Intentionally spreads HIV and blames victim in court room

[Vitamin]

Really? You think that getting married constitutes entering an obvious risk situation?

No, but according to your logic, if we can't trust our sexual partners about their HIV statuses because some get off on spreading the disease, then how can we not be responsible for trusting whom we marry?

In both cases we have nothing but the other's word, and I would actually argue that a marriage takes way more trust than a one night stand.

 

[Willie Boy]

No, but according to your logic, if we can't trust our sexual partners about their HIV statuses because some get off on spreading the disease, then how can we not be responsible for trusting whom we marry?

In both cases we have nothing but the other's word, and I would actually argue that a marriage takes way more trust than a one night stand.

Except that anyone who isn't completely brain-dead has spent time dating (aka getting to know) the individual they eventually marry. Therefore they have far more than just the individual's word, they have firsthand knowledge. As far as the marriage taking far more trust, not really. With a marriage the individual isn't just disappearing, probably to never be heard from again, by morning.... They're going to be sticking around. Therefore its in their own best interests to deal honestly with you. The one night stand is completely different simply because they will likely disappear in the morning, all the lies they tell only have to hold up until then. The marriage route, everything they say has to stand up over time, with many chances to be proven either true or false.

 

[Vitamin]

Except that anyone who isn't completely brain-dead has spent time dating (aka getting to know) the individual they eventually marry. Therefore they have far more than just the individual's word, they have firsthand knowledge. As far as the marriage taking far more trust, not really. With a marriage the individual isn't just disappearing, probably to never be heard from again, by morning.... They're going to be sticking around. Therefore its in their own best interests to deal honestly with you. The one night stand is completely different simply because they will likely disappear in the morning, all the lies they tell only have to hold up until then. The marriage route, everything they say has to stand up over time, with many chances to be proven either true or false.

So explain to me, if that's really how the marriage thing works, why people who are murdered by their spouses aren't responsible for their misplaced trust?

 

[dpnice]

If these women wore condoms they wouldn't be murdered by their spouses; is that what we are saying here?

Yet another ridiculous analogy; how one earth does one equate a marriage with going out having casual sex and not taking any precautions.

 

[Vitamin]

If these women wore condoms they wouldn't be murdered by their spouses; is that what we are saying here?

Yet another ridiculous analogy; how one earth does one equate a marriage with going out having casual sex and not taking any precautions.

Both are ultimately trust issues. Some people are blinded by love. We have no problem with this. Other people are blinded by sex. We have a problem with this because unlike love, sex is considered sleazy, and of course gay sex is seen as the sleaziest of them all.

 

[Soilwork]

and of course gay sex is seen as the sleaziest of them all.

by whom?




.

 

[Vitamin]

by whom?




.

By society at large.

 

[Soilwork]

By society at large, and you apparently.

And me? what have I said that would make you believe that I think gay sex is "the sleaziest of them all?"

What have I said that would make you think I think sex is "sleazy?"

I mean... I'm a big fan of dick sucking and I don't ever feel sleazy while doing it.

 

[Vitamin]

And me? what have I said that would make you believe that I think gay sex is "the sleaziest of them all?"

What have I said that would make you think I think sex is "sleazy?"

I mean... I'm a big fan of dick sucking and I don't ever feel sleazy while doing it.

I'm sorry that I accused personally, that's why I went back and edited the post before you replied.

This topic is really starting to erk me. This all seems pretty fucking obvious to me, and it blows my mind that so many gay men disagree.

 

[Vitamin]

I mean, really; we get it already. Wrap it. But what benefit could possibly be gained from blaming the victim in a criminal case like this? What exactly is the fucking point?

 

[Soilwork]

When my car was broken into and all my cameras were stolen, nobody blamed me for it but my husband DID say "maybe you shouldn't have left all your cameras in the car in that neighborhood at night."

 

[Vitamin]

When my car was broken into and all my cameras were stolen, nobody blamed me for it but my husband DID say "maybe you shouldn't have left all your cameras in the car in that neighborhood at night."

And was your culpabilty enshrined into the law? No. Yet a gay man who gets HIV from someone else's illegal actions is. So in what universe is your blaming the victim helpful here?

 

[Willie Boy]

I mean, really; we get it already. Wrap it. But what benefit could possibly be gained from blaming the victim in a criminal case like this? What exactly is the fucking point?

No you don't get it at all. And it is really quite simple. No one is blaming the "victim" for any criminal activity. All we are saying is that he needs to take responsibility for himself. Face it, he jumped into a situation where the likelihood was at least 50-50 that the other person would be HIV+. He didn't even bother to ask, or to insist on using protection. He can not claim he was duped or lied to. Granted, the HIV+ guy didn't disclose that he is (which is why he was tried and found guilty of it), but that doesn't mean the "victim" can claim he was victimized. At the end of the day we are each responsible for asking the questions we need to in order to make informed decisions. If we forgo the questions we can not claim ignorance as an excuse to shirk responsibility for making bad choices. If the victim had asked one simple question he may have realized he wasn't being told something important and could have chosen to forgo sex and found a safer partner, or at least engaged in safer sex. Then he wouldn't have contracted HIV himself. He can't blame someone else for his own choices. He chose to be careless and now he has to suffer with the consequences for the rest of his life. Hopefully by understanding his errors others don't have to end up with the same consequences themselves when presented with similar situations. Maybe they can learn to ask first and act responsibly. That is all we are saying.

But you would rather everyone just jump into unprotected sex with probable HIV+ hookups and put all the responsibility on the hookup for not answering the unasked question...... At that point there's enough responsibility to go around.

 

[Vitamin]

No you don't get it at all. And it is really quite simple. No one is blaming the "victim" for any criminal activity. All we are saying is that he needs to take responsibility for himself. Face it, he jumped into a situation where the likelihood was at least 50-50 that the other person would be HIV+. He didn't even bother to ask, or to insist on using protection. He can not claim he was duped or lied to. Granted, the HIV+ guy didn't disclose that he is (which is why he was tried and found guilty of it), but that doesn't mean the "victim" can claim he was victimized. At the end of the day we are each responsible for asking the questions we need to in order to make informed decisions. If we forgo the questions we can not claim ignorance as an excuse to shirk responsibility for making bad choices. If the victim had asked one simple question he may have realized he wasn't being told something important and could have chosen to forgo sex and found a safer partner, or at least engaged in safer sex. Then he wouldn't have contracted HIV himself. He can't blame someone else for his own choices. He chose to be careless and now he has to suffer with the consequences for the rest of his life. Hopefully by understanding his errors others don't have to end up with the same consequences themselves when presented with similar situations. Maybe they can learn to ask first and act responsibly. That is all we are saying.

But you would rather everyone just jump into unprotected sex with probable HIV+ hookups and put all the responsibility on the hookup for not answering the unasked question...... At that point there's enough responsibility to go around.

1. 50/50 chance? Bitch, please. Like most gay men of a reasonable attractiveness I've lost count of the number of sexual partners I've had, and as a matter of fact, I haven't had protected sex with all of them either. Guess what? I've never had a STD.

2. If you had actually bothered to read the article instead of leaping to assumptions, you would know that he has a history of lying about his poz status, and may very well have in this particular case. The article did not explicitly say whether he did or not.

3. You could, if you actually had the balls, address my point of what purpose blaming the victim has in our current legal environment, but of course you didn't. Wonder why.

 

[Willie Boy]

1. 50/50 chance? Bitch, please. Like most gay men of a reasonable attractiveness I've lost count of the number of sexual partners I've had, and as a matter of fact, I haven't had protected sex with all of them either. Guess what? I've never had a STD.

In other words you've been lucky. Now the only way you can justify your own behavior is to insist the "victim" is not responsible for making bad choices. This way when you do contract HIV due to your own stupidity you can blame the other guy.

2. If you had actually bothered to read the article instead of leaping to assumptions, you would know that he has a history of lying about his poz status, and may very well have in this particular case. The article did not explicitly say whether he did or not.

I did read the article and noted that. But nowhere in the article did it suggest that was the case in this instance. In fact if it were the case it would have been stated. Instead the "victim's" rush into his decision was brought up. Fact is you are the one leaping to assumptions

3. You could, if you actually had the balls, address my point of what purpose blaming the victim has in our current legal environment, but of course you didn't. Wonder why.

I didn't bother with that invalid point because it has no bearing on the discussion at hand. The discussion is about the responsibility of the individual to protect himself as opposed to simply assuming everyone he meets will be completely forthcoming with potentially hazardous info such as HIV status. If you actually had the brains you would have known this already. If you had the balls you'd step up and take responsibility for your reckless behavior instead of trying to hide behind the suggestion that others take responsibility for your choices should complications ever arise. But you have neither the balls nor the brains..... Do you disclose this to all your potential hookups or do you hide it and hope they are too stupid to ask the questions?

 

[G-Lexington]

Blame is like fertilizer. There's always enough to spread around. It doesn't all need to be dumped in one spot.

Soilwork mentioned checking for traffic before crossing the street. I do the same thing. Reason? I've been struck by cars twice as a pedestrian. Each time I had the right of way. So, in essence, I was "right" and they were "wrong". I don't argue that. But more than being "right", I like "not being struck by cars". Because the satisfaction of knowing I had the right of way tends not to make the scraped knees and sore muscles feel any better. I'd prefer to simply not be hit by said car. So I double-check to make sure an asshole isn't coming barreling through the intersection. Not because I think I'm "wrong" for using the intersection, but because I'd like to remain upright and mobile and alive, thanks.

The guy who caught HIV may have been "completely in the right", and the guy who lied about it "completely in the wrong". Guess what? That guy still has HIV. It doesn't go away because the court proved the guy lied about his status. They can't force the virus out of his body. It's done. I don't know the guy, but I'm guessing the guy would rather be HIV- than "right".

Lex

 

[zombiekiller]

When my car was broken into and all my cameras were stolen, nobody blamed me for it but my husband DID say "maybe you shouldn't have left all your cameras in the car in that neighborhood at night."

I agree with your posts 100% in this thread.

Back when I owned an IT support business (that failed spectacularly and left me in debt), one time I brought with me a couple laptops and some other equipment to a client's office in Chicago. I just left them sitting out in the car and went inside. When I came back out, my car had been broken into and all the equipment were gone.

Was I a victim? Yes I was. Was I completely blameless? Nope. That was incredibly stupid of me for leaving expensive equipment out in clear view while parked inside the city.

 

[Vitamin]

In other words you've been lucky. Now the only way you can justify your own behavior is to insist the "victim" is not responsible for making bad choices. This way when you do contract HIV due to your own stupidity you can blame the other guy.

Um, no bitch.

I did read the article and noted that. But nowhere in the article did it suggest that was the case in this instance. In fact if it were the case it would have been stated. Instead the "victim's" rush into his decision was brought up. Fact is you are the one leaping to assumptions

Why should I assume that he didn't lie? He has before. To do otherwise is just niavte.

I didn't bother with that invalid point because it has no bearing on the discussion at hand. The discussion is about the responsibility of the individual to protect himself as opposed to simply assuming everyone he meets will be completely forthcoming with potentially hazardous info such as HIV status. If you actually had the brains you would have known this already. If you had the balls you'd step up and take responsibility for your reckless behavior instead of trying to hide behind the suggestion that others take responsibility for your choices should complications ever arise. But you have neither the balls nor the brains..... Do you disclose this to all your potential hookups or do you hide it and hope they are too stupid to ask the questions?

Yeah, I'm really under no obligation to take anything you say about me seriously. You're an asshole to everyone, and nobody takes your read of people with any validity because of that, so big yawn to all that, first of all.

Secondly, how is this topic not about how ridiculous, and discriminatory the current law is? You keep saying you read the article, but it seems like I have to spell everything about it out to you. Read the damn article already.

 

[Vitamin]

I agree with your posts 100% in this thread.

Back when I owned an IT support business (that failed spectacularly and left me in debt), one time I brought with me a couple laptops and some other equipment to a client's office in Chicago. I just left them sitting out in the car and went inside. When I came back out, my car had been broken into and all the equipment were gone.

Was I a victim? Yes I was. Was I completely blameless? Nope. That was incredibly stupid of me for leaving expensive equipment out in clear view while parked inside the city.

This would be fine if it the victim's cuplabilty in this case wasn't enshrined into law. What is so fucking hard to understand about this?

 

[Willie Boy]

Um, no bitch.

Yeah, I'm really under no obligation to take anything you say about me seriously. You're an asshole to everyone, and nobody takes your read of people with any validity because of that, so big yawn to all that, first of all.

Ooh. I hit a nerve there.

But nonetheless, I've wasted enough time trying to get you to understand that which is beyond you...... Good luck with your life. Don't bother crying to us when you do contract HIV..... It is just a matter of time.