Newest Members
rhyoung, Jefferson22, OxfordArms, Anony_mous, Drew6991x
12367 Registered Users
Today's Birthdays
bluesky (44), Brother B+ (48), emal7717 (53), estuardo (52), kwf777 (56), LeeAnne (30), mapleleafsn (52), otherside (61), ronnie (59), Scott1962 (52), thrive-n-survive (42), tom3065 (36)
Who's Online
1 registered (1 invisible), 18 Guests and 6 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
12367 Members
74 Forums
63561 Topics
444084 Posts

Max Online: 418 @ 07/02/12 07:29 AM
Twitter
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#332564 - 05/30/10 05:27 PM A Question
jls Offline


Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 1142
In the community where I'm from in Canada there is a controversy occurring within the gay community surrounding a man who is HIV+ and is up on attempted murder charges for failing to disclose his status to numerous partners that he subsequently infected. Among others I've spoken to it seems that I am in the minority on this issue since I don't believe this should be a criminal matter. I say so since fundamentally I believe it is up to every person to protect themselves against STDs and in this day and age there is no excuse for not knowing enough to use a condom. It’s called using universal precautions so in my estimation the onus is on every individual to protect themselves if they choose to have sex. We all know there are people of every orientation who will lie or not tell the truth about many things in order to obtain sex so in light of this I feel it is the height of naivety to not protect oneself against STDs no matter what a prospective partner says or doesn’t say. Certainly it is immoral and unethical to deliberately withhold your HIV status from your partner(s) but should it be considered a criminal matter? We are talking about consenting partners here so outside of a sexual assault I think not. Anyways like I said I seem to be in the minority in my opinion so I won’t be offended if others here disagree with me. I just think debate on issues like this is important and healthy for all of us to engage in so feedback is appreciated. Thanks. JS

_________________________
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.


Top
#332575 - 05/30/10 08:07 PM Re: A Question [Re: jls]
Geeders Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 09/03/08
Posts: 1901
Loc: Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
Hi J:

Actually, I don't think I disagree with anything you've suggested. All adults entering into consentual sexual relations should take equal responsibility to stay, and play safely. No doubt about it in my mind.

However, where a person deliberately conseals, or lies about their HIV status, I think the question of intent arises.

As I'm sure you know, in our country, even spitting on someone can be seen as an assault. I don't think it was always this way before the 80's, but it is certainly seen as an assault now. In my mind, mostly due to the HIV factor.

I think knowing that one is infected, and deliberately lying about, or consealing that fact does constitute an assault. Otherwise, the newly exposed person who becomes so without taking their own precautions not only becomes exposed, but is also blamed for being the victim.

Just my 2 cents on a warm Sunday evening... whistle

Jim
PS Did you see the blurb I put up about The Men's Project film premiere?

_________________________
My name is Jim
WoR Mysthaven 2008, Level 2 WoR Alta 2009, Kirkridge 2010, 2011, Oprah 200 men

Top
#332584 - 05/30/10 09:12 PM Re: A Question [Re: Geeders]
jls Offline


Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 1142
The question of intent is interesting. On one hand a person knows they have HIV yet they choose to conceal it but for what purpose? Is it to deliberately harm their partner or just to have sex? In this context I see a difference when it comes to intent.

_________________________
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.


Top
#332807 - 06/02/10 06:20 PM Re: A Question [Re: jls]
philistine Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 04/27/09
Posts: 210
Loc: Oregon
If the HIV status is concealed I would consider it a civil matter. If someone knows they are HIV + and does not disclose and engages in unsafe behavior, that person should be liable for 1/2 of the other persons medical bills.

_________________________
Mike

"No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself" - Nietzsche

Top
#333032 - 06/05/10 05:30 PM Re: A Question [Re: jls]
kidneythis Offline


Registered: 11/08/09
Posts: 1558
Originally Posted By: jls
The question of intent is interesting. On one hand a person knows they have HIV yet they choose to conceal it but for what purpose? Is it to deliberately harm their partner or just to have sex? In this context I see a difference when it comes to intent.


I think you are missing something here. To harm their partner and to just have sex is the same thing in this case. When one has HIV and knows it, to expose anyone else to it is to harm them. It would be no different to take a revolver with one round in it and spin the barrel then pull the trigger as you held it to their head.
Especially if that other person is not protecting themself. That is when the Positive person is obliged morally and legaly to speak up.
Precautions are not 100%, so even if the person is personally responsible they can get HIV.

The certain knowledge that ones potential partner has HIV will often be the deciding factor to say no for most people.

To my mind there is no argument. If you are Positive and know it you have the responsibility to inform all of your partners in advance if you are so reckless as to still be having sex with uninfected people.

It wouldn't be a question if it were typhoid, or heptitus, or almost any virulent deadly disease that passes person to person with contact.

_________________________
As Mark Twain once quipped, history may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

Top
#333035 - 06/05/10 06:35 PM Re: A Question [Re: kidneythis]
Geeders Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 09/03/08
Posts: 1901
Loc: Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: kidneythis

It wouldn't be a question if it were typhoid, or heptitus, or almost any virulent deadly disease that passes person to person with contact.


I'll add one other example. TB. When a person known to have TB deliberately continues to have contact with people, in such a way as to expose other people to the disease unnecessarily, our legal system (Canada's at least) does stipulate conditions under which that person's freedom of movement can be restricted, thereby stemming the spread of the diease. There was also a case not too long ago when a passenger on an airplane knowingly boarded a trans-atlantic flight with active TB. CDC quarantines man

Now, just to be clear here...There is no reason in the world to treat people with HIV like we do people with TB. The only similarity in these examples is the irresponsible behaviour that both can express if they do not take their conditions seriously, and fail to treat those around in them in daily life with the respect we all deserve.

Jim

_________________________
My name is Jim
WoR Mysthaven 2008, Level 2 WoR Alta 2009, Kirkridge 2010, 2011, Oprah 200 men

Top
#338295 - 08/14/10 11:45 AM Re: A Question [Re: Geeders]
prisonerID Offline
Greeter Emeritus
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 02/17/08
Posts: 1247
Loc: Oklahoma
The person who is HIV positive should be held liable if they are knowingly exposing others during sex. I just cannot see it any other way if a man or woman know that they are positive.

_________________________
Broad statements often miss their true mark.

Top
#339271 - 08/30/10 07:11 PM Re: A Question [Re: jls]
Danbuff Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 08/03/07
Posts: 249
Loc: NY state
Since there is insufficient information in the original post,I find it difficult to respond to the case mentioned. I do agree it takes two to tango and protection is a mutual issue just as much as mutually consentual sex.

I must consider the sex involved before deciding on this one. Let's assume the infected person was the recipient of unprotected sex. If that were the case, why is there a need to disclose when he is the person at greater risk. Then I defer to points made earlier; it is a mutual decision and depending on what actually occured it seems difficult for me to presume to know who was actually at risk. I also think it demonstrates a lack of character when an individual does not share information that the partner may want to know. If no one asked and he never told, I say two people are engaged in risky behavior. But that's just my two cents too!

_________________________
When you stumble, make it part of the dance.

Top
#341591 - 10/07/10 06:02 AM Re: A Question [Re: Danbuff]
blaidd Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 12/01/00
Posts: 240
Loc: Australia
My take on this is that it is criminally negligent to knowingly put someone in danger of contracting HIV by not taking precautions, because that is assault in my book. However, I do not think that it should be a crime to withhold your status from someone. It may be morally dubious, I am not disputing that aspect.

I agree wholeheartedly that it is our own personal responsibility to take universal precautions, which means practising "safer" sex. We can never be sure that another person has HIV, Hepatitis or whatever and they may not even know anyway. We all take a risk when we have sex, it is about limiting that risk. We should look after ourselves by suspecting that every partner is a potential carrier.

I had a partner who was HIV+ as he had contracted it from a previous long term partner who lied to him about his HIV status. My partner contracted HIV in the late 80's, when safe sex education was still in its early days. I loved my partner and so we practised safer sex, all forms, and I remained HIV-. Sadly my partner became ill and died after we'd been together for 2 years in 1997. As far as I am concerned my partner was given a death sentence by someone who knew they were HIV+, and that is reprehensible.

It is a tricky subject. It also comes down to trust. With my last long term partner, of 8 years, we decided to get tested together once we formed a committed relationship, so we knew what our status was. The decision we chose to make was to place trust in one another. That is not for everyone, but it worked for us, and I think that any couple whether straight or gay has to come to decide what's right for them. Let's face it, if no one put trust in one another, the straights (tongue in cheek) would never procreate.

Anyway, that's just some of my random thoughts on this issue.

_________________________
Blaidd (pronounced as blaith/blithe) is a welsh word meaning wolf.

Top
#344526 - 11/08/10 10:08 PM Re: A Question [Re: Danbuff]
ShyBear Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 02/08/05
Posts: 149
Loc: The American South
Originally Posted By: Danbuff
If that were the case, why is there a need to disclose when he is the person at greater risk. Then I defer to points made earlier; it is a mutual decision and depending on what actually occured it seems difficult for me to presume to know who was actually at risk.

While unprotected receptive anal sex is the highest risk activity for HIV and most other STDs, the insertive partner is also at risk. The rectal lining can easily develop micro-tears that bleed enough to transmit the virus. Put another way, if an HIV+ man was always & truly exclusively "top" in both oral & anal sex, how did he get infected?


Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >


Moderator:  Chase Eric, ModTeam 

I agree that my access and use of the MaleSurvivor discussion forums and chat room is subject to the terms of this Agreement. AND the sole discretion of MaleSurvivor.
I agree that my use of MaleSurvivor resources are AT-WILL, and that my posting privileges may be terminated at any time, and for any reason by MaleSurvivor.