HIV+ Sailor Sentenced for Consensual, Unprotected Sex

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

    Nov 03, 2009 11:10 PM GMT
    Found this story very interesting. An HIV-positive U.S. Navy officer was sentenced to three months of confinement for having unprotected, consensual sex with two women who were aware of his status

    Here is the story: http://www.poz.com/articles/sailor_unprotected_hiv_1_17382.shtml

    Just wondered what people thought of this case and how it related to the previous thread where an HIV+ man infected other men after having consensual unprotected sex without disclosing his status.

    Here is the link to the previous thread: http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/695214/

    What do you think?

    Do both these cases deserve punishment? Or is this evidence of a witch hunt against HIV+ individuals?

    Let's keep this discussion civil and refrain from personal attacks. We are all grown adults here. Please act like one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 3:07 AM GMT

    These stories make me sick. In both cases, a very dark and disconcerting aspect of human nature is evident, negligence whether due to apathy or malice, simply disgusting. I don't care if someone ask or doesn't know, THESE PEOPLE HAVE A DEADLY DISEASE and should abstain from unsafe sex, not only for the other person, but also to deter catching a stronger strain of the virus. Not sure if you are asking which case is worse, but I truly believe that the gay case is worse because anal sex is far more risky than vaginal sex. Given that it is almost assured transmission, the fact that the bottoms weren't told and might have been deceived makes it a malicious act to me.
    I think as we continue to fight this disease, future sentences will continue to become more strict.

    I might get accused of being on a SOAP box despite the flame deterrent, but I don't care. I think of sex as mutual transfer of a good between consenting adults. IF ONE IS KNOWINGLY TRANSFERRING A POISONOUS GOOD, it should be a crime, just like if I gave you poison food, what really is the difference?



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

    Nov 04, 2009 3:38 AM GMT
    GuiltyGear said
    These stories make me sick. In both cases, a very dark and disconcerting aspect of human nature is evident, negligence whether due to apathy or malice, simply disgusting. I don't care if someone ask or doesn't know, THESE PEOPLE HAVE A DEADLY DISEASE and should abstain from unsafe sex, not only for the other person, but also to deter catching a stronger strain of the virus. Not sure if you are asking which case is worse, but I truly believe that the gay case is worse because anal sex is far more risky than vaginal sex. Given that it is almost assured transmission, the fact that the bottoms weren't told and might have been deceived makes it a malicious act to me.
    I think as we continue to fight this disease, future sentences will continue to become more strict.

    I might get accused of being on a SOAP box despite the flame deterrent, but I don't care. I think of sex as mutual transfer of a good between consenting adults. IF ONE IS KNOWINGLY TRANSFERRING A POISONOUS GOOD, it should be a crime, just like if I gave you poison food, what really is the difference?




    The HIV+ sailor disclosed his status to the women and engaged in consensual sex with them. They were fully aware of his status and consented to have unprotected sex with him. Do you believe he should be legally prosecuted for his actions? Why can't a healthy adult consent to having unprotected sex with a partner he/she knows is HIV+?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 4:28 AM GMT

    Why can't a person choose not to wear a seat belt? Sometimes law has to protect stupid people from themselves. Stop slouching, stand up straight, spit out that gum, straighten those lapels......you are representing all of us, not just yourself. That was guiltanese for : the public health is not and should not be just an individual concern or preventing the spread of disease, a personal prerogative.

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

    Nov 04, 2009 2:06 PM GMT
    GuiltyGear said
    Why can't a person choose not to wear a seat belt? Sometimes law has to protect stupid people from themselves. Stop slouching, stand up straight, spit out that gum, straighten those lapels......you are representing all of us, not just yourself. That was guiltanese for : the public health is not and should not be just an individual concern or preventing the spread of disease, a personal prerogative.



    That is the other crux of the situation. The women remained HIV- after the encounters. The disease was never spread because the HIV+ man's viral load was undetectable (which lowers the risk of transmission considerably).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 2:19 PM GMT
    I just dont understand people sometimes....this brings to mind some women that specifically try to go out and get pregnant...but does that make them good mothers because they want to get pregnant or trap a man? no.

    Who knows why these women didn't care if he was poz or not and didnt care if he used protection....I would boil it down to them being complete and utter fuckups and idiots.

    Furthermore as a poz man myself I cannot even entertain the thought of having unprotected sex with someone that is negative wether they know of my status or not and risk giving them this deadly disease.

    This is just ridiculous....I just dont know. About him being prosecuted or whatever...atleast he was upfront and honest, and it was the womens decision, but he didn't have to stick his dick in them either, he could've said no also.

    I just dont understand these crazy fucking people.
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Nov 04, 2009 2:34 PM GMT
    Sounds like it was also a matter of disobeying orders.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    http://hamptonroads.com/2009/10/hivpositive-sailor-punished-having-unprotected-sex

    "The charges stemmed from Franklin's ignoring written and oral orders not to have unprotected sex. He also was compelled to advise sexual partners that he was HIV-positive and that condoms are not guaranteed to stop the spread of the virus.

    Franklin, who was diagnosed with HIV in 2003, was reminded of the restrictions every time he visited the HIV clinic at Portsmouth Naval Medical Center, he told the judge.

    He also signed an order from his commanding officer at the Aviation Intermediate Maintenance Depot in Norfolk in November 2007 pledging to meet those conditions.

    Within a few weeks of signing that document, though, Franklin began a new sexual relationship. The couple used condoms for a few weeks but later stopped at Franklin's request."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 3:32 PM GMT
    catfish5 said
    GuiltyGear said
    Why can't a person choose not to wear a seat belt? Sometimes law has to protect stupid people from themselves. Stop slouching, stand up straight, spit out that gum, straighten those lapels......you are representing all of us, not just yourself. That was guiltanese for : the public health is not and should not be just an individual concern or preventing the spread of disease, a personal prerogative.



    That is the other crux of the situation. The women remained HIV- after the encounters. The disease was never spread because the HIV+ man's viral load was undetectable (which lowers the risk of transmission considerably).


    So, the Navy knew he was on medication to lower his viral load, but still gave him the orders they gave him, for the public safety. He and the women gambled and got lucky, you know damn well as long as the virus is present it's a gamble and the gamble was the crime in this case.

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

    Nov 04, 2009 3:37 PM GMT
    What if he and the female decided to conceive a child thru natural means? Should the government be allowed to restrict him from having children, too?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 3:47 PM GMT


    Sero-discordant couples can have kids relatively safely using IVF and intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

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

    Nov 04, 2009 3:50 PM GMT

    Seeing as he's literally property of the government....but you are splitting hairs. These people weren't his wife and given his situation, he'd need to get permission, besides, to humor you, that medical procedure would be safer than the two of them attempting to get "lucky" on their own by counting on his low viral load. He's lucky the Navy didn't blast him for the adultery charge, it's happened around here; man it is a whammy, you can catch a sex offense from it, believe that? Bottom line, this guy was all kinds of wrong, not sure why you like him. Even with consent, his behavior was disturbing and I think represents the kind of personality that could spread the virus with blatant disregard. Medication loses its kick all of the time, he would have spread the virus to those women if his load wasn't as low as it needed to be. No way for him to know for sure on the spot....I think, MSUbionerd, right?


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

    Nov 04, 2009 3:53 PM GMT
    It was the women's prerogative to have sex with the sailor and they chose to do so.

    Did anyone hold a gun to their heads?

    They went into it with their eyes wide open. They were told

    What's the issue
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 3:57 PM GMT
    Did you not read the last sentence of the article?

    Last paragraph

    http://www.poz.com/articles/sailor_unprotected_hiv_1_17382.shtmlAfter being diagnosed with HIV in 2003, Franklin was ordered both verbally and in writing not to have unprotected sex, and he was required to disclose his status to all sexual partners. While he disclosed his status to both women before having sex, not using a condom was grounds for punishment.


    While he disclosed it he did not use a condom. He's property of the US Government -he's in the Navy. He was given orders and did not follow them.

    Yeah it's stupid but 2 consenting adults can do as they please in whatever legal ways they choose. This was illegal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 3:57 PM GMT

    Right here Blondizgd,

    styrgan saidSounds like it was also a matter of disobeying orders.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    http://hamptonroads.com/2009/10/hivpositive-sailor-punished-having-unprotected-sex

    "The charges stemmed from Franklin's ignoring written and oral orders not to have unprotected sex. He also was compelled to advise sexual partners that he was HIV-positive and that condoms are not guaranteed to stop the spread of the virus.

    Franklin, who was diagnosed with HIV in 2003, was reminded of the restrictions every time he visited the HIV clinic at Portsmouth Naval Medical Center, he told the judge.

    He also signed an order from his commanding officer at the Aviation Intermediate Maintenance Depot in Norfolk in November 2007 pledging to meet those conditions.

    Within a few weeks of signing that document, though, Franklin began a new sexual relationship. The couple used condoms for a few weeks but later stopped at Franklin's request."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 4:01 PM GMT

    Transmission of the virus goes beyond the two women's consent. It is a public health issue. In regards to this virus, where has individual consent gotten us, waist deep in it, that's where.



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

    Nov 04, 2009 4:02 PM GMT
    Yes, both these cases deserve punishment. Whether his partner knew he had HIV before or not isn't the issue here. The issue is that you have a situation where someone is willfully spreading a lethal (as in, drastically reducing the life span among other ailments) disease. Due to the contagious nature of the disease, his actions put the public in general at direct risk. In order to prevent that risk (for which laws are formed in the first place) it's necessary to punish those who intend to propagate that risk.

    So it's not a witch hunt against HIV+ people. The only way this could be a "witch" hunt would be if the government was punishing HIV+ people for simply having sexual contact at all or even for being HIV+ at all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 4:04 PM GMT
    GuiltyGear said
    I don't care if someone ask or doesn't know, THESE PEOPLE HAVE A DEADLY DISEASE and should abstain from unsafe sex, not only for the other person, but also to deter catching a stronger strain of the virus. Not sure if you are asking which case is worse, but I truly believe that the gay case is worse because anal sex is far more risky than vaginal sex. Given that it is almost assured transmission, the fact that the bottoms weren't told and might have been deceived makes it a malicious act to me.
    I think as we continue to fight this disease, future sentences will continue to become more strict.



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

    Nov 04, 2009 4:09 PM GMT

    Don't you dare quote me and do that! icon_twisted.gifUNPROTECTED anal sex is riskier than UNPROTECTED vaginal sex and you damn well know it.



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

    Nov 04, 2009 4:20 PM GMT
    Just to clarify a mistake in GuiltyGear's first post, receptive anal sex with a positive partner is not an almost assured transmission. I think the CDC has that pegged at a 1 in 200 chance. But then that's just an average. Having an STD can increase the risk, as can a lot of factors.

    I still think that not telling your partner you have HIV and having unprotected sex with them in reprehensible, and this is in no way justifying anyone's actions. But there's a lot misinformation about HIV and I wanted to clear that up.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 4:26 PM GMT
    Lol, little did you know I've been waiting for a phrase like that to be said without qualifiers icon_biggrin.gif

    Protected anal isn't FAR riskier than protected vaginal sex but not quite as un-risky, according to the CDC.

    You should like this quote better. I think it's a great point to drive home, which is why I'm quoting your words, if you don't mind terribly.

    GuiltyGear said
    Transmission of the virus goes beyond the two women's consent. It is a public health issue. In regards to this virus, where has individual consent gotten us, waist deep in it, that's where.






  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    Nov 04, 2009 4:32 PM GMT
    Any person that knowingly spreads this disease deserves criminal prosecution, period. As a poz guy, I firmly believe this. I don't consider it to be attempted murder anymore, but it is a permanently life altering condition that no one deserves...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 4:34 PM GMT

    Quote me all you want, I'm usually right. As far as my points not lining up with the CDC's, I'm going on a mixture of facts and street wisdom. icon_lol.gif The use of mother wit, I think it's something RyanReBorn and I could agree on.

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

    Nov 04, 2009 4:54 PM GMT
    catfish5 saidWhat if he and the female decided to conceive a child thru natural means? Should the government be allowed to restrict him from having children, too?


    They probably would because there's a risk the baby could also contract the virus. I would consider being born with HIV a worse short-circuiting of personal choice and responsibility than the government telling you to keep it in your pants.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2009 5:10 PM GMT
    GuiltyGear said
    Don't you dare quote me and do that! icon_twisted.gifUNPROTECTED anal sex is riskier than UNPROTECTED vaginal sex and you damn well know it.






    What study did you see this? Just asking, so please respond with kindness...I am asking a question. I have not read anywhere were either one was riskier than the other.

    I don't like what happened in either situation, just so that we are clear on that point.
  • me35mtl

    Posts: 306

    Nov 04, 2009 5:27 PM GMT
    catfish5 saidWhat if he and the female decided to conceive a child thru natural means? Should the government be allowed to restrict him from having children, too?


    Again, i think all these legal battles have created more of a stigmatism against positive people rather than protecting anyone..
    People with HIV should understand that having unprotected sex with or without telling is unsafe. Not only for their partners but for themselves as well. Sure they got HIV, but with a weakened immune system, there really is no need for them to catch something else that could jepardize their health or their partners.

    BUT it does get me mad that there are people out there that go out having sex and NOT telling their partners of their status..Why would you go around making others sick? why would you put someone through the same hell you went through? i think that is totally selfish. You can still have sex with people if you are positive..just wear a condom..its that simple..

    Which is when having sex with someone new, you should always assume someone is positve and always practice safe sex no matter what they tell you positive or negative.

    What i dont get is why are tax payers paying so much on stupidness like throwing HIV people in jail and creating a hate for them when instead they can use their time and efforts convincing their governments its time for a cure..
    If you throw someone in jail for HIV ( a manageable disease ), why not throw someone in jail for transmitting clamidea , herpes, or hepatitis?

    As for women having kids the natural way..which i assume no medications involved (there are medications that can decrease the chances of transmitting virus to baby in fetus)..I think thats flat out stupid..why would any mother do that to her child..its ok if positive mothers to have kids by using the meds to stop transmission..but doing without meds and having a a sick baby is just stupid..she shouldnt be even a mother in the first place.