Write a Comment
63 Comments
INFORMED CONSENT is the only legal requirement. Condom use is nothing more than a personal choice. If I am HIV-, and I knowingly choose to have 'unprotected' sex with an HIV+ guy, that is strictly my business and my freedom of choice. Those of you who fancy yourselves to be self-appointed condom police have no say whatsoever in my private sex life. And likewise, the courts & law enforcement have ZERO authority to interfere in my personal choice to opt out of condom use in my private sex life.
Jose, there's more than one kind of protection. if the convicted man was medication-adherent and had a consistently undetectable viral load, the risk of transmission was negligible, and certainly lower risk than walking outside in an active thunderstorm or crossing a busy NYC intersection during rush hour. The jury accepts the defendant's disclosure claim...they convicted on spurious reasoning that endangers every poz person. if he is guilty of rape, then THAT is what he should be convicted of.
Wow, slipper slope. As poz people we do have the responsibility to protect others who believe they are negative, even if they don't care to protect themselves. I have had several negative boyfriends or dates, who in a few moments of passion, lost their better judgement after I disclosed my status. I still chose to protect them because it is the right thing to do and it is my responsibilty to not contribute to this epidemic. We should know better.
Brian, disclosure and sexual segregation are just polite ways of describing patterns of behavior that create modern leper colonies, and they're about as effective for them and damaging to us. If you're a gay man who is barebacking strangers, you're poz-end of story. The idea that we shouldn't have consensual unprotected sex after disclosing is indicative of a double standard that we'd never impose on people with any other bad communicable disease, and shows how irrational the issue is.
It's not clear from the original article that the defendant actually told his partner he was HIV+. He says he did, but the partner says he didn't. And it's worth noting the partner came forward after hearing about other men the defendant had infected without telling them he had HIV. Sounds like the jury got it right to me.
As an HIV positive man, I have a responsibility to disclose and inform...I also have the right to NOT have unprotectd sex with others regardless of their disclosure to me. I would not want to cause anyone the grief I went through when I tested positive.
A more accurate title would have been "Multiple sex offender found guilty of transmitting HIV despite arguing consent". This is probably not a battle we want to fight. Further, I wonder, why is there never any compassion for the victim, who is now also poz? By some accounts he maintains that he was drugged and raped-hardly "informed". We should be wary of the precedent this sets, and we're right to fear a growing double standard in protection, but the defendant probably belongs in prison.
Sanjuanboy
although, a poz person has an added responsibility to not infect others,people also have to protect themselves. Let's not forget his accuser was a bartender in a gay bar. Need I say more, we all know how they "get around." Sad, but true. I believe it that he informed his partner that night, but probably due to alcohol and drugs consented to unsafe intercourse. I know this is judgemental,but I've worked in gay bars years ago. I know the lifestyle and it's sickening.
August 10, 2012 • San Juan, PR