02:52:38 PM »
To each his own. I'm a gay male and must confess that my past experiences have "colored" my views on commitment and protection.  I personally would never advise LGBTs to discontinue safe sex. It's not an option for me. Not ever.

It simply is not worth the risk--your health and your life!  Plus, it's not like you're trying to make a baby :lol:. 

I see your point.  Besides, thinking you're in monogamous relationship does not necessarily mean that you're actually in one and that's grounds enough for caution.


With that said, I truly believe that women have a higher "fidelity" index than men; ergo women in same-gender relationships are more likely to practice monogamy. Just my 2 cents.


If this is true, then lucky for me.


Quail!

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2287
    • View Profile
Re: The LGBTQ Thread
« Reply #936 on: March 25, 2008, 05:35:56 PM »
So I just saw a picture of a gentleman at a Pride parade with 3 young (<10) children.  I am officially mortified.
2

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: The LGBTQ Thread
« Reply #937 on: March 25, 2008, 05:36:49 PM »
So I just saw a picture of a gentleman at a Pride parade with 3 young (<10) children.  I am officially mortified.

His kids?
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

Quail!

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2287
    • View Profile
Re: The LGBTQ Thread
« Reply #938 on: March 25, 2008, 05:45:04 PM »
So I just saw a picture of a gentleman at a Pride parade with 3 young (<10) children.  I am officially mortified.

His kids?

Yea
2

Bouzie

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 236
  • yummy
    • View Profile
    • Buy This
Re: The LGBTQ Thread
« Reply #939 on: March 25, 2008, 06:54:37 PM »
So I just saw a picture of a gentleman at a Pride parade with 3 young (<10) children.  I am officially mortified.

His kids?

Yea


I don't see the problem here...
1L

"I feel really bad for you. I mean, you don't know anything."