Another hiv transmission arrest.

[rawTOP]

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.

So gay sex is wrong where it is/was criminalized? So the anti-gay laws in places like Uganda or Russia are OK because the people there consider gay sex immoral?

There are things that are illegal that are not wrong. Many of those things are considered immoral by many people. Despite being illegal and "immoral" there's actually nothing wrong with the act.

[hispanicdlmale]

Im sorry, whoever allows someone to put it inside someone without a condom cannot come crying when tested poz. U dont want hiv then use a condon. Now, breaking a condom on purpose, or raping then that's a crime. But just let anyone bareback you and then cry because ure now poz then oh well. Its ure fault. You have to assume everyone is poz so use a condom if you dont want to risk it. Simple. In my opinion of course.

[bearbandit]

You have to assume everyone is poz so use a condom if you dont want to risk it. Simple. In my opinion of course.

No, you have to assume, unless you know for a fact otherwise, that the other guy is of a different HIV status to you. I serosort as much as possible so that I only fuck with other poz guys. If a guy doesn't know for a fact that he's poz, then that changes the nature of the sex we'd be having, or might even be a deal-breaker, despite the fact that he might actually be poz but doesn't know it.

[hispanicdlmale]

Like i said, in my opinion, if you dont want to get hiv then use a condom. Simple. Of course is not 100% safe but nothing really is. But if you let someone put it inside u without a condon, then my friend is your fault. Sorry. I dont feel bad for guys that cry because they got infected while barebacking. Information is out there. Education is the key.

[Guest JizzDumpWI]

Well a semi effective condom or the more effective PrEP...

[Poz1956]

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.

There's a good chunk of proof from many different surveys.

The one I have handy is the Canadian 2011-2012 Male Call survey, in which 45 minute telephone interviews were conducted with MSM.

In it, 25.2% of participants had never been tested. Of those who had at least been tested some time in their life, 47.8% had not been tested in over a year.

The reasons the Never Tested guys gave were:

83.8% - I think I am Negative

38.5% - It could affect my relationships

34.2% - I have never thought about it

22.2% - I could not deal with knowing I was Positive

18.0% - I am afraid of my name being reported

17.1% - I do not want to know

Those last two groups are fear of legal ramifications come in. So almost a fifth who have never been tested probably never will get tested.

Though the 38% afraid of it affecting their relationships is pretty interesting. They're taking the "Plausible Deniability" route - If I don't know, I don't have to tell.

But Neggies attitudes towards Poz guys is where it gets interesting.

23.3% DON'T think Poz guys have the RIGHT to be sexually active

4.1% think Pozzies should be quarantined from others for the protection of public health.

Asked when is the best time for a Poz guy to disclose his status to a new sex partner. This isn't even in the context of BB:

56.2% - When they first meet (It makes sense because 49% agreed with he statement "I would not have sex with a man who is HIV-Positive even if I am very attracted to him. They want to know right away so they can run for the door shrieking like little girls, and flapping their wrists like little butterflies. Yea - even the butch ones do that.)

25.9% - Want to know his status before any non-penetrative sex (like mutual masturbation or frottage)

So lets see - 82% of Neggies feel they must know a Pozzie's status before any activity that has zero risk.

Another 11.9% feel they need to know before oral sex With A Condom!

Those match up pretty well with a Pozzie's greatest fears:

82.5% - Being discriminated and stigmatized because of HIV

67.7% - Being rejected because I am Positive

51.6% - Being prosecuted for not disclosing that I am HIV Positive

The greatest divide between Pozzies and Neggies is around criminalization of Poz guys for just being sexual

60% think there should be a specific law Requiring a Pozzie to disclose his status.

65.2% think not disclosing his status should be a criminal offence

30.3% think that criminal prosecution is an effective way to stop people from transmitting HIV

But that's kind of at odds with their opinion of what criminalization does:

62.1% agreed that criminal prosecution increases stigma and discrimination of Pozzies

47.5% agree that criminal prosecution deters or stops people who think they might be Poz from getting tested.

17.7% agree that it is better to not know your status in the current legal context.

That last one should be enough proof enough for Wood.

Only 17% think that lack of disclosure before barebacking should Not be a criminal offence

41.9% agree that not disclosing before BB should Always be a crime

The remaining 40.9% said that it was a crime under some circumstances

That last group got further queried.

30.2% of them think nondisclosure should be a crime even when a condom is used. (I wonder what BB non-disclosure situation is acceptable to them if they still think not reviling status and using a condom is a crime?)

42.5% agreed that not advising his status before receiving a blow job makes the Pozzie a criminal (Considered an extremely low, and even theoretical risk - but it should still be a crime)

96.7% think that a stealther intentionally trying to spread HIV should be charged with a crime

There have been lots of cases where a guy HAS told a partner his status, but after the relationship or fuck is over, the bitter Neg guy chooses to press charges, saying he didn't know.

The Pozzie is guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof that he advised his partner (casual, FB or spouse) is on the Pozzie. Most of those conversations happen verbally - how do you prove that?

If I disclose over the net, I try to save a copy of the chat log.

I've seen suggestion to video the other guy agreeing to sex with a Pozzie (with his consent, and him stating his full name into the camera), or having him sign a document acknowledging that you advised him of your Poz status. While a partner, or FB might do either of those, I doubt a casual hook-up will

[NYCBearpig]

Statistics are great but I wonder how far someone's "jail-em" attitude applies once they've made physical contact? I suspect a strong difference between works in a poll and actions.

I agree with previous posters: if someone puts their unwrapped clock in my butt at a sex club et al I'm going to assume he's poz. If it's a 1:1 encounter I say I'm poz and the rest is up to him. If he's neg it probably won't happen.

[gaynudist61]

I don't think it should be a crime for poz tops to fuck negative bottoms  provided they say  they're poz

[BootmanLA]

2 hours ago, gaynudist61 said:

I don't think it should be a crime for poz tops to fuck negative bottoms  provided they say  they're poz

The problem is proving you informed the person.

Generally speaking, when something is a crime, the government has to prove each element of the crime. So, for instance, if the law reads "It shall be a violation of this section for any person, who knows himself to be HIV-positive, to have sexual intercourse with another person without informing that person of his HIV-positive status," then the state would have to prove:

a) that the person was HIV-positive;

b) that he KNEW he was HIV-positive;

c) that you had sex; and

d) that he did not tell the partner he was HIV-positive.

That last one is difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the criminal standard; if the poz guy says "I told him" and the other guy says "No he didn't", it can be very hard to judge credibility.

In some states, the law is written differently. It might read "It shall be a violation of this section for any person, who knows himself to be HIV-positive, to have sexual intercourse with another person", period, with a second sentence that reads something like "It shall be an affirmative defense to this crime if the HIV-positive person revealed his status to the other person." That shifts the burden; now, the government only has to prove that you were poz, knew it, and had sex. If you want to assert that you told the person, the burden is on YOU to prove, somehow, that you informed the person. If you know that going in, you can make sure you tell him in writing, via text or email or whatever, and get him to acknowledge that, but a lot of guys don't realize that may be necessary.

Given that knowledge of HIV is now widespread, preventative measures are well-known, and treatment is available, it's time to decriminalize this. I feel bad for people who are lied to, but people have been lying to get sex for millennia, and anyone who has sex predicated solely on something someone has told them is choosing to run that risk.

[120DaysofSodom]

This is why I live my life as an openly POZ man. Transparency is the best policy and I feel it is an ethical duty to inform people before engaging in sexual activity with them because I would feel awful about passing a virus on to somebody that didnt know the risk. I face rejection on occasion but it doesnt bother me because the next guy I talk with probably wont mind im POZ Undetectable and the sex between us will be great. Im positive about being POZitive and made the decision when I was diagnosed to be completely transparent about my status because I dont like hiding who I am. Im POZ and im not ashamed of it.

Having said that, people should take responsibility for their own behaviors. If you bareback strangers, youre going to get HIV and thats not a surprise. If you go to places like bathhouses you should assume everybody in there is HIV+ or youre just an idiot. People that want to engage in bareback activity should either accept that or take the necessary precautions rather than looking for others to blame for their own behaviors.

[seasqrd]

39 minutes ago, TwinkFoot said:

This is why I live my life as an openly POZ man. Transparency is the best policy and I feel it is an ethical duty to inform people before engaging in sexual activity with them because I would feel awful about passing a virus on to somebody that didnt know the risk. I face rejection on occasion but it doesnt bother me because the next guy I talk with probably wont mind im POZ Undetectable and the sex between us will be great. Im positive about being POZitive and made the decision when I was diagnosed to be completely transparent about my status because I dont like hiding who I am. Im POZ and im not ashamed of it.

Having said that, people should take responsibility for their own behaviors. If you bareback strangers, youre going to get HIV and thats not a surprise. If you go to places like bathhouses you should assume everybody in there is HIV+ or youre just an idiot. People that want to engage in bareback activity should either accept that or take the necessary precautions rather than looking for others to blame for their own behaviors.

Very well said.