Guy Arrested for Not Disclosing HIV Status

  • OptimusMatt

    Posts: 1124

    May 11, 2010 3:24 PM GMT
    http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100507/OTT_Sex_Assault_100507/20100507/?hub=OttawaHome

    I have a vested interest in this - discuss

    **FYI** I am not a party to this, but my friends are the guys in Waterloo, and I pushed them to report it to the police.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2010 3:31 PM GMT
    hmmm...a Typhoid Mary like Patient Zero.

    You do have to wonder why these men were able to be coaxed into unprotected sex. Glad they arrested him, no person being coerced into something like sex is infallible, and con men are very very good at coercion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2010 3:31 PM GMT
    This is one great big slippery slope. On one hand it's an incredible violation of someone's privacy to force them to disclose their HIV or other disease statu. On the other hand, it's almost cirminal to engage in sexual acts with people that could transmit the disease without disclosing to that person that you're infected. Also, this is a two way street. The guy should have told, but the other guys should have asked.

    Ultimately, if you infect someone with a life threatening disease without letting them know that you're infected beforehand, that should be a prosecutable crime. Operative word in this case though is "life-threatening"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2010 3:36 PM GMT
    Very likely they did ask and were lied to.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2010 3:39 PM GMT
    A lot of different issues here. Like what if the guy doesn't KNOW he is poz, does it matter that he didn't know? Does he get prosecuted anyway, despite not knowing? Are we all supposed to know?

    But let's assume it can be proven that he knew, and had sex without telling anyone. But, how do you prove he didn't tell? Based on conflicting "he said - he said" evidence?

    OK, next step: let's further assume he knew he was poz, and it's reasonably established that he didn't reveal it to his sex partners, most likely based on identical testimony from his multiple sex partners. What now?

    I think 2 things: first, nail his hide to the wall. Second, the gay community needs to come out strongly against guys (or gals) who do this. It's in our best interest, both to protect ourselves from this happening to us, and to send a strong message to the straight community, that we do not endorse irresponsible sex and the transmission of disease. We get a lot of bad PR over things like this, and we need to be very clear that we reject it as much, or more, than anyone else. After all, we're the ones most likely to die.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2010 3:42 PM GMT
    Say Red, take a look at the part of the article where it talks about the sentence a straight guy got for doing this same thing to women. Up here the approach is the same for gay or straight.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2010 3:49 PM GMT
    I think this is an incredible violation of this guy's human rights.

    No-one should be required to disclose their HIV status to anyone.

    If your friends had safe sex with this guy, his status is irrelevant.

    If they had unsafe sex with him and found out he was positive, they only have themselves to blame. Involving the police and destroying this guy's life is just evil.
  • OptimusMatt

    Posts: 1124

    May 11, 2010 3:54 PM GMT
    Yes, and the law is fairly clear about it - if you knowingly engage in sexual relations and you know you're positive you must disclose your status to said partner.

    And, as I said to my friends - EVERYONE had obligations and responsibilities in that situation and NO ONE followed through. My friends should have asked - they were stupidly retarded not to. Having said that - they are not obligated under law to disclose that, whereas buddy in the article was.

    And trust me - I read the messages between them. He knew. He likened it to 'knocking up' my buddy.

    *blink*blink*

    Luckily my friends found out he was poz the same day they all had sex so they went on PEP treatment within 24 hours. Course of treatment is now over, and we're keeping our fingers crossed.

    I feel bad about this - on the one hand there are lots of HIV+ guys who are HELLA responsible about keeping others safe. I am by NO means trying to single out or target a population of people who are not guilty of the same crime. I refuse to paint all HIV+ men with the same brush - it's ignorant, to say the least. I just...when he told me what happened (2 days afterwards) I went ballistic. They had no idea of the severity of what had happened, really.

    This terrifies me. I mean, it truly terrifies me that there are guys out there that just...don't give a flying fuck.
  • OptimusMatt

    Posts: 1124

    May 11, 2010 3:55 PM GMT
    viveutvivas saidI think this is an incredible violation of this guy's human rights.

    No-one should be required to disclose their HIV status to anyone.

    If your friends had safe sex with this guy, his status is irrelevant.

    If they had unsafe sex with him and found out he was positive, they only have themselves to blame. Involving the police and destroying this guy's life is just evil.


    It's the law, actually. And you're right, they should have asked. I told them that. But IT'S THE LAW.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2010 3:56 PM GMT
    I think if you're going to have sex with anyone you should know at least a little about their past...and be ballsy enough to ask about STI's and such. Plus, if you're not having safe sex with someone you randomly meet up with, you're responsible for whatever bad thing that comes to you...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2010 3:59 PM GMT
    Hmmmm...it takes two to spread this; one to give and one to receive. The spreader gets some jail or fines, the reciever gets a slow death.

    Many people are not as savvy as you shinytoytrev, and some are only teens.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2010 4:10 PM GMT
    meninlove saidSay Red, take a look at the part of the article where it talks about the sentence a straight guy got for doing this same thing to women. Up here the approach is the same for gay or straight.

    I did read that, dear meninlove, and I approve of what the Canadian court did. The case here is a presumed gay man, though I'm not sure the news article states that, only that he had sex with men. Straights will also do that, yes?

    My final point remains: that the gay community should be strongly on record as opposing poz persons from having sex with anyone, man or woman, who do not reveal their HIV status. Even when the sex is safe, that information should be provided to the sex partner, so the partner can make an informed decision. And I would include other STDs, as well.

    As for the issue of whether ALL poz persons should declare their status, I would oppose such a mandatory requirement, and also the establishing of data banks containing such info. I am only addressing poz or STD+ persons who are having sex without honestly revealing their status.

    I would remind my friends here, I willingly partnered with a poz man, who told me he had HIV at the very beginning of our relationship. And I CHOSE to have him as my loving partner, to live with him, and have sex with him, even as his bottom, as well as give him oral sex, but always safe. The issue for me is not consensual sex with a poz person.

    The issue here is deception & deceit, rising to the criminal. We cannot accept this in our gay community, for our own personal good, as well as for our public image, which is vital to how the majority perceives us. A poz guy who has sex with us without acknowledging it should be anathema to us, our enemy, and I stand by that statement.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2010 4:15 PM GMT
    Agreed, Red. HIV rosters are a no-go, and a ghastly concept, so is a medical alert bracelet, though I could see instances where it (medical alert bracelet) could come in very handy.

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

    May 11, 2010 4:33 PM GMT
    Soundwave saidYes, and the law is fairly clear about it - if you knowingly engage in sexual relations and you know you're positive you must disclose your status to said partner.

    And, as I said to my friends - EVERYONE had obligations and responsibilities in that situation and NO ONE followed through. My friends should have asked - they were stupidly retarded not to. Having said that - they are not obligated under law to disclose that, whereas buddy in the article was.


    So, what you are telling us is

    a) They didn't ask, so he did not in fact lie to them.
    b) They had unsafe sex with him despite not asking.

    And you told them to destroy his life by going to the police.

    I don't care what the law says. What you did was evil.
  • OptimusMatt

    Posts: 1124

    May 11, 2010 4:42 PM GMT
    viveutvivas said
    Soundwave saidYes, and the law is fairly clear about it - if you knowingly engage in sexual relations and you know you're positive you must disclose your status to said partner.

    And, as I said to my friends - EVERYONE had obligations and responsibilities in that situation and NO ONE followed through. My friends should have asked - they were stupidly retarded not to. Having said that - they are not obligated under law to disclose that, whereas buddy in the article was.


    So, what you are telling us is

    a) They didn't ask, so he did not in fact lie to them.
    b) They had unsafe sex with him despite not asking.

    And you told them to destroy his life by going to the police.

    I don't care what the law says. What you did was evil.


    The dude broke the fucking law. That's like saying that the kid who doesn't look both ways is just at fault for getting hit by a drunk driver.

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

    May 11, 2010 4:47 PM GMT
    meninlove saidAgreed, Red. HIV rosters are a no-go, and a ghastly concept, so is a medical alert bracelet, though I could see instances where it (medical alert bracelet) could come in very handy.

    -Doug

    I'm wearing a medic alert bracelet right now, as I have 24/7 for 10 years. You can see it on my right wrist, in some of my photos. It's for my epilepsy, a condition that some try to hide. It's very obvious in the pic of me running a follow spotlight for a drag show in 2006.

    Well, not me. I want people to know, so if I have a seizure, they will understand what it is, and what to do. I mean, I've already got this thing, denying it won't make it go away or cure it. I want help, not confusion, misunderstanding and wasted time.

    So I tell my friends, who are all very accepting. And if I have a seizure in a public place, I don't want people thinking I'm drunk or on drugs, which my symptoms can mimic, and have some cops haul me off to jail. I want them to see that bracelet, and get me the correct medical help I need.

    And when my late partner had his own seizures, due to AIDS, when the EMTs arrived I told them he was poz, so they knew how to protect themselves, and how to handle him. Ignorance is not bliss, it's just ignorance.

    So that if I contract HIV, that will go on my medic alert bracelet, too. I have no shame, only logic. But a mandatory requirement for an HIV bracelet? No, that crosses the line.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2010 4:47 PM GMT
    Well, if the onus is on the recipient not asking the right questions, where would the recipient of sex begin? The list of illnesses is long. Everything from leprosy to syphilis..
  • OptimusMatt

    Posts: 1124

    May 11, 2010 4:49 PM GMT
    And I do feel a touch guilty. But like, this guy is a viral bomb walking around with no compunctions about blowing up someone else's life.

    THAT is pure evil. Personally, had this happened to me I would have killed him. And I mean that.

    Then again, I ALWAYS ask, especially after this. Trust no one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2010 5:44 PM GMT
    The fact that it is the law does not mean it is right. For a long time it was the law in the U.S. that HIV+ people could not enter the country. The law was wrong.

    The fact that it is the law does not absolve you or your friends from having done something evil to this guy.

    Asking someone about their status does not protect you. You should be having safe sex, so that their status is irrelevant.

    Are you saying that your friends did in fact have safe sex with him and nonetheless went to the police?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2010 5:48 PM GMT
    Soundwave saidAnd I do feel a touch guilty. But like, this guy is a viral bomb walking around with no compunctions about blowing up someone else's life.

    THAT is pure evil. Personally, had this happened to me I would have killed him. And I mean that.

    Then again, I ALWAYS ask, especially after this. Trust no one.

    I would take that further. Ask yes, but what is the validity of the answer you get?

    He says clean, but is he? Where is your guarantee? Does he honestly know himself? He can hand you the negative results of the HIV test he took that morning, and it is still meaningless. He could have contracted HIV during the "blackout" period between when the disease is contracted, and when the HIV markers appear in the blood, which can be anywhere from 3 weeks to 3 months, depending on the HIV test used.

    So what you do is assume EVERY man is poz, regardless of what he says to you, and have safe sex accordingly. That is the very definition of safe sex: assume every man is poz, not only with HIV, but with other STDs, that he himself may not realize.

    And if you don't do that, then it's difficult to have pity for you when you contract something. There's still a legal issue for the guy who didn't tell you, but there's also a STUPIDITY issue for you!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2010 6:00 PM GMT


    ..if the straight world did the safe sex thing there'd be almost no unwanted pregnancies. But they don't, and in the straight world HIV non disclosure to a partner is criminal. Should be different for gays? I don't think it would be a good idea.

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

    May 11, 2010 6:56 PM GMT
    viveutvivas said
    Soundwave saidYes, and the law is fairly clear about it - if you knowingly engage in sexual relations and you know you're positive you must disclose your status to said partner.

    And, as I said to my friends - EVERYONE had obligations and responsibilities in that situation and NO ONE followed through. My friends should have asked - they were stupidly retarded not to. Having said that - they are not obligated under law to disclose that, whereas buddy in the article was.


    So, what you are telling us is

    a) They didn't ask, so he did not in fact lie to them.
    b) They had unsafe sex with him despite not asking.

    And you told them to destroy his life by going to the police.

    I don't care what the law says. What you did was evil.


    What you're ignoring here is that this guy may be wilfully destroying the lives of others. So just because these guys may have been stupid, naive or both, his actions are not evil? A crime is a crime, no?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2010 11:51 PM GMT
    The only real "safe sex" is a padded headboard...or mutual masturbation.
    Condoms can break or slip off.

    Yes the victims should have asked; but the infected man should have told them he's infected, regardless of whether or not they asked. Even though the blame can be spread across all parties involved, ultimately it's the infected person's responsibility to inform others so they can make an educated decision of "safe" sex, unsafe sex (some folks just don't care), or no sex.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2010 12:06 AM GMT
    Soundwave saidAnd I do feel a touch guilty. But like, this guy is a viral bomb walking around with no compunctions about blowing up someone else's life.

    THAT is pure evil. Personally, had this happened to me I would have killed him. And I mean that.

    Then again, I ALWAYS ask, especially after this. Trust no one.


    This did happen to me. This is almost exactly how I was infected. However, I am adult enough to accept that it could not have happened without my consent regardless of what I was or wasn't told or did or didn't ask. I have to accept at least 50% of the responsibility. That isn't saying the other guy's behavior wasn't criminal, but I hardly look at myself as an innocent hapless victim.

    I fucked up, I live or die with the consequences.

    Reporting someone to the authorities is the responsible thing to do, making grandiose macho chest thumping death threats just makes you look like a jackass.

    You had my respect at reporting the crime, you forever lost it with the last statement.
  • neosyllogy

    Posts: 1714

    May 12, 2010 12:10 AM GMT
    ShinyToyTrev saidI think if you're going to have sex with anyone you should know at least a little about their past...and be ballsy enough to ask about STI's and such. Plus, if you're not having safe sex with someone you randomly meet up with, you're responsible for whatever bad thing that comes to you...


    That's like blaming someone who walks down a dark alley at night for getting mugged. Bad judgement, yes, but there's still a mugger involved and he's still responsible for what he did.

    (Also, "protected" sex is not safe sex. People can try to sugar coat it, but even protected sex with someone with an STI poses a serious risk and non-disclosure is repugnant and, I think, should be dealt with in a manner that prevents repeated endangerment (jail time sounds reasonable to me for serious diseases like HIV, I would also (cautiously) support a watch list for offenders).)