firefighter Posted January 21, 2014 Report Posted January 21, 2014 Your website has some great reading TIger Milner www.Tigermilner.com
bearbandit Posted January 21, 2014 Report Posted January 21, 2014 Wow, none of the potential "victims" have any responsibility for their own actions? Tiger, thank you for pointing up the obvious which I should have said in my reply...
rawtuscany Posted January 21, 2014 Report Posted January 21, 2014 I would take LOAD AFTER LOAD from him & gladly be video taped. The issue however is what the laws are, not what we think is fair. In a lot of states (& I am not saying I agree) it is ILLEGAL/CRIMINAL to expose (not infect) someone to the HIV virus. SO if he knew, whether or not the bottoms asked, he is at fault according to THE LAW. Again, doesn't matter if we all agree that at least some responsibility lays with the bottom. he is hot!
Guest Posted January 21, 2014 Report Posted January 21, 2014 "The nigga knows what he was doing, he was breaking it down for the man. He was using radical and extreme methods to say something---freedom!" I'm always a lover of dark chocolate, thick, rich, and creamy sweet. This motherfucker is a hot motherfucking bitch who has a freak style, societal norms shattering, no bars hold anarchist against the law, and his 'fuck all of societies rules and moral etiquettes' shatter them because it all has preconditioned our minds to think and make decisions based on what they have deemed right or wrong; it's about self-individualism, follow the desires of your inner essence not by making choices due to external influences. We view a lot of shit the wrong way because of this modern society, love, life, sex, and beauty, for example–––all wrong! Good boy, my black mandingo, spread it baby and when you're getting out of the pokey on bail let's share our aids and have a toast to the shatterings of social norms.
wood Posted January 21, 2014 Report Posted January 21, 2014 (edited) The article doesn't mention whether he was on meds at the time, or what his viral load was. Rather than leaping straight to legal proceedings, wouldn't a psychological evaluation first be a good idea? It's possible he has a psychological condition whereby he doesn't actually realise the danger of what he's doing, in which case treatment of the condition is a much smarter idea than prosecution.I wonder especially because he filmed so much sex: if he had a concept that he was doing something wrong, why keep the damning evidence of the videos? If I lived in Missouri I sure as hell wouldn't video myself having sex with anyone, given Missouri's less than progressive approach to HIV. It could be that he did what he did with full knowledge of what he was doing, but we don't know that. This is trial by news media and demonisation of people with HIV. I agree on the psychological assessment part, but To me this looks like a case of criminal HIV transmission. I have no interest in demonizing people with HIV, but this guy seems full well to know what he was doing. I also fully understand that having unprotected sex with a guy who is on meds and undetectable is much less risk than a guy who doesnt get tested and doesnt know his status, However there is still a risk. For me, hell I would sleep with him now, hes just my type. BUT, I'm on PrEP, and now knows he's HIV+ So I can make that choice. He took that choice away for the people he lied to. Whatever his reasoning, he is gonna pay the price for this. A state like Missouri is NOT going to take kindly to this, and a guy like him will be really popular in prison. The main thing is, this is why I ALWAYS tell guys who are HIV+ to tell partners their status. You really never know who could flip out if they find out you are HIV+ and didn't disclose your status. In most places it is illegal not to disclose, and that can be a very serious crime. This guy could get life, and in a conservative state like Missouri I would be on 20+ years. Edited January 21, 2014 by wood 1
bearbandit Posted January 21, 2014 Report Posted January 21, 2014 As usual, 'slut, we're agreeing with each other from different ends of the spectrum. The only thing I'd take issue with is the thing that Tiger pointed out (that I'd missed in my original post): his partners agreed to raw sex. They made their choices. Of course, if we're talking rape it's a whole different ballgame...
wood Posted January 21, 2014 Report Posted January 21, 2014 As usual, 'slut, we're agreeing with each other from different ends of the spectrum. The only thing I'd take issue with is the thing that Tiger pointed out (that I'd missed in my original post): his partners agreed to raw sex. They made their choices. Of course, if we're talking rape it's a whole different ballgame... But they agreed to raw sex under false pretenses. For better or worse, here is the way things work now for people who are "neg" or don't know. partner 1 "are you clean" partner 2 "yes, as of my last test" partner 1 "cool, fuck me bare" In the eyes of the law, this is probably enough to get the case thrown out. Even if the test was a year ago. Or even this. partner 1 "are you clean" partner 2 "yes, you?" partner 1 "me too, do me raw? partner 2 "hell yeah" All the language is so ambiguous, but there is some disclosure. But at least in the US court system, it introduces reasonable doubt. From the article, it seems as if Mr Johnson didn't do anything, and said "no" when asked if he had any sexual diseases, and thats the issue. At this point if this is making the news I am sure that he, and the courts know, that he knew he was HIV+ well before this story broke, so pleading ignorance isn't going to work. he knew and he did it anyway, and he will pay the price. For this case to get thrown out it would have to be proven that he either a) had no idea he was HIV+, or actually told all his partners that he was HIV+, thus giving disclosure. The big issue here is the lying. This is just my opinion, but here is what I think occurred. I bet he was diagnosed about 18-20 or so, and is on medication. I bet he originally was into older guys, who played raw. One infected him, and then he didn't want to give up playing raw. He read up its very hard to transmit when on meds, so he kept doing it, even in a relatively close environment like a college campus. He didn't tell any partners on campus for fear of being ostracized and humiliated. He's a hot guy so he had several partners and at some point his luck ran out. Maybe the gonorrhea he got made his viral load rise, who knows. Now this is just my personal speculation, but IMO he was young dumb and full of cum, and is gonna pay the price. Not that I even think he is "dumb" per se, but made some dumb decisions.
bearbandit Posted January 21, 2014 Report Posted January 21, 2014 My point is that if his partners really wanted to avoid the slightest risk of HIV they'd have insisted on keeping it safe. Pretty much the same way as I'd really really prefer not to get hepatitis C and have to make my own judgement on whether I trust the guy(s) when he/they say "no hep C here". However, I've only seen the one article about the case, so what do I know? <wry smile>
NYCBlack Posted January 22, 2014 Report Posted January 22, 2014 My point is that if his partners really wanted to avoid the slightest risk of HIV they'd have insisted on keeping it safe.... ^ This. These "victims" are trying to have it both ways! They want the benefits of barebacking (physical pleasure, emotional freedom) with none of the drawbacks (you get what you get and you don't get upset). Asking about Tiger's status is a backhanded way of relinquishing all responsibility and turning their partner into a predator.
wood Posted January 22, 2014 Report Posted January 22, 2014 ^ This. These "victims" are trying to have it both ways! They want the benefits of barebacking (physical pleasure, emotional freedom) with none of the drawbacks (you get what you get and you don't get upset). Asking about Tiger's status is a backhanded way of relinquishing all responsibility and turning their partner into a predator. I agree that the "victims" share some responsibility, simply because they did agree to have bareback sex with a person they do not know well. However that doesn't negate the point that "tiger" actively lied about his status, while having sex without protection. In the eyes of the law that is the issue. Its like driving drunk, you may make it home 99% of the time no problem. However if you get caught, or have an accident and kill someone its your fault because you didn't do your part to stop a potentially risky behavior. Everyone should do their part to protect themselves, and IMO, most likely all of the victims should have done more. However, none of that changes the fact that the guy knowingly exposed the partners to HIV without telling them. It sucks, and its a tough conversation for an HIV+ person to have but the law is VERY clear that in these situations, it is required that the person discuss their HIV+ status. He didnt, and he lied. (again this is all based on what is known so far) 1
Bttm2go Posted January 22, 2014 Report Posted January 22, 2014 Yes, he is hot. As for the bottoms, if you are taking it raw then you have some responsibility. The question is did he lie when asked about status. We'll have to see how this case turns out.
Guest SBBOY Posted January 23, 2014 Report Posted January 23, 2014 http://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelzarrell/hiv-positive-student-filmed-secret-sex-tapes
bearbandit Posted January 23, 2014 Report Posted January 23, 2014 Note the reporter's switch from "exposing to HIV" to "giving HIV" within a couple of sentences. Talk about brainwashing!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now