Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wonder how many bi guys who have taken poz loads bareback are going to withhold that information when their sexual interests swing back around the other way. So now that polluting unsuspecting women isn’t too big of a deal anymore as far as the law is concerned, why should they even say anything? I mean, HIV isn’t a life sentence anymore as previously mentioned, right?
I wonder how many bi guys who have taken poz loads bareback are going to withhold that information when their sexual interests swing back around the other way. So now that polluting unsuspecting women isn’t too big of a deal anymore as far as the law is concerned, why should they even say anything? I mean, HIV isn’t a life sentence anymore as previously mentioned, right?
That is horrifying and make me so glad I'm not in the dating scene anymore.
Pretty sure intentional infecting someone with a disabling/costly/dangerous disease is still a chargeable offense and also one that can be pursued in civil courts.
reckless endangerment springs to mind.... just because they remove one statute does not mean the rest just vanish.
HIV used to be a death sentence. It's not anymore. Folks who are infected now can go on to lead a normal life and live out thier normal lifespan. Big difference when deliberately exposing someone to HIV was tantamount to murder.
I personally think deliberately exposing someone to a cold should be a misdemeanor, though. I could get half the people in my office this week arrested
(I kid, mostly)
No cake walk for those who get hiv. If they get it, their t cells are killed and they get sick. They have to take Meds to keep healthy. No cure yet.
Location: Big Island of Hawaii & HOT BuOYS Sailing Vessel
5,277 posts, read 2,798,262 times
Reputation: 1932
Allow me to speak as a gay man who is HIV negative and tested. I have always been able to produce a recent test as proof. I have been very selective about the person and type of sex I have to maintain that status.
I don't consider it just luck that I am negative. However, I do see it as being my fault if I did become positive.
Why my fault? Simply, I am wise enough to know people lie. Further, I know not to depend on condoms alone.
One person posted about a women who became positive when her boyfriend "failed to inform her".
Now let's compare her to me.
I bet she had receptive sex. This is simply something I wouldn't do unless long term with a man who I was certain was negative.
I bet she did the deed without a condom. This again would be something I wouldn't do even as a top.
I bet before she reached the age of 25 she had far more sexual partners and had lost her virginity far earlier. It is not my intention to paint women in a negative light. However, I wish to address the implied comment made by the poster that the man was somehow 100% at fault. Studies simply show women are far more sexually active and active sooner than the average male.
I know this is not about rape, which is still a felony, however I do see the two subjects as related. A person who places themselves into a position they are more likely to be raped is more likely to become HIV positive.
I bet this women has placed herself into situations she is more likely to be raped. When meeting a man I always maintained the rule of meeting him in a public place, getting to know him, before taking him back to my place. I stress my place since I knew I could never be surprised. Further, I absolutely never let any alcohol or drugs in my system to hinder my judgement. I even know about date rape drugs and am cautious when receiving a glass of water.
Let's see this from a law enforcement prospective.
A. How do you find the specific individual who caused the sero-conversion when someone has multiple partners over time? There is no DNA test, no date rape kit, and the activity may be months old.
B. How do you prove someone didn't inform the other party? It is easy for either party to lie upon the witness stand. Guilt must be proven without a doubt.
Now for the kicker.
How often has a prosecutor been successfully been able to convict someone of this felony?
If no law enforcement or prosecutors can obtain convictions for this felony offense, then the offense can't be enforced.
If anything, a law like this provides a person with a false sense of security they should not have. If they believe that someone can be convicted for being a liar or failing to inform, then they are more likely to put themselves at risk.
Allow me to speak as a gay man who is HIV negative and tested. I have always been able to produce a recent test as proof. I have been very selective about the person and type of sex I have to maintain that status.
I don't consider it just luck that I am negative. However, I do see it as being my fault if I did become positive.
Why my fault? Simply, I am wise enough to know people lie. Further, I know not to depend on condoms alone.
One person posted about a women who became positive when her boyfriend "failed to inform her".
Now let's compare her to me.
I bet she had receptive sex. This is simply something I wouldn't do unless long term with a man who I was certain was negative.
I bet she did the deed without a condom. This again would be something I wouldn't do even as a top.
I bet before she reached the age of 25 she had far more sexual partners and had lost her virginity far earlier. It is not my intention to paint women in a negative light. However, I wish to address the implied comment made by the poster that the man was somehow 100% at fault. Studies simply show women are far more sexually active and active sooner than the average male.
I know this is not about rape, which is still a felony, however I do see the two subjects as related. A person who places themselves into a position they are more likely to be raped is more likely to become HIV positive.
I bet this women has placed herself into situations she is more likely to be raped. When meeting a man I always maintained the rule of meeting him in a public place, getting to know him, before taking him back to my place. I stress my place since I knew I could never be surprised. Further, I absolutely never let any alcohol or drugs in my system to hinder my judgement. I even know about date rape drugs and am cautious when receiving a glass of water.
Let's see this from a law enforcement prospective.
A. How do you find the specific individual who caused the sero-conversion when someone has multiple partners over time? There is no DNA test, no date rape kit, and the activity may be months old.
B. How do you prove someone didn't inform the other party? It is easy for either party to lie upon the witness stand. Guilt must be proven without a doubt.
Now for the kicker.
How often has a prosecutor been successfully been able to convict someone of this felony?
If no law enforcement or prosecutors can obtain convictions for this felony offense, then the offense can't be enforced.
If anything, a law like this provides a person with a false sense of security they should not have. If they believe that someone can be convicted for being a liar or failing to inform, then they are more likely to put themselves at risk.
I don't know, but few convictions shouldn't automatically lead to lesser criminal penalties, especially as few convictions could speak to a number of factors, including deterrence based on strict penalties or perhaps difficulty in proving that "x" crime was committed.
Moving along, I can understand your first point. And, yes, I agree that someone who puts him/herself in a position to get infected (absent being raped, of course) shares some responsibility, especially if one put oneself in such a position by engaging in unsafe sexual practices. However, where do you draw the line? Should criminal penalties be lowered against con-artists who are able to sneer the "naive" into forking over large sums of money via some illegal extortionist scheme? I suggest not. Ultimately, putting trust in a criminal to not ********* over (whiled doing nothing illegal yourself) should not make said criminal less liable for the wrongs committed against you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
