But He Looked So Healthy! Australian Man Charged With "Knowingly Spreading HIV"

[john33]

Thanks Tednlou,

I was trying to place who he reminded me of

John

[jkinatl2]

I totally agree with that, but now we're entering the relms of speculation as to the details not reported.

At the end of the day it's journalists on their current run of the "big bad man wiv teh AIDS", putting fuel on the fire and keeping stigma alive

John

Agreed. I detest such slanted journalism, and will always balk at the notion that HIV positive people are either "innocent victims" or "cold-blooded predators." People who are infected through rape are, of course, not responsible for their transmission, whether they are in prison or not.

It would be fascinating to see what information, if any, regarding the specifics of these infections comes to light. Historically, I have not seen much follow-up after accusations are made. When one sees a pattern of behaviour such as this, one can make a few not unreasonable assumptions. But that's all they ultimately are.

And this is why we should all videotape each and every one of our sexual experiences.

[Ann]

Women are complete victims. There is no other way to put it. Appropriating the blame on the women involved is tantamount to blaming rape victims for wearing provocative clothing.

Excuse me, but fuck you. I've never heard such complete and utter bollocks in all my life. It's this kind of shit being spewed out that contributes to the spread of hiv.

If the guy did not know his status the blame could be shared. Since he did know and infected them - they are victims. How is this demeaning?

It's demeaning on your part because you are assuming that women don't have minds of their own - minds that are capable of saying - "put a damned condom on that prick!"

Well, yes - I am talking about the women who slept with him. If they get sick, he's 100% to blame.

It's like getting into an accident when  driven by a drunk driver. One may not have worn a seatbelt (ie increasing the risk of trauma in case of a car crash) but it's the drunk driver that is responsible for the accident in the first place.

WRONG!  He's 50% to blame. No more, no less. And someone who doesn't put their seat-belt on has a part in creating their injuries when in a crash.

We're not doing anyone any favours when we perpetrate this stupid "victim" mentality. Rape victims aside, we all played a part in our infections - you included. Deal with it.

[Rev. Moon]

Excuse me, but fuck you.

Never have five words made me laugh so loudly.

It's demeaning on your part because you are assuming that women don't have minds of their own - minds that are capable of saying - "put a damned condom on that prick!"

WRONG!  He's 50% to blame. No more, no less. And someone who doesn't put their seat-belt on has a part in creating their injuries when in a crash.

People who fail to accept the fact that there are NO VICTIMS when it comes to consensual sex are really fooling themselves and doing a major disservice to those who contract HIV (and even to people who are neggies but continue to engage in unprotected sex just because the other partner "looked" good or healthy-- or because they were so damned horny that they threw all caution to the wind).  We are never going to progress at this rate.

Contracting HIV is like tango, it takes two people to make it happen.   Anyone who is negative and doesn't tell their partner "hey put a fucking rubber on" is opening the door to whatever comes their way.

[Hellraiser]

Contracting HIV is like tango, it takes two people to make it happen.   Anyone who is negative and doesn't tell their partner "hey put a fucking rubber on" is opening the door to whatever comes their way.

You are completely right, but you would think this guy would at least have the decency to use a condom since he was knowingly positive.

[Miss Philicia]

Never have five words made me laugh so loudly.

I hit the report button on that.

Also, this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnRGS-l1-3A

[Matty the Damned]

You are completely right, but you would think this guy would at least have the decency to use a condom since he was knowingly positive.

Well yeah, no one denies that. And what's more his black backside is being prosecuted for it.

In Queensland of all places.

MtD

[jackfrost]

The guy is an ass for not disclosing his status but the women have a responsibility to insist on using a condom.

I was infected because WE did not use a condom. He did not tell me he has HIV and I did not ask. WE are both responsible. When I had my first appointment with the infectious disease specialist I told him what happened and he said "you know you could press charges right?, I could help you with that" I looked at him and said "no i don't want to press charges, because WE are both responsible". I am the one that bent over and let him shove his unwrapped dick in my ass. I didn't ask him his status and I didn't tell him he had to wear a condom.

Until all parties start taking responsibility, this epidemic will never get under control. I equate it to the customer is always right bullshit, because people have it in their head that the customer is always right, there is no personal responsibility even when they make the mistake themselves. Should we start a new phrase "the victim is always right". We all make choices and we need to accept that.

[darkerpozz]

Wow that was weird, I am not being cocky but that guy looks like me... but it's not I am not acrobat , flexible but american.

[Matty the Damned]

He's been remanded to appear in a month.

Zimbabwean-born Zaburoni appeared in the Southport Magistrates Court this morning and was remanded in custody to reappear via a video link next month.

(linkage)

MtD

[elf]

Wow that was weird, I am not being cocky but that guy looks like me... but it's not I am not acrobat , flexible but american.

[fearless]

He didn't disclose and didn't use protection.  He's an asshole.

I thought he was innocent until proven guilty. He has only been charged, there are no findings of fact.

Media reporting has bordered on hysterical "Charged for deliberately infecting his victims with the AIDS virus". Talk about emotive language and embellishment.

Komenas - i think you will find the laws vary from State to State in Aus. And, you can only be prosecuted under one jurisdiction - hence him being extradited from NSW to QLD.

Quite the root rat though - they are saying he is likely to have shagged about 200 women, but no men.

edited to ad: I note, and should have known that Matty would have clarified this point of jurisdictions etc

[fearless]

    He's not Australian.

Yes, he is. "Zaburoni, a Zimbabwean-born Australian citizen". We try not to distinguish on the basis of the colour of ones skin  

edited to ad: and on this one 

[komnaes]

Komenas - i think you will find the laws vary from State to State in Aus. And, you can only be prosecuted under one jurisdiction - hence him being extradited from NSW to QLD.

Actually I don't think it's entirely true - the offense of GHB as far as I know exits in every states, but some are more aggressive and some might not have used it as readily to prosecute HIV transmission through consensual sex. His extradition may have to do with the fact that the complainant filed the case in QLD and the alleged unprotected sex happened there.

But a small point really, comparing to the rather expected media hysteria, and too letter information to tell.

[Boze]

First of all, I do not appreciate the language. We may have a difference of opinion, but keeping it civil is incumbent on everybody.

Now - stripping the gender of the victims aside (which is irrelevant) - I still maintain that an HIV+ person has the RESPONSIBILITY to inform of status / insist on using a condom. HIV- person doing so is only being prudent.

[Ann]

And I still maintain that an hiv negative person has the RESPONSIBILITY to ALSO insist on a condom. It's a two way street. It's more that prudence, it's a necessity if they want to remain hiv negative. It's a flaming no-brainer.

You'll have to excuse my language. It's rare that I speak like that to anyone here, outside of jesting. However, I was absolutely incensed at YOUR language and content concerning women and I expressed my outrage.

[john33]

Borzel,
 it's 50/50. The responibility is with the HIV- partner as well. He didn't force his condomless dick into them.

The charge isn't rape, thats very different. Their handwringing after the fact and using the law to get their own back, is only making matters worse as the press loves anything that'll earn them a few bucks more.

John

[Dachshund]

First of all, I do not appreciate the language. We may have a difference of opinion, but keeping it civil is incumbent on everybody.

Now - stripping the gender of the victims aside (which is irrelevant) - I still maintain that an HIV+ person has the RESPONSIBILITY to inform of status / insist on using a condom. HIV- person doing so is only being prudent.

Prudent? You can't be serious.

[Ann]

And I've been thinking about your seatbelt analogy, Borzel.

It's against the law to not wear a seatbelt and you can and will be fined if you get caught not wearing one.

If they're going to prosecute positive people for not wearing condoms, they should prosecute negative people as well.

Responsibility is something we all must shoulder.

[Moffie65]

If they're going to prosecute positive people for not wearing condoms, they should prosecute negative people as well.

Responsibility is something we all must shoulder.

The most sane and common sense thing I have read on this site in years!!  Thanks Ann.  You are a gem.

[Hellraiser]

I thought he was innocent until proven guilty. He has only been charged, there are no findings of fact.

I might presume innocence if it was a one off, and granted these could just be wild accusations, however if he infected multiple partners and his statement "I didn't want them to reject me" leads one to believe that he knew exactly what he was doing.  He's 30 right?  I mean this is the sort of level of maturity I expect from a teenager not a grown man.

[Ann]

He's 30 right?  I mean this is the sort of level of maturity I expect from a teenager not a grown man.

You obviously haven't been reading these forums for too long.

[Hellraiser]

You obviously haven't been reading these forums for too long.

What I lack in experience I make up for in dedication?  Yes though I know

[skeebo1969]

First of all, I do not appreciate the language. We may have a difference of opinion, but keeping it civil is incumbent on everybody.

Now - stripping the gender of the victims aside (which is irrelevant) - I still maintain that an HIV+ person has the RESPONSIBILITY to inform of status / insist on using a condom. HIV- person doing so is only being prudent.

You're missing the point, no one here is saying he should not have disclosed.  If a person wants to remain negative it is their sole responsibility to insure this.   And the reasons for this borzel are: some people do not know their status, while others choose not to disclose.

Peoples' trust is broken everyday, so as a prudent person (anyone about to have sex), is it wise to put an amount of trust in someone else when it comes to something that can have consequences such as a positive diagnosis?

See...  What these laws have provided people is nothing more than a false sense of security.  And borzel if you stick around here long enough you'll see the results of this over in the I Just Tested Poz forum.

Also, do you know what another result from these prosecutions have been?  HIV+ people=bad people, which is simply not the case.  Since when does getting sick become so shameful??  Do we have a few bad apples in our population?  Of course we do, every population, ethnicity, and yes even religion does..  But in the end, these prosecutions accomplish something negative, which also happens to be the one thing it tries to make people do, and that is disclose.

As someone who is newly diagnosed don't you feel it?  I mean are you really open to discussing this with your friends and family? coworkers?  If it was diabetes would it be different?  Why??  We got this shit from doing something even negative people do... unprotected sex.


                                    

[mecch]

Just wondering - women please pipe in your opinion.

Were these women all on the pill? Rhythm method? Whats the justification for a one off without protection. I assume he didn't know these women that well, or they might learn that he is HIV+. Thats just an assumption, of course. Maybe he never ever tells anyone.

When I was in college in the early 80's and bi, all the girls were on the pill or had diaphrams. I can't remember ever using a condom with girls. Maybe I did, but it was so insignificant a fact that I dont remember.  Are women on the pill still having unprotected sex willy nilly??  Or with diaphrams?

I doubt a women would reject a man or even think he had HIV just because he puts a condom on his dick when they are all worked up and about to screw. At that moment, would a woman care if the meat is wrapped instead of raw???   Just from a pervected logic - his - i dont understand how he would think a woman would reject him because he put a condom on.  You mean, sex would stop and the woman would say, OH, you must be HIV+!  I don't get it.

I wonder if he insisted on no condom, or the women.  Maybe nothing was said whatsoever and he just went ahead and did as he pleased???

Maybe hes one of those assholes who say they cant stay hard or condoms are too small ( ) when hes sitting there with a raging boner and wants to screw raw.

[Moffie65]

When I was in college in the early 80's and bi, all the girls were on the pill or had diaphrams. I can't remember ever using a condom with girls. Maybe I did, but it was so insignificant a fact that I dont remember.  Are women on the pill still having unprotected sex willy nilly??  Or with diaphrams?

Of this you are proud??   What a declaration of idiocy you have given us, and you wonder why the plague marches on. 

[GSOgymrat]

I understand the point that everyone needs to take responsibility for their sexual health and I agree with that. However I take the unpopular position that this man's responsibility to not infect others is greater than one woman's responsibility to keep herself from becoming infected. He knows he has HIV, he knows how to prevent transmission and he intentionally has unprotected sex with many people for what he admits are purely selfish reasons. What she did was negligent but what he was doing was worse. As far as the consequences, she is going to be living with those, as each of us on this forum do. The consequences for his behavior will be decided by a court, which I think is appropriate. He should not be able to say to these women "you should have known better" and continue to have unprotected sex with people without consequence.

[Boze]

Ann - I realized you were saying things in the heat of passion, so no harm done Just to clarify - there was nothing gender-specific in my view. I only mentioned women because they were HIV- having sex with a HIV+ guy. I would maintain the same opinion for any mix of genders involved in a discordant sex act.

Everyone else - I re-read my comment and want to clarify my position. I don't mean that it's the responsibility of HIV+ to disclose. I think it's our responsibility to EITHER disclose or insist on using protection. The decision to have unprotected sex with someone who assumes they are negative and decision to have unprotected sex with someone who knows they are positive but don't mention it are very different things.
 Ie the guy should just insist on using a condom, simplest reason to use would be that he doesn't want to pick anything up from the woman or he doesn't want to take any chance with kids.

The law is very clear on this and I it was one of the first things my HIV consultant told me at our meeting (a month after diagnosis). She said - "You can't have unprotected sex with people anymore. If you do, you stand a chance of being persecuted. I am supposed to tell you this by law and write it down that you've been informed".

On the seatbelt analogy - I think the severity of punishment for DUI and not wearing a seatbelt are indicative of how severe the two crimes are. Someone who is drunk should not drive - just like someone who is HIV+ should not have unprotected sex (swiss statement excluded).

[mecch]

Of this you are proud??   What a declaration of idiocy you have given us, and you wonder why the plague marches on.  

Idiocy? It was the early 80s baby. It wasnt just me.  There was no "safe sex" among men and women on campus, if the girl had a diaphram or was on the pill, that was it.  Condoms were to avoid pregancy.  There was no awareness of "safe sex and HIV" at all until 84 I'd say.  And only among gays.  Ivy League campus.  So we were all shameful idiots in your opinion.  

If you really need so badly to knock me, do it on an arguable and historically accurate critique. Or just LAY OFF!

[mecch]

What she did was negligent but what he was doing was worse.

In the abstract, I have to agree.  But we dont know the particular dynamics, do we.

[darkerpozz]

That clarification makes you sound more sympathetic but in my opinion it is the job of a human being to do what's best in their interest and if that means putting on a condom each and every time regardless the person then so be it . I t rubs me the wrong way when with HIV everyone is up in arms about nondisclosure and JUDGMENTAL when I recall the possibility of being infected by alot of things and just for the record a baby is a lifelong committment as well. I know the right thing to do is disclose however it shouldn't be my job to protect those who aren't trying to protect themselves. Being a woman does not negate responsibility for pregnancy so it is just as impoortant here to protect yourselve first.

[Boze]

I'm actually very curious to know what the prevalence of condom use for heterosexuals is. There must be surveys done on this.

[Miss Philicia]

I'm actually very curious to know what the prevalence of condom use for heterosexuals is. There must be surveys done on this.

Worse than the cocksuckers...

23 per cent of women required their male partners to use condoms during anal sex, compared with 61 per cent of gay or bisexual men.
According to the department, an estimated 100,000 New York City women have anal sex every year.

Women who did not use condoms were also far less likely to get tested for sexually transmitted diseases.

While 63 per cent of those who use always condoms get tested regularly, only 35 per cent of those who bareback do.

[xman]

There's something even worse than the intentional transmission of this guy. The unknown possible transmissions from the women once infected to their partners! The greatest contribution to the spread of the disease is given by folks who don't get tested and continue to bareback around carrying the virus. The bad thing is that if you unknowingly spread the virus you're not chargeable. This gives those people reasons to not get tested putting them and their partners at potential risk. The fact that everybody negative relies on the disclosure of the partner or the choice to put on a condom is a very unrealable method and approach to control the epidemic. It would function if also the negative person would be legally responsible for not insisting on condoms and for potentially spreading the disease for negligence.

[xman]

She said - "You can't have unprotected sex with people anymore. If you do, you stand a chance of being persecuted. I am supposed to tell you this by law and write it down that you've been informed".  

This is not correct. Unprotected sex to conceive for example with a negative person informed of the partner's status doesn't pose the possibility for prosecution, at least in Europe. If you are on HAART the risk of transmission is indeed negligible for heterosexual intercourse and this is also considered in the courts of Switzerland.

[Matty the Damned]

The bad thing is that if you unknowingly spread the virus you're not chargeable.

Where English common law forms the foundation of the legal system (Australia, Canada, the USA etc) for an action to be a crime it's usually necessary for the person committing that action to have intended to do something that they know is wrong. It's called mens rea or guilty mind.

There are exceptions of course, but it's a general princple enshrined in the common law test of criminal action.

It follows that one cannot be charged for transmitting a virus they didn't know they had and this is a good thing.

MtD

[xman]

It follows that one cannot be charged for transmitting a virus they didn't know they had and this is a good thing.

MtD

It's not a good thing because it induces people to not get tested for the fear to carry responsibilties and for beeing prosecuted. If there is the potential risk of spreading a disease, knowinlgy or unknowingly, the responsibilities should be equal for everyone. It is in the public interest to stop the epidemic and not only a responsibility of the infected population. This common law forms might be good in general but if your mission is to control the spread of HIV you need to change them.

[Cliff]

I'm always so conflicted on these things.  I get that everyone should take responsibility for their actions/decisions.  I also get that it's difficult to not hold someone accountable when they have information (their status) that they don't share with others which would likely have an impact on the decisions people make.

What he (and others) allegedly do is wrong, but I can understand the stigma that creates the environment where people fear (terribly) disclosure and rejection.  Fear that sometimes makes people do things that others can (from the safety of a forum or jury box) cast judgment on.  But unfortunately prosecution, which may be right, only increases that stigma/fear.

I could be wrong, but it seems like its much less likely for gay men to get prosecuted.  Seems like an assumption (from others and ourselves) that we should have known better.  But I could be wrong.

[Matty the Damned]

It's not a good thing because it induces people to not get tested for the fear to carry responsibilties and for beeing prosecuted. If there is the potential risk of spreading a disease, knowinlgy or unknowingly, the responsibilities should be equal for everyone. It is in the public interest to stop the epidemic and not only a responsibility of the infected population. This common law forms might be good in general but if your mission is to control the spread of HIV you need to change them.

I think we might be at crossed purposes here.

Do you mean that the being able to charge people with an offence they had no idea they were committing (and in fact did not commit) will result in an increase in the number of people being tested for HIV?

MtD

[xman]

I think we might be at crossed purposes here.

Do you mean that the being able to charge people with an offence they had no idea they were committing (and in fact did not commit) will result in an increase in the number of people being tested for HIV?

MtD

You're missing the point. Sexual active people must consider that until they're tested negative they are a possible vector for new infections and so a potential threat to public health. If we always delegate the responsibilities to others we will never win this battle. It's a very simple and practical logic. HIV testing should be mandatory or at least stimulated by not letting people think that keeping an unknown status would not put them on responsibilities. Once infection is confirmed, which of course needs to remain confidential, the possibility is to put infected people on treatment to drastically lower transmission rates. Estimates are that controlled HIV infection would lower transmission risks by 80%. Since we can't control the epidemic relying on the use of condoms alone (20 years of prevention progams based on this logic failed consistently) this is only reasonable and effective approach until a vaccine or cure is found.

[Cliff]

Ah, well no need in worrying about those pesky things called human rights (autonomy in particular).  Test everyone and put em on meds if they test positive.

[Matty the Damned]

You're missing the point. Sexual active people must consider that until they're tested negative they are a possible vector for new infections and so a potential threat to public health. If we always delegate the responsibilities to others we will never win this battle. It's a very simple and practical logic. HIV testing should be mandatory or at least incentivated by not letting people think that keeping an unknown status would not put them on responsibilities. Once infection is confirmed, which of course needs to remain confidential, the possibility is to put infected people on treatment to drastically lower transmission rates. Estimates are that controlled HIV infection would lower transmission risks by 80%. Since we can't control the epidemic relying on the use of condoms alone (20 years of prevention progams based on this logic failed consistently) this is only reasonable and effective approach until a vaccine or cure is found.

OK. Firstly paragraphs. Give each discrete idea its own paragraph and understanding what you write will be easier for others.

Mandatory testing will have the opposite effect of what you desire. It only drives people deeper underground. It creates an air of fear and menace and runs contrary to the notion of personal responsibility.

Finally the stuff about condoms and vaccines and cures is a non-sequitur.

I could be wrong, but it seems like its much less likely for gay men to get prosecuted.  Seems like an assumption (from others and ourselves) that we should have known better.  But I could be wrong.

Naw Cliffie, you ain't wrong and you raise a interesting and important point.

HIV disclosure prosecutions in Australia almost always involve heterosexual transmission from male to female.

I think there is a much greater acceptance of HIV in the Gay community. As a people we're also better at supporting each other and you're right - fags (as a group) have a tendency to appreciate that HIV is the consequence of particular personal behaviour.

MtD

[jay195]

I agree with everything borzel says.OK so it's everyone's decision to use a condom or not but knowingly passing on hiv is a freakin shitty thing to do. The guy who infected me knew his status and didn't tell me. Shit ! how can someone be having sex and knowing they are passing the virus on ? The mind boggles. At least tell your partner and let them decide if they want to have sex with you  or not, it would be nice to be informed of the situation, barring that at least the infected person should use a condom out of respect for his partner. I can't understand why Anne always defends the givers !!

[jkinatl2]

I agree with everything borzel says.OK so it's everyone's decision to use a condom or not but knowingly passing on hiv is a freakin shitty thing to do. The guy who infected me knew his status and didn't tell me. Shit ! how can someone be having sex and knowing they are passing the virus on ? The mind boggles. At least tell your partner and let them decide if they want to have sex with you  or not, it would be nice to be informed of the situation, barring that at least the infected person should use a condom out of respect for his partner. I can't understand why Anne always defends the givers !!

I was infected by someone who knew they had the virus. I take responsibility for my infection, however, because

I CONSENTED TO UNPROTECTED SEX

Assuming responsibility for my infection was the first step towards accepting my role in treating it.

Ann (not Anne) does not "always defend the "givers") Ann (not Anne) promoted mutual responsibility for adults involved in a consensual act.

Was I naive? Yep. Did I trust the wrong guy? You betcha. Was I a victim? NO. I refused that term. And by NOT being a victim, I found the strength to stay alive for almost twenty years, back when HIV really WAY a death sentence.

It is a strategy I highly recommend.

[leese43]

I agree with everything borzel says.OK so it's everyone's decision to use a condom or not but knowingly passing on hiv is a freakin shitty thing to do. The guy who infected me knew his status and didn't tell me. Shit ! how can someone be having sex and knowing they are passing the virus on ? The mind boggles. At least tell your partner and let them decide if they want to have sex with you  or not, it would be nice to be informed of the situation, barring that at least the infected person should use a condom out of respect for his partner. I can't understand why Anne always defends the givers !!

Ditto..but then I'm also someone who was infected by a man that knew his status, I wish i never found out because it messed with my head more than the diagnosis did.

[Matty the Damned]

I agree with everything borzel says.OK so it's everyone's decision to use a condom or not but knowingly passing on hiv is a freakin shitty thing to do. The guy who infected me knew his status and didn't tell me. Shit ! how can someone be having sex and knowing they are passing the virus on ? The mind boggles. At least tell your partner and let them decide if they want to have sex with you  or not, it would be nice to be informed of the situation, barring that at least the infected person should use a condom out of respect for his partner. I can't understand why Anne always defends the givers !!

She doesn't "defend" the givers. Peruse her posting history - you'll see more than one occasion where she has taken those who've been reckless with their HIV to task.

And rightly so.

But that doesn't absolve you of your burden. You are HIV positive because you decided to have unprotected sex. It was your responsibility to protect yourself.

You consented to unprotected sex and now you have HIV. Suck it up.

It doesn't matter that the person you think infected you didn't disclose - had you insisted on protected sex (or refused to have unprotected sex) you wouldn't be here now.

MtD

[Boze]

Thank you, Miss Phil. 23% does make sense. I do think that there is a relatively low incidence of condom use for heteros. There is a chapter on prostitution in Super Freakonomics, fascinating.

Street pros charge $2 less per act ($80 for vaginal sex) for using a condom and average 300 instances of *unprotected* sex a year. The good news according to their research is that men who use street pros have a surprisingly low rate of HIV, less than 3% (same is not true for male customers who hire male prostitutes - their rate is above 35%).

-----

Xman - you're absolutely right, I can have unprotected sex, just need the partner to sign a consent form

-----

MtD - why are you trying so hard to excuse the bastards who go around knowingly spreading HIV? What is your angle? (in the process being pretty hard on jay195).
Is it some sort of crying-heart-liberal thing that excuses all kinds of antisocial behavior and turns victim into an accomplice? Is it about self-empowerment (I MEANT to get HIV!)? The law and court of public opinion is pretty clear on  the other side.

[leese43]

As I ditto'd that quote I'd just like to say that I do suck it up but it doesn't mean that I'm going to agree with the majority on here about not prosecuting. Although, having said that, I decided not to for reasons I won't go into  Secondly I don't just "think" I know who infected me, I know who infected me.

Leese

[john33]

MtD - why are you trying so hard to excuse the bastards who go around knowingly spreading HIV? What is your angle? (in the process being pretty hard on jay195).
Is it some sort of crying-heart-liberal thing that excuses all kinds of antisocial behavior and turns victim into an accomplice? Is it about self-empowerment (I MEANT to get HIV!)? The law and court of public opinion is pretty clear on  the other side.

Matty's not defending them and neither is anyone else, we're saying the responsibility is 50/50, and until everyone takes responsibility for their health and "wrap up" the numbers of newly infected aren't going to decrease

John

[Matty the Damned]

MtD - why are you trying so hard to excuse the bastards who go around knowingly spreading HIV? What is your angle? (in the process being pretty hard on jay195).
Is it some sort of crying-heart-liberal thing that excuses all kinds of antisocial behavior and turns victim into an accomplice? Is it about self-empowerment (I MEANT to get HIV!)? The law and court of public opinion is pretty clear on  the other side.

I am not a liberal (in any sense of the word), nor am I of the crying heart.

The issue here is that some seek to apportion blame at all rather than accepting that they have HIV and moving on with their lives. We do such people no favours by coddling them and enabling their victim mentalities.

Sure you can blame the selfish fuckwit who didn't tell you he had HIV before he stuck it in you, but if you're going to do that be prepared to accept that you let him fuck you.

Hello vicious circle.

HIV will stop spreading when HIV negative people start taking responsibility for their own sexual health. I fail to see how that point is so difficult to grasp.

This isn't fucking rocket surgery.

MtD