Should there be laws to protect the the negative?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2008 9:39 PM GMT
    Laws to protect the innocent

    First know I am negative. Second I have loved and lost one partner to AIDS so I hold nothing against those who are positive. However should there not be a law on the books to protect those who are negative from those who have HIV/AIDS know they have the disease, purposely go out and lie about it so they can trick others into having unsafe sex and spreading this disease.

    I dated a guy not long ago. He has been positive for 2+ years. He is on meds and in good health (profile out here even). However he purposely lies and states he is DD Free. This is so guys will have sex with him. Protected and unprotected (his favorite). He will do this so he can ejaculate into their mouths and asses. He knows he takes the chance of spreading this disease and clearly doesn’t care.

    I know we all must take our own lives in our own hands and have only protected sex. However should a person be punished for life because he was careless once? If this person is purposely out there spreading it does he not have a duty to state his status to ALL sexual partners and to play SAFE with those who are negative?

    Should this person not be charged as a criminal some how. To be held accountable for his actions? Your thoughts please,
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2008 10:12 PM GMT
    I just got out of a similar situation. The guy lies about it. and yeah , I blame him. Those guys are bitter and angry and just doing to someone else what they think someone did to them.period. I decideded to file charges on this guy.In that process now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2008 10:40 PM GMT
    You should treat any and all potential partners like they are POSITIVE!
    They is a law for those who purposely lie about their status is called attempted murder.

    For anyone to trick with any guy a not use portection is just stupid!
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Dec 31, 2008 11:18 PM GMT
    The Advocate had a really interesting opinion column about this last year.. Took me a while to find it...

    http://www.advocate.com/issue_story_ektid35306.asp

    I'm not sure I know anyone who is unaware of the risk of HIV in same-sex intercourse. Whether or not you live in one of the twentysomething states where failure to disclose HIV-status could be considered a crime, it is not the responsibility of the government to protect us from our own stupidity - especially when many state and city governments fund all these safe sex campaigns.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2008 11:42 PM GMT
    The only person responsible for their HIV status is themselves....it's called personal responsibility.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2009 12:00 AM GMT
    trust no one
  • dfrourke

    Posts: 1062

    Jan 01, 2009 2:11 AM GMT
    frankly, I'm getting tired of these threads...

    ...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...


    do no harm and take responsibilty for yourself and others...blah blah blah...enough already...

    laws aren't going to prevent what you are hoping to achieve...it would be more of an interesting conversation to figure out HOW to achieve personal and community responsbility...now THAT might be an interesting conversation...

    until then...

    ...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

    - David icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2009 2:41 AM GMT
    A law like this would have a negligible effect on behavior. It would only be used after someone has been infected. Punishing someone wont cure the other. Putting out legal resources into funding real and meaningful health education, increasing the resources of organizations like AIDS Community Services, needle exchange programs, and distribution of free condoms would have a much greater effect than punishing ass holes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2009 2:44 AM GMT
    maybe we need a law to only tax the stupid people...IF you are HIV- it is up to you to remain that way...not anybody else responsbility but your own.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2009 2:53 AM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidA law like this would have a negligible effect on behavior. It would only be used after someone has been infected. Punishing someone wont cure the other. Putting out legal resources into funding real and meaningful health education, increasing the resources of organizations like AIDS Community Services, needle exchange programs, and distribution of free condoms would have a much greater effect than punishing ass holes.


    I could not agree more. BTW in Georgia if someone that is poz engages in sex with someone without disclosing their status it is considered "reckless endangerment" and the person can be arrested. But like has been stated, it does not protect someone from there own stupidity. If you are adult enough to be having sex, you are certainly not innocent.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2009 3:35 AM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidA law like this would have a negligible effect on behavior. It would only be used after someone has been infected. Punishing someone wont cure the other. Putting out legal resources into funding real and meaningful health education, increasing the resources of organizations like AIDS Community Services, needle exchange programs, and distribution of free condoms would have a much greater effect than punishing ass holes.


    I agree with everything you said except see one thing a little differently. Punishing people won't cure the other, but it may deter some people from making the same mistake. Also, justice must be upheld.. whatever that may be.

    However, it is still not that simple. I am against the death penalty on a moral level--but also, studies have shown that the death penalty does not deter others from commiting murder... one of the biggest myths that proponents of capital punishment believe in: The death Penalty will deter more crime. Studies have shown it does not. So how would punishing HIV+ "murderers" be any different?

    There is also the element of personal responsibility. But I have a feeling, in a court of law, a plaintiff could win a case against a HIV+ man who knowingly lied about his status and had sex with the HIV- plaintiff . Even though the plaintiff was dumb and consented to risky behavior, withholding valuable living saving HIV status from someone you have sex with should be a crime.

    Then again, how do you prove that the defendent knew about his status in the first place? Some cases would get "sticky"

    It's a tough road to go down, but those people should be stopped from knowingly infecting others. What of chasers? We pay for that sometimes... medications and treatment for HIV chasers. I have talked with chasers before... very sad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2009 5:59 AM GMT
    Heres my problem I have with these laws...how could you prove it? How could you prove your own innocence as well or do we just automatically assume it? Some of these guys go from dick to dick, test positive, then blame the last guy outta 5 to 2000 guys they fucked. How is that even fair? Or what if the last guy was infected by the accuser?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2009 6:29 AM GMT
    Well, why don't we create a law to put nuts that have unsafe sex behind bars? I think we'd be safer THAT way!
  • zakariahzol

    Posts: 2241

    Jan 01, 2009 12:03 PM GMT
    Yep, assume everybody is positive. I even assume myself as positive and have no wishes to spread it to other people. So wear a condom all the time with all guys.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2009 12:51 PM GMT
    TheGuyNextDoor said
    cat cat


    Move over. Share ze popcorn
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2009 2:41 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidA law like this would have a negligible effect on behavior. It would only be used after someone has been infected. Punishing someone wont cure the other. Putting out legal resources into funding real and meaningful health education, increasing the resources of organizations like AIDS Community Services, needle exchange programs, and distribution of free condoms would have a much greater effect than punishing ass holes.


    I'm sure health education in the form of alternate sexual activities would also be more effective than anti-bugger legislation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2009 3:05 PM GMT
    I think the Original Poster has anger issues.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2009 4:09 PM GMT
    This has been an issue in the Raleigh/Durham area which came to light this past fall. A positive young man was arrested for failing to inform a partner that he had HIV, and the judge released him with a slap on the wrist and told him (a DJ) "You must not go near any night clubs unless you are working, and you must tell all of your sexual partners that you have HIV and must also use a condom". Well, a month later, he did the exact same thing again, and infected another man. This time, what did he get? Six months probation that was reduced to house arrest at his father's house. He can only leave to go to work. Did this bring justice to the two men he voluntarily infected? No. Should those two men have used better judgment beforehand? Absolutely. But what's done is done, and nothing can or will change that. So, when you get down to it, this young man committed voluntary manslaughter because the disease WILL kill them sooner or later. You can dance around the issue all you want, but he knew he was infected and he made a conscious choice, twice, to fail to inform his partners that he was infected. Now they are having to live with the consequences of two bad decisions, only one of which they made. I agree that there should be laws to protect the negative, but it will never happen. With two wars currently going on, and a shaky economy that hasn't been this bad in decades, gay "rights" public health issues simply will not be in the forefront of any politician's mind. And such laws, if ever considered, would fly in the face of every medical privacy act ever established, so I don't expect they will ever become official. The bottom line is that gay men need to make better decisions for themselves, and for others. That is what the entire situation above can be traced back to: irresponsibility.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2009 9:01 PM GMT
    You know after reading this I just have to say that this is not just a gay issue anymore, and it never was to begin with. For every gay man out there there are three heterosexuals who have this and definitely don't know it. A survey done on my school's campus found that 90% of African American men had sex with more than two girls a month and had never even gotten tested ever! So I think that the gay community seems to be more informed than the straight community, so when it boils down to it it's just a lack of caring. How many procondom advertising have you seen on gay websites? I mean, we all know to wrap it before we pack it. I'd say if you're stupid enough to do it unprotected then that's your responsibility.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2009 6:03 AM GMT
    Cowboiway saidLaws to protect the innocent


    Innocent? Yeah, right.

    I think I should be classed as a deadly weapon. My cock is a weapon of mass destruction. It's a nuclear missile waiting to explode. Where I walk the grass withers and dies. My touch turns skin gray. I am apacolips.


    CHICKEN-RAD-KUNG-FU-1.gif


    Be realistic.

    You should never trust anyone that practices unsafe sex if they say they are negative. Even if they are negative they won't be for long and if you trust them you won't be either. There is enough information out there that if you want to be safe you have the ability to take care of yourself and your partner.

    But calling people that are negative innocent?
  • esputniko

    Posts: 59

    Jan 03, 2009 12:31 PM GMT
    dfrourke saidfrankly, I'm getting tired of these threads...

    ...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...


    do no harm and take responsibilty for yourself and others...blah blah blah...enough already...

    laws aren't going to prevent what you are hoping to achieve...it would be more of an interesting conversation to figure out HOW to achieve personal and community responsbility...now THAT might be an interesting conversation...

    until then...

    ...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

    - David icon_rolleyes.gif



    Amen!


    I have only words to say:

    SAFER SEX


    That's all...

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Jan 03, 2009 12:38 PM GMT
    CitizenSol saidHeres my problem I have with these laws...how could you prove it? How could you prove your own innocence as well or do we just automatically assume it? Some of these guys go from dick to dick, test positive, then blame the last guy outta 5 to 2000 guys they fucked. How is that even fair? Or what if the last guy was infected by the accuser?



    That's a really great point. There are so many different ways a defendant could get out of this one it would be a total waste of resources.

    There's also the aspect that you're inviting the government back into the bedroom. Giving the government the authority to prosecute the positive for spreading HIV irresponsibly is not a far step away from giving them the authority to ban sex between two men.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2009 3:10 PM GMT
    Many states have some kind of manslaughter law if you can prove the person willingly inflected you with HIV .. so this question and the discussion around it is a moot point.

    Another reason that it is a moot point is .... " if you are using a condom you shouldnt be inflected.!!!" Whether they tell you or not. you should be using a condom... going without one is quite stupid. If you are expecting that you should have the luxury of being able to bareback because people with Positive status should have some responsiblity to report their status is just an excuse for guys to b e LAZY... use a damn condom.

    Also,,, Although I have no problem with a law that requires people to disclose their status to potential partners( I am poz and always disclose). I do have a problem with any kind of law that registers people who are HIV positive... in regards to that .. it starts sounding like concentration camp/holocaust behavior and that scares me and it should scare you.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2009 12:37 PM GMT
    YES.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2009 9:27 PM GMT
    cite]Cowboiway said[/cite]Laws to protect the innocent

    Innocent? I think you mean "temporarily judgement impared".

    However should there not be a law on the books to protect those who are negative from those who have HIV/AIDS know they have the disease, purposely go out and lie about it so they can trick others into having unsafe sex and spreading this disease.

    Unless they slip the person a date rape drug, or take advantage of them in a seriously drunken state (which constitutes rape), I don't see how anyone can be "tricked" into having consentual unprotected sex. A person always has the option of engaging in protected sex, or (dare I say it?) *GASP* not have sex at all! What a novel concept for horny gay men!

    I dated a guy not long ago. He has been positive for 2+ years. He is on meds and in good health (profile out here even). However he purposely lies and states he is DD Free. This is so guys will have sex with him. Protected and unprotected (his favorite). He will do this so he can ejaculate into their mouths and asses. He knows he takes the chance of spreading this disease and clearly doesn’t care.

    While this person is certainly of questionably moral character, the fact remains he has (presumably) willing partners. No one is holding a gun to their head. If they want to take the word of a total stranger, that's their decision. They can't cry about it afterwards when they went in knowing the potential consequences if it ends up they were wrong to trust A TOTAL STRANGER.

    I know we all must take our own lives in our own hands and have only protected sex. However should a person be punished for life because he was careless once?

    Another way to look at it is: Should an HIV+ person be punished because someone chose to trust the word of A TOTAL STRANGER, given that this is 2009 and we have open access to HIV prevention/safer sex techniques & information? If you wouldn't give them the PIN number for your ATM card, or the keys to your house while you were away on vacation, why-oh-why in the world would you let A TOTAL/VIRTUAL STRANGER have unsafe sex with you?

    Consentual sex is a two-way street. You can't willingly take risks & then complain that the "worst case scenario" ACTUALLY happened to you! The best analogy I can come up with is if a child teases his sibling, and the tell him to stop "or else". The child keeps it up, and the sibling turns around & punches them. The child then goes crying to his parents because it he got hit. He knew what could happen, he went ahead with it anyway, and then *BAM* -- the inevitable happened. He can't say he wasn't warned. Neither can HIV- people who "tease" fate that way. Harsh, but true.