Another hiv transmission arrest.

[wood]

David Lee Mangum, 37, of Dexter, a small town in southeast Missouri, was arrested last week on suspicion of reckless exposure to HIV after his former 28-year-old partner tested positive for the virus and turned Mangum in to local police.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-missouri-hiv-infect-20130904,0,1201613.story

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-exposed-300-hiv-article-1.1447262

I know some of you guys have fantasies about pozzing neg guys, but this is just another reason why you shouldn't. It only takes one person to turn you in to the police to start an investigation. The vast majority of people in the country would be outraged if someone knowingly tried to infect them, lied, or didnt inform them of their status, and this goes for tops and bottoms. Inform people and let them make their own decision. There are plenty of men out there to fuck who dont care about status, and will fuck poz guys without a care, look at bbrt. However, going around and trying to deliberately infect people who dont want to be infected, is fucked up IMO.

[bigdick4you]

Don't know what's so hot about that.... Deliberately infecting someone without the other person wanting or knowing this.... In my opinion: u should be in jail! That's why I pick up most guys from Bbrt.... At least there everyone knows what the deal is.... Although u c guys saying negative only.... Then I think u r really kidding ur self.... Or it's somehow a turn on to be lied to...I always avoid such guys.... No matter how hot they r.... As I think something is seriously not right...

[freakypoz]

I agree 100% also..Being poz wasnt a goal for me it was what simply happened..I dont blame anyone..I knew the risk and I except what has happened because of it. I was neg and my partner was poz..I was very honest with me about it before we ever started dating and even refused to date me because of it..We was together 20 years before he passed. I enjoyed every single waking moment with him and I wouldnt change a thing..Now with all these bug chaser its scary..They have no clue whats involved and If you poz someone on purpose for your own sexual gratification I think jail is where you should be.

[bearbandit]

Deliberate transmission of HIV is certainly immoral, but if we make it a crime, we lose the fight against it. What will happen is that people will stop testing: if they don't know they're positive they can't be accused of deliberate transmission. Who's the most infectious? People whose immune system has totally collapsed, who tend not to be very interested in sex anyway, and people who've just acquired the virus. Who's among the safest people to bareback with? Guys who have their HIV under control and don't have any other STIs. In other words HIV+ guys who look after themselves.

Yes, a certain number of people who get a positive result get very freaked out, and though it's unusual "revenge sex" has been known to happen: psychological intervention needed here. Similarly someone who's fucking around pretending he hasn't got HIV because he's afraid of rejection needs psychological help and support to understand what he's doing.

Sexually active people who don't test for whatever reason aren't taking care of themselves: there's a host of STIs that they may also have (a reason why I serosort for poz guys), many of which facilitate infection with HIV. But they won't test because they're afraid of having to disclose that they have HIV, with all the stigma and disadvantage that brings. So we end up with reservoirs of HIV in people whose health is slowly failing (and you can go a long time before showing any sign of infection) as their viral load climbs making them more infectious.

We need to change society to remove the stigma attached to HIV, to make it as normal as having any other infection. The problem is that you generally get HIV from doing "naughty things". The vast majority of people think of gay men as being the biggest cohort of people with HIV whereas in fact more woman have HIV than men. It's literally vital that anyone who's put themselves at risk test for HIV: criminalisation is about the best way to stop that testing happening.

Worse still, in the UK all the law on HIV transmission is case law, usually using the Offences against the Person Act from the nineteenth, yes nineteenth century. Because it's case law, it can change with each case, There was recently a prosecution for deliberate transmission of herpes. As far as I remember that prosecution failed. What about those parties mothers organise for their kids when one of them gets one of the childhood illnesses so that all the kids end up getting it out of the way? Chicken pox springs to mind here because my late partner caught it from the child of a friend and when I phoned the clinic to ask what I should do their reply was "how quickly can you get here?". I was lucky: it turned out I'd had it without symptoms as a kid and had the antibodies to it, otherwise it would have cost a considerable amount of money protecting me from my partners illness.

Criminalisation opens a whole bucketful of worms, the chief one being that it's going to make us lose the fight against HIV.

[wood]

Deliberate transmission of HIV is certainly immoral, but if we make it a crime, we lose the fight against it. What will happen is that people will stop testing: if they don't know they're positive they can't be accused of deliberate transmission. Who's the most infectious? People whose immune system has totally collapsed, who tend not to be very interested in sex anyway, and people who've just acquired the virus. Who's among the safest people to bareback with? Guys who have their HIV under control and don't have any other STIs. In other words HIV+ guys who look after themselves.

Sorry I cant agree with you on this, its more than immoral.

Think beyond just sex. Say its proven you could give someone cancer, diabetes, parkinsons or MS, by doing an everyday act, and you know it would harm another person, but you did it anyway. That's intent to cause harm, and it should be illegal. Just because HIV is controllable doesn't doesn't make the rest of that persons life easier, or in many cases pay for the mountains of potential medical bills. Also the first part you just said is also false. While in theory undetectable guys provide a lower risk to negative guys than a partner of unknown or unmedicated poz status, a partner who is truly negative provides NO risk of HIV transmission.

Also the argument that people wont get tested so they wont be held liable is tenuous at best. Most people want to live, so they get tested anyway, regardless of possible blame for transmission. Now obviously some people don't get tested enough, but they still do it even with laws regarding criminalizing transmission.

I agree there needs to be a change in the stigma towards HIV, but allowing some people to infect others at will because they are immoral is the number one way to NOT change any stigma. Being open and honest, and informed is always a better way to change stigma's.

Saying it shouldnt be illegal is like saying that an individual could poison another person, make them sick, but as long as they didnt die, its okay and the person who did it shouldn't be held liable.

Informed consent is the name of the game, and all people should practice it.

Edited September 6, 2013 by wood

[bearbandit]

While I argue against criminalisation, it's on grounds of expediency to end the epidemic once and for all. I said that medicated HIV+ men with an undetectable viral load are among the safest, not the safest people to have sex with. There's a difference. And all a negative test proves is that at such and such a time no HIV antibodies were observed. It doesn't say they weren't there at all. which is why I tend to view the world as being divided into people with HIV and people who don't know their HIV status.

We have a whole generation on our hands who think that either HIV=aids=death and won't go near someone with HIV or else that HIV was something that happened in the eighties, long before they were born and is therefore nothing to do with them.

You mean I should sue the doctors who prescribed medications that damn near killed me? Doesn't the Hippocratic oath contain the maxim "First do no harm" or am I thinking of another medical text?

Informed consent, certainly. But getting people to HIV testing centres is like herding cats.

[wood]

While I argue against criminalisation, it's on grounds of expediency to end the epidemic once and for all. I said that medicated HIV+ men with an undetectable viral load are among the safest, not the safest people to have sex with. There's a difference. And all a negative test proves is that at such and such a time no HIV antibodies were observed. It doesn't say they weren't there at all. which is why I tend to view the world as being divided into people with HIV and people who don't know their HIV status.

We have a whole generation on our hands who think that either HIV=aids=death and won't go near someone with HIV or else that HIV was something that happened in the eighties, long before they were born and is therefore nothing to do with them.

You mean I should sue the doctors who prescribed medications that damn near killed me? Doesn't the Hippocratic oath contain the maxim "First do no harm" or am I thinking of another medical text?

Informed consent, certainly. But getting people to HIV testing centres is like herding cats.

The biggest issue here is deliberate transmission vs unintentional transmission. I certainly agree that unintentional transmission whether it is from negligence or not should not be criminal. However intentional transmission is entirely different. Also while I get your view on HIV status, its fundamentally false. HIV antibodies never go away if you have them you fall into one of two groups, you are HIV positive, or if you are one of a very small group of people in certain vaccine trials, you will test positive by an antibody test. If you don't have HIV antibodies, you are either negative, or if within a window period, a person could be newly infected, end of discussion, thats irrefutable science.

Also right now i believe the current thought process is actually much different than aids=death, in fact its quite the opposite. A lot of people, especially younger people don't care, which is why they are doing more risky behavior, also hence why despite much better treatment HIV infection rates in the developed world have largely leveled off. People are still getting infected.

Also while I understand your views on medication, medicine isnt an exact science, doctors try their best, sometimes it works great, sometimes it doesnt. Again, its not deliberate harm to you.

I agree I want the epidemic over now too, but I dont think decriminalizing deliberate infection would have any effect at all on that end goal.

[rawTOP]

As soon as you criminalize HIV a whole bunch of bad things happen. Fear increases. Fewer people get tested. And people go to prison for stupid mistakes ("I was drunk, you didn't ask, I assumed you were poz").

The only form of criminalization I think is even somewhat legit is when 1) someone is poz, and 2) they tell someone they're neg, and 3) then cum in the neg person's ass/vagina, and 4) the person becomes poz, and 5) it can be proven that the virus came from the poz guy in question. IMHO, ALL of those things should be true for the poz guy to go to jail.

[bearbandit]

We're essentially saying the same thing, but our viewpoints are influenced by the differing law systems we live under. You've simply expanded my point about HIV unknown status people: a negative test result means exactly what you say it does - it's the uncertainty about the window period that makes me think in terms of HIV unknown, especially when it's someone I meet in a charged sexual atmosphere. I know guys who test on an annual basis yet bareback on the grounds that they're negative...

HIV education in the UK is appalling with sex education frequently being left to how rabbits reproduce and people do something very similar. I've come across both views amongst young people, that HIV=aids=death and that it's something that happened a long time ago and doesn't affect us. Last year the UK saw its largest number of HIV diagnoses in gay men ever. I'm a volunteer for one of the major charities and do a lot of work on the poz-only message board, and it's bloody heartbreaking seeing newbies signing up a few days after being diagnosed. (Naturally I have to keep a line between my personal life and my work as a volunteer, which some might see as hypocritical, but there you go.)

My comments about prescribed medicines was intended to be ironic/sarcastic: HAART involves some pretty toxic chemicals and having been in treatment so long (I started AZT monotherapy in 1989) I've lurched from one drug to the next just in time. You say medicine isn't an exact science; I'm inclined to think of it more as an art. The problems we had with the early drugs was that we were demanding their early release while the medics hadn't worked out accurate dosing for them. When I first started PIs I was warned that there could be a problem with fiabetes but they weren't sure. My attitude was "yeah, I'll worry about that if and when it happens: right now I want to see next week" The drugs have improved immensely but still have their problems.

The way I read your comments we agree on everything but the one point: criminalisation. As I've already said prosecutions here are built on case law which means with each judgment the law shifts slightly, so that there was a recent attempt someone for passing on herpes. I don't know the US legal system: I'm talking about a solution for the UK and in the UK criminalisation is not going to be an answer. I'm far more in favour of psychiatric intervention if necessary and counselling to change behaviour.

We've both got strong opinions and I think the time has probably come to say that our differences are shaped by our respective legal systems and put the argument to bed. <holds out hand hoping for a handshake>

[copenhagendipper]

His stealthy efforts will not bring positive news to the disease or to those that like barebacking. To my fellow Missourians watch out for the ensuing witch hunt and negative stories to come, especially if you work the CL.

[wood]

As soon as you criminalize HIV a whole bunch of bad things happen. Fear increases. Fewer people get tested. And people go to prison for stupid mistakes ("I was drunk, you didn't ask, I assumed you were poz").

But my main issue with this argument is that there is no proof. HIV transmission has been criminalized in many areas since the late 80's, and in the late 80's and 90's people were eager to get tested and practice safe sex. The simple fact is that because HIV isn't a death sentence anymore, many people especially of a younger generation don't care, so they don't use condoms and don't get tested. For older people condom fatigue is a real thing, and similarly, its a mentality of oh well if i get infected I will just take this pill. Of course there will be some people who don't want to get tested because they don't want to be held liable, but IMO that's an insignificant variable. I worked in a clinic before, and I can tell you the most common reasons people didn't get tested were simple, a) thy didn't want to know because they were scared for themself, the second was just sheer apathy. I doubt many people even think of possible prosecution. People shouldnt go to prison for stupid mistakes, but they should if they knowingly disregard someone elses wishes. Lots of guys never ask, and dont care, but if a guy asks, and cares, there is no excuse not to say the truth.

[wood]

We've both got strong opinions and I think the time has probably come to say that our differences are shaped by our respective legal systems and put the argument to bed. <holds out hand hoping for a handshake>

Oh Im not mad, I eny a good debate.

His stealthy efforts will not bring positive news to the disease or to those that like barebacking. To my fellow Missourians watch out for the ensuing witch hunt and negative stories to come, especially if you work the CL.

BINGO! Thats one of my biggest issues with people who dont tell or give consent, especially considering how easy it is to find people who truly don't care and will take almost any nut.

[fillmyholeftl]

I certainly don't want to come across as an angel of any sorts. I am far from it. BUT !!! if something is illegal, not to mention immoral, it is WRONG. I am not a proponent of stealthing at all... It's entirely a different situation when someone WANTS to chase, be pozzed...whatever you want to call it. But KNOWINGLY LYING or exposing someone who isn't aware of your status is wrong & I think CRIMINAL...

[CaliSmoker]

Interesting convo...the best parts of this site for me is when everybody stops being all chaser/gifter or balls deep sexual all the time and start actually having relatively informed debates on actual issues that affect every one of us.

[Guest RAWGUYUK]

What is legal is not necessarily moral. And vice versa. Many immoral things are considered legal - just look at how many bankers got away with their fraud! So let's not conflate legality and morality.

As for criminalisation - criminalising the deliberate transmission to someone NOT WILLING OR NOT GIVING CONSENT is not the same thing as criminalising HIV. Which is what a previous poster seemed to suggest.

Having said this, just like trying to prosecute for rape, it's going to be very difficult. it's tough to know exactly how much consent was/was not given and how much was/was not known by the accuser. Often it is one persons word against another. I agree with RawTop that criminalisation of TRANSMISSION when all the factors are proved without a doubt (transmission did take place, it wasn't consensual etc) is necessarily but only if those strict facts can be determined.

As much as I love sex and fantasise about many unsavory things (to some), it's a slippery slope if we treat sex differently from other acts which cause bodily harm and say it shouldn't be illegal because its a sexual thing and might somehow be socially problematic in other areas. Either deliberately harming someone against their will is immoral and should be punished or it isn't. Would we excuse a knife attacker because to prosecute him may be harmful to people who innocently carry knifes for fishing and may give them a bad rep?