Judge Rules Neg Top Not at Significant Risk from Poz Bottom

[Zohar]

It\'s long been acknowledged that HIV is present in a rectal secretions, even when someone is on HAART, so I tend to believe tops who say that\'s how they became infected. Not that I think it matters what the route of transmission is really.

[BT65]

Then there are some here who just tell it the way it is, and many others who don't like that approach.

[komnaes]

I would just like to go back to the legal aspects of the case, which are more interesting to me.

Unlike some states in the US and other countries, Canada has never codified criminal liability on HIV disclosure (i.e. no explicit laws have been passed to criminalize non-disclosure). It began with a Supreme Court case in 1998, which decided that if a person who's HIV+ does not disclose his/her status before engaging in sexual activities could be found guilty of criminal sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault (ASA). Not sure if it applies to the former, but for the latter the acts must post "significant risk" of HIV transmission. My very brief and initial researches tell me that most successful prosecutions on the charge of ASA covered unprotected vaginal and anal sex, and almost all put into jail were the, er, fuckers.

So it would seem that this case has very limited application, as the person being charged was the bottom. There's also no mention on whether the accused is no meds or not, or whether he's UD. It's also not known whether this is also a Supreme Court case - and even if it is it may also have very limited application as a legal precedent, depending on factors like the accused's health status, etc.

But it would definitely make the police/prosecutors think twice before casually filing for ASA whenever a pozzie is involved in non-disclosed penetrative sex.

[Basquo]

I've never heard of a top that wears butterfly costumes.  FASCINATING!

I'm sorry, did you type something related to the topic?  Because all I can hear is SNARK-SNARK-SNARK

[tednlou2]

You got it from barebacking, not "bottoming" -- you could have bottomed all day at Club Body Center if you'd just have slapped a condom on your trick.

Fucking THANK YOU.

See how that works kiddies? It's teh unprotected s3x0r what creates all the problems. Even Dr Fucking Bob knows that.

Probably.

MtD

I'm pretty sure I've mention in public on these forums and in PM's that I was with someone who took the condom off without me knowing.  I had mentioned it before to others and got people who couldn't believe you wouldn't know the guy took the condom off.  You can't always tell the condom is still on and I didn't notice for several minutes.  Now, it was my responsibility to make sure that condom was still on when it went in.  This was with someone I'd known for a decade and I didn't think he would do that. 

I realize there will be some who will not believe what I'm saying and see it as an attempt for me to somehow not accept blame.  I accept responsiblity for not making sure the condom stayed on.  I could have felt to make sure it was still on.  If I had hooked up with some stranger, I probably would have done that.  However, this was a friend and I didn't think he would do that.  It ruined our relationship and I don't think I ever talked to him again--except to ascertain his HIV status. 

Matty, you just got into a debate with someone who assumed you weren't using condoms with guys you pick up.  I never said I barebacked with the guy who infected me.  I understand I should have pointed out that very important fact.  I can see how someone would think if I got infected, I must have barebacked.  I shouldn't have assumed people would have heard the times I talked about how I was infected.

[Matty the Damned]

I'm pretty sure I've mention in public on these forums and in PM's that I was with someone who took the condom off without me knowing.  I had mentioned it before to others and got people who couldn't believe you wouldn't know the guy took the condom off.  You can't always tell the condom is still on and I didn't notice for several minutes.  Now, it was my responsibility to make sure that condom was still on when it went in.  This was with someone I'd known for a decade and I didn't think he would do that. 

I realize there will be some who will not believe what I'm saying and see it as an attempt for me to somehow not accept blame.  I accept responsiblity for not making sure the condom stayed on.  I could have felt to make sure it was still on.  If I had hooked up with some stranger, I probably would have done that.  However, this was a friend and I didn't think he would do that.  It ruined our relationship and I don't think I ever talked to him again--except to ascertain his HIV status. 

Matty, you just got into a debate with someone who assumed you weren't using condoms with guys you pick up.  I never said I barebacked with the guy who infected me.  I understand I should have pointed out that very important fact.  I can see how someone would think if I got infected, I must have barebacked.  I shouldn't have assumed people would have heard the times I talked about how I was infected.

Important life lesson there, Teddy. You trusted someone and he let you down. It's a brutal old world.

That said, my comments about unprotected fucking/disclosure/bottoming and topping weren't directed at you in particular. Rather they were more generally directed at those who seem to see disclosure as a kind of deus ex machina which will save the world from HIV infection.

It won't.

MtD

[next2u]

if i would have known it'd be one less. i can't even say i would have hit it with a condom on...i was a bit more bigotted those days.

best,
d

[Cerrid]

Like so many on this board, my infection was entirely immaculate.

Does "from a toilet seat" qualify as an immaculate infection?

[mecch]

There's also no mention on whether the accused is no meds or not, or whether he's UD. It's also not known whether this is also a Supreme Court case - and even if it is it may also have very limited application as a legal precedent, depending on factors like the accused's health status, etc.

bizness as usual. no mention of HAART and risk etc etc.
 is it journalists who are so hopelessly naive on such topics of interest or is it newspaper editors who choose not to print or is it court information that is not released or just outdated and poor prosecution and defense teams.

[Ann]

 is it journalists who are so hopelessly naive on such topics of interest or is it newspaper editors who choose not to print or is it court information that is not released or just outdated and poor prosecution and defense teams.

I would have thought it was obvious that it's down to hiv ignorance in the population in general. That includes the courts and the media.

Most people don't have a clue about how hiv is and - perhaps more importantly - is not  transmitted, much less what bearing meds and being undetectable have on transmission. They don't know and furthermore they don't want  to know because they don't believe it concerns them in any way, shape or form.

Most people like to believe that it does not concern them because, after all, only outcasts, misfits, junkies, perverts, the promiscuous, and otherwise immoral and/or amoral folks get this bug. [sarcasm]Right?[/sarcasm]

[Miss Philicia]

Does "from a toilet seat" qualify as an immaculate infection?

Indeed it does! You know you should always just squat like a lady and not allow contact.

[blackwingbear]

if i would have known it'd be one less. i can't even say i would have hit it with a condom on...i was a bit more bigoted those days.

Ah, the proverbial fag-basher that's actually a fag, eh?
Maybe I simply misunderstood ya...

[Ann]

Ah, the proverbial fag-basher that's actually a fag, eh?
Maybe I simply misunderstood ya...

Ah, yep, you misunderstood him. He's not saying "hit it" as in striking with a fist, he's saying as in "hit on". As in show a sexual interest.

[blackwingbear]

Ah, yep, you misunderstood him. He's not saying "hit it" as in striking with a fist, he's saying as in "hit on". As in show a sexual interest.

AH.... Now I get it. Sorry for the mix-up...

[Hellraiser]

Ah, yep, you misunderstood him. He's not saying "hit it" as in striking with a fist, he's saying as in "hit on". As in show a sexual interest.

And this has been another episode of white lady in britain explains urban slang...tune in next week for an explanation of "Getting jiggy wit it"

[skeebo1969]

Ah, the proverbial fag-basher that's actually a fag, eh?
Maybe I simply misunderstood ya...

  He use to beat up white people is what he meant.

[Ann]

There's a lot of horse-bashing that goes on in these forums... as in beating a dead one.

And this has been another episode of white lady in britain explains urban slang...tune in next week for an explanation of "Getting jiggy wit it"

Why wait 'til next week?

"Getting jiggy with it" obviously refers to having a quiet night in with your lover, sitting close to one another on the floor while putting a jigsaw puzzle together.




Then fornicating on top of the finished result.

[Miss Philicia]

Is there anything worse than white people using patois?

[Hellraiser]

There's a lot of horse-bashing that goes on in these forums... as in beating a dead one.

Why wait 'til next week?

"Getting jiggy with it" obviously refers to having a quiet night in with your lover, sitting close to one another on the floor while putting a jigsaw puzzle together.




Then fornicating on top of the finished result.

Ann did I mention how much I've missed you?  <3

[skeebo1969]

Is there anything worse than white people using patois?

Why yu fe galang so

[Ann]

Ann did I mention how much I've missed you?  <3

Flattery will get you jiggy with it.