POZ Community Forums
Main Forums => Living With HIV => Topic started by: texas_stud on August 24, 2010, 12:18:54 am
-
hello. do i need to tell the broads that i pick up at the strip club or the guys that give me head when i get drunk that i have aids.
i am confused and i dont think anybodys gonna love me now.
im also afraid that women are gonna know by looking at me.
im muscular and a stud but im afraid the aids is gonna show in my face.
thank you for your advice.
gino
-
From reading your other posts, you recently found out you're HIV poz? And, you're a stud stripper with a big cock? If you were just recently infected and still have a "stud" body, I don't think anyone looking at you could tell you have HIV. This happens when people really progress to AIDS and lose a bunch of weight or in those who took earlier meds that caused fat redistribution. And, many of those people actually have stud bodies, too, once they get on a good regimen.
Do you know what your CD4 and viral load is? By the way, it is virtually impossible to get HIV from letting someone give you oral. Help me out everyone.....there has never been a documented case, right? It is very, very unlikely to get infected if you were the one performing oral. If all you have done with guys is let them give you oral, then you got HIV from the women you have unprotected sex with. You don't mention any kind of IV drug use.
Modified:
To your question: If you still plan to have unprotected sex, then you need to inform your partners you have HIV. Many would debate whether morally you should disclose if you're using condoms. I think most would say you should disclose even if you use condoms. I know I would want to know in case the condom broke. If the condom ever broke, your partner could get PEP within 72 hours to possibly prevent infection.
-
Gino, you might have better luck with women loving you if you stop calling us broads. I find that term offensive and so do most other women. So knock it off in these forums, please.
It's always best to disclose if you're going to have sex. You also need to check out the laws in your state - in some states, and I believe Texas is one of them, you can be prosecuted for not disclosing before sex even if no transmission takes place and condoms are used.
Nobody can tell you have hiv just by looking at you. And do you actually have an aids diagnosis or have you only been diagnosed with hiv? There is a difference.
-
hello. do i need to tell the broads that i pick up at the strip club or the guys that give me head when i get drunk that i have aids.
i am confused and i dont think anybodys gonna love me now.
im also afraid that women are gonna know by looking at me.
im muscular and a stud but im afraid the aids is gonna show in my face.
thank you for your advice.
gino
You could always tell them as you're riding them on the bike. They might not be able to hear you over third gear, but hey... that's their problem not yours, right?
-
http://criminalhivtransmission.blogspot.com/2010/08/texas-man-gets-15-years-for-one-off.html
Saturday, 14 August 2010
Texas: Another 'deadly weapon' HIV exposure conviction: 15 years for one-off sexual encounter
A 26 year-old man from the small Texan town of Copperas Cove has been sentenced to 15 years in prison with an additional $3000 fine after pleading guilty to charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
The aggravated assault? Having one-time consensual unprotected sex with a 16 year-old male after the two met on Grindr. The deadly weapon? HIV, of course.
The details of the man's arrest, including a link to a photocopy of the affadavit of charges, were first published last November on the website of a local TV news station.
The victim learned through another "Grinder" user that [the man] claimed to be HIV-positive. Police say [he] admitted that he was HIV positive during an interview with investigators. According to the affidavit, [he] did not inform his victim that he was HIV-positive.
Yesterday the local TV news station reported on the 15 year sentence handed down by the 52nd District Court noting that the man had previously pleaded guilty as charged in June.
_________________________
You don't have "the AIDS" until your blood work and the doctor tells decides you have "the AIDS".
HIV+ does not equal "the AIDS".
And if you have AIDS, you can take the medicine. This will help reduce but technically does not completely eliminate the chance that you will pass the virus.
For a fuck, you have to use a condom whether its a guy or a woman you fuck.
It appears in Texas, it is a crime if you fuck without telling. In some states it is - even if you do NOT transmit.
This case is strange because on some other sites it says there is not a law for criminal transmission of HIV in TEXAS.
Just know this: in Texas you can be charged with a crime if you do not tell people.
Also there is the question of respect for the people you have sex with.
Have a nice day.
-
So, Gino, what are you going to do?
-
Tell 'em a hookah smoking caterpillar has given you the call....
-
Gino, you might have better luck with women loving you if you stop calling us broads. I find that term offensive and so do most other women. So knock it off in these forums, please.
It's always best to disclose if you're going to have sex. You also need to check out the laws in your state - in some states, and I believe Texas is one of them, you can be prosecuted for not disclosing before sex even if no transmission takes place and condoms are used.
Nobody can tell you have hiv just by looking at you. And do you actually have an aids diagnosis or have you only been diagnosed with hiv? There is a difference.
At least he did not call the guys "Cock Suckers".
Billy
-
This post gives me a headache, but I found the article about disclosure interesting at least. I wonder if the 16y/o is POZ now?
-
Wow---so sorry to learn of your thread-induced headache.
If you clicked on the link of the interesting article and followed the sequence to the TV report you would have learned the answer to your question...it's highlighted in red so it is easy to find. To further clarify, exposure October 16 (derived from affidavit in the blog links) and guilty plea June 2010, so 8 months out and with a motivated mother protecting the sixteen year old's health, you can bet there were multiple follow-up tests.
GATESVILLE - A Copperas Cove man with HIV was sentenced to 15 years in prison on Friday for having unprotected sex with a teenage boy last year.
In Oct. 2009, 26-year-old Christopher Everett met a 16-year-old boy on an adult social networking app for the i-Phone called "Grinder." The two talked on the phone, met in person and went to Everett's home in Copperas Cove.
The teen told police that they had unprotected sex and later discovered through another "Grinder" member that Everett was HIV positive.
During an interview with investigators, Everett admitted he was infected with HIV and did not inform the teen.
He pleaded guilty to Aggravated Assault with A Deadly Weapon in June, with the deadly weapon being the virus.
Everett's attorney argued for parole, because the victim's blood tests haven't tested positive for HIV. State prosecutors said the act was like "pointing a loaded gun at someone, and then it not going off."
Everett was sentenced in the 52nd District Court to 15 years in prison and must pay a $3,000 fine.
-
Thanks for pointing that out. I just hope the 16 y/o stayed neg!
-
Hi Newbie numbersguy, and everyone else, such as the OP.
If you want to learn even more about the debates of criminalisation and HIV transmission, here is another recent article:
http://www.towleroad.com/2010/08/stop-or-my-hiv-will-shoot.html
I'm going to start a new thread about this now.
-
HAHAHAHA @ "Stop or my HIV will shoot" that is so clever.
Aw now I'm sad because that made me think of "Stop or my Mom will shoot" with Estelle Getty :(
-
Yes you are supposed to tell. In most states you can go to prison for not telling. I think in a lot of ways it is just a radical right wing attempt to encourage stigma and to try to use that stigma ( fear) to make people afraid to bang away . Tell them, bag it , and bang away to your hearts content. Both of you will be safe. It can take years ( in my case 15) WITHOUT treatment before you show any appearance of wasting. We have a friend that is nearing 30 years and still looks great.
-
In most states you can go to prison for not telling.
With a condom?
-
With a condom?
The worst is that I've seen whole articles on these cases that don't even bother to mention a) what they did, and b) whether they wore condoms or not. As if none of that matters--only whether there was disclosure.
-
The worst is that I've seen whole articles on these cases that don't even bother to mention a) what they did, and b) whether they wore condoms or not. As if none of that matters--only whether there was disclosure.
Which is why I did a quick google on the gay Texan that someone just posted and turned up that he did not use a condom with the 16 year old. And yes, I agree that reporting is often shoddy on this part.
-
With a condom?
Pretty sure the non-disclosure is the criminal aspect. Using a condom or not doesn't seem to matter. I know when I was given the list of my new reduced civil liberties I had to sign that I was never allowed to have sex without condoms again and that I must disclose my new status to any future sexual partners. This was before a western blot confirmation fyi.
-
Which is why I did a quick google on the gay Texan that someone just posted and turned up that he did not use a condom with the 16 year old. And yes, I agree that reporting is often shoddy on this part.
And the good news (drum-roll-please) if you do go to prison for infecting someone with HIV you would NOT be placed in the General Population, this wouldn't happen if your Gay as well........the reason why
needs no explanation......
-
Pretty sure the non-disclosure is the criminal aspect. Using a condom or not doesn't seem to matter. I know when I was given the list of my new reduced civil liberties I had to sign that I was never allowed to have sex without condoms again and that I must disclose my new status to any future sexual partners. This was before a western blot confirmation fyi.
Is that the case in "most" states as Granny stated, or just the respective hellholes you live in?
-
And the good news (drum-roll-please) if you do go to prison for infecting someone with HIV you would NOT be placed in the General Population, this wouldn't happen if your Gay as well........the reason why
needs no explanation......
You mean you'd be in solitary confinement? Or is there a special HIV+ ward?
-
Is that the case in "most" states as Granny stated, or just the respective hellholes you live in?
It's all done state by state, but I'm pretty sure that's the standard.
Denb: Most states no longer segregate HIV+ prisoners.
-
Pretty sure the non-disclosure is the criminal aspect. Using a condom or not doesn't seem to matter. I know when I was given the list of my new reduced civil liberties I had to sign that I was never allowed to have sex without condoms again and that I must disclose my new status to any future sexual partners. This was before a western blot confirmation fyi.
That must have been horrifying. I was given nothing of the kind.
-
You mean you'd be in solitary confinement? Or is there a special HIV+ ward?
Depends on what State you were convicted in and sent to prison in, in Calif. and the State that I now live in NM they would have you in a 24-hour medical-ward, if you took a lot of Meds, and were sick, like most of us here in this forum, if your gay and didn't have HIV you would be placed in the Gay tank with all of the other gays, if you were str8 with HIV you would still NOT be in placed the General Population.....it varies
State by State.....
-
http://www.springerlink.com/content/xw63112575173076/
says 23 states make it a crime to screw without disclosure it doesn't bother to list those states.
-
I know when I was given the list of my new reduced civil liberties I had to sign that I was never allowed to have sex without condoms again and that I must disclose my new status to any future sexual partners. This was before a western blot confirmation fyi.
Are you sure? The only thing I had to sign was my understanding that I had HIV and that I must disclose to any future sex partners. What else was on the "list"? Trey, if I was you I would catch the next 18 wheeler out of dodge.
-
It's all done state by state, but I'm pretty sure that's the standard.
In general people are prosecuted under existing law for transmitting HIV or exposing others to it -- this can't be done when using a condom correctly unless you believe there's some massive incidence rate of breakage, which I know you do not. I know in Iowa it's against the law full stop regardless of transmission possibility. I think most convictions fall under "aggravated assault" laws, so there must be intent to harm. Iowa has a specific HIV tranmission law. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
http://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/download/456
source (http://www.thebody.com/content/legal/art236.html)
Legal Ramifications
Currently about 27 states have established criminal penalties for knowingly exposing or transmitting HIV to someone else. In California, the "Willful Exposure" law (although narrowly written and difficult to prosecute), makes exposing someone else to HIV (whether they become infected or not) a felony punishable by up to eight years in prison. In Alabama, you can be prosecuted for "Conducting yourself in manner likely to transmit the disease."
...
In California, you cannot be prosecuted criminally if you use a condom (whether you disclose your status or not). You cannot be prosecuted criminally for oral sex.
-
The only thing I had to sign was my understanding that I had HIV and that I must disclose to any future sex partners.
Even when using a condom?
-
Even when using a condom?
The law seem to be somewhat vague in that area :)
-
The law seem to be somewhat vague in that area :)
In which state?
-
In Mississippi is where I had my interview with the DoH. There were 6 bullet points but I was so out of it while I was there I only remember a couple of them. I must disclose my status to any partner before I engage in sex with them. I must use a condom. If I'm found to be in violation of those two provisions I can be placed under quarantine for a first offense and imprisoned for a second offense.
While trying to find those 6 points right now I found this though...
* Mississippi state law does not require STDs and HIV/AIDS education. Local school boards decide whether or not to teach sex ed and which subjects this education must cover and the grade level in which topics are introduced.
* If STDs and HIV/AIDS education is taught, then it must be age appropriate and abstinence must be covered and stressed as the only completely effective protection against unplanned pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV/AIDS when transmitted sexually.
* Teaching about contraceptives, such as condoms, the Pill, or the Patch, is not required.
Nice Mississippi, nice.
Of course now I live in Louisiana and I KNOW there are pretty hefty criminalization laws here.
-
What in the Hell are bullet points w/ DOH, in my 20yrs. of having HIV/AIDS of living in Calif. and now NM, I have NEVER heard of anything like this before, nor have I EVER been ask anything like this EVER ??? maybe after 20 yrs. I've somehow grandfathered into the -State-DOH system, and this isn't required I suppose, after so many yrs.
-
Trey, your first comment on this asserted "It's all done state by state, but I'm pretty sure that's the standard", not that it's what's done in Mississippi or Louisiana. I offered evidence to the contrary, because as far as I can tell most of the forum's readers are neither from Mississippi or Louisiana.
-
I know when I was given the list of my new reduced civil liberties I had to sign that I was never allowed to have sex without condoms again and that I must disclose my new status to any future sexual partners. This was before a western blot confirmation fyi.
you had to sign something? damn....that seems a bit messed up :-\
-
Here in Missouri you can definitely go to prison for non disclosure. The statute specificly states that use of protection is not a defense. The county HIV monitor gives us a copy of this every 6 months and makes us sign a letter that we got a copy. seems like the judges are tickled pink to get the infected people off the street. Makes my blood boil. >:( No wonder people are scared to get tested. Given the radical "christian" right ways of Texas I am sure they treat people no better. The Midwest is the same from Iowa to the Rio Grande.
-
That is amazingly ridiculous...akin to The Scarlet Letter or early Naziism, huh? Now, I understand why the other thread has generated so much heat.
-
Oh, and for those of you who want to argue with what I just said about use of protection is not a defense as you have in the past, my win scan no-longer works, but if you PM me a fax number, I will be glad to fax you my copy. Yes, this one subject that makes me bare my fangs and my fur stand on end
-
Even when using a condom?
What exactly does one look like? ;) Seriously though, when I was going through the health department for medical services, in the beginning, it really wasin't approached in the manner of using protection to protect others. She was really big on instilling the thought in her patients that the last thing you wanted to do is catch something else at this stage in the game.
I do vaguely remember something being said about it being unlawful to transmit the virus to others, which was understood already on my part I guess.
Here in Missouri you can definitely go to prison for non disclosure. The statute specificly states that use of protection is not a defense. The county HIV monitor gives us a copy of this every 6 months and makes us sign a letter that we got a copy. seems like the judges are tickled pink to get the infected people off the street. Makes my blood boil. >:( No wonder people are scared to get tested. Given the radical "christian" right ways of Texas I am sure they treat people no better. The Midwest is the same from Iowa to the Rio Grande.
I have actually heard people say they do not want to know...
-
That is amazingly ridiculous...akin to The Scarlet Letter or early Naziism, huh? Now, I understand why the other thread has generated so much heat.
That, and the fact that several members aggressively support that sort of thing.
Self-loathing is never pretty, and when it is used as an excuse to hurt others, it is damned ugly.
-
Oh, and for those of you who want to argue with what I just said about use of protection is not a defense as you have in the past, my win scan no-longer works, but if you PM me a fax number, I will be glad to fax you my copy. Yes, this one subject that makes me bare my fangs and my fur stand on end
It's not that I don't believe you, I just think it's important that people have a link to factual information for this topic, especially as it varies from state to state. And just because a case manager says something doesn't mean it's correct legal advice.
I actually find it really odd that there's not a section of poz.com that lists what's-what state by state as regards this issue, but they're probably afraid of opening themselves up to legal exposure or something.
-
Here in Missouri you can definitely go to prison for non disclosure. The statute specificly states that use of protection is not a defense. The county HIV monitor gives us a copy of this every 6 months and makes us sign a letter that we got a copy. seems like the judges are tickled pink to get the infected people off the street. Makes my blood boil. >:( No wonder people are scared to get tested. Given the radical "christian" right ways of Texas I am sure they treat people no better. The Midwest is the same from Iowa to the Rio Grande.
I really feel of the pozies out in the midwest, here in the southwest it's a little different, and most pozies aren't treated that way, but, it varies State to State I suppose, and I've NEVER heard of any GOP Politico, local, State, or Religious groups ever try to demonize anyone with HIV/AIDS here in the good ole Southwest ???
-
Trey, your first comment on this asserted "It's all done state by state, but I'm pretty sure that's the standard", not that it's what's done in Mississippi or Louisiana. I offered evidence to the contrary, because as far as I can tell most of the forum's readers are neither from Mississippi or Louisiana.
I actually posted later correcting myself to say that it's 23 states that require you to disclose with any potential sexual partner. So that means 46% or roughly half of them. I could not find a definitive list of which 23 it is however. The only ones I know for sure are Texas and Louisiana. Granny says Missouri is on the list as well.
-
i thought this post was about me. i dont understand this legal stuff.
but i know that i will be telling anybody that i meet before we hook up. i dont wanna go to jail because i fucked some chick.
thankyou for all the advise.
gino
-
Good luck Gino. It's some tough shit that's dumped in you lap ( no pun intended), but like all of us, you learn to deal with it. Some is a little easier than others. Knowing what you you are dealing with DOES make it easier in the long run. I can tell you from experience that some of us that didn't know that HIV was the basis of our health problem for a long time had it tough. Finding out and adjusting wasn't easy, but over time improved our prospects over what they were before. Best of luck to you and I hope the ladies find you quite entertaining! ;)
-
Due to the fact that I don't want to piss anyone off....I will just say that this thread is uh what's the word I'm looking for here.....let's just say interesting.... ::)
-
Queen, I think the word you might be looking for is...bullshit ::)
-
Queen, I think the word you might be looking for is...bullshit ::)
yeah that was it but i was trying to remain nice... ;D
-
Lambda legal maintains a summary of state laws that specifically deal with HIV exposure. It was last updated in August 2009
http://www.lambdalegal.org/our-work/publications/general/state-criminal-statutes-hiv.html
Gino
Texas is listed as N/A. That means they do not have a law that specifically deals with HIV exposure. But, you still could be prosecuted under "...more generally applicable law(s) that could be used to prosecute someone who knowingly and intentionally exposes another to an excessive risk of harm. In addition to potential criminal liability, a person who transmits HIV to another person or puts another person at risk of HIV infection might face civil liability."
Since the laws are not the same from state to state you might get a more specific answer to your questions by talking to a counselor at your ASO. Just politely make it clear you are looking for who can answer the question about what your legal rights are, rather than for "best practices" info.
A
-
It's not that I don't believe you, I just think it's important that people have a link to factual information for this topic, especially as it varies from state to state. And just because a case manager says something doesn't mean it's correct legal advice.
I actually find it really odd that there's not a section of poz.com that lists what's-what state by state as regards this issue, but they're probably afraid of opening themselves up to legal exposure or something.
Miss, P, I agree with you 100% that there should be an easy link to find out what penalties can be imposed where. I have been asked about the issue many times. I volunteered as a mentor of newly diagnosed and new people to case management/ moved to our area, etc. and you would be surprised how many don't know, how many misunderstand, and especially how many are 100% OFFENDED by the way some case managers present this issue to them. Here in Missouri they beat it into you with a hot poker. I have met 4 people from other states that moved here that never heard of such laws til they got here. I know one case manager that goes so far as to tell people that the laws here in Missouri should be even more severe than they are. WTF >:(. Non Disclosure without infection can get you 15 years here in Missouri. Non-disiclosure with transmission can get you 30 years!!!!! I confronted her about it and in the most polite way I can think to describe it, I was very unhappy.
-
I know one case manager that goes so far as to tell people that the laws here in Missouri should be even more severe than they are.
There was a long article in the Economist that I think reveals the underlying disorder. It was about laws against sex offenders in the United States. We think of sex offenders as people who rape children, but one example they gave was a girl in Georgia who, when she was sixteen, did oral sex on her boyfriend, who was fifteen. That was "statutory rape", (he was a minor, she wasn't) and the result is that for the rest of her life she has been hounded and persecuted in the most horrible way. Everywhere she goes it is made public that she is a sex offender, people torment her in public (assuming that she must have done something unspeakable) and she has to see a parole officer who has complete powers over her (forbidding her to have a job where she might have any power or responsibility, for example.) [NB--I have not read the article in a long time and this is going on memory; I may have gotten a detail or two wrong but not the main idea.]
So after showing all these outrages, the article then shows how promising "tougher laws against sex offenders" is a popular campaign promise among politicians, even in places where the existing laws are just about as tough as they could possibly be. It's a great vote-getter, apparently.
Notice the similarities here. Just as the "non-disclosure" laws seem not to care (at least in Missouri) whether condoms were worn or not, or whether the activity was low- or high- risk, in the same way laws against "sex offenders" make no distinction between a man who raped a five-year-old and someone whose girlfriend or boyfriend was a year too young. And the underlying disorder is the same, isn't it? A kind of hysteria about sex in general?
-
i thought this post was about me. i dont understand this legal stuff.
but i know that i will be telling anybody that i meet before we hook up. i dont wanna go to jail because i fucked some chick.
thankyou for all the advise.
gino
That's probably the best decision. It's really tough, I know. It sure does take some of the carefree spontaneity out of casual sex, but it doesn't mean the end of sex.
-
And the underlying disorder is the same, isn't it? A kind of hysteria about sex in general?
Kind of wanting to force celebacy as long as they don't have to act like a priest themselves?
That's probably the best decision. It's really tough, I know. It sure does take some of the carefree spontaneity out of casual sex, but it doesn't mean the end of sex.
Nestor is right. We do have some pozi friends who do seem to have a ravenous sex life. ( discordant too).
Wrap it, tap it and enjoy!
-
Pretty sure the non-disclosure is the criminal aspect. Using a condom or not doesn't seem to matter. I know when I was given the list of my new reduced civil liberties I had to sign that I was never allowed to have sex without condoms again and that I must disclose my new status to any future sexual partners. This was before a western blot confirmation fyi.
Hellraiser...when and where did you have to sign that? I was never given anything like that- live in California.
-
when and where did you have to sign that? I was never given anything like that- live in California.
all states have name-based reporting requirements. This means the state health dpt is informed of your name as a person having infectious HIV. this data is used to help determine state budgets and federal dollars to be allocated for health care.
In quite a few states, the health dpt will contact you for either a meeting at your home or in their office at which time they give you information about the disease (you have tested positive for a terminal, infectious disease, you will need medical tracking and treatment, you will need to practice safer sex to reduce the spread of this disease, etc), and usually will also inform you of any state law that you would need to know about (ie disclosure of status to sex partners). Of course, there is usually a document that needs your signature to validate that a state health dpt representative spoke to you about the health issues and legal issues that could impact you now that you are HIV positive. This document shows that you have been notified and documents the job of a state worker.
It's all part of America's HIV epidemic preventation, along with determination of budget allocations.
CDC’S HIV/AIDS surveillance system is the nation’s source for timely information used to track the epidemic. CDC funds and assists state and local health departments to collect the information. Health departments report their data to CDC so that information from around the country can be analyzed to determine who is being affected and why.
(http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/index.htm)
more information from the cdc is here http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/reporting.
a previous discussion about this issue is here http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=32109.0 ("Required interview with state health department")