Intentionally spreads HIV and blames victim in court room

[Vitamin]

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.

Heh.

 

[luckynumbah7]

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.

I actually disagree. You can be blinded by love due to a chemical high that only fades after several months but even then it takes some willful mental foot shuffling to be completely oblivious. And when someone tells you something otherwise yes, whatever happens to you after is now at least in part your responsibility. I'm willing to bet most of the people in new relationships don't experience being blinded by love, either, since there's a very definite timing + people + reactions that needs to occur for it to happen and by no means does everyone whose fallen in love experiences it in the 'blinded' manner.

The chemical high for an erection is a lot like the chemical reaction you get for zeroing in on your favorite dessert when you haven't eaten that day. "Damn that looks good, just one bite....no, no I shouldn't - dinner first otherwise I'll have an upset stomach." It's part and parcel of being an adult. By all means, if you'd like then eat dessert first but don't eschew responsibility if you get an upset stomach.

ime, there's a difference between saying "You got hiv and it's all your fault" and "I know you know the risks of an action you've just participated in willingly, take responsibility for yourself.". It has nothing to do with being a victim, (and he is/was one) but it does have to do with 'facts of life'. Sti's aren't a value judgement but they are, unfortunately, a fact of life. It's why people don't go "What the fuck were you thinking?!" when they hear a spouse gave their partner an sti." Because another fact of life is that marriage = sexual monogamy (hence the "he broke the contract divorce papers" so no sti's enter the picture. No one expects spouses to have to wear condoms because they're generally not allowed, let alone encouraged, to have relations outside a marital bed.

-I do, however, think the one guy who knew he had hiv should get carted off to the tanty for quite a long period, preferably in solitary confinement since he's a known, well, liar on the subject.

 

[Vitamin]

I actually disagree. You can be blinded by love due to a chemical high that only fades after several months but even then it takes some willful mental foot shuffling to be completely oblivious. And when someone tells you something otherwise yes, whatever happens to you after is now at least in part your responsibility. I'm willing to bet most of the people in new relationships don't experience being blinded by love, either, since there's a very definite timing + people + reactions that needs to occur for it to happen and by no means does everyone whose fallen in love experiences it in the 'blinded' manner.

Uh, so you seriously believe Willie Boy that spouses eye each other every second of their lives together? Oh come on. If you're still eyeing everything that your spouse is doing you can't trust them with your money, your property, and your bed, so why would you marry them? That's just pure nonsense. As a matter of fact, I would argue that infatuation probably is where most people have the least blinders. Typically most people, save from middle-schoolers, know infatuation when they see it, and are still capable of analyzing their perspective partner. I can sorta buy that maybe if you come to trust that the prospect isn't planning on killing you in your sleep, that you might go ahead and get married, just to see if it works out, but eventually you either divorce, or just stop eyeing them. You can't keep your eye on someone that close to you forever.

ime, there's a difference between saying "You got hiv and it's all your fault" and "I know you know the risks of an action you've just participated in willingly, take responsibility for yourself.". It has nothing to do with being a victim, (and he is/was one) but it does have to do with 'facts of life'. Sti's aren't a value judgement but they are, unfortunately, a fact of life. It's why people don't go "What the fuck were you thinking?!" when they hear a spouse gave their partner an sti." Because another fact of life is that marriage = sexual monogamy (hence the "he broke the contract divorce papers" so no sti's enter the picture. No one expects spouses to have to wear condoms because they're generally not allowed, let alone encouraged, to have relations outside a marital bed.

Ok...so what?

The chemical high for an erection is a lot like the chemical reaction you get for zeroing in on your favorite dessert when you haven't eaten that day. "Damn that looks good, just one bite....no, no I shouldn't - dinner first otherwise I'll have an upset stomach." It's part and parcel of being an adult. By all means, if you'd like then eat dessert first but don't eschew responsibility if you get an upset stomach.

The lure of sex is way more powerful then an erection. I'm sorry if you can't see that.

-I do, however, think the one guy who knew he had hiv should get carted off to the tanty for quite a long period, preferably in solitary confinement since he's a known, well, liar on the subject.

That's nice, but I still don't see how blaming the victim is supposed to bring this about.

 

[luckynumbah7]

@Vitamin,

It was an example of how 'blinded by love' as an kiddie-corner example, excuse or reasoning to stick your dick in any willing hole and still claim that any sti's contracted are totally not your responsibility whatsoever is bullshit. There's not much of a 'so what' to it. Reply to what was typed or don't. To shrug other types of 'Relationship Trust" off (which you brought up, not I) while pretending that a reply to your specific example of relationship-trust has no bearing because ....you didn't actually give a reason. If you don't have a reply don't pretend you dismissed it because the reasons and/or examples were not sound, it makes you look willfully stupid instead of merely stupidly ignorant.

Second reply, No, it really isn't. The lure of sex isn't sex itself. Nor is arousal or sex itself so mind-boggling that people can't hear the words 'No.". You can sell the lure of sex - but people know the difference between "Gee, that guy looks hot, maybe I'll ask him out in the hopes of sex later" and "I'll just fuck him anyway, who cares if he wants to." The lure of sex is a possibility, having sex is a fact. And I say that specifically because if you can keep from raping someone you can keep from fucking someone sans condom and then acting shocked, shocked I say! that an sti occurred.

You do realize you just gave blanket acceptance for rape, right? Because 'the lure' is apparently more powerful than rational thought?

"I couldn't help myself, I was horny" -the cry of rapists everywhere. Apparently also the rallying cry of people who refuse condom use and talking with their partners before sex while simultaneously not taking responsibility for their own healthcare choices.

-You also, apparently, need a refresher on what blaming the victim actually entails. Because you're really fuckin' off in that respect.

 

[luckynumbah7]

And I say that specifically because if you can keep from raping someone you can keep from fucking someone sans condom and then acting shocked, shocked I say! that an sti occurred.

-because, get this, both of them involve willfully fucking someone else. So if you can keep from raping someone, you can take responsibility for sex sans condom and not insist that taking responsibility for only one of those things is humanly possible.

Unless, of course, you actually think rape is caused by "I couldn't help m'self, no rly!" (which uses the same mental reasoning processes as your "I couldn't help myself" example with the "Blinded by -----", you really need to rethink that. Fucking isn't love and it sure as shit isn't Stockholm syndrome, in case you were gonna try and use that as an example next). In which case, your go-to of Victim-Blamer! isn't only exceedingly, willfully stupid but also one hell of a kick in the face to victims who didn't have a consensual choice in whatever-it-is everywhere.

 

[luckynumbah7]

- there's also that people don't use 'blinded by lust/love' as an excuse to eschew responsibility. One reason for -why- they might not have taken appropriate care, yes. But not a reason for "It wasn't my actions that put me in this situation, oh no!" As if sex was like the weather and under no human's control, give people a break.

 

[Vitamin]

@Vitamin,

It was an example of how 'blinded by love' as an kiddie-corner example, excuse or reasoning to stick your dick in any willing hole and still claim that any sti's contracted are totally not your responsibility whatsoever is bullshit.

And I never said that, anywhere. Nobody has, in this entire thread as matter of fact, so quite literally : so what?

There's not much of a 'so what' to it. Reply to what was typed or don't. To shrug other types of 'Relationship Trust" off (which you brought up, not I) while pretending that a reply to your specific example of relationship-trust has no bearing because ....you didn't actually give a reason. If you don't have a reply don't pretend you dismissed it because the reasons and/or examples were not sound, it makes you look willfully stupid instead of merely stupidly ignorant.

Neither yourself, or anyone else, has provided any reason why they should be viewed any differently. One's short term, the other is long, but so what? Why, when you are the victim of a crime by your other, should you the law view you as partially to blame in one, but not the other?

Second reply, No, it really isn't. The lure of sex isn't sex itself. You can sell the lure of sex - but people know the difference between "Gee, that guy looks hot, maybe I'll ask him out in the hopes of sex later" and "I'll just fuck him anyway, who cares if he wants to." The lure of sex is a possibility, having sex is a fact.

You do realize you just gave blanket acceptance for rape, right? Because 'the lure' is apparently more powerful than rational thought?

I guess Jay Queer wasn't the only one in this topic who was dumb enough to bring up rape. Sorry, two completely different crimes we're talking about here.

 

[G-Lexington]

I still think we're drawing a line the sand that doesn't need to be drawn.

I don't consider myself at fault IN THE SLIGHTEST for getting hit by a car. I completely had the right of way, and the car shouldn't have been going through the intersection when it did. And now, I always look around carefully when crossing an intersection. Not because I'm "pedestrian shaming". But because I don't like getting hit by cars, and just because the law is on my side, I know not everybody is going to be following the laws of the road.

Similarly, if I was going to hook up and bottom for a guy, even if the guy insisted he were clean, I would insist on him wearing a condom. Because guys can lie, and guys can be mistaken about their status. It's unfortunate that the guy got such a short sentence, and I think it's especially upsetting that he might have gotten a reduced sentence because of the suggestion that the guy wasn't being careful. But at the end of the day, the amount of blame and the length of the sentence really doesn't matter. Whether the guy got put in jail for life or got off scot-free, all of it pales next to the fact that "he's now HIV+". And the smartest way to prevent becoming HIV+ is to insist on condoms during anal. And no - that doesn't mean I'm "blaming the victim" or "slut-shaming him", anymore than I think it was my fault I got smacked by that SUV. But again, I'd prefer to be uninjured than "right".

Lex

 

[Vitamin]

I still think we're drawing a line the sand that doesn't need to be drawn.

I don't consider myself at fault IN THE SLIGHTEST for getting hit by a car. I completely had the right of way, and the car shouldn't have been going through the intersection when it did. And now, I always look around carefully when crossing an intersection. Not because I'm "pedestrian shaming". But because I don't like getting hit by cars, and just because the law is on my side, I know not everybody is going to be following the laws of the road.

Similarly, if I was going to hook up and bottom for a guy, even if the guy insisted he were clean, I would insist on him wearing a condom. Because guys can lie, and guys can be mistaken about their status. It's unfortunate that the guy got such a short sentence, and I think it's especially upsetting that he might have gotten a reduced sentence because of the suggestion that the guy wasn't being careful. But at the end of the day, the amount of blame and the length of the sentence really doesn't matter. Whether the guy got put in jail for life or got off scot-free, all of it pales next to the fact that "he's now HIV+". And the smartest way to prevent becoming HIV+ is to insist on condoms during anal. And no - that doesn't mean I'm "blaming the victim" or "slut-shaming him", anymore than I think it was my fault I got smacked by that SUV. But again, I'd prefer to be uninjured than "right".

Lex

There's nothing inherently wrong with feeling this way about the topic, but it's an unhelpful assertion to getting any change in California, or anywhere else. I know you read my post in the condom thread. It's ok to say you just read the quote, and not the whole article. I mean, some articles online are that short. How were you supposed to know?

 

[luckynumbah7]

Huh, I would consider getting hit my responsibility, but not my fault. I'm responsible for my legs moving me out into the possible path of oncoming traffic whether there's a car obeying the rules of the road or not. It's their responsibility to not hit my blind ass but it's my responsibility to try and avoid getting hit. It's one reason for cane training and why you don't see the blind moseying down the sidewalk without a cane even though we technically could so long as the ground is flat. 1/2 the canes purpose is to be a visual indicator to others, not to me. I'm responsible for using it to let others know that they can't pretend I can run out of the way fast enough if their driving skills are lax. As an example of responsibility.

The only thing I don't believe individuals are responsible for are acts of god and others doing illegal shit that have consequences beyond themselves As consensual sex isn't illegal or an act of god I think he's responsible for discussing sex and condom use with partners and yes, wearing one for his own health.

There's nothing slut shaming about "condoms help protect against sti's". It isn't about who is fucking or what acts are done (that would be slut shaming) - it 's about "use common sense and barriers so there's less of a chance of getting and giving disease."

You know, if there's 3 pages of wildly disparate ppl going "uh, common sense, why didn't he have it" most people, instead of wildly complaining into the ether with inaccurate terminology and spurious examples would take a step back and ponder on where, how and why they went wrong, in that order.

 

[Vitamin]

Huh, I would consider getting hit my responsibility, but not my fault. I'm responsible for my legs moving me out into the possible path of oncoming traffic whether there's a car obeying the rules of the road or not. It's their responsibility to not hit my blind ass but it's my responsibility to try and avoid getting hit. It's one reason for cane training and why you don't see the blind moseying down the sidewalk without a cane even though we technically could so long as the ground is flat. 1/2 the canes purpose is to be a visual indicator to others, not to me. As an example of responsibility.

The only thing I don't believe individuals are responsible for are acts of god and others doing illegal shit that have consequences beyond themselves As consensual sex isn't illegal or an act of god I think he's responsible for discussing sex and condom use with partners and yes, wearing one for his own health.

There's nothing slut shaming about "condoms help protect against sti's". It isn't about who is fucking or what acts are done (that would be slut shaming) - it 's about "use common sense and barriers so there's less of a chance of getting and giving disease."

You know, if there's 3 pages of wildly disparate ppl going "uh, common sense, why didn't he have it" most people, instead of wildly complaining into the ether with inaccurate terminology and spurious examples would take a step back and ponder on where, how and why they went wrong, in that order.

Read. The. Fucking. Article.

then

Read. My. Fucking. Posts.

else

Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

 

[G-Lexington]

There's nothing inherently wrong with feeling this way about the topic, but it's an unhelpful assertion to getting any change in California, or anywhere else.

I personally think that "not getting HIV" is more important than the current status of the law, where apparently (as the judge said) she was unable to sentence the guy to more time in jail. But it seems your point is that we're talking about something secondary to the main thrust of the article, which I did read. (Although it took a second time through to understand that the assertion that the guy was "asking for it" couldn't have changed the sentence, if this was indeed as much time as he was able to be put away for.)

Lex

 

[luckynumbah7]

I did read the article. Pray, tell me - in what world do you inhabit does a hookup

A: always tell the truth about sti status

B: always know their own sti status

Is it Narnia? Because pretending either of those is a true thing sure as shit resembles a homo in a closet circa 1980. And I'd like to think we all knew what happened there.

Also note I didn't say that the ass who gave him HIV deliberately was a saint, which I'm sure you'll get 'round to insinuating eventually. Frankly, he was a dick that should be taken behind the barn and shot. And yes, if it was legal I'd do it myself.

 

[Vitamin]

I personally think that "not getting HIV" is more important than the current status of the law, where apparently (as the judge said) she was unable to sentence the guy to more time in jail. But it seems your point is that we're talking about something secondary to the main thrust of the article, which I did read. (Although it took a second time through to understand that the assertion that the guy was "asking for it" couldn't have changed the sentence, if this was indeed as much time as he was able to be put away for.)

Lex

The fact that people should be wrapping it has been beaten to death repeatedly. Some people are still going to put themselves in high risk situations no matter what you tell them.

Now why is this more important than the "personal responsibility" approach? Because it's tied to a fanciful version of health care, the idea that everyone is individually responsible for their own health, and that their descions affect no one outside of themselves.

While this fallacy was made obvious only with the Affordable Care Act, it has always been the reality of modern American, or any modern healthcare system in the world. It doesn't matter how public or how private a healthcare system is in the 21st century, we're paying for this guy's medical bills due to HIV, and now we have to pay for his victim's too. Why should this be tolerated? Why is personal responsibility more important in the context of this thread?

 

[G-Lexington]

It doesn't matter how public or how private a healthcare system is in the 21st century, we're paying for this guy's medical bills due to HIV, and now we have to pay for his victim's too. Why should this be tolerated? Why is personal responsibility more important in the context of this thread?

Now, I've never been the quickest gargoyle on the perch, but I'm not sure I understand the jump to healthcare and who's gonna foot the bill. That certainly wasn't the thrust of the article - which you seemed very adamant that nobody was reading. At least, I don't think the standard response to the article would be "and now the American taxpayer will have to pay for another HIV patient - this is outrageous!" I think I understand the point that you're trying to make, but I don't think it invalidates the point of "personal responsibility", either.

The guy who drove into me, by the way? He was drunk. After hitting me, he hit another car, then drove off. The cops came and pulled him from the car - he couldn't stand up, he was so drunk. I decided to go to the trial and see how it turned out.

All charges were dropped. "Insufficient evidence."

And yet I'm still saying I look both ways before crossing the street. Whether he was put away for life or he got off scot-free.

Lex

 

[luckynumbah7]

....no one said they wouldn't pay for his healthcare. If he lived in the USA and we had universal healthcare or he qualified mor Medicaid, et cetera and so forth of course healthcare would be paid. His healthcare coverage in Canada wouldn't be in dispute. God knows about everywhere else. Why do you keep bringing up things that have nothing to with the article?

 

[Vitamin]

Now, I've never been the quickest gargoyle on the perch, but I'm not sure I understand the jump to healthcare and who's gonna foot the bill. That certainly wasn't the thrust of the article - which you seemed very adamant that nobody was reading. At least, I don't think the standard response to the article would be "and now the American taxpayer will have to pay for another HIV patient - this is outrageous!" I think I understand the point that you're trying to make, but I don't think it invalidates the point of "personal responsibility", either.

The guy who drove into me, by the way? He was drunk. After hitting me, he hit another car, then drove off. The cops came and pulled him from the car - he couldn't stand up, he was so drunk. I decided to go to the trial and see how it turned out.

All charges were dropped. "Insufficient evidence."

And yet I'm still saying I look both ways before crossing the street. Whether he was put away for life or he got off scot-free.

Lex

The article may not have specifically mentioned healthcare at all, but many people in this thread seemed to think personal responsibility was a great healthcare plan(that wasn't in the article either). They were the one's who brought it up, not me, and if you really look at it, so did you.

Perhaps the views of both sides are based on different healthcare strategies. I know which one I support.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Bullshit - no one here suggested that his or anyone's' healthcare coverage should be employed via bootstraps and the 'you deserve it' popularity contest with regards to mistakes.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Do you really not understand the difference between acknowledging that your actions have an affect on your health and someone saying 'let 'em die?'.

Because they're really, really not the same thing. Like, at all. Not even a little bit.

 

[Vitamin]

Bullshit - no one here suggested that his or anyone's' healthcare coverage should be employed via bootstraps and the 'you deserve it' popularity contest with regards to mistakes.

Oh really?

No he isn't. The sex was consensual,so any suggestion of rape, or attempted comparison, is moot. What we have is the nasty asshole who went around and apparently stated he was negative while looking to hook up. He's guilty of intentionally infecting at least one person, the victim. We all agree on that.

The point many here are making is that the victim isn't completely blameless as far as the infection. HE blindly ran directly to someone who should have been considered a potential output of STDs. HE blindly chose NOT to use protection. With all the news coverage of issues like this it isn't like he didn't know better, he just chose NOT to care until after the fact. If the victim had been raped, or insisted on protection (and it ended being sabotaged by the guy) then yes, the victim could absolve himself of responsibility. But as he willingly went along, knowing the potential risks (or at least not caring about them), well he could have avoided it.

The fact is we are each responsible for our own health and well-being. If we don't care enough to take precautions we can't hold ourselves blameless should something happen. That's like going to the firing range and darting out in front of the shooters and expecting not to end up getting shot. You may get lucky and dodge a bullet or two, but sooner or later its gonna happen.

I completely agree.

I don't feel sorry for the creep who infected the guy at all (he deserves whatever he gets), but I wouldn't call the guy he infected a "victim" unless he was raped or cheated on in a long term relationship where reasonable trust would have been broken. Also, if the guy did everything he could to reasonably protect himself, like wear a condom (DUH!!!), and it broke, or was somehow tampered with by the guy so as to unknowingly infect him, then yeah, I would call the guy a victim.

No, people are responsible for their own health in consensual sexual situations. If the guy willingly didn't choose to wear the condom and decided to trust a stranger (even a guy he just started dating - who immediately ditches condoms when they first start dating??), then unfortunately I think he should be prepared to face the consequences of his actions.

People lie, people suck. So you have to prepare for it.

So I'll just go out and say it - the "victim" in this case was a moron.

And basically, Lex's whole post here.

I personally think that "not getting HIV" is more important than the current status of the law, where apparently (as the judge said) she was unable to sentence the guy to more time in jail. But it seems your point is that we're talking about something secondary to the main thrust of the article, which I did read. (Although it took a second time through to understand that the assertion that the guy was "asking for it" couldn't have changed the sentence, if this was indeed as much time as he was able to be put away for.)

Lex

Oh, and you think people weren't saying the victim deserved what he got? Are actually reading this thread? They're obviously at a minimum implying it.