48 year old man infects 17 year old with HIV.

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

    Dec 16, 2008 7:07 PM GMT
    Red_Vespa saidI wonder if the infected teenager could sue Moore in a civil lawsuit, for causing his infection? True, it would be a he said-he said case, but I'll bet a jury would be happy to nail trash like Moore. Not that the kid would be likely to get much money, but at least the satisfaction.


    But who's really at fault here? I don't think the jury would have much sympathy for the kid either. A civil lawsuit might be pointless.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 7:10 PM GMT
    Joeindallas, you actually do not have to tell anyone if you have an STI by law. There is no civil right involved. In fact, most people already have HPV and they certainly don't have to announce it.

    Chucky, you are putting the burden on HIV+ guys, but the 17 year old who did not insist on a condom is equally guilty of his own infection. Moore is certainly irresponsible, but he is not representative of people with HIV. Besides, even if Moore did not have HIV he could still have pumped dozens of other STI's into this kid. As Ursa said, safe sex is a bilateral obligation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 7:16 PM GMT
    chuckystud3 said From where I live, getting HIV would be one of the single worst things I could do to myself. I'd lose my lifestyle; I'd die younger, etc. Why would anyone choose to be so careless? I just don't get it.

    Why it that so many of the HIV folks place such a low value on quality of life, and view it as survivable if they get it? Why is it that they taunt an early death?

    I just don't come to grips with the me,me,me, or just plain stupidity, that behavior most certainly entails. I just don't get it.

    Then, they act like they should have special treatment.

    No matter what, anyone with HIV is sick (read the dictionary definition), and they're often contagious, but, so many would have us embrace their ongoing irresponsibility. No matter how you cut it, to me, that means so wrong.

    Chucky - I lived in TEXAS for 26 years and some of the best research is being done in Houston. What lifestyle would you lose if you contracted HIV? And what is exactly is more contagious - the cold, the flu or HIV?
    Seems like there is a bit MORE effort to contract HIV - So if you met a man who had both, the flu and HIV? You used protection and still got both - does that mean your careless or just an IMBECILE?
    I don't get your logic - and to actually judge me or anyone with HIV as having a low value on life is really perplexing!? I don't get at all where you are coming from.
    And although you say you don't harbor any hatred toward those with disease - I feel like you are incredibly resentful.
    Is HIV crimping your "lifestyle?"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 7:19 PM GMT
    Buffyfan84 saidBut who's really at fault here? I don't think the jury would have much sympathy for the kid either. A civil lawsuit might be pointless.


    The point is that the kid said Moore didn't inform him that he's poz, according to the news article. That may not be illegal in that state, but a civil lawsuit has different standards. Someone a jury thinks acted irresponsibly can be held liable in a civil action.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 7:24 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidJoeindallas, you actually do not have to tell anyone if you have an STI by law. There is no civil right involved. In fact, most people already have HPV and they certainly don't have to announce it.

    Chucky, you are putting the burden on HIV+ guys, but the 17 year old who did not insist on a condom is equally guilty of his own infection. Moore is certainly irresponsible, but he is not representative of people with HIV. Besides, even if Moore did not have HIV he could still have pumped dozens of other STI's into this kid. As Ursa said, safe sex is a bilateral obligation.



    A 48 year old guy with HIV... has slightly more life experience/maturity than a 17 year old kid. Regardless of the situation, he should have been more responsible.

    Should the 17 year old kid have been more careful? Yes. But he's a reckless 17 year old kid! If you look back to those days, I think you'd find yourself easily persuaded by a man who, at a full 31 years older than you, you'd perceive as more knowledgeable and worldly than you.

    The burden is always on the HIV+ individual. He is the one who is infected. He is the one capable of passing the infection. If he knows he's infected and has unprotected sex with someone without disclosing his status, he is willfully putting someone's life in danger. If he doesn't disclose his status up front, so proper precautions can be taken, he is a despicable coward. There is no excuse for that. NOT ONE. I don't care if he's rationalized his infection as a manageable illness -- it's still an illness that dramatically cuts short life, and requires taking a series of cripplingly expensive drugs with horrible side-effects for the rest of your life. Anyone who tries to justify the burden being placed elsewhere is living in a very strange, very deluded fantasy land.

    It's up to the infected to inform his partner, then allow the partner to choose whether to continue. Of course, it's also the responsibility of the uninfected to ask... but if the question is never asked, it DOES NOT mean an acceptance or approval of risky behavior or possible disease passing -- that is an attitude that is relatively common, and one that I find really really strange and unnerving.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 7:28 PM GMT
    For some reason I am not able to read the story; my browsers say they can't find the server.

    I am assuming the story says the 48 yr old didn't tell the 16 yr old or he didn't ask about status.
    BOTH are wrong of course.
    Why do some people get so arrogant about this?
    It should be simply courtesy and respect for yourself and others to inform and ask about hiv status.


    How about we all stop being so judgmental about people without knowing all the facts like calling a man 48 "the old man" and being so down on HIV + people many of whom ARE very responsible and caring of others.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 7:29 PM GMT
    Rezdylan. Look what happens when you place responsibility for your health into the hands of someone else. You get infected. You should always take personal responsibility for your own health, and that means always having protected sex with casual partners. Moore is clearly a dick and had a responsibility, but no one should count on a deadbeat dad and criminal to make a responsible decision to disclose.


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

    Dec 16, 2008 7:29 PM GMT


    Savvy 17 year olds in the 21st century are not the standard for that age. Anyone with kids will tell you that. It's still formative years, hormones rage and mistakes made. If the boy is still living at home he could have come from a very sheltered background. A much older man does have a societal impetus to be the more responsible of the two.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 7:33 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidRezdylan. Look what happens when you place responsibility for your health into the hands of someone else. You get infected. You should always take personal responsibility for your own health, and that means always having protected sex with casual partners. Moore is clearly a dick and had a responsibility, but no one should count on a deadbeat dad and criminal to make a responsible decision to disclose.




    Obviously I agree with that. However, I highly doubt a gay 17 year old has the perspective or self-esteem necessary to challenge a man 31 years older than him. A reasoning adult, yes; a 17 year old kid... unlikely.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 7:41 PM GMT
    JETSETTER9 saidI feel sad for the young guy. The old man should be responsible to tell that he is HIV positive. I always informed to the guy about my hiv status that i'm NEGATIVE and seek same. I will never ever have unprotected sex w/ anyone even he's hot & sexy. Life is so precious to waste.


    Haha, old man at 48! So that makes you semi-old right?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 7:47 PM GMT
    chuckystud3 saidNo hatred here. Just wondering why folks with HIV think it's o.k. to be so sefl-indulgent. Why is it that so many choose to ignore virtue / rising to the higher level? Gosh. That's how they got it in the first place, in the me,me,me concept of life.


    I personally know of very people who KNOW they are infected with HIV that are self-indulgent. It is those that don't know they have it and are practicing unsafe sex that are the most likely to pass on the virus.

    Obviously this 48 year old man was being irresponsible bordering on a criminal act (in Canada it would be a criminal act). If he did not want to disclose his status, he should have at the very least insisted on a condom, or better still not had anal sex period.

    The fact is though (and this is going to sound harsh) if you are 17 and want to behave like an adult you are going to have to take some responsibility for your actions.

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

    Dec 16, 2008 7:47 PM GMT
    I am horrified by this story and other stories of POS people deliberately going around and potentially infecting others, it's just SAD, SCARY, DISGUSTING and very self degrading!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 7:49 PM GMT
    MuchingZombie is on the right page, here, too.

    Of course, there are cases where HIV folks got HIV by some freak thing, but, by far and above they got their through self-indulgence. No resentment. Just truth. Those folks seem to be reluctant to admit how they got there in the first place: a me,me,me thing, that keeps going, even after they are sick. I suspect that's part of the profile on them.

    Any clear-thinking person should make no assumptions about where an asshole has been. PERIOD.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 7:51 PM GMT
    meninlove said Savvy 17 year olds in the 21st century are not the standard for that age. Anyone with kids will tell you that. It's still formative years, hormones rage and mistakes made. If the boy is still living at home he could have come from a very sheltered background. A much older man does have a societal impetus to be the more responsible of the two.


    Thank you! And in civil cases, juries often consider degrees of responsibility. Driver A may not have operated her car flawlessly, but Driver B was so grossly negligent that the jury awards damages to Driver A, despite her own lesser error.

    This Moore was grossly irresponsible, and trying to blame a 17-year-old and exonerate Moore, as some here are doing, is inexcusable. The burden of disclosure was on the infected 48-year-old Moore, which he allegedly failed to do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 8:07 PM GMT
    If they propose a new law, on the theory that this behavior constitutes "reckless endangerment," then it seems that they should be able to prove reckless endangerment under current law.

    It's possible that some sort of law or amendment is needed for those who deliberately infect another person with a disease organism. However, it should not be specific to any one disease. Targeting only HIV and AIDS, which is widely perceived to be a disease of homosexuals, seems like a fairly blatant case of homophobia.

    Cases of deliberately infecting others are rare, but do sometimes happen. Drawing the line between foolish and criminal behavior does not seem easy. Should a person who comes to work with the flu be arrested and charged? What about parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated against contagious diseases? They are deliberately putting the whole community at risk. Although public health agencies might try to change those behaviors, nobody would dream of charging those people with a crime.

    On the other hand, there is the infamous case of Mary Mallon, "Typhoid Mary," who infected 47 people with typhoid fever and killed three of them. She knew (though claimed not to believe) that she was a carrier, yet repeatedly put others at risk. Authorities eventually imprisoned her using quarantine laws, but did not charge her with a crime. Arguably, this sort of deliberate, repeated behavior should be considered criminal, regardless of what sort of disease is involved.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 8:07 PM GMT
    a1972guy saidI am horrified by this story and other stories of POS people deliberately going around and potentially infecting others, it's just SAD, SCARY, DISGUSTING and very self degrading!!!


    I agree, but how would you characterize two guys that have unprotected sex without really knowing what their status was? Sad, scary and stupid but maybe not disgusting.

    So the conclusion I have come to is the following. In the gay community there is an increasing number of stupid, sad and scary men out there if the increasing popularity of barebacking is anything to go by.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 8:14 PM GMT
    mindgarden saidArguably, this sort of deliberate, repeated behavior should be considered criminal, regardless of what sort of disease is involved.


    Agreed. Though I do understand concerns that such laws could be misused to single-out gay men with HIV. Many US prosecutors are conservative Republicans, and you know what dogmatic robots THEY are, with a hatred for gays.

    That's why I would hope such cases would go to a jury trial, where all evidence & extenuating circumstances could be reasonably considered. Reckless & irresponsible behavior does need to be accountable in some way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 8:17 PM GMT
    I had sex with a Brazilian guy in London about a month ago. It was MEMORABLE. This guy had more abs than Fannie Mae has defaults.

    He shoved my head down over a kitchen table (not in some hideous tacky apartment either) and then he got ready to plow my ass like the fucking rodeo.

    He whispered in my ear "do you want me to wear a condom". Honestly, I thought about it for a split nano-second. Truth be told, I DID NOT WANT HIM TO WEAR A CONDOM. However, I did say, please Marcos, wear a condom.

    He put on his condom and I it is lucky for him that he didn't ram my ass so hard that he pushed my head into the wall, because it would have knocked a hole right into the neighbor's living room.

    Responsibility is shared just as much as lust is shared.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 8:21 PM GMT
    Koaa2 saidBlame part of it on the conservative agenda. Refusing to allow teachers to teach fact based sex education in the school room. I would bet that they have an abstinence based education program there, and not fact based.

    I guess I am one of those people who thinks teenagers are going to have sex, I know me and my friends that's all we thought of. Lets give them the basics so they know what to do. This kid should accept blame for his part in this sad tale.


    Nice point. Its a double whammy in a red state.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 8:31 PM GMT
    i dont even know what to think. you know when you just get extremely pissed off and you get that feeling in your gut that makes you wanna just go out and find the person that did you wrong and just rip them a new asshole....after kicking it?

    i feel like that right now. this guy is so disgusting. minus the fact that he's sleeping with 16 YR OLDS!!!! but he doesnt even have the audacity to tell them he's positive. what a joke. i can only imagine how the kid must feel. he just lost his life. AT 17....that is such a shame. this guy needs to be put into a jail cell for the rest of his life. and if i was the wardon? i wouldnt give him his meds. then him die the horrible excrutiating death that he has just passed to at least 2 kids...KIDS!!!! and countless others that probably are in the process of finding out now.

    this is such a shame. im almost embarresed to be considered part of the human race that condones this behavior. and i do mean condone, as apparently they're not gonna charge him for anything. thats fucking pathetic. i just lost respect for them
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 8:33 PM GMT
    The sad thing is, I know people who have such horrible self-esteem that they would ruin themselves like this. The matter is simply one of ethics. Moore had none and the 17 year old was exactly that, a 17 year old - most likely the product of a broken home (being that he was having sex with a 48 year old man) and certainly of a broken education system that does not teach about safe sex - especially for lgbt people.

    The responsibility is entirely on Moore in this case. Knowledge is culpability. Wouldn't this be a case of reckless endangerment? IMO, it should be illegal for HIV+ people to have unprotected sex. Assisted suicide is illegal, so even if the partner is willing daresay even asking to have unprotected sex with someone who is positive, don't the two equate? On top of that, there are different strains of HIV floating around out there and chances are, even if you're only having sex with positive people, you will contract several different types making treatment all but impossible and maybe even giving way to a mutated superbug of HIV. Now, preventive measures to ensure a law like this are almost nil, but reactionary measures can mean something. I'm not suggesting rounding up HIV+ people because that is ridiculous but I do think no matter how you contracted it, once you are positive, your responsibility should be enforced by law.

    It may not be fair, but neither is life and the government exists to ensure that we all at least have the right to life.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 8:34 PM GMT
    Treat everyone as if they are negative.
    Except in bed (or kitchen table, couch, shower, floor, etc.) treat everyone as if they are positive.

    If someone wants to have unsafe sex with you, odds are that it isn't the first time. That they've had unsafe sex with others before you. Which means HIGH RISK.

    Even if they honestly tell you they are negative, they might not know their status. Even if they get tested regularly. It takes several months to seroconvert so the information even from the day after the last test result was already out-of-date then.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 8:54 PM GMT
    MechEngnr saidIMO, it should be illegal for HIV+ people to have unprotected sex. Assisted suicide is illegal, so even if the partner is willing daresay even asking to have unprotected sex with someone who is positive, don't the two equate? On top of that, there are different strains of HIV floating around out there and chances are, even if you're only having sex with positive people, you will contract several different types making treatment all but impossible and maybe even giving way to a mutated superbug of HIV. Now, preventive measures to ensure a law like this are almost nil, but reactionary measures can mean something. I'm not suggesting rounding up HIV+ people because that is ridiculous but I do think no matter how you contracted it, once you are positive, your responsibility should be enforced by law.

    It may not be fair, but neither is life and the government exists to ensure that we all at least have the right to life.



    I can't begin to tell you how RETARDED that would be, what a civil rights violation that would be, and how discriminatory and disgusting that would be. What an ignorant, fascist piece of legislation! Not to mention unconstitutional. There's a difference between encouraging responsibility among HIV+ people and legislating private behavior.

    How would you even enforce a law like that!? And what next? Reinstate anti-sodomy laws because anal sex is the primary method of HIV transmission?

    Jesus Christ! They're still people! HIV does not turn a person into a subhuman monster! And to equate it with assisted suicide -- fucking Christ!

    Also, if you think that the government exists to ensure that we have a right to life even at the expense of civil rights, you seriously need to reexamine everything you know about government.

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

    Dec 16, 2008 8:58 PM GMT
    Actually for an HIV+ person to have unprotected sex with another person and not tell their sexual partner of their status, is illegal in some jurisdictions.

    A ex Canadian Football League player is now on trial for having unprotected sex with women and not informing them of his status. He is facing several years in a Federal Penitentiary.

    As for the righteous hysteria that this post has provoked among well meaning RJ members, some people seem to be glossing over one important fact. Unsafe sexual practices are increasing in popularity in the gay community. That is the crux of the problem. From the mid 1980s until the mid to late 1990s virtually every gay man knew that having anal sex without condoms was dangerous ( and we did not have to get taught in High School about it).

    Nowadays some gay men are practicing unsafe sex based on the delusion that the person who says they are HIV- are actually that. This change in practice is mirrored in the porn industry where bareback videos now seem to outnumber safe sex videos. Perhaps that is where gay people should be directing some of their anger towards. Or better still do volunteer work in the gay community spreading the word of safer sex.

    Until the unsafe sex practices decrease in frequency HIV will continue to grow.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2008 9:18 PM GMT
    ursamajor saidResponsibility is shared just as much as lust is shared.


    Good saying, though I might add the stipulation that both parties must have attained a sufficient age, and level of knowledge & experience. Two stories from my own life:

    I knew this guy pretty well, and actually chose him to pop my gay "cherry," mainly because he was an experienced top, and small enough that I figured I'd have no trouble taking him. And I trusted him, that he would use a condom, go slowly, and stop if I said stop.

    He fulfilled that role perfectly, and my first time (and subsequently with him) was absolutely great, a wonderful "initiation" for which I'm still grateful. No horror stories and no regrets about how I lost my "virginity."

    But one morning we were taking a shower together after sleeping in his bed, and suddenly he bent me over, and brought his hard-on against my hole. Flattering me with how "hot" I was (pure BS), I let him in a few inches bareback, before I snapped out of my lustful daze and my mind screamed at me "DON'T!"

    He took my refusal pretty well, but later I considered that this was the guy who told me he "always" practiced safe sex with his many tricks (and his numbers were legendary in that community). Well, if he was going to go bareback with me, who else had he done that with? How reliable was his claim of always having safe sex? I never had sex with him again.

    Second story involves a guy I shacked up with for a few days in Miami. He told me he was clean, but we still used condoms.

    On the third day there he confessed to me that he had Hep C! Something that is very contagious with or without sex. I actually got weak at the knees, and never felt so used & betrayed.

    That was 11 years ago, and blood tests continue to show me negative for any hepatitis (and all STDs for that matter). But avoiding that close call I attribute to dumb luck, not my own smarts.

    Moral: guys lie, guys will tempt you, and guys are infected with all kinds of things, that they themselves might not even know about. EVERY new sexual encounter is by default a guy infected with something.

    But a lot of young kids don't know that, possibly thanks to Republican restrictions on US sex ed programs in recent years, or else their teenage hormones override their brains.

    I was an adult in the stories above, but still made a major mistake in one, and came close in the other. I find it hard to blame a teenager when the villain is 48 years old.