HIV criminalization

[Guest bbosouno]

I definitely agree with rawtop on shared responsibility, the poz guy is basically legally fucked either way even if it was consensual and the neg guy initiated the hookup. It's the infamous "he said she said" scenario but the blood test is the only concrete evidence. Unless the neg guy signs a legal waiver with the poz guy to consent to have unprotected sex then it will add at least some sort of defense for the poz guy but this is just a pipe dream cause its never going to happen in real life. For now you have no other choice but abide with the law.

I agree with dshanebb that this case sounds fishy his point of the 16 year old going to police sounds fishy to me, hey we were all 16 once horny as fuck and I even did have sex with a much older man back then but didn't go to the police in fact I saw him a few more times! This case almost appears as an entrapment case. Now I do agree the older men were beyond stupid the number #1 reason : fucking around with a minor that alone is jail time and categorized as a sexual predator for the rest of their lives if/when they get out of prison. Personally I only fuck around with other poz men, I want nothing to do with being involved in a "hook up remorse" with a neg guy not with these current laws anyways.

[genericuser]

As i mentioned, in FLORIDA, one does not have to be infected for charges to be filed. Just be EXPOSED. I am not saying this backwards state is correct in having these laws on the books, just stating, what I know to be the background in a case here in Florida

Yeah I understand that and only found out about that and the horror stories associated with that law reading the comments I linked to earlier.

But here is the thing: You're 16 and already lied about your age to Grindr and the guys who lied to you. You hook up with them, it ends well. A couple days later you go to the cops-- Why? I could understand if the 16 tested poz and then went to the cops but this thing is bizarre.

Doesn't make sense to me at all--

Why change your life by turning a hookup into a huge thing?

How did he find out they are poz?

Why couldn't he pick them out of a photo lineup at the police station 2 days after the hookup?

What is the 16 year old's end-game?

[genericuser]

I agree with dshanebb that this case sounds fishy his point of the 16 year old going to police sounds fishy to me, hey we were all 16 once horny as fuck and I even did have sex with a much older man back then but didn't go to the police in fact I saw him a few more times! This case almost appears as an entrapment case. Now I do agree the older men were beyond stupid the number #1 reason : fucking around with a minor that alone is jail time and categorized as a sexual predator for the rest of their lives if/when they get out of prison. Personally I only fuck around with other poz men, I want nothing to do with being involved in a "hook up remorse" with a neg guy not with these current laws anyways.

If you read the comments of the Queerty story, a bunch of guys asked:

What is Grindr's liability/responsibility since Grindr didn't verify the 16 year old's age before letting him use the app, Grindr basically facilitated sex with a minor???

The scary answer: Legally Grindr or any website is NOT at all liable because of some old law.

[GermanFucker]

The percentage of gay guys who are poz is well above 1%. I mean some studies have said that soon 40% of gay black men will be poz in some urban areas. The percentage of barebackers who are poz is probably well above 50% - at least the ones you find on hookup sites doing hookups with random strangers.

Again, I agree, but I intentionally used the number for the whole 300 million or so US Americans. Because my starting point was that there shouldn't be two sets of laws for gays and straight guys.

True, which begs the question why a neg guy would let a complete stranger cum in his ass without asking the guy's status?

Hornyness. Every bottom has the desire to give in to his top and get seeded within him. All it takes for him to give into this desire is for the other guy to either:

a.) Perfectly fit the bottom's fantasy of a perfect guy / dream top. If one's truly smitten with the other guy's looks / attitude etc. one doesn't think rationally.

b.) Be able to talk the bottom into doing away with the condom by either incrementally rationalizing it or by establishing authority.

You are a smart guy. You probably know how to push the right buttons as well.

But all of those things are considered generally safe. There's a reason why barebacking is called UNSAFE SEX. Unlike those other things, there's no presumption of safety.

I would disagree. Sure, it's called unsafe sex. And if go to a sauna with two of my buddies who everyone either knows are poz or might assume by their looks, every bottom would ask the status question. If introduce myself to a bottom saying that I haven't got much time because my girlfriend might get suspicious, I NEVER in a million years get asked that question.

A presumption of safety is surprisingly easy to establish, if the other guy has a genuine desire to get fucked by you.

But in the US people are still generally responsible for their actions - even the stupid ones. I mean if you make a dumb decision, it makes sense that you pay for it.

It indemnifies stupidity. Tells them they were completely justified in being stupid and the consequences (their fear of being poz for the few months they have to wait for a conclusive test) is something someone else should pay for.

But the mere psychological distress for a few weeks isn't the core problem in my eyes. If the other guy actually gets infected, that's when the question of disclosure really matters. And of course, IMHO, there should be a legal distinction between both cases.

The problem with the law is that it's not shared responsibility - the responsibility is totally on the poz guy. The neg guy is allowed to be stupid and make mistakes, but no leniency is given for the poz guy to forget to mention he's poz. It's just fucked up...

Again, that is if nothing happens. I'm all for leniency when nothing happens. But if the shit hits the fan and the other guy gets infected against his will, that in the eyes of many would be punishment enough, so in that case it really isn't "totally on the poz guy".

[Jimmy1212]

RawTOP, with all due respect (and it's obvious you've spent a great deal of time considering this) i think the American standard of morality that you described a few posts up the line is becoming a relic of the past. If Americans truly felt that way in the 21st century, we wouldn't be having cases like this appear so frequently in the courts. As with the recent acceptance of Obamacare, the US is finally joining the rest of the developed world in shifting away from its previous frontier-driven, self-reliance mentality.

[Jimmy1212]

I tried to add this as an edit to the previous post, but was too late:

I'm sure you've heard of the recent Supreme Court decisions in Canada, the upshot of which is that "failure to disclose" cases will only be prosecuted if the HIV+ individual posed a "significant risk of transmission" to their partner. Insignificant risk is currently defined as (a) a condom was used, and ( the individual was undetectable. Advocacy groups here are fighting hard to have that broken down, such that if either a condom was used or the individual is undetectable, disclosure will not be required.

[Guest bbosouno]

If you read the comments of the Queerty story, a bunch of guys asked:

What is Grindr's liability/responsibility since Grindr didn't verify the 16 year old's age before letting him use the app, Grindr basically facilitated sex with a minor???

The scary answer: Legally Grindr or any website is NOT at all liable because of some old law.

A LOT of guys hook up on Craigslist too and if you read all the "fine print" they are not liable for any type of "transaction." It is super easy for anyone of any age to repy to an ad, you do not need to create an account and no verification of age is required.

[wood]

well im about to have a bunch of you guys hate me right now but it is what it is. to me if your know that your poz you need to say something at all times or shit like this will happen. i understand you feel like its a set up but if they didnt tell the kid they was poz then they got what they what they deserve. it makes me mad that most of the guys on here just think bareback means that you want to be poz thats not true, yes that may come into play but thats not all barebackers goal like half the sluts on here.

Bingo.

Its full disclosure or no go, thats the law, and its in place for a reason. There are plenty of people to have sex with, a person doesnt have to deliberately have risky sex with someone who doesnt want it.

[whoai]

Would part of this discussion change if we were talking about another disease? There is a lot of emotional baggage associate with HIV, not to mention the chaser/gifter culture that gets talked about on this forum a lot. Should you have to disclose if you have (and know you have) Hepatitis C? Just curious if people's opinions would be different.

[Guest JizzDumpWI]

Hep C is one. But med resistant Ghono is emerging as well. Each IMO worse than HIV.

This really should not be all that difficult. We're sharing our bodies and bodily fluids. Is it such a difficult thing to be clear with each other KNOWN things we might be passing on?

[gaynudist61]

If I consent to getting fucked by a HIV+ top he shouldn't be charged with a crime

[Guest hungandmean]

In my personal opinion we all have a responsibility to own the kind of sex we are having. We cannot go to a bath house, Grindr, where ever, ask "Are you neg?" and take a bunch of raw loads and rail against the universe if we end up positive. We own the kind of sex, and risk, we are having. We do not live in a time where we are unaware that HIV is a risk,

And there are worse things than HIV out there - 

Although there is a cure for Hep C - it is expensive, and the treatments for it do not work for everyone. It's come a long way, but without a cure it will kill you - where as HIV will not.

HIV should be decriminalized for people who are able to prove they are undetectable.

I also, however, believe that people who engage in explicitly risky sex and do not disclose that should potentially be criminalized. A friend of mine once told me if he never got a STI test then he would always be clean and neg. He was also the biggest slut i've ever known. There is a level of negligence there that should be penalized. It should be weighed against the fact that we all have a personality responsibility to ensure our safety - but at the same time he was absolutely lying to people about his status.

Just my two cents. 

 

[twstdpigboy]

In most western democracies the criminalisation of HIV has largely become a an issue of the past. The laws and the courts having trusted in the SCIENCE of U=U and brought legal systems and political policies inline with the FACTS.  An HIV positive sexual partner that is medically compliant with their meds and is undetectsble CAN NOT transmit the virus to a negative partner (regardless if its a person you love or a lying underaged grindr hookup); years of study have made that clear. Your cum is not a loaded firearm.

Sadly, as we have all witnessed this past 20 months of hell on our TVs and computers and tablets and phones there is a significant portion of the American public, their politicians and their courts that still mistrust and flat out ignore anything that remotely looks lke it didn"t spring forth from the divine mind of the fictitious creator they believe  specifically only protects them from the evil that surrounds them and provides all that they will ever need to know.

SCIENCE is the Devil's work ... though they certainly dont mind using his tools to tweet, like and misinform and lie. It will be decades, if ever, that all 50 states and all 350 million of its citizenry finally catch up  with the rest of us and make right the decades of shame, the countless lives lost, imprisoned and ruined because of their mass fear and ingnorance.

[Shotsfired]

I think HIV criminalization is counterproductive  and in rural areas leads to less disclosure. 

I don't think it is wise to criminalize illness. It's a slippery slope. In the case of HIV, in my opinion both parties should be held equally accountable.  Everyone by know knows that condoms, PrEP and abstinence are the ways to keep HIV free.  Not taking these precautions is like not wearing a seatbelt, helmet,  or wearing a mask.  You can get fined for some of those things.  

 

That said, if someone is purposefully serially infecting people they should be placed under arrest, but so should people who refuse to obey Covid mandates and host huge super spreader events. 

 

The stigma, despite the U = U campaigns is still huge in places like Boise, Idaho which has some of the most draconian HIV criminalization laws in the USA. You can go to prison even if you disclose in some circumstances. 

In Oregon, PrEP is provided to anyone seeking it.  So again, there is no excuse other than laziness,  medical allergy or extreme geography not to be protected. 

Sadly in most cases, I believe laziness,  embarrassment, marriage or stigma keeps many gay men from taking PrEP.

[Shotsfired]

On 3/6/2013 at 6:30 PM, Guest bbosouno said:

[think before following links] http://poz.com/articles/florida_nondisclosure_1_23388.shtml?commentson=yes

This was a case recently in Florida where a 40 & 32 year old men did not reveal they were poz to a 16 year old they met on Grindr. Both were arrested and bail was over $400,000 for each. There is a lot of "gray" areas in this case which bother me when it comes to HIV criminalization.

- OK the kid was a minor BUT this kid ALSO chose to be with these guys, he was not forced into or coerced - it was free will. OK....the "older" men were just plain stupid choosing a minor in the first place but , again, this kid on Grindr choosing older men and choosing to do bareback sex does not sound like "some country bumpkin" and he was an example of "innocence" - definitely this kid has done it before...but this time the adults were caught. I also sense some sort of "set up" by this kid...someone had to alert the police...gee I wonder who that was.

- If you read online ads there is now the infamous " I'm clean you b2" ....seriously now... you are going to take someone's word for it? ( but Mr.Judge he said he was negative! )

- Unless you've been in coma for over 30 years...everyone know how HIV is transmitted including teens.

- Let's exclude the kid in this case now..."hookup remorse" so you're technically negative and have bareback sex with some stranger...and you find out some-how, some-way that he/them were poz or you test poz and you "hunt down" this alleged person and press charges...umm moron you had UNPROTECTED with a stranger, it was consenting sex between people - but - then suddenly you go into panic mode and call the cops - something is very wrong with this picture. You should also be arrested for stupidity

Ok just some random thoughts here, feel free to give opinions!

First, what you are doing is blaming the victim here. He was a child pure and simple.  These men were not simply barebackers who didn't disclose.  They raped him according to law. 16 is not old enough to consent in the USA. These men wanted to exert power and control over a minor to satisfy a sick desire to taint a young boy.

 

Now if he could consent I think other problems arise.  While ethically and morally it is the right thing to disclose, it is also our duty to tend to our own health. Our body is our temple. You should not rely on others to guard your health. That's stupid. I think its unfair to expect the stigmatized party to carry all the responsibility when the other would have to be born under a rock not to know about safe sex,  PrEP and abstinence. Negative people should to face the same penalty or a similar one.

I for one don't accept criminalisation because illnesses shouldn't be in the criminal code.  Civil yes. 

 

And until antivaxxers are strung up by their heels,  I don't want to see another HIV+ man in prison.