Fucking neg boys

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Gingerandbread72 said:

Make them sign something first... keep yourself safe 

That’s not good advice and is unnecessary. Assuming you live in US, there is no need to get a signed document from the bottom as long as the sex is consensual. I’m not aware of any legal requirement to even disclose status prior to sex in any US state, but there is moral requirement in my opinion — as long as you are transparent about your status and the risks associated with bare sex (e.g. you could be infected with HIV), it is up to you and the bottom. 

Additionally, a signed document would likely not be admissible in a civil case, but if admissible could be used to demonstrate forethought and intent.  
 

Bottom line — thousands of neg guys get knocked up every year because they bare bottomed for random guys. If your bottom wants toxic seed, that’s his choice. 

[BootmanLA]

20 hours ago, DCSluthole said:

That’s not good advice and is unnecessary. Assuming you live in US, there is no need to get a signed document from the bottom as long as the sex is consensual. I’m not aware of any legal requirement to even disclose status prior to sex in any US state, but there is moral requirement in my opinion — as long as you are transparent about your status and the risks associated with bare sex (e.g. you could be infected with HIV), it is up to you and the bottom. 

Additionally, a signed document would likely not be admissible in a civil case, but if admissible could be used to demonstrate forethought and intent.  

Bottom line — thousands of neg guys get knocked up every year because they bare bottomed for random guys. If your bottom wants toxic seed, that’s his choice. 

I am not going to downvote this because I don't think you intended to give bad information, but... 

This is simply inaccurate in significant part.

First: There are at least 12 states where people have an affirmative legal obligation to disclose HIV-positive status to sex partners. 35 states criminalize exposure to HIV generally and because those laws were generally written before modern treatments were available, there is no exception for being undetectable.

Generally speaking, a signed document agreeing to the sex won't change the actual criminal status of the act. It would probably make it harder to get a conviction - the prosecutor would have to argue that the law criminalizes the act regardless of what the parties agreed to, and I don't think a jury is going to buy that. More likely, a prosecutor would try to plead the case down to something very minor rather than go to trial.

As for a civil lawsuit, I wouldn't say that such a document would be inadmissible. Unlike with criminal HIV exposure laws, a civil lawsuit for exposing someone to HIV would fall under general tort law in most places. In such cases, a document showing they were aware of the risk would not only likely be admissible, but it would almost certainly blow a hole in the case enough to sink it. 

[Guest]

On 8/12/2022 at 2:22 PM, BootmanLA said:

I am not going to downvote this because I don't think you intended to give bad information, but... 

This is simply inaccurate in significant part.

First: There are at least 12 states where people have an affirmative legal obligation to disclose HIV-positive status to sex partners. 35 states criminalize exposure to HIV generally and because those laws were generally written before modern treatments were available, there is no exception for being undetectable.

Generally speaking, a signed document agreeing to the sex won't change the actual criminal status of the act. It would probably make it harder to get a conviction - the prosecutor would have to argue that the law criminalizes the act regardless of what the parties agreed to, and I don't think a jury is going to buy that. More likely, a prosecutor would try to plead the case down to something very minor rather than go to trial.

As for a civil lawsuit, I wouldn't say that such a document would be inadmissible. Unlike with criminal HIV exposure laws, a civil lawsuit for exposing someone to HIV would fall under general tort law in most places. In such cases, a document showing they were aware of the risk would not only likely be admissible, but it would almost certainly blow a hole in the case enough to sink it. 

Thank you for your thoughtful and informative reply. I appreciate it and I learned something.

My background is policy and legislative matters, and I had based my comments on casual conversations with a couple attorney friends of mine. They were by no means experts on specific state laws relevant to this subject which is why I qualified my legal statements with “likely” and “I don’t believe” and the like.  

They were uncertain when I asked about any notification requirement, but believed if enacted, such laws would be difficult to enforce and convictions unlikely. I’d be interested to know if you have any information/case history about how successful these laws have been when tested/applied. 

While I actually think we all agree on the likely outcome of a civil action, they were unconvinced that such a legal document would be an effective instrument.  In their view such a document (though admissible) could, depending on the dynamics of the relationship) be vulnerable to claims of undue influence, or others that could enable a party to effectively challenge its validity. 

All that aside, I defer to you on the legal aspects (if my attorney friends wish to argue their corner, they can do so on their own dime), and instead I will stick to my overarching point — namely that I believe we have a moral obligation to be honest and transparent about our status, and that if you need a legal document to have sex it may be best to just skip it and find someone else.  

Again, appreciate your reply and assumption of good intentions. 

[BootmanLA]

2 hours ago, DCSluthole said:

They were uncertain when I asked about any notification requirement, but believed if enacted, such laws would be difficult to enforce and convictions unlikely. I’d be interested to know if you have any information/case history about how successful these laws have been when tested/applied. 

Prosecutions are rare for these kinds of laws, but successful prosecution is only one possible harm that comes from them (and thus makes them something to avoid getting tangled in). For instance, if John is HIV+ and undetectable and has sex with Frank without disclosing, and they have a falling-out over something unrelated - even months or years later - just seeking charges with local law enforcement can lead to an arrest record and unwanted publicity. If John isn't public with his diagnosis - say, he works for a conservative office, or whatever - it could be revealed in the news media because in such cases, the accused is typically named while the alleged victim is not. Even if the charges are dismissed, John could have a felony arrest record in some states (and there are jobs for which you must disclose felony arrests even if nothing ever went to trial).

Don't rule out malicious arrests, either. Since 2003 it's been unconstitutional to enforce state laws against non-commercial, consensual sexual conduct in private - laws that typically were used against gay people even though the proscribed activities include things like a woman blowing a man, a man fucking a woman anally, and so forth. But in some jurisdictions, cops continued to arrest people for these things for years (as recently the early 2010's here in Louisiana). The arrests were typically stings by local law enforcement which would target known cruising areas - nobody was having sex on the premises, but guys would agree to go meet at one's apartment or house to do the deed, and the deputy or cop would follow the person home, wait till he made a move, and then arrest him.

The prosecutors would invariably dismiss the cases, but in the meantime, "John Smith arrested for crimes against nature" would be in the news. It didn't stop until one of the victims sued the deputy and the sheriff's office and the courts held the suits could go forward without immunity because it was obviously unconstitutional. Once that happened all the deputies got a crash course in learning what "cannot enforce this law because it's unconstitutional" means. Don't think they wouldn't jump at the chance to entrap someone they'd heard was HIV+ in a disclosure case, even if in fact the sex didn't happen before the arrest.

[Sharp-edge]

Most people would say about these guys (the neg btm going raw) that they should come to their senses. But I believe it's their nature calling. It is risky (STIs) but something inside is scratching them to try it.

[Bimarried001]

Random anon raw fuck. That’s what I do. 
But I’m a bottom that also use cruising sites. I’m clear on those sites that I’m poz undetectable and only fuck raw. I never thought of the consequences because everything is consensual and I’m up front. 
Besides since I’m undetectable I’m not putting anyone at risk. 

[Kayne]

Putting the Kink aside. 

You gotta do what is best for you.  Be upfront about who and what you are. but be warned that  there still may be blow back. 

There are certain things that legally, one cannot consent to, because the consent is seen as a defect l..its stupid butnits the world we live in. 

whate er you do. be careful for your sake bro.