Florida man busted for giving teen HIV

[rawTOP]

He was targeted by a pervert with HIV.

Do we know who made the first move? Who came onto who? To me it makes a difference how sexually aggressive the teen was.

[Pig Bottom]

Are you still sane?

I think a lot of people here have lost their sanity and common sense. If anyone did this to my nephew I would be willing to do the time for whatever retribution I chose.

I don't know if people are insane or their minds are ruined with drugs or if they are just bad people/bad seeds (no pun intended)

[Pig Bottom]

Do we know who made the first move? Who came onto who? To me it makes a difference how sexually aggressive the teen was.

You are kidding right? It doesn't matter who made the first move

Do you blame rape victims?

Do you blame date rape victims?

If a teenager wanted to fuck me my answer would be no. In fact I don't go anywhere that allows anyone under 21.

[Pig Bottom]

I think it's crazy to sexualize teens and then treat them as babies who can't make their own decisions. Go back 200 years and you'll see that teens were running farms, starting families, etc. Its our culture that's the problem (IMHO). Let's stop pretending 15, 16, 17 year olds are so fragile and teach them to take care of themselves. They did it 200 years ago. They can do it now.

Bottom line, IMHO the age of consent laws are part of the problem - they reinforce the idea that teens are incapable of taking care of themselves and making decisions, when it's just that parents are too lazy to teach their kids to fend for themselves or ask them to grow up. I don't buy the biological arguments. Sure there may be parts of the brain which aren't fully developed until the early 20s, but it doesn't mean they're completely missing in someone who's 15 or 16. There's enough there for the teen to figure out what's right and wrong on their own.

We are not living 200 years ago. We have to accept current society. A person can go to war at 18 and vote but can't drink until 21 legally. There are some places where I heard the age of consent is 16 and you can have sex but you can't watch porn with the kid. There are stupid rules like that.

We are not even living 30 years ago. Kids don't play outside anymore, they stay in and play video games for the most part. Back 30 years ago you couldn't find porn when you were a kid that easily, now it's online and easily accessible.

Anyone who thinks it's the kids fault is clinically insane IMHO. It's his mistake, but not his fault.

I think it's crazy to sexualize teens. Period. and I don't.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Pig Bottom

[whiteslutbttm]

Pig Bottom, as I said before, yes, I agree the guy who infected the 15 year old should face some kind of consequences. But he shouldn't be nailed to the wall. As I posted before, and as Rawtop posted, you aren't really 100% an adult at 15 but you aren't a helpless child either.

The man didn't hold him down and rape him. The teenager consented. This wasn't some 10 year old totally incapable of comprehending the realities of sex and therefore unable to consent. A 15 year old made not be as mature as a fully grown adult, but he is responsible for what ahppened to him to some degree. He's a victim yes, but if he's savvy enough to explore the world of gay sex (downloading Grindr, arranging a hookup, etc), he's old enough to know "barebacking is risky", and don't pretend he NEVER saw a pop-up or website warning taking about condoms. He isn't some Amish kid, he's an American kid with a smart-phone. There is no way in Hell he was ignorant of things like STDs/HIV and condoms. What happened to him is sad, but a least partly his own damn fault (how big a part is debatable, but to some extent it is his fault).

[Pig Bottom]

Pig Bottom, as I said before, yes, I agree the guy who infected the 15 year old should face some kind of consequences. But he shouldn't be nailed to the wall. As I posted before, and as Rawtop posted, you aren't really 100% an adult at 15 but you aren't a helpless child either.

The man didn't hold him down and rape him. The teenager consented. .

Do I think the guy should be nailed to a wall no, I think he should have a broom stick up his ass and out his throat.

Did the kid consent? Legally he can't. It is an illegal act and you can't consent to it. If you could consent it would not be illegal.

[pata]

Maybe I am the only one who read this article wrong (or vise versa), there is no mention about infection.

According to the news that the original poster linked, the man was Poz, and did not informed the teen boy, but there's no mention the boy was infected.

The sentence is a bit tricky but I am pretty sure that means the teen boy heard from a friend that Sumlin was Poz.

Well, statutory rape, I agree.

Busted to his parents, pretty bad.

But at least he does not look infected by this case.

[Pig Bottom]

Okay if he didn't infect the kid there is less harm, but the point is that he knew he could have and should face any extra consequences.

and the OP should really know what he's posting before he posts the wrong info in the thread title.

[ked239]

It is unclear whether he actually got infected off the back of it or not, true.

I always find the "it's wrong because it's illegal" argument very bizarre, especially when we're talking about age of consent, if one person is exactly 16years 0days old has sex with someone 15years 364days old (i.e. 1 day younger), that is theoretically illegal. A 15 year old sure as hell can consent to sex, I remember being 15 and consenting to sex, just because the law says they can't, doesn't make it factually true. A government could pass a law saying the sky was pink, but it wouldn't change anything. The law is not infallible.

And try judging the age of people between approx 14-18, it's actually quite difficult because a lot of changes happen during those ages physically and even if you're just slightly ahead of the curve, you can easily look a full year or more older.

If he's from one of those crazy backwards areas of the USA with abstinence only Sex Ed (thought that was always an urban myth from your country and not actually for real!), then I do feel sorry for him, that's still not the fault of the other guy though, that's a failing of society and the state.

Oh and the passing comment at my age, tiresome and boring, yes, I'm younger than you, shocking isn't it, my opinion is just as valid as yours though.

[rawTOP]

You are kidding right? It doesn't matter who made the first move

IMHO, if you instigate it, participate willingly and never say 'no' - then you're no victim. The older guy may have committed a crime, but it was a victimless crime and the punishment should reflect the fact that it's a victimless crime.

We are not living 200 years ago. We have to accept current society. A person can go to war at 18 and vote but can't drink until 21 legally. There are some places where I heard the age of consent is 16 and you can have sex but you can't watch porn with the kid. There are stupid rules like that.

We are not even living 30 years ago. Kids don't play outside anymore, they stay in and play video games for the most part. Back 30 years ago you couldn't find porn when you were a kid that easily, now it's online and easily accessible.

Actually, we don't have to accept current society. You only have to accept the past. What's current is our to remake collectively. The fact that the same age "kid" was a responsible member of society 200 years ago just proves the point that we don't have to accept the infantilization of kids in their mid-teens.

Do I think the guy should be nailed to a wall no, I think he should have a broom stick up his ass and out his throat.

Did the kid consent? Legally he can't. It is an illegal act and you can't consent to it. If you could consent it would not be illegal.

I don't think you comprehend teens today or the fact that just because it's written in a law doesn't make it right.

Maybe I am the only one who read this article wrong (or vise versa), there is no mention about infection.

According to the news that the original poster linked, the man was Poz, and did not informed the teen boy, but there's no mention the boy was infected.

The sentence is a bit tricky but I am pretty sure that means the teen boy heard from a friend that Sumlin was Poz.

But at least he does not look infected by this case.

This makes the whole thing absurd.

Okay if he didn't infect the kid there is less harm, but the point is that he knew he could have and should face any extra consequences.

and the OP should really know what he's posting before he posts the wrong info in the thread title.

I think what's important is that a person's HIV status should never be used as a legal weapon. No infection, no problem. For all we know the guy was on meds and couldn't infect the kid... I'd say it sounds like the kid (and his parents) are bigger abusers than the poz guy was...

[GermanFucker]

Okay if he didn't infect the kid there is less harm, but the point is that he knew he could have and should face any extra consequences.

and the OP should really know what he's posting before he posts the wrong info in the thread title.

The preliminary test was positive, according to CBS:

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/09/07/sunrise-man-hiv-positive-arrested-after-sex-with-teen-boy/

[Pig Bottom]

. I'd say it sounds like the kid (and his parents) are bigger abusers than the poz guy was...

This statement makes me think that you have lost touch with reality and you side with the victimizer (the adult HIV poz guy) because you would want leniency when you victimize someone in a similar manner.

Parents can't be around kids 24/7 and some kids are gonna do what they want regardless of what his parents tell him to do. It's a responsible adults responsibility to not take advantage of an underage kid, especially if you are HIV poz, even if you are undetectable at your last test.

and if a kid told you he was 18 ask for ID or better yet fuck with someone your own age or only go to places where adults can get it with ID.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Pig Bottom

[GermanFucker]

IMHO, if you instigate it, participate willingly and never say 'no' - then you're no victim. The older guy may have committed a crime, but it was a victimless crime and the punishment should reflect the fact that it's a victimless crime.

Only inasfar as you can actually understand the consequences of your actions. Of course there are degrees, shades of grey so to say. I've seen 15-year-olds who could pass for 21 and who tell others they are. But that's exactly why courts shouldn't be automatons doling out prepackaged sentences.

Actually, we don't have to accept current society. You only have to accept the past. What's current is our to remake collectively. The fact that the same age "kid" was a responsible member of society 200 years ago just proves the point that we don't have to accept the infantilization of kids in their mid-teens.

200 years ago society's knowlegde of psychology was completely different. The evolution of this field is just one of the reasons why today gay sex, which was once considered dangerous and insane, has been decriminalized (because it's consensual), whereas e.g. rape within marriage has become a criminal offense.

Statuatory rape laws reflect developmental psychology. They don't do it perfectly, but don't pretend it's all arbitrary.

I don't think you comprehend teens today or the fact that just because it's written in a law doesn't make it right.

Sorry to be blunt, but your knowlegde of developmental psychology doesn't seem up to date. It is decidedly more complicated than that. Yes, adolescents today are sexualized at a much earlier age, but that seems to have the contrary effect of prolonging puberty, with youngsters achieving full independence later in life. Today many teenagers are confronted with more stuff to deal with while having less tools to do so.

I think what's important is that a person's HIV status should never be used as a legal weapon. No infection, no problem. For all we know the guy was on meds and couldn't infect the kid...

Apparently, an infection did take place.

And yes, if you lie and trick somebody into getting pozzed OR if you abuse a boy's lack of maturity, that is a crime. It is the same as if I talked you into SM and then neutered you or cut off your finger. Infecting someone with HIV IS inflicting body harm - which is only ok, if there is FULL CONSENT. If that is the case, I have no problem with it. But I seriously don't see that as being the case here.

And I do realize the inherent unfairness that a poz guy - that is, if he's not on meds or practising safer sex - has to take bigger precations because of an illness that often was not of his choosing. An acquaintance of mine got sued because he failed to disclose, even though he was on meds AND used comdoms. That was seriously messed up. But gee, give me a break, that is SOOOOOOOOO not the case here.

I'd say it sounds like the kid (and his parents) are bigger abusers than the poz guy was...

Sorry, but in light of the fact that the kid DID get pozzed, that is just turning my stomach.

Edited September 10, 2012 by GermanFucker

[Pig Bottom]

200 years ago society's knowlegde of psychology was completely different. The evolution of this field is just one of the reasons why today gay sex, which was once considered dangerous and insane, has been decriminalized (because it's consensual), whereas e.g. rape within marriage has become a criminal offense.

.

Exactly, also 200 years ago we as a society thought that it was okay to own another person as a slave.

I went out earlier today and it just hit me how our founding fathers were intelligent people, but I can't fathom how they thought slavery was okay.

Times have changed and thank God. If it means that kids mature later so be it, there are too many other advantages than to be taken back to the old days.

[not_sure_bb]

if this was a 15 year old girl, this would looked at differently. 18 or older, id blame the kid, not at 15